Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Continue Systematic Attacks on Palestinian Civilians and Property in the OPT

22-28.11.07

· 11 Palestinians, including 2 brothers, were killed by IOF in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

· One the victims was extra-judicially executed by IOF in the West Bank.

· The two brothers were killed by the internationally-banned flechette shells.

· 28 Palestinians, including 4 children, and an Israeli human rights defender were wounded by IOF in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

· IOF conducted 12 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 2 ones into the Gaza Strip.

· IOF arrested 30 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and 12 others in the Gaza Strip.

· IOF destroyed a house and razed 7 donums[1] of agricultural land in Beit Hanoun town in the northern Gaza Strip.

· IOF have continued to impose a total siege on the OPT.

· IOF have isolated the Gaza Strip from the outside world and a humanitarian crisis has emerged.

· A patient died due to the denial of her access to medical treatment outside the Gaza Strip.

· IOF troops positioned at checkpoints in the West Bank arrested 4 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children.

· IOF have continued to construct the Annexation Wall in the West Bank.

· IOF used force to disperse peaceful demonstrations organized by Palestinian civilians and international human rights defenders in protest to the construction of the Wall.

· IOF have continued settlement activities in the West Bank and Israeli settlers have continued to attacks Palestinian civilians and property.

· Israeli settlers attacked and injured13 Palestinian civilians who were traveling in a minibus.

· Israeli settlers attacked a school in Hebron, damaging it.

Summary

Israeli violations of international law and humanitarian law continued in the OPT during the reporting period (22 – 28 November 2007):

Shooting: During the reporting period, IOF killed 11 Palestinians, including 2 brothers, and wounded 28 others, including 4 children, and an Israeli human rights defender in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

In the Gaza Strip, on 22 November 2007, IOF troops positioned at the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of Gaza City, shot dead a Palestinian civilian who was suffering from depression. On 23 November 2007, IOF troops that had moved into Erez industrial zone in the northern Gaza Strip shot dead 2 Palestinian brothers when they were on their way back home near the zone. According to medical sources, IOF fired 2 flechette shells, which are internationally prohibited, at the two victims. On 26 November 2007, IOF killed 3 members of the Palestinian resistance and wounded a 4^th one and 2 civilian bystanders in the northern Gaza Strip. later on the same day, IOF killed a 4^th member of the Palestinian resistance in the east of Jablaya town. On 27 November 2007, IOF killed a Palestinian civilians and wounded 3 others (a man and his two sons) during an incursion into al-Shouka village, east of Rafah. On 28 November 2007, IOF warplanes attacked a site of the Palestinian naval police in Khan Yunis. Two policemen were killed and 5 others were wounded. On 24 November 2007, IOF troops wounded a Palestinian fisherman in the northern Gaza Strip. On 25 November 2007, 4 members of the Palestinian resistance and 2 civilians, including a child, were wounded when IOF fired a surface-to-surface missile at the northern Gaza Strip. Later on the same day, a Palestinian civilian was wounded by IOF troops that had moved into Beit Hanoun town. On 28 November 2007, IOF wounded a Palestinian civilian when they opened fire at al-Shouka village, east of Rafah.

Furthermore, IOF continued air strikes against the Gaza Strip. On 24 November 2007, an air strike targeted a group of the Palestinian resistance in Khan Yunis, but no casualties were reported. On 27 November 2007, an air strike targeted a site of the ‘Izziddin al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Hamas), but no casualties were reported as the site was empty.

In the West Bank, on 25 November 2007, IOF troops extra-judicially executed a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (an armed wing of Fatah movement). They left him bleeding to death. On 27 November 2007, 2 Palestinian civilians and an Israeli human rights defender were wounded when IOF troops used force to disperse peaceful demonstrations organized by Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders against the construction of the Annexation Wall in Bal’ein village, west of Ramallah, and al-Ma’sara village, south of Bethlehem. On 27 November 2007, 4 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, were wounded by IOF troops that had moved into ‘Azzoun village, east of Qalqilya.

Incursions: During the reporting period, IOF conducted at least 12 military incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank. During those incursions, IOF arrested 30 Palestinian civilians. Thus, the number of Palestinians arrested by IOF in the West Bank since the beginning of this year has mounted to 2,476. During the reporting period, IOF transformed 3 Palestinian houses into military sites.

In the Gaza Strip, IOF conducted 2 incursions into Beit Hanoun town in the northern Gaza Strip, and al-Shouka village, east of Rafah. During those incursions, IOF destroyed a house, razed 7 donums of agricultural land and damaged the civilian infrastructure. They also arrested 12 Palestinian civilians, including 3 wounded ones.

Restrictions on Movement: IOF have continued to impose a tightened siege on the OPT and imposed severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

Gaza Strip

IOF have continued to close all border crossings of the Gaza Strip for nearly 17 months. The total siege imposed by IOF on the Gaza Strip has left disastrous impacts on the humanitarian situation and has violated the economic and social rights of the Palestinian civilian population, particularly the rights to appropriate living conditions, health and education. It has also paralyzed most economic sectors. Furthermore, severe restrictions have been imposed on the movement of the Palestinian civilian population. Moreover, the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip has severely impacted the flow of food, medical supplies and other necessities such as fuel, construction materials and raw materials for various economic sectors. IOF have further tightened the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip since Hamas’ takeover of the Gaza Strip, and the living and economic conditions of Palestinian civilians have further deteriorated. On 19 September 2007, the Israeli government declared the Gaza Strip as “a hostile entity” and accordingly measures of collective punishment against Gaza escalated. Since that time, IOF have limited the goods exported to the Gaza Strip to only 9 basic materials. As a consequence, local markets ran out of many goods, which caused a sharp increase in prices, which mounted to 500% for some goods. Israeli occupation forces have banned the flow of some medicines, furniture, electrical appliances and cigarettes into the Gaza Strip, and have decreased the amounts of some goods allowed into the Gaza Strip, such as fruits, milk and some dairy products. During the reporting period, a Palestinian patient died due to the denial of her access to medical treatment outside the Gaza Strip. This brings to 11 the number of Gaza patients who died since last August as a result of denying them their medical rights. The victims include 3 women and an infant. IOF have also continued to impose severe restrictions on fishing in the Gaza Strip.

West Bank

IOF have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians to and from Jerusalem. Thousands of Palestinian civilians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been denied access to the city. IOF have established many checkpoints around and inside the city. Restrictions of the movement of Palestinian civilians often escalate on Fridays to prevent them from praying at the al-Aqsa Mosque. IOF often violently beat Palestinian civilians who attempt to bypass checkpoints and enter the city. IOF have also tightened the siege imposed on Palestinian communities in the West Bank. IOF positioned at various checkpoints in the West Bank have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians. IOF also erected more checkpoints on the main roads and intersections in the West Bank. During the reporting period, IOF troops positioned at checkpoints and border crossings in the West Bank arrested at least 4 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children.

Settlement Activities: IOF have continued settlement activities and Israeli settlers living in the OPT in violation of international humanitarian law have continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property. On 24 November 2007, Israeli settlers attacked a Palestinian minibus, and injured 13 Palestinian civilians. On 25 November 2007, Israeli settlers attacked a school in Hebron, damaging it.

Israeli Violations Documented during the Reporting Period (22 – 28 November 2007)

The full report is available online at:

html format:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2007/29-11-2007.htm

pdf format:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/2007/pdf/Weekly%20Report%2047.pdf

Public Document

For further information please visit our website (http://www.pchrgaza.org) or contact PCHR’s office in Gaza City, Gaza Strip by email (pchr@pchrgaza.org) or telephone (+972 (0)8 2824776 – 2825893).

*Office Hours are between 08:00 – 16:00 hours (05:00 GMT – 13:00 GMT) Sun – Thurs.

-----------------------------------

If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to request@pchrgaza.org

and write "subscribe" in the subject line.

“Per la fine dell’assedio di Gaza”.

E’ la nuova campagna internazionale promossa da intellettuali, docenti, associazioni e moltissime donne attiviste. Malgrado Hamas, le donne di Gaza resistono e chiedono sostegno.

Un invito a tutte e tutti a dare la vostra adesione all'appello della Campagna palestinese e internazionale "Porre fine all'assedio di Gaza."

Per ulteriori info: Porre fine all'assedio

Contatti e adesioni: end.gaza.siege@gmail.com

luisa.morgantini@europarl.europa.eu

Luisa Morgantini*, Carta Settimanale, 24.11.07. Ospedali, farmacie, beni di prima necessità, materie prime per le industrie, carburante, energia elettrica, libri di testo per gli studenti, mancanza di cemento perfino per sotterrare i morti, questa volta uccisi non solo dai soldati israeliani ma da lotte interne palestinesi e in principal modo dalle forze di polizia di Hamas, all'interno del quale hanno prevalso i più radicali estremisti.

Nulla viene risparmiato dalla brutalità dell'assedio a cui è sottoposta la Striscia di Gaza dopo che dalle Autorità israeliane è stata definita come un'entità ostile e la morsa, che già esisteva, si è fatta più stretta, diventando asfissiante. Questa "entità" è fatta di un milione e mezzo di persone, donne e uomini, bambini e ammalati, che subiscono una punizione collettiva al di fuori di ogni legalità e umanità: per questo più che una prigione Gaza è una gabbia da cui persone e merci non entrano e non escono senza il permesso israeliano. "La campagna internazionale e palestinese per porre fine all'assedio" che ho subito sottoscritto e diffuso in Italia perché di estrema urgenza ed importanza, è stata lanciata da rappresentanti della società civile, indipendenti e laici, non appartenenti né a Fatah e né a Hamas, ma schierati in difesa del diritto universale ad una vita dignitosa e alla pace. Un diritto quanto mai distante dall'attuale situazione di Gaza, sebbene la crisi umanitaria che travolge tutti i settori produttivi e ogni aspetto della quotidianità dei palestinesi della Striscia abbia già creato preoccupazione e moniti da parte dell'Unione Europea, delle Nazioni Unite - dall'Unrwa e all'Agenzia per i diritti umani grazie anche agli appelli di lanciati da John Holmes o da John Dugard- e nonostante che al Parlamento Europeo in una recente risoluzione, citata anche dai firmatari dell'appello, abbiamo chiesto al Governo israeliano di porre fine all'assedio e di adempiere agli obblighi internazionali sottoscritti con la Convenzione di Ginevra per garantire l'accesso di aiuti umanitari, assistenza e servizi essenziali, come elettricità e carburante .

Tutti questi appelli però sono caduti nel vuoto: le violazioni del diritto umanitario internazionale continuano sotto gli occhi di tutti e la vita dei palestinesi è un inferno. Ce lo ricordano con forza i promotori della Campagna per la fine dell'assedio, imprenditori, intellettuali, accademici e molte donne attiviste che, dalla Cisgiordania e dalla stessa Striscia, avanzano una richiesta sincera d'aiuto che dobbiamo far nostra per fermare questa vergogna e " salvare la gente e non i governi o i partiti politici". Si tratta di realtà e associazioni da anni impegnate nella difesa dei diritti umani, uomini e donne che aldilà delle posizioni dei partiti politici e delle drammatiche divisioni odierne, rappresentano una speranza per la pace, lavorando spesso fianco a fianco con associazioni israeliane per la fine dell'occupazione e il diritto a due Stati per due popoli. Le donne palestinesi in Cisgiordania e a Gaza, le molte attiviste e laiche, hanno sempre avuto un ruolo di primo piano nelle battaglie per la loro libertà dall'occupazione militare e da un sistema patriarcale. A Gaza, malgrado l'avvento di Hamas organizzazioni di donne continuano a resistere e ad agire per il cambiamento sociale, nonostante sia innegabile il rischio di una regressione dei loro diritti col sopravvento di movimenti religiosi che tolgono spazi di libertà conquistati. Anche per questo, per invertire la tendenza in atto, è un dovere morale non lasciarle sole.

Gli organizzatori della Campagna, dicono chiaramente che in una simile situazione di chiusura e asfissia, senza prospettive di un futuro possibile, sia prevedibile il fiorire di estremismi e ulteriori violenze, con impatti disastrosi non solo sulla situazione interna palestinese ma anche sull'ambiente politico dell'intera regione, distruggendo ogni possibilità di pace e sicurezza.

Fino a quando malati di cancro o donne incinte continueranno a morire nell'attesa di permessi per oltrepassare i valichi dalla Striscia e recarsi negli ospedali in Israele o in Egitto, ogni senso di giustizia e dignità umana rimarrà lettera morta. Lettera morta i diritti di tanti altri malati gravi costretti a rinunciare alle cure spesso rimanendo sospesi tra la vita e la morte mentre le sale operatorie degli ospedali di Gaza sono deserte perché prive dei prodotti medici di base. Lettera morta il diritto all'istruzione per gli studenti che in oltre 600 non hanno ricevuto quest'anno il permesso di raggiungere le università in Cisgiordania o all'estero o che non hanno neanche i libri di testo e ancora peggio come denuncia l'Unrwa i bambini che vanno a scuola sono deconcentrati perchè hanno fame. E intanto aumentano i prezzi delle merci, ma anche la disoccupazione e il contrabbando, e le fragole o i pomodorini o i fiori di Gaza marciscono nei magazzini perché non possono essere esportati. Secondo la Banca Mondiale, il 67% della popolazione della Striscia vive sotto il livello della povertà stimato in 2 dollari al giorno: le risorse, le strutture produttive e l'ingegnosità a Gaza però non mancano, non è un paese povero, ma è immobilizzato da isolamento e violenze. Come al valico di Kissufim, al centro di Gaza, dove gruppi di palestinesi sono stati – secondo quanto riportato da Haaretz - prelevati dall'Esercito Israeliano per subire interrogatori e poi rilasciati svestiti, sbeffeggiati e costretti a tornare alle loro case completamente nudi: l'ennesima umiliazione.

Conoscere da vicino quanto possa essere dura una simile quotidianità, esprimere il nostro appoggio concreto per porre fine all'assedio della Striscia, con iniziative e mobilitazioni popolari in vari paesi, ribadire la libertà di movimento a Gaza come in Cisgiordania, è il minimo che ciascuno possa fare per rompere l'isolamento e il silenzio su questi crimini contro l'umanità. Ma vincere l'assedio di Gaza non basta, il popolo palestinese ha diritto alla libertà e alla fine dell'occupazione militare israeliana, ma questo, vista l'irresponsabilità e la complicità con la politica nord-americana e israeliana, non sembra essere all'ordine del giorno.

*Vicepresidente del Parlamento Europeo

luisa.morgantini@europarl.europa.eu; www.luisamorgantini.net;

Mahmoud Zahar: «L'Europe devrait être impartiale»

Alain Campiotti, LeTemps.ch, 30.11.07. Interview du dirigeant du Hamas, ancien ministre des affaires étrangères.
Sur Annapolis. «Cette réunion était une pure perte de temps. Rien ne pouvait être résolu en une journée, rien ne pourra être résolu dans le délai fixé. Le négociations pour les négociations, ça ne mène à rien. Nous avons déjà connu Madrid, Oslo, etc. Annapolis n'a existé que parce que les participants, tous faibles, en avaient politiquement besoin. Le pouvoir va changer aux Etats-Unis. En Israël, la Knesset a déjà dit à Ehud Olmert qu'il ne pourrait pas toucher au statut de Jérusalem annexé. Et les Israéliens veulent la reconnaissance d'un Etat juif, ce qui rejette les Palestiniens qui vivent en Israël, et exclut le droit au retour. Quant à Abou Mazen (le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas), que représente-t-il ? Pas Gaza, pas les Palestiniens dispersés, qui n'ont même pas été consultés.»

Sur l'après-Annapolis. «Les politiques ne sont pas éternels. Après cette réunion, il peut se produire des changements à 180 degrés. Les peuples arabes n'acceptent pas la coopération avec Israël, et ils rejettent leurs régimes corrompus.»

Sur les Etats arabes. «Les Arabes et les musulmans qui sont allés à Annapolis ont fait un premier pas vers la reconnaissance de l'Etat d'Israël. Ils ont du coup abandonné l'unique carte, l'unique moyen de pression qu'ils détenaient.»

Sur l'Europe. «Les Européens suivent sans rien dire les Américains. C'est une grave erreur, car les Etats-Unis sont en train de perdre leur crédibilité dans le monde entier, en commettant partout des agressions. Nous aimerions avoir des relations avec une Europe plus impartiale.»

Sur les missiles. «Pourquoi parler de missiles ? Les roquettes que les mouvements de résistance tirent en direction d'Israël sont rudimentaires, contre un adversaire qui possède des F-16, et même la bombe atomique. Nous réagissons comme nous pouvons. Les Israéliens ont dû quitter Gaza parce qu'ils souffraient. S'ils reviennent, ils souffriront davantage.»

Sur les divisions au sein du Hamas. «Le Hamas est une vaste et puissante organisation. Des vues différentes s'y expriment, et c'est une bonne chose. Mais ce n'est pas une confrontation. Au bout de la discussion, quand une décision est prise, tout le monde doit s'y tenir.»

Sur la littérature. «Oui, j'écris des livres. L'un d'eux, consacré à la vie et à la mort d'un martyr palestinien, va être porté à l'écran dans des studios que nous voulons construire à Gaza.»

Hazem Abou Shanab: «Se lier à l'Iran est dangererux»

Alain Campiotti, LeTemps.ch, 30.11.07. Interview du dirigeant du Fatah à Gaza.
Sur Anapolis. «Cette réunion n'était pas une négociation de paix. Elle servait à explorer les voies d'une relance des discussions, avec cette fois l'engagement du monde arabe. Ce n'est pas encore une normalisation entre Israël et les Arabes. Il s'agit de voir comment une normalisation pourrait commencer. Mais avant tout cela, il y a une question centrale : Israël veut-il vraiment la paix ? Désormais, le rôle des Etats-Unis devraient être clair : le processus engagé n'a de sens que si des pressions américaines sont exercées afin qu'Israël accepte des concessions, et qu'il applique un accord une fois qu'il a été signé. Jusqu'à présent, tous les pas ont été faits par les Palestiniens. La Palestine était une, maintenant les juifs en occupent une partie. Nous admettons un partage. L'Occident doit convaincre Israël de l'accepter aussi.»

Sur le coup de force de juin. «Le Hamas a fait une faute énorme. Et il a commis des crimes, exécutions et tortures. Il doit retrouver ses esprits, descendre de l'arbre où il a eu tort de monter, rétablir la situation antérieure. Nous avions amené la démocratie en Palestine. Il faut y revenir, dans l'unité, sans rejet des autres. Et en finir avec la violence. Ce qui a été fait ne peut pourtant pas être oublié.»

Sur la corruption. «C'est vrai que le Hamas avait gagné en popularité parce qu'il y avait de la corruption dans le Fatah. Mais tout a changé le 12 novembre. La grande manifestation que nous avons organisée en mémoire de Yasser Arafat a montré que le rapport des forces s'est inversé. Par ailleurs, la corruption, nous l'avons nous-mêmes dénoncée, nous avons lancé une enquête. Et puis, je le dis au Hamas : voler est moins grave que tuer.»

Sur le bouclage de Gaza: «Il y a un double pouvoir chez les Israéliens, celui des civils et celui des militaires. En 2001, Sharon, avec les généraux, a poussé les feux du conflit. L'intifada leur a rogné les ongles, et Olmert a évolué. Mais maintenant, avec Barak à leur tête, les généraux reprennent le dessus.»

Sur l'Iran. «Le Hamas, soutenu par les Iraniens, dit qu'il accepte l'aide de tout le monde. Pourquoi pas des Américains, alors ? Se lier à Téhéran est dangereux. L'Iran est comme les Etats-Unis : il stimule la guerre ailleurs – au Liban, en Palestine – pour ne pas l'avoir chez lui.»




• Retour sur le Reportage multimédia au Proche-Orient

• L'interview de Nasser Abou Gamar:
«Comme le Hezbollah»

• L'interview de Khaled Abou Hilal:
«Ils ont empoisonné Arafat»

• L'interview de Mahmoud Zahar:
«L'Europe devrait être impartiale»

• L'interview de Nabila Ibrahim:
«Les qassam ? Notre seul moyen»

• La galerie de photos:
«Gaza aux mains du Hamas»

A gesture to the Prisons Service

Amira Hass, Haaretz, 21.11.07. Conviction in the military tribunals is almost always a foregone conclusion. The punishments are harsh and excessive with regard to every count in the indictment. They are motivated by revenge on the part of representatives of the occupying people against representatives of the occupied people. No detainee is given the minimal rights needed to defend himself against the accusations. The threat of detention ?(in unbearable conditions?) until the end of proceedings spurs the accused and those who represent him to sign a plea bargain without cross-examining the prosecution?s witnesses and verifying their veracity.

True, civilian courts are also not immune to discrimination and prejudice, but it is reasonable to assume that were the military tribunals to conduct themselves in the same way as the civilian courts do, many Palestinian detainees would not be convicted at all, due to a lack of concrete evidence, while others would be sentenced to much shorter terms. With this in mind, the prisoner release is also a gesture to the military judges: They will have fewer months of unjustifiable detention on their consciences.
During the 1990s, Israel released some 10,000 Palestinian prisoners within the framework of the Oslo accords. Just as it was in Ireland and South Africa, that is the accepted practice: When, in a struggle against national repression, the parties agree to make peace, the occupying party recognizes that the violence of the prisoners it releases was a response to its own violence. This is not a gesture, but a necessary step toward a solution. The released Palestinians included almost all of those who had been convicted of murdering other Palestinians ?(due to suspicions that they were collaborators?). But Israel refused to release Palestinians who had been convicted of murdering Jews. It also refused to release detainees from East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights or Israel. Some 84 prisoners who belong to these four categories have already been in prison between 18 and 30 years, serving life sentences that will end only with their own deaths.

If these prisoners had been Jews, they would have been released long ago − whether because, as Jews who murdered Palestinians, their sentences would have been commuted by the president ?(Ami Popper, who murdered seven workers, is the exception among Jewish prisoners who murdered Palestinians; he gets regular furloughs but has not been released?), or because they would have been charged with lesser crimes than murder to begin with and would not have been tried in military tribunals.

Had Said al A?tabeh of Nablus, the most veteran of the Palestinian prisoners, been a Jew, he would not have started serving his 31st year in jail in July, with no end in sight. He was convicted of commanding a Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine cell, one of whose members planted a bomb that killed one Israeli and wounded another 32. If Muhkhles Burghal from Lod, who was convicted 20 years ago of throwing a hand grenade that failed to explode at a bus carrying soldiers, had been a Jew, he would not have been imprisoned until now, with another 20 years still to go − without the right to furloughs, without the right to hug his 70-year-old mother.

These are the prisoners whose release today, yesterday or 10 years ago would have proven that Israel is indeed interested in change, recognizes its own long history of violence and seeks to reduce it. Its failure to release them is not only a bitter disappointment to their families and friends. It is a blow to everyone who is interested in a solution of peace

Democracy Now: Mustafa Barghouti and Daniel Levi on Annapolis

To Download Audio and video of Amy Goodman’s Interview with Mustafa Barghouti and Daniel Levi click here. full interview

AMY GOODMAN: Mustafa Barghouti, your response to the summit at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis?
MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: Well, the only official thing that came out of this is the statement, the joint statement, and in that statement, the Palestinian delegation failed to present any of the Palestinian demands. Basically, the Palestinian delegation, being very weak and with great doubts about how representative it is, made one concession after the other. And everything they promised the Palestinian people, they failed to achieve. They didn’t mention the issue of Jerusalem; the issue of borders; the freeze of settlements, which we’ve been asking for. And basically the whole document and the whole outcome of the meeting has practically met every Israeli need or demand. What Livni promised has happened, which is that security comes before negotiations, and it becomes a condition of negotiations. What is most drastic is that after all this big gathering and all these expenses on such a conference, or a meeting, all we get is the same road map that was there back in 2003 and that was never implemented.
And in my opinion, what happened was very risky, because instead of discussing the real issues, the Israeli side managed to mobilize the American side; to marginalize completely the Quartet, which has no role from now on; to completely ignore and omit any mentioning of the basis and reference of negotiations, like UN resolutions, United Nations decisions—everything that used to be mentioned, like international law, international humanitarian law. Everything was dismissed. The only reference that remains is what Israelis accept and what they don’t accept. And the whole issue becomes an issue of how the Palestinian Authority will be transformed to become a security subagent for occupation. And that is a condition. If the Palestinian Authority does not fulfill that, which is objectively impossible, then there will be no progress on any field. In my opinion, that is very dangerous. And it is really quite dangerous that the Israelis managed to get everything they want without any balance.

Path to Mideast Peace Lies in Popular Organizing Against U.S.-Israeli “Rejectionism”

Noam Chomsky*. In 1963, the UN Security Council declared a voluntary arms embargo on South Africa. That was extended to a mandatory embargo in 1977. And that was followed by economic sanctions and other measures—sometimes officials, countries, cities, towns—some organized by popular movements. Not all countries participated. In the United States, the US Congress did impose sanctions over Reagan’s veto, but US trade with South Africa then increased by various evasions, along with concealed support for South African terrorist atrocities in Mozambique and Angola, which took a horrendous toll. It’s about 1.5 million killed and over $60 billion in damage during the Reagan years, the Reagan years of constructive engagement, according to UN analysis. In 1988, the Reagan administration declared Mandela’s African National Congress to be one of the world’s most notorious terrorist groups. he popular opposition made a difference. There was a very significant anti-apartheid movement decades after the global decision of the Security Council to bring apartheid to an end. In 1965, boycotts and other measures would not have been effective. Twenty years later, they were effective, but that was after the groundwork had been laid by activist, educational and organizing efforts, including within the powerful states, which is what matters in an ugly world. Well, in the case of Israel-Palestine, the groundwork has not been laid. The kind of popular measures that were effective against apartheid by the late 1980s are not only ineffective in the case of Israel-Palestine today, but in fact sometimes backfire in harming the victims. We’ve seen that over and over. It’s going to continue until the organizing and educational efforts make real progress. It’s not just the United States; the European Union is hardly different. So, for example, the European Union does not bar arms deliveries to Israel. It joined the United States in vicious punishment of Palestinians, because they committed the grave crime of voting the wrong way in a free election. And there was very little internal protest in Europe. Populations support the international consensus, but they don’t react when their governments undermine any hope for its realization. In the coming weeks and the longer term, there’s plenty of educational and organizational activity that will have to be carried out among an American [and European] population that happens to be largely receptive, though deluged with propaganda and deceit. And it’s not going to be easy. It’s never been easy. But much harder tasks have been accomplished with dedicated and persistent effort.

MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking recently in Boston at a conference called “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel,” sponsored by the Palestinian Christian organization Sabeel.

Al Mezan Condemns Restricting Peaceful Assembly and Assaults on Journalists; Calls for Investigation in the Police Attacks in Ramallah and Hebron

28.11.07. Palestinian police and security forces attacked two peaceful marches in the West Bank towns of Ramallah and Hebron on 27 November 2007. They beat many marchers and opened fire at them killing one person. They also attacked journalists who were at the scenes to cover the protests, which were called for by community figures to demand 'upholding Palestinian fundamental rights' and protesting against Annapolis meeting in the USA. Many armed men in civilian wear joined the police. Al Mezan also condemns the continued proliferation of armed men in civilian wear who support the police and security personnel in dispersing demonstrations. This practice must be stopped immediately.
According to information retrieved from Al Haq human rights organization in the West Bank, Palestinian police forces attacked two peaceful marches. Local and international TV stations broadcast pictures showing the police violently attacking them. The first march was attacked in the Al Manara Square in the center of Ramallah. Beating demonstrators, the police pushed them to flee towards the nearby Al Quds Street where large police and security forces were waiting.

The second march took place in Hebron, south of the West Bank. The police unjustifiably assaulted thousands of demonstrators using cudgels and firearms to disperse them. One citizen, 37-year-old Hisham Al Barad'i from Hebron, was killed and dozens of demonstrators and policemen were injured, as a result. In addition, 22 demonstrators were arrested.

The police also attacked journalists who were covering the events and beat many of them severely. Among those were the general manager of the Watan Television, Mr. Mo'amar Orabi, and the correspondent of Al Jazeera, Wael Al Shiyukhy. Members of the Preventive Security apparatus confiscated the ID and the camera of the Al Haq's media officer and forced him to delete images he captured before surrendering the camera to him. His ID is still held by the security.

Moreover, the security forces arrested dozens of those who participates in the marches. Among the arrested was Professor Jamal Jum'aa, the Director of the Popular Campaign against the Wall, one of the organizers of the march. Jumaa was released later yesterday evening.

Prior to the marches, the security forces attempted to obstruct them by closing main streets and the vicinities of mosques. They broke into yard of the Jamal Abdul Nasser Mosque in Al Beera town to disperse a gathering that was organized by the Al Tahreer Party, whose members protested against the Annapolis conference. The police assaulted them and arrested dozens of them.

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights condemns the employment of unjustifiable violence against citizens practicing their right to peaceful assembly, which is guaranteed by law and human rights standards. The Center also condemns the arrests of and assaults on many journalists and the confiscation of materials and equipment crucial to their work, which also affected the work of the media officer of Al Haq human rights organization. These violations of, and restrictions on, public freedoms cannot be justified. The police and security officers who ordered and/or exercised such illegal violence must be brought to justice.

Al Mezan also condemns the continued proliferation of armed men in civilian wear who support the police and security personnel in dispersing demonstrations. This practice must be stopped immediately.

As Al Mezan condemns the conducts of the Palestinian security in Ramallah and Hebron, it reaffirms its strong rejection of the use of violence and lethal force as acceptable options to maintain order. The Center calls the Attorney General to initiate an investigation into these events, in which a citizen was killed and many injured, and to ensure that those who were involved be brought to justice in accord with the law.

Demands of a thief

Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 29.11.07. The public discourse in Israel has momentarily awoken from its slumber. "To give or not to give," that is the Shakespearean question - "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions." It is good that initial signs of life in the Israeli public have emerged. It was worth going to Annapolis if only for this reason - but this discourse is baseless and distorted. Israel is not being asked "to give" anything to the Palestinians; it is only being asked to return - to return their stolen land and restore their trampled self-respect, along with their fundamental human rights and humanity. This is the primary core issue, the only one worthy of the title, and no one talks about it anymore. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? No one is talking about morality anymore. Justice is also an archaic concept, a taboo that has deliberately been erased from all negotiations. Two and a half million people - farmers, merchants, lawyers, drivers, daydreaming teenage girls, love-smitten men, old people, women, children and combatants using violent means for a just cause - have all been living under a brutal boot for 40 years. Meanwhile, in our cafes and living rooms the conversation is over giving or not giving.
Lawyers, philosophers, writers, lecturers, intellectuals and rabbis, who are looked upon for basic knowledge about moral precepts, participate in this distorted discourse. What will they tell their children - after the occupation finally becomes a nightmare of the past - about the period in which they wielded influence? What will they say about their role in this? Israeli students stand at checkpoints as part of their army reserve duty, brutally deciding the fate of people, and then some rush off to lectures on ethics at university, forgetting what they did the previous day and what is being done in their names every single day. Intellectuals publish petitions, "to make concessions" or "not to make concessions," diverting attention from the core issue. There are stormy debates about corruption - whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is corrupt and how the Supreme Court is being undermined. But there is no discussion of the ultimate question: Isn't the occupation the greatest and most terrible corruption to have taken root here, overshadowing everything else?
Security officials are terrified about what would happen if we removed a checkpoint or released prisoners, like the whites in South Africa who whipped up a frenzy of fear about the "great slaughter" that would ensue if blacks were granted their rights. But these are not legitimate questions: The incarceration must be ended and the myriad of political prisoners should be released unconditionally. Just as a thief cannot present demands - neither preconditions nor any other terms - to the owner of the property he has robbed, Israel cannot present demands to the other side as long as the situation remains as it is.

Security? We must defend ourselves by defensive means. Those who do not believe that the only security we will enjoy will come from ending the occupation and from peace can entrench themselves in the army, and behind walls and fences. But we have no right to do what we are doing: Just as no one would conceive of killing the residents of an entire neighborhood, to harass and incarcerate it because of a few criminals living there, there is no justification for abusing an entire people in the name of our security. The question of whether ending the occupation would threaten or strengthen Israel's security is irrelevant. There are not, and cannot be, any preconditions for restoring justice.

No one will discuss this at Annapolis. Even if the real core issues were raised, they would focus on secondary questions - borders, Jerusalem and even refugees. But that would be escaping the main issue. After 40 years, one might have expected that the real core issue would finally be raised for honest and bold discussion: Does Israel have the moral right to continue the occupation? The world should have asked this long ago. The Palestinians should have focused only on this. And above all, we, who bear the guilt, should have been terribly troubled by the answer to this question.

Rice: "Al via negoziati per la pace" Ma Olmert: "Difficile la scadenza 2008"

la Repubblica, 28.11.07.A poche ore dalla conclusione della Conferenza, il premier israeliano ha però messo le mani avanti, avvertendo che potrebbe non essere rispettato il termine pattuito - arrivare cioè ad un accordo di pace complessivo entro la fine del 2008 - anche se nessuno sforzo va lesinato. "Non stiamo cercando di dare a intendere che un'intesa possa essere trovata entro una settimana o entro un anno", ha spiegato il premier israeliano, intervistato dalla radio pubblica israeliana, "ma da qualche parte occorre pur cominciare. E noi siamo impegnati, assolutamente", ha puntualizzato, "a contribuire a far partire il negoziato. Non vogliamo perdere tempo, non vogliamo guadagnarne. Vogliamo andare avanti", ha sottolineato.

Il sogno dei due Stati

Avraham Yehoshua, La Stampa, 28.11.07. Domani, 29 novembre, ricorre il sessantesimo anniversario della decisione dell’Onu di dividere la Palestina-Terra d'Israele in due Stati: ebraico e palestinese. Questa decisione - per l'approvazione della quale era necessaria la maggioranza di due terzi degli Stati membri dell'Onu - si rese possibile grazie alla rara collaborazione fra due blocchi rivali: quello comunista sovietico e quello occidentale democratico. All'inizio della Guerra fredda, superando le ideologie rivali e gli scontri politici in varie parti del mondo, Usa e Urss concordarono di sostenere la proposta, giusta ma problematica, di dividere la regione geografica denominata Palestina in parti pressoché uguali fra i due popoli che vi risiedevano.

L’area in questione ricopriva pressappoco ventisettemila chilometri quadrati. La decisione dell'Onu prevedeva che gli ebrei avrebbero avuto il controllo di quattordicimila chilometri quadrati (all'incirca la metà dei quali occupati da deserto), e i palestinesi dei rimanenti tredicimila. Tale ripartizione fu stabilita in base alla concentrazione della popolazione e, nonostante a quell'epoca il numero dei palestinesi fosse quasi il doppio di quello degli ebrei (un milione e trecentomila mila contro 600.000), si prevedeva che dopo l'apertura delle frontiere del nuovo stato centinaia di migliaia di profughi israeliti rimasti senza casa e senza patria al termine della seconda guerra mondiale vi si riversassero.

Cosa spinse le due superpotenze rivali ad adottare questa decisione, criticata e respinta dagli stati arabi che dichiararono che avrebbero fatto il possibile per sabotarla e distruggere la neonata nazione ebraica?

Il motivo di una così ampia coalizione non era dovuto a interessi geopolitici. Al contrario, sia gli Stati Uniti che l'Unione Sovietica erano ben intenzionati a evitare uno scontro con il vasto e ricco mondo arabo e musulmano. E se malgrado tutto fecero fronte comune per sostenere la creazione di uno stato ebraico la ragione, a mio avviso, è da ricercarsi nello shock profondo provocato dalla Shoah. La decisione del 29 novembre, oltre a essere un tentativo di risarcire moralmente i sopravvissuti, intendeva probabilmente neutralizzare, anche se solo in parte, il terribile e pericoloso virus dell'antisemitismo, tanto distruttivo per le vittime quanto per i loro carnefici.

Lo sterminio di sei milioni di ebrei, all'origine del quale non c'erano controversie territoriali, ideologiche, religiose o economiche, ma una fantasiosa teoria razziale che li considerava una razza inferiore (quando invece non sono mai stati una razza a parte) e il fatto che, benché ideato e messo in atto dai nazisti, l'Olocausto avesse riscontrato un'eco positiva e goduto persino della collaborazione parziale dei popoli da loro assoggettati, dimostrava che il «problema ebraico» non era puramente tedesco ma mondiale, antico, esteso e in grado di innescare brutalità devastatrici. Basta rileggere la biografia di Hitler per rendersi conto di quanto il suo odio patologico per gli ebrei fosse alla base di ogni sua azione e lo avesse ossessionato fino alla fine dei suoi giorni. Per debellare l'antisemitismo, dunque, non bastava combattere forme violente di razzismo, ma era necessario collaborare a livello internazionale per aiutare gli ebrei a cambiare radicalmente il loro sistema di rapporti con il mondo che li circondava, a costruire una realtà indipendente e sovrana in un territorio sul quale essi potessero esercitare l'autodeterminazione alla quale ogni popolo ha diritto.

Ma dove si sarebbe potuto trovare questo territorio? Persino gli arabi moderati, che avevano accettato il presupposto che gli ebrei fossero un popolo e non solo gli affiliati a una religione, e, a fatica, e meramente a livello teorico, che avessero diritto all'auto determinazione, rifiutavano fermamente l'eventualità che uno stato ebraico potesse occupare una parte (seppur minima) del loro territorio. Non solo perché tale esproprio sarebbe stato lesivo dell'identità araba, ma anche perché il problema ebraico ai loro occhi era sostanzialmente europeo. L'antisemitismo e la Shoah erano nati dallo scontro tra il mondo cristiano e gli ebrei in Europa, nella quale la maggior parte di questi ultimi aveva vissuto nel secondo millennio. La decisione di spartire la Palestina dal loro punto di vista era dunque un'ingiustizia e un sopruso ancor prima che ci fosse anche un solo profugo palestinese sulla faccia della terra. Nei secoli precedenti gli ebrei erano stati una minoranza insignificante nella minuscola regione del Medio Oriente denominata Palestina e la creazione di uno stato ebraico avrebbe fatto sì che milioni di essi vi si trasferissero da ogni parte della diaspora e, in seguito alla pressione demografica, potessero sconfinare anche in zone arabe adiacenti. La risoluzione delle Nazioni Unite proclamava infatti a chiare lettere che lo stato ebraico sarebbe stato essenzialmente sionista, ossia aperto a tutto il popolo ebraico (e d'altro canto sarebbe stato ingiusto privare il popolo palestinese di una parte del suo territorio per costituire una nazione destinata solamente ai seicentomila ebrei lì presenti nel 1947). La valenza morale di tale risoluzione scaturiva quindi dal desiderio che il nuovo stato risolvesse, o alleviasse almeno in parte, il problema ebraico e ogni israelita perseguitato potesse trovarvi rifugio.

L'opposizione arabo palestinese era naturale e logicamente comprensibile. Ogni altro popolo si sarebbe probabilmente comportato allo stesso modo. L'affermazione del diritto storico degli ebrei sulla Palestina, dove duemila anni prima avevano mantenuto uno regno sovrano, era priva di un valido fondamento etico, tanto più che molti di loro avevano lasciato volontariamente la terra di Israele già nel quinto secolo a.C. e per duemila anni dopo la distruzione del secondo Tempio, avvenuta nel settanta d.C., non vi erano tornati nonostante avessero potuto farlo. Solo in seguito alle pressioni create da violente manifestazioni antisemitiche avevano compreso la necessità di normalizzare la loro situazione, di tornare a esercitare una propria sovranità e di essere responsabili del proprio destino come ogni altro popolo.

È vero che dopo la Shoah fu spiegato agli arabi che, siccome il problema ebraico non era esclusivamente europeo ma mondiale, anche loro dovevano sobbarcarsene il peso, e che gli ebrei potevano ricostruire una loro sovranità unicamente nella terra di Israele, loro patria storica, e in nessun altro luogo al mondo (in ogni caso non era stato proposto loro un luogo alternativo giacché nessun popolo avrebbe accettato di rinunciare a una parte del proprio territorio per concedere l'autonomia a un altro). I palestinesi, quindi, non avevano altra scelta che accogliere il piano di spartizione.

Così, a partire dal novembre 1947, questa decisione è stata all'origine di problemi, complicazioni e guerre che vanno avanti ormai da sessant'anni, malgrado fosse motivata da una sincera volontà di risolvere, o alleviare, uno dei problemi più profondi e antichi del mondo: la questione ebraica. Né l'Onu, né ogni altro stato suo membro fecero però qualcosa per renderla effettiva. Gli inglesi, che per trent'anni avevano avuto il controllo politico e militare della Palestina, dopo essersi astenuti dal voto durante l'assemblea delle Nazioni Unite, si astennero anche da ogni tentativo di tradurre in pratica la delibera e di creare una separazione ragionevole tra i due stati che sarebbero sorti. Sei mesi dopo la votazione lasciarono la regione e le due parti nel caos più totale.

I palestinesi, che sapevano che non avrebbero potuto fronteggiare da soli lo stato ebraico, chiamarono in aiuto le nazioni arabe e dopo il ritiro della Gran Bretagna gli eserciti di sette stati invasero la Palestina per ributtare a mare gli ebrei e, già che c'erano, annettere magari una parte dei territori palestinesi. Le grandi potenze, dal canto loro, ormai quasi pentite della risoluzione presa, rimasero a guardare, senza cercare di imporre in alcun modo la decisione ai palestinesi, o di risarcirli economicamente per le aree espropriate. Non tentarono nemmeno di fermare gli eserciti arabi e lasciarono che gli ebrei si difendessero da soli dalla massiccia invasione che minacciava di sterminarli.

A partire da quel giorno, dunque, si può dire che in Medio Oriente siano entrati in gioco quattro fattori devastanti che il tempo non riesce a placare.

1.Un sentimento di profonda ostilità dei palestinesi nei confronti dell'Occidente per aver imposto loro la spartizione. Tale sentimento filtra in tutto il mondo arabo ed è alla base di una posizione di irremovibilità che pone come condizione al riconoscimento della legittimità di Israele il ritorno dei profughi della guerra del '48 nelle loro case. Accettare questa condizione per Israele significherebbe decretare la propria fine.

2.Un latente senso di colpa dell'Onu nei confronti dei palestinesi che lo ha portato a perpetuare assurdamente il loro problema anziché risolverlo. A causa infatti del suo regolare sostegno economico ai profughi la maggior parte di costoro da sessant'anni continua a vivere in squallidi campi in Palestina, talvolta a dieci o venti chilometri di distanza dalle loro case di origine, ed è questa situazione di degrado che attizza la fiamma che rende vana ogni possibilità di soluzione o rappacificazione tra le parti.

3.La sensazione di abbandono che gli ebrei provarono subito dopo l'approvazione della spartizione quando si ritrovarono costretti a combattere da soli contro gli eserciti arabi per assicurare la propria sopravvivenza. Tale sensazione li ha resi aggressivi, sospettosi e sprezzanti di ogni decisione dell'Onu diretta a risolvere il conflitto, soprattutto della 242, votata subito dopo la guerra dei sei giorni che li impegna a restituire tutte le zone occupate durante la guerra in cambio di pace e sicurezza.

4.L'incomprensione del mondo arabo e musulmano del tentativo di risolvere il doloroso problema ebraico mediante la spartizione. Da sessant'anni infatti gli arabi non considerano quella decisione come uno sforzo di migliorare in qualche modo la situazione di un popolo duramente colpito, ma una cospirazione dell'occidente imperialista ai loro danni. Una manovra per innestare nel loro territorio una roccaforte ebraica «crociata» e indebolire l'identità arabo-musulmana.

Ancora oggi ricordiamo, e a ragione, l'importante e fondamentale data del 29 novembre 1947 e comprendiamo le complesse e gravi conseguenze che la mancata messa in atto della risoluzione dell'Onu ha avuto per la regione e per il mondo intero. La conclusione può essere dunque questa:

la comunità internazionale deve impegnarsi a implementare il piano di spartizione e a creare due stati entro i confini del 1967. Per rendere più effettiva la soluzione tali stati, a tempo debito, saranno accettati come membri della comunità europea. I profughi del '48 torneranno nella loro patria, la Palestina, ma non nelle loro case in Israele, che in ogni caso non esistono più. Israele si ritirerà entro i confini del 1967 - che lasciano comunque in suo possesso tre quarti del territorio della Palestina storica -, ma non oltre, e le zone restituite ai palestinesi saranno smilitarizzate (seguendo l'esempio di ciò che fu attuato dopo la pace firmata con l'Egitto) per garantire la sicurezza dello stato ebraico da ogni possibile minaccia futura.

Dernière chance ?

REUTERS/LOAY ABU HAYKEL

Mahmoud Abbas, George W. Bush et Ehud Olmert, le 27 novembre 2007 à la conférence pour la paix au Proche-Orient d'Annapolis.

Edito du Monde, 28.11.07. Sept ans après son arrivée à la Maison Blanche, George Bush s'est finalement décidé à s'emparer du dossier israélo-palestinien, dont il avait concédé jusqu'à présent la gestion aux gouvernements israéliens successifs. La tâche de M^me Rice, qui va superviser les discussions israélo-palestiniennes, sera ardue. Elle ne part pas sans expérience, pour avoir déjà négocié avec acharnement, en novembre 2005, après le retrait unilatéral israélien, un accord qui aurait peut-être pu sauver Gaza de la faillite s'il n'avait pas été réduit à néant par les préalables sécuritaires imposés par les Israéliens.

Ce pari est périlleux aussi parce qu'il s'agit sans doute, pour l'Etat palestinien, des discussions de la dernière chance. La colonisation et le maillage sécuritaire israéliens imposés en Cisjordanie ont créé une situation presque irréversible. Si l'administration américaine bute là où toutes les précédentes ont échoué, la solution des deux Etats cessera d'être une option crédible.

Cet ultime fiasco provoquerait, en retour, une puissante lame de fond qui placera les alliés des Etats-Unis dans la région dans une situation intenable. Lorsque M^me Rice indiquait lors de ses visites à Jérusalem et à Ramallah que l'échec n'était pas une option, il ne s'agissait certainement pas d'une figure de rhétorique ni de l'expression d'un volontarisme de circonstance. Un revers condamnerait définitivement la Palestine et propulserait l'Iran au premier rang des puissances du Proche et du Moyen-Orient.

Michel Bôle-Richard, Jerusalem correspondant, Le Monde, 28.11.07. Il s'agit en effet des négociations de la dernière chance après beaucoup de tentatives ratées. Si elles échouent, le camp modéré palestinien sera anéanti. Les chances de créer un Etat palestinien seront nulles. Elles sont déjà extrêmement réduites en raison des réalités sur le terrain auxquelles les deux protagonistes vont devoir se confronter.

Si les deux camps sont laissés seuls, les chances de succès sont minces comme en témoigne leur incapacité pendant des semaines à parvenir à un test commun. Tout dépendra des pressions que Washington pourra exercer. La non-imposition d'un calendrier représente un vrai danger. Le sommet à peine terminé, Ehoud Olmert a déjà laissé entendre à la radio publique américaine que l'objectif d'un accord de paix en 2008 ne sera peut-être pas atteint.

25 Nov. 2007: Army demolishes village housing over 200 Palestinians, west of the Barrier

B'Tselem. On 29 October, the Israeli army forced more than 200 Palestinians from their homes in the village of Khirbet Qassa , Hebron District. The small village was established in the 1950s and most of its residents are refugees from the village of Beit Jibrin . The new Tarkumiya checkpoint, which lies very close to the Green Line, is being built near the village. The army loaded the water containers and feeding troughs onto a truck and deposited them beyond the Barrier. Much of the residents' property was crushed and buried among the ruins. After the army's action, the officer told the residents that they had to leave the site by noon the next day, and that they would be arrested and their livestock confiscated if they did not obey. The following afternoon, patrols of the Nature Reserves and Parks Authority came and forced the residents to leave.

Most of the residents are now homeless and have had to find temporary housing in the nearby town of Idhna .

The villagers lived in tents and caves and gained a livelihood from raising sheep and goats. Since construction began on the Separation Barrier, separating the village from the rest of the West Bank , the army has harassed the residents and denied them access to the grazing fields and other facilities that lie beyond the Barrier. About a year and a half ago, the army warned the residents that it intended to demolish their homes on the grounds that they were built without a permit.

On 25 October, the army left demolition orders under stones at the entrances to homes in the village. On 29 October, soldiers in jeeps and bulldozers began to demolish the tents and caves without giving the residents leave to remove their possessions. According to testimonies villagers gave to B'Tselem, soldiers beat a villager who tried to protect his flock, which he kept in one of the caves. Only after an officer intervened was he allowed to evacuate his livestock.

Demonstrations for the protection the fundamental rights of Palestinians turned ugly

Apartheid Masked as Peace, 28.11.07. For the declaration of principles and endorsers of the Ramallah demonstration click here. On Tuesday, the 27th of November, non-violent demonstrations calling to uphold the fundamental rights of Palestinians turned ugly. In demonstrations across the West Bank, from Ramallah, to Bethlehem, to Hebron, protesters were set upon by Palestinian police for stating their opinions.

The non-violent protesters came from all walks of life. One of the Ramallah demonstrations that was organized by the Grass Roots Anti-Aparthied Wall Campaign and dozens of Palestinian civil society organizations from throughout the West Bank, Gaza, and inside Israel.

The demonstration called for a process of negotiation “aimed at the implementation of the rights of our people, and the establishment of a timeline for such implementation, not negotiation on the rights themselves.” The people present, as well as the things they chanted, were consistent in supporting a just peace and national unity.

In Ramallah 200 people were detained, including Jamal Juma’, Coordinator of the Popular Campaign against the apartheid wall and 30 people were injured. Police began attacking and arresting people for holding signs, and speaking their mind. Signs and banners were confiscated, and journalists, or even people filming with their cellphones, were particularly targeted for violent oppression by the police. Live fire was used to threaten the demonstration, and police drove by with machine guns raised.

In Bethlehem 50 people were detained, and the police used water cannons to subdue the crowd. Here, like elsewhere, journalists were specifically targeted. In Hebron 37 year old protestor Hisham Barad’i was killed. According to Palestinian news agency Maan medical sources said that Palestinian security forces shot Barad’i in the heart during a 2500 strong demonstration organized by the Islamic group Hizeb Ut-Tahrir .

photo by PENGON/Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign

Hamas: statehood Bush promised

Ezzedeen Al Qassam Brigades, 28.11.07. The Islamic resistance movement Hamas expressed its deeply condemnation of Abbas word at Annapolis. The movement said that Abbas speech included an abusive sentences to the Palestinian history, to their struggle and to its leaders.

Islamic Hamas movement described the Palestinian statehood which U.S. President George W. Bush has called for creating as "vague and illusory." Speaking at the opening of Annapolis conference, Bush said it was time for a new Palestinian statehood.

"Bush did not clarify the boundaries of the Palestinian statehood and did not set a timetable for its creation," Salah Al-Bardaweel, a spokesman for Hamas lawmakers.

"Bush did not speak about the statehood's form, nature and the refugees and he did not specify the capital either."

Al-Bardaweel added Hamas understands from Bush's speech that the Palestinian statehood will not be created since Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his men did not apply the security plans that aim at protecting the Zionist entity.

Meanwhile, Al-Bardaweel criticized Abbas for going to Annapolis amid solid opposition by Hamas, the biggest Palestinian faction. "Abbas is not authorized to make decision on behalf of the Palestinian people