Restricting mobility, undermining the Palestinian state

The more I know about Palestine the more I think that most Palestinian leadership (in the PA and the PLO) are characterised by being self-interest driven and quite short-sighted when it comes to analysing reality and understanding the whole picture.

Indeed, this is the “leadership” Israel allows the Palestinians to have; one that is docile and can be easily manipulated. Others who have been recognised as leaders by their own people (not by the Occupier) have been killed or are being held in Israeli jails or even PA jails. That’s the nature of the Occupation by Israel and the full collaboration of the PA in security issues, a double occupation that falls into the shoulders of each and one Palestinian living in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Talking about the right to mobility, Amira Hass says in her article in Haaretz today that

The signs were there right from the start − signs that the so much talked-about Peace Process was a process of subjugation; signs that Israel intended to impose on the other side an agreement whose terms were far from the Palestinian minimum, and far from what many countries in the world envisioned as a two-state solution.

Hass analyses Israeli prohibitions on Palestinian mobility and shows that despite many still think that they were imposed in 1994 as a response to the so-called suicide attacks from 1994 on, they actually started well before that date.

In fact, systematic prohibitions on Palestinian mobility started in January 1991, on the eve of the Gulf War, when Israel revoked an order from the 1970s that allowed the Palestinian residents of the occupied territory  to enter Israel, and move freely within its borders and between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. At the begining the measure was intended temporary, but it soon became permanent following a pattern that has become a constant in the oPt.

If up until 1991 Israel had respected ‏(for reasons of its own‏) the right to freedom of movement for all Palestinians, but withheld it from a few people, after 1991 the situation was reversed: Israel denied all Palestinians ‏(those in the West Bank as well‏) the right to freedom of movement, aside from a few groups and numbers that it determined.

One might think that changed with the creation of the PA. But in 1994, the signing of the Oslo Accords didn’t change much

The expectation that signing the transfer of powers from the Civil Administration to the Palestinian Authority in May 1994 would restore freedom of movement was soon dashed. (···)

Areas A, B and C were established in the Oslo Accords as purely temporary categories, to mark the gradual nature by which the military forces would leave the Palestinians’ territory. Fourteen years later, Area C − the last area the military was supposed to vacate ‏(in 1999‏) − still covers about 62 percent of the West Bank, and is the expansion space reserved for the outposts, settlements, industrial zones and multilane highways.

Area C is still today under full Israeli administrative and security control.

Through her article, Hass shows that Israel’s denial of the right of movement of Palestinians, which is a universal human right, does undermine the basic condition for a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, all of which are under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Indeed, that is the precise reason why these restrictions are maintained still today.

Occupating the calendar

The Israeli occupation imposes, among others, its calendar. Yom Kippur is approaching, and so the rutinary general closure of the occupied Palestine territory, Gaza and West Bank. Checkpoints closed, no movement of persons or goods. And all what this implies.

Anyone working in the West Bank will not be able to go to Jerusalem (unless they are UN staff). In Jerusalem, the West side stops and a great number of roads are closed. In fact, it is better to avoid using the car. Well, this unless you fancy being reached by the rocks that you might get thrown at by some Jewish for the fact you are using a car during their festivity. This is the modern only democracy in the Middle East. Indeed.

Maan reports:

Israel will impose a general closure on the West Bank and Gaza for two days from midnight Monday, the Israeli army said Monday evening.

All crossings in and out of the West Bank and Gaza will close from midnight Monday until midnight Wednesday due to the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, the army said in a statement.

Those in need of medical attention or humanitarian aid will need the authorization of Israel’s civil administration to pass, the army added.

Israel routinely imposes closures on the occupied West Bank during Jewish holidays.

Lieberman’s letter to the Quartet

Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman
(Photo by Tomer Appelbaum / Haaretz)

On Monday 20 August Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to USA Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (all the members of the Quartet on the Middle East).

According to Hareetz, “The letter is the high point of a campaign Lieberman has been conducting in the past year to delegitimize Abbas, but it is the first time he has suggested a concrete process for removing him, such as holding new elections.”

The letter highlights what in Lieberman’s opinion are “gestures” from the Israeli state to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Lieberman’s states he is shocked to see that despite so many “gestures of goodwill” (funny way to call what is done purely on the interest of Israel) the PA is raising its activity “against Israel” in the diplomatic and legal arenas. These include, in Lieberman’s words: “illegal construction in Area C”, encouraging an “economic boycott on the Israel economy” and “repeated negative statements against Israel”, accusations of murder of Yasser Arafat by Israel and attacks to the existence of the state of Israel.

Lieberman accuses PA President Mahmoud Abbas of being an obstacle to peace and calls on the Quartet to press for new elections in the PA to replace him so as to truly “strenghten the Palestinian leadership”. He accuses Abbas of “encouraging a culture of hatred” against Israel and “praising terrorists”, among others, and defines the PA as a “despotic government riddled with corruption”. He calls on elections in the PA in order “to bring a serious change to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians” (note the subtility: Palestinians instead of Palestine).

There are many questions that come to my mind: what peace?; what negociations?; what peace process?; on what ground Israel or any other state in the world can even think of calling for elections somewhere else?; what makes Lieberman think that Abbas would not be reelected?; how someone who justifies the military occupation of a people dares to talk about “gestures of goodwill” when finally complying with some of the most basic human rights that they do not hesitate to deny?; how can someone like Lieberman accuse anyone of encouraging hatred?; why Abbas praises terrorists and Lieberman, who has never stopped encouraging illegal settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories, dares to portray himself as a defendor of democracy?; has Lieberman forgot what he denies calling Palestine is under military occupation since 1967 by the same country he represents?; what is a “serious change” for him, having a PA government that goes even beyond the current collaboration with the occupier that the Abbas government represents?

And so on.

Lieberman’s blatant lies on many of the aspects he talks about in the letter reach a peak when he raises the topic of the settlements. He goes on to say that Israel temporarily froze the construction of settlements (which has never ever happened); that the last one to be constructed was in 1991 (he does not mention that by “construct” they do not mean “expand already existing settlements”); that Israel took the “painful” decision to evacuate a number of settlements especially in Gaza and the Sinai (he seems only to care for pain when it is suffered by Jewish); and that in any case settlements only constitute a somewhat 1% of the West Bank (which is not true, apart from the fact that if it was, that 1% would not be less than illegal anyway).

Lieberman says that “the claim that settlements are an obstacle to peace is unfounded” based on the ground that Israel signed peace treaties with [Mubarak’s] Egypt and [Hashemite] Jordan. Needless to say each one of the 3 countries were/are a great example of democracy, apart from the fact that it is quite easy to sign peace treaties with a state that is mainly oppressing not you but your neighbour.

As Haaretz notes, it seems that Lieberman wrote the letter because “he sensed that his messages on the Palestinian issue were not being properly conveyed to Western countries.”

Thank you Mr. Lieberman, now it is crystal clear.

Ahava: Tracking the trade trail of settlement products

Who Profits from the Occupation is a research project dedicated to exposing the commercial involvement of Israeli and international companies in the continuing Israeli control over Palestinian and Syrian land.

Who Profits is a research project of the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP). Founded in 2000, CWP today is a leading voice against the occupation, committed to feminist principles of organization and Jewish-Palestinian partnership, in a relentless struggle for a just peace.

One of the last reports issued is Ahava Report – Who Profits

This report investigates the business and trade of Ahava – Dead Sea Laboratories, which is a private Israeli cosmetics corporation that operates from the occupied West Bank. The report shows that Ahava extracts the mud from occupied Palestinian territory, thereby exploiting Palestinian natural resources.

South Africa recognises goods produced in Israeli occupied territories as not Israeli

South Africa’s cabinet has angered the Israeli government by approving the labelling of goods coming from Israeli occupied territories (mainly West Bank) as such and not as produced in Israel. At the moment, imported goods from Jewish settlements in the Israeli occupied West Bank are being labelled as “produced in Israel”, but this was misleading.

South Africa recognises the 1948 borders established by the United Nations and therefore does not recognise the occupied territories beyond this borders as being part of the Israeli state. Following the principle of international law by which all settlements are illegal, South Africa does not recognise the Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank as being Israel neither.

According to its government, South African buyers have the right to know the origin of many products is not Israel as commonly marked, but the Occupied Palestinian Territories instead. Currently they are being misled by a wrong labelling that states all this products come from “Israel”.

Local Jewish leaders said they were “outraged” over what they called “discriminatory, divisive” measures. They say this measure is driven not by technical trade concerns but by political bias against the state of Israel. It seems they forget their labelling of products coming from Jewish settlements in the West Bank as Israeli is quite political too. It seems they interiorised too much the mantra of the Zionist state by which it ignores all settlements are illegal under international law.

South Africa says its backing of Palestine stems from its own history of apartheid, oppression and rights abuses. In this line, South Africa’s deputy foreign minister recently called on the citizens of his country to avoid visiting Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians: “Israel is an occupier country which is oppressing Palestine, so it’s not proper for South Africans to associate with Israel”.

Israel says the South African government is driven by a political agenda that is characterised by racism against Israel through the boycott to their products. However, South Africa has not talked about cancelling any of its agreements with Israel.

Once again, Israel is vistimising itself and accusing whoever opposes its zionist policies based on racism, of being what they actually are: racist. South Africa did not oppose Israel; it opposed their occupation of the Palestinian territories. It is quite different.

It is still unclear if the new labelling will say “Israeli occupied territories”, “occupied Palestinian terriories” / “occupied West Bank” or maybe “Palestinian terriories” / “West Bank”. There is quite a slight difference too.

If you want to read more, check the article in Al Jazeera English.