Le test du cigare de Lieberman Avigdor Lieberman's settler friends can relax

Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, 3.12.07. Après Annapolis, les ambiguïtés du gouvernement Olmert. Trois tests qui révéleraient ses véritables intentions. Il semble que, pour l’instant du moins, Lieberman et ses amis colons peuvent dormir tranquilles. Les preneurs de décisions [les ministres israéliens] ont-ils tiré les leçons des échecs précédents, ou bien conduisent-ils (involontairement ou délibérément), au pire, à un régime d’apartheid, comme Olmert l’a déclaré lui-même, ou à un autre cycle de violences ? Voici trois tests pour nous aider à résoudre cette énigme.

1. Le test des positions d’ouverture des négociations

Avant même le début des pourparlers sur un accord définitif, le gouvernement doit clarifier ses positions d’ouverture sur chacun des points essentiels. S’il adopte l’approche selon laquelle les Palestiniens doivent se contenter de la clôture de sécurité comme frontière politique, accepter la souveraineté d’Israël sur le Mont du Temple et effacer totalement tout rappel du retour des réfugiés, nous pouvons économiser les frais entraînés par la mise en place d’une Administration de la paix.

Mahmoud Abbas et la direction palestinienne, qui a émergé d’Annapolis avec la mission de mener les négociations sur un accord de paix, est bien plus faible que la délégation emmenée par Yasser Arafat à Camp David en juillet 2000. Après sept ans de « pas de partenaire », la destruction des infrastructures du gouvernement central palestinien, la victoire du Hamas et la perte de Gaza, la marge de manœuvre du Fatah est très réduite.

Mahmoud Abbas ne peut pas se permettre de renoncer à un seul centimètre carré de plus qu’Arafat (les lignes de 1967), avec des ajustements de frontières sur la base de l’égalité et de l’accord mutuel des deux parties. Sur Jérusalem et les réfugiés, il ne servirait à rien de proposer aux Palestiniens moins que ce que le plan Clinton offrait en décembre 2000 [2]

2. Le test du tissu social

Les principes d’Annapolis renvoient les parties à la formule de Rabin : mener les négociations comme s’il n’y avait pas de terrorisme et combattre le terrorisme comme s’il n’y avait pas de négociations. Toutefois, l’expérience du processus d’Oslo nous enseigne qu’un canal diplomatique n’a aucune valeur s’il ne s’accompagne pas d’une amélioration pour la population occupée par Israël. Les limites imposées à la circulation, les expropriations pour la construction de la clôture aussi bien que pour les colons, les assassinats et les arrestations massives sapent le soutien de l’opinion palestinienne à Abbas, et réduisent encore sa marge de manœuvre, déjà étroite. Le démantèlement des colonies dites sauvages, un gel total de la construction dans les colonies, sans se cacher derrière son petit doigt (appel aux notions de « croissance et d’expansion naturelles »), et une application totale des recommandations du rapport Sasson sur les colonies sauvages ont toujours constitué le test des intentions du gouvernement israélien [3].

3. Le test du chef d’équipe

Au sein de l’état-major, nombreux sont les généraux qui partagent toujours la conception de « l’assèchement de la motivation » des Palestiniens qui avait cours sous Shaul Mofaz et Moshe Ya’alon. Dans les départements planification et renseignement, aussi bien qu’au bureau de liaison diplomatie-sécurité du ministère de la défense, on dit et l’on écrit que si l’armée devait se retirer de la Cisjordanie, nous serions obligés de protéger les maisons de Kfar Saba (ville proche de Tel-Aviv et près de la ligne Verte) des tirs de roquettes.

Si cela ne tenait qu’à eux, l’armée retournerait à Gaza. Ils n’ont aucune empathie pour le côté palestinien et ne pensent pas que des gestes généreux ni même un accord de paix feraient que les services de sécurité palestiniens remplaceraient convenablement les forces israéliennes dans les territoires. Or, bien qu’Olmert dise qu’il n’est pas impressionné par les scénarios d’horreur de l’establishment militaire, il envisage de nommer un ancien membre dudit establishment à la tête de l’administration de la paix, un homme qui, depuis des années, s’est habitué à voir les Arabes à travers une lunette de tir.

Lieberman n’est pas un imbécile. Après Annapolis, comme avant, il ne se presse pas de quitter le gouvernement. Tant qu’il peut fumer tranquillement ses cigares, ses amis de la colonie de Nokdim peuvent dormir sur leurs deux oreilles.

[1] Texte : ->http://www.lapaixmaintenant.org/article1725]

[2] Paramètres Clinton (résumé, sur les 3 principaux problèmes. Source : "Israël et Palestine : Plans de paix et propositions - d’Oslo au désengagement" par le Pr Galia Golan - pas d’éditeur pour l’instant). Ces paramètres ont été présentés par Clinton aux 2 parties comme non négociables, après l’échec de Camp David.
Frontières : Israël se retire de 94 à 96% de la Cisjordanie, et échange territorial égal à 1 à 3% de la Cisjordanie qui viendrait compenser les Palestiniens.
Réfugiés : deux propositions, toutes les deux fondées sur l’idée que la question des réfugiés devait être résolue, en gros, dans le cadre de l’Etat palestinien. La formule pouvait être, soit une reconnaissance par les deux partie du "droit au retour des réfugiés dans la Palestine historique", soit le "droit des réfugiés palestiniens à leur patrie". Dans un cas comme dans l’autre, il n’y aurait aucune ambiguïté quant au lieu où s’exercerait ce droit : ce serait Israël qui, d’après Clinton, avait le droit de déterminer sa politique d’immigration et de préserver son caractère juif. Supposant qu’Israël pourrait autoriser un petit nombre de réfugiés à entrer, il proposa cinq options, souvent discutées par le passé : "retour" dans l’Etat palestinien ; "retour" dans les zones transférées aux Palestiniens dans le cadre des échanges de territoires ; intégration dans les pays où ils se trouvaient actuellement ; réinstallation dans un pays tiers ; admission en Israël. Ces trois dernières options dépendraient de la politique d’immigration de chaque pays concerné, y compris Israël. La priorité serait donnée aux réfugiés du Liban, dont le sort était peut-être le pire, et dont la plupart avaient de la famille qui vivait toujours en Galilée (Israël). Prises dans leur globalité, ces dispositions étaient considérées comme une application de la résolution 194.
Jérusalem : Les idées de Clinton ne tenaient aucun compte des arrangements géographiques compliqués imaginés par les Israéliens à Camp David, et allaient clairement dans le sens des exigences palestiniennes. Très simplement, Clinton suggéra : les quartiers arabes seraient sous souveraineté palestinienne et les quartiers juifs sous souveraineté israélienne(...). Les Palestiniens auraient réellement leur capitale à Jérusalem, et Israël, ainsi que le présenta Clinton, obtiendrait enfin la reconnaissance d’une grande partie de Jérusalem en tant que capitale de l’Etat d’Israël.

[3] Rapport Sasson : voir l’édito d’Ha’aretz "Fini de jouer"

Traduction : Gérard Eizenberg pour La Paix Maintenant

Israel errs in trying to impose its Jewish identity

Shulamit Aloni *, The Daily Star, 3.12.07. Jews are a people but not a nation; they are a religious ethnic group or as respected a tribe as may be. The Jewish citizens of Britain, including the orthodox, are British, and that is what is written in their passports and in the British population registry. The same is true of France: The Jews there are French. In Canada, they are Canadians, and in Holland they are Dutch. They uphold their Jewish lives in their communities, since in democratic nations there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If these states were to register their Jewish citizens as "Jewish" in the nationality category, we would accuse them of being anti-Semitic. There is a difference between a people, a religion, and a nationality, since nationality is decided by citizenship - a people as opposed to a nation - and therefore citizenship is nationality. The affinity of a citizen to the state is based on citizenship and not on religion; it is based neither on the tribe nor on maternal genes.

If among Israeli Cabinet ministers there are those who feel that they are more Jewish than Israeli, that is their right, and they can uphold all the religious precepts and pray all the prayers. But that is not relevant to the ties between Israel and its neighbors. There are people among us who like to repeat that Israel is a Jewish state and not a state for all its citizens. It is strange that this notion was to be imposed on the Palestinians in the document prepared for the Annapolis conference as a condition for ending the occupation. Palestinians are asked to recognize an Israel where some 20 percent of its citizens, the Arabs, have inferior status.

In the past, it was a great joy to be an Israeli. Israel was father to the nations. The word "Jewish" does not exist in any of the prayers. There is: "And I will restore the captivity of my people Israel." And there are the people of Israel, the land of Israel, the Torah of Israel, the God of Israel and the daughter of Israel.

The state of Israel was established as a civilian state, as a state of law, and not as a state of Halakha, or Jewish religious law. It was not established by ultra-orthodox Jews to whom the Cabinet ministers enslave themselves, and whose supporters they release from military service, from other work, and from tuition fees, and to whom they even pay a monthly wage.

In the document establishing the Israeli state, it was promised that there would be "complete equality of rights for all its citizens regardless of origin, race or gender." And another reminder: On Israel's Independence Day, citizens light 12 beacons, the number of the tribes of Israel.

Let the Cabinet ministers feel at home as Jews as much as they want to; let them raise their voices in prayer, but they must remember that they serve the government of Israel, which still represents itself as being democratic. In other words, they are the representatives of all its citizens and are responsible for them. Therefore, it would be better to demand of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, and not to coerce them in the same way as the citizens coerce us, through the imposition of religion and the word of rabbis.

The existing arrangement in Israel was suitable for the Catholic Spain of Isabella and Ferdinand at the end of the 15th century. That is when the expulsion of Jews from Spain took place, since only Catholics, or those who converted to Catholicismm could be Spanish. If it is more important to be a Jew than it is to be an Israeli, then why do we demand of the Jews of the world to come here at a time when they have it so good in the democratic countries in which they live as Jews?

Shulamit Aloni is a former Israeli education minister. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.

Jordan's king urges Israel to withdraw from Arab land

IHT, 2.12.07, AMMAN, Jordan: Jordan's King Abdullah II inaugurated a new parliament Sunday with a call on Israel to relinquish war-won Arab lands, saying that would help peace and security to prevail in the volatile Mideast. The king also urged unity among feuding Palestinian factions, saying the time has come for statehood. "We emphatically tell Israel that ending the occupation of Arab and Palestinian lands, withdrawing from there and implementing legitimate international resolutions are the only way to realize just, permanent and comprehensive peace," said the staunch U.S. ally who maintains cordial relations with Israel under a 1994 peace treaty. Abdullah said a peaceful Arab-Israeli settlement would "guarantee a safe future for the region's peoples and its coming generations." "We also say to the Palestinians that strength is in unity and weakness in disunity; so, unite your ranks and seize the available opportunity to realize peace and establish your independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," he said.

Israel's Premier Rejects Peace Deadline

JERUSALEM (AP) 3.12.07. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that Israel is not bound by a December 2008 target for a peace agreement set at last week's U.S.-hosted Mideast summit, telling his Cabinet that progress will depend on the Palestinians' ability to rein in militants.

The comments reflected Olmert's internal political weakness. Hard-liners have threatened to bring down his coalition government if he makes too many concessions in peace talks with the Palestinians. Olmert spoke a day before Israel was set to release 429 Palestinian prisoners in a gesture to moderate President Mahmoud Abbas, a step that has drawn criticism from the same hard-line members of Olmert's Cabinet.

In a message that could further anger Israeli hawks, Olmert's defense minister, Ehud Barak, said he supports a measure to give compensation to Jewish settlers in the West Bank who leave their homes voluntarily, according to the Defense Ministry.

The measure would apply to settlements outside Israel's separation barrier along the West Bank. The contentious barrier is meant to enclose main settlement blocs Israel plans to retain in a peace agreement, where two-thirds of the settlers live. The others, about 80,000, could claim compensation if they leave.

Settler leaders condemned the proposal. They oppose any building freeze or evacuation of settlements, even unauthorized outposts that dot West Bank hilltops.

The 2003 "road map" peace plan, reaffirmed at the Annapolis summit, requires Israel to remove dozens of outposts and halt all construction in the settlements.

Although Olmert's coalition is strong on paper, commanding 78 of parliament's 120 seats, it threatens to collapse over peace talks. Two parties in the five-party team oppose almost all concessions to the Palestinians, especially giving up West Bank territory or control over any part of Jerusalem.

At the Mideast conference sponsored by President Bush, the leaders agreed that "an effort will be made to hold accelerated negotiations in the hope that it will be possible to conclude them in 2008," Olmert told his Cabinet, according to a statement. He added, "However, there is no commitment to a specific timetable regarding these negotiations." The target coincides with the end of Bush's term.

"Israel will not have to carry out any commitment stemming from the agreement before all of the road map commitments are met," Olmert told his Cabinet.

Separate but Unequal in Palestine: The Road to Apartheid

Mohammed Khatib, Dissident Voice, 2.11.07. When United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited the Middle East a few weeks ago, people from our small village of Bil’in joined neighboring villages to send her a message. We protested peacefully against a West Bank highway near us that is reserved for Jewish Israeli settlers, and off-limits to Palestinians, though it was built on Palestinian land. Our banner read: “Condi, What would Rosa Parks do?”

We know that Dr. Rice experienced the bitter taste of discrimination growing up in the South during the US civil rights struggle. In Bil’in, we’ve drawn inspiration from the US civil rights movement as we’ve carried out a three year nonviolent resistance campaign against the discriminatory policies of Israel’s military occupation.

We share Dr. Rice’s admiration for the courage of Rosa Parks who was arrested in Alabama, Rice’s home state, for refusing to give her bus seat to a white man. As Palestinians we aren’t even allowed in buses on many roads in our own country, because 200 miles of the best West Bank roads are reserved for Israeli Jewish settlers.¹ The color of Palestinian license plates is different from the licenses of Israelis. Palestinian plates are not allowed on most of the highways crisscrossing the West Bank, many of which were built with US government funding. Palestinians have been banned for five years now from Highway 443 where we protested.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), there are 561 physical obstacles and checkpoints inside the West Bank restricting Palestinian movement within the West Bank,² in comparison with only eight checkpoints which separate the West Bank from Israel proper. Nearly all the obstacles and checkpoints are located along the West Bank roads reserved for Israelis. This makes getting to the hospital, school and work or visiting relatives painstakingly difficult or impossible for us. This fragmentation of the West Bank has devastated our economy.

In 2001, Israeli developers began building settlement homes on land seized from Bil’in, calling them a neighborhood of the Modi’in Illit settlement bloc. Four years later, Israel’s segregation wall separated Bil’in from 50% of our agricultural land under the pretext of protecting this new settlement. In response, we held over 200 nonviolent protests together with Israeli and international supporters. Hundreds of us were injured and arrested. After our protests, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that the wall’s route in Bil’in must be changed to return around half of our seized land. Though we celebrated this success, Israel continues to build on our land that wasn’t returned and plans to annex it as part of the Modi’in Illit settlement bloc.⁴

Israel has already de facto annexed the 10.2% of the West Bank that lies between the Green Line and the segregation wall, including the major settlement blocs and 80% of Israel’s 450,000 settlers. The segregation wall, settlements and settlement roads carve Palestinian areas into isolated enclaves.

We pray that our children will not spend their lives under Israeli military occupation. We hope that the Annapolis meeting will bring our dreams of freedom closer to fulfillment. But we are concerned that if Israel is allowed to keep most of its settlements and the roads that connect them, then the existing system of “separate but unequal” will be cemented in place in a Palestinian state.

1. Forbidden roads: The discriminatory West Bank road regime, B’Tselem. #
2. OCHA Closure Update: October 2007, The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. #
3. West Bank settlements ‘expanding’ BBC, 7 November 2007. #
4. One Palestinian Village Struggles Against Israel’s Ever-Expanding “Settlements”, Alternet, 26 September 2007. #

Mohammed Khatib is a leading member of Bilin's Popular Committee Against the Wall and the secretary of its village council. Read other articles by Mohammed, or visit Mohammed's website.

Can We Blame Them…?

Heba, IslamOnline, 26.11.07. Now that Annapolis conference is approaching, people in Gaza react to it in the strangest manner. Everybody I talk to believes it will bring no positive changes to us. You get in a car and the driver says "If I were the president, I would not go. We are sick of conferences." I talk to my colleague and she says, "we have been there before thinking of Palestine, and now we will be there talking about Gaza Siege." Can we really blame people for bleak anticipations and a very low ceiling of expectations? And I have to end up with a desperate women's sentence that echoed in my office for a while after her departure, "We shall sign anything but let our cancer patients travel for treatment" — and that as a response to the young man who died of cancer waiting for a permit!

November 25th marks the beginning of the 16 day campaign of combating Violence against Women worldwide. For our work, this is a very important occasion as we do have multiple media campaigns and awareness raising activities to reduce levels of violence against women. Doing arrangements, coordinating with organizations, attending events, and all, I was actually moving mechanically with this hollow gap between body and mind. Observing all the negative deteriorations on the ground, I had to wonder about the reasonable justification of doing such activities.

As I said before; and to make myself clearer, construction and deconstruction go hand in hand in the Gaza strip now. Donors fund all these programs to address violence and try to reduce its levels. However, this money does not support eliminating its causes. How can it when the causes are at the policy level and when they are, apparently, political situation bound. So I can sit among women — watching a play about VAW nodding their heads in consent or laughing in disbelief — without being able to see through their minds if it ever happened to them and if it did, why? With unemployment, poverty, seclusion, and inexistent opportunities of self-expression at hand, what do we expect of people? We, as NGOs, should start in my opinion understanding the difference between treating the pain and numbing it. Nevertheless, if we do, we have nothing else but to work as the balance of the equation depends on people still acting normal towards abnormalities.

IOF Impose additional Collective Punishment Measures and Reduce Gaza’s Fuel Supply

29.11.07. 70% of the Fuel Stations Shutdown and the Humanitarian Crisis Deepens
PCHR strongly condemns the decision by Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) on Wednesday (28 November) for a new reduction in the supply of fuel to the Gaza Strip, which already suffers from serious shortages in fuel. The Centre calls upon the international community, especially the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UN organizations and international humanitarian organizations to intervene immediately to force IOF to stop this decision. This intervention is necessary to avert a humanitarian crisis threatening all aspects of civilian life including the functioning of healthcare facilities, drinking water wells, and sewage disposal. The fuel cuts threaten to impact the operation of several sectors including health services, environmental services, transportation, education, commerce, industrial production, and agriculture.

It is noted that this decision is preempted a pending decision by the Israeli High Court on a petition submitted by PCHR and several human rights organizations against the IOF decision on 25 October 2007 to reduce the fuel and electricity supplies to the Strip. The Israeli High Court held a session today to review the petition. However, the decision was delayed.

Sources in the Association of Owners of Petrol and Gas Companies and Fuel Stations” indicated that the Association rejected receipt of the fuel amounts delivered on Wednesday, 28 November 2007, due to the new reductions implemented by the Israeli supplier, Dor Alon Co. The Israeli company informed the Association of reducing the daily fuel supply to Gaza to 90,000 liters of kerosene, 25,000 liters of benzene, and 100 tons of natural gas. The Association’s board held a meeting yesterday, and replied to the Israeli supplier that it rejects receipt of such amounts, citing that the reduction will result in a humanitarian crisis on all aspects of civilian life.

As a result, nearly 70% of the Strips fuel stations (approximately 100 out of 145) shutdown on this afternoon after their stock of fuel ran out. The remaining stations are expected to close tomorrow evening.

Statistics indicate that the Strip’s fuel supply was reduced by more than 50% since the IOF decision was issued on 25 October 2007. Kerosene supplies dropped from 333,000 liters to 170,000 liters a day (49% decrease); benzene supplies dropped from 76,000 liters to 46,000 liters a day (40% decrease); whereas natural gas supplies increased by 27% from 228 tons to 290 tons.

It is noted that the daily fuel needs of the Gaza Strip are 350,000 liters of kerosene, 120,000 liters of benzene, and 350 tons of natural gas.

PCHR is extremely concerned by the deterioration of the economic and social situation resulting from the complete closure imposed by IOF on the OPT in general and the Gaza Strip in particular. The Centre is concerned that the food and health conditions of the civilian population will deteriorate further if the reduction of fuel supplies is enforced.

The Centre reminds the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention, including Israeli authorities, of their responsibilities, especially:

- Responsibility under Article 1 to ensure that the Convention is respected under all circumstances;

- Responsibility to ensure that first article of the First Optional Protocol to protect victims of international armed conflicts;

- Responsibility under Article 54 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1949) to ensure:

o Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

o It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

- Responsibility under Article 33 stating, “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.”

- Responsibility under Article 55 stating, “To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate. The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account.”

- Reminds the High Contracting Parties of the right of every individual to Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The Palestine that we struggle for

Jamal Juma', The Electronic Intifada, 2.12.07 Last Tuesday's demonstrations, which brought thousands onto the streets of Ramallah, Hebron, Tulkarem, Nablus and Gaza in defiance of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) attempt to silence the peoples' voice, represented a crucial moment for Palestine.

Our demonstration, which was supported by the Popular Committees of the Refugee Camps and over 150 civil society organizations and representatives, called for the upholding of the fundamental principles of our struggle: the right of the refugees to return, the right to Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and the right to our land. We were refusing the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as this would legitimize the Zionist ideology of colonialism, racism and ethnic cleansing, and effectively exonerate Israel from the crimes of the Nakba, waiving the right of return. Such recognition would justify and reinforce the Israeli system of apartheid against Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The Palestine that we are fighting for is one which upholds the fundamental principles of our national rights and equality, and which respects the democratic right of the people to express their views in protest on the streets. The PA has shown that they do not share this vision. On Tuesday they attempted to prevent the people from asserting their rights, first by banning demonstrations and then by attacking us with tear gas, batons and military jeeps.

The departure of the occupation from our land and the right of the refugees to return is non-negotiable, as is the question of Jerusalem. For the oppressed and occupied, ongoing struggle and resistance using all necessary means is not only our right, it is our obligation. It is our only tool to ensure that "negotiations" talk about how to achieve our rights and not how to abandon them step by step. Yet for the first time in the sixty years of our struggle, those who claim to represent us at a national level are no longer talking about resistance to the attacks of the occupiers. Instead, they are disingenuously opening up negotiations relying on the US, the occupation's most ardent backer, to act as an "honest broker."

Tuesday's actions were important in themselves as an expression of the voices raised against Annapolis, but also because by defying the ban on demonstrations, the popular committees, representatives of civil society and political parties threw down a powerful challenge to the Palestinian leadership: as the pressure for normalization grows, so the grassroots anti-normalization movement is growing. Last week, Ramallah hosted a conference strategizing to beat the occupation through boycott, divestment and sanctions. Palestinians from within the Green Line voiced their powerful opposition to recognition of a Jewish state on their lands in a unanimous decision made by the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, the senior representative body of Palestinian citizens in Israel. The demonstrations on Tuesday were not an isolated protest; they were part of a wide popular movement against concessions on basic principles, and against an apparent acceptance on the part of the Palestinian leadership of the isolation of Palestinians within the Green Line, Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and in the Diaspora from each other. At the Cyprus conference in October, Palestinians inside Israel called Palestinians from all over their homeland and the diaspora together to build unified strategies and follow up mechanisms, as a powerful counterpoint to Israeli bantustanization.

In Annapolis, in this so-called "peace process," only a tiny portion of Palestinians are represented.

The so-called "peace process" demands not only that the PA clamp down on armed resistance: it is also becoming clear that it will require the repression of all of us who reject the abandonment of our rights. The Palestinian people who are confronting the Israeli occupation day after day have not been consulted or informed about the negotiations: they only are to feel the batons when they disagree and call out for their rights. Tuesday was a testing ground to determine whether the PA will be able to make the Palestinian people swallow a second Oslo, further compromising our rights.

The gulf between the PA and the Palestinian people is becoming increasingly obvious. Indeed the whole range of Palestinian political and social forces joined in condemning the repression on Tuesday. The choice for the PA is clear: either to go along with the dictates of the US and the occupation; or to radically alter their course, to return to the people and remember that they are leaders of the Palestinian national struggle. The grassroots movement against normalization with the occupiers will continue to grow. Resistance will continue as the Palestinian people assert their fundamental rights.

Jamal Juma' is coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign.


Related Links

• BY TOPIC: Annapolis conference (27 November 2007)

Latest articles on EI:

Palestine : Multimedia: Audio: Crossing the Line interviews Ramallah activist Sam Bahour (3 December 2007)

Palestine : Business & Economy: Palestinian shepherds' livelihoods in jeopardy (3 December 2007)

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: The Palestine that we struggle for (2 December 2007)

Palestine : Art, Music & Culture: Shades of grey: Nusseibeh's "Once Upon A Country" (30 November 2007)

Palestine : Human Rights: After 40 years of occupation "solidarity" is not enough (29 November 2007)

Palestine : Activism News: The One State Declaration (29 November 2007)

Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: Mission accomplished (29 November 2007)

Palestine : EI in the Press: Ali Abunimah discusses Annapolis on KPFA (29 November 2007)

Palestine : Activism News: Hundreds converge on Ramallah for boycott summit (29 November 2007)

Palestine : Development: Palestinians protest the Annapolis summit (28 November 2007)

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