Ron Wyden Gaza Response

Details

Written by Senator Ron Wyden Senator Ron Wyden

Published: 15 December 2012 15 December 2012

Hits: 5111 5111

[no accountability for Israel, but somehow he is magically "pro-Palestinian"]

Dear  :

Thank you for contacting me about the situation in Gaza.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As you may know, an eight-day conflict between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas broke out in November 2012 in the Gaza Strip.  Disturbingly, Hamas launched rocket attacks on civilian populations in Israel, a tactic it has employed for years, despite international condemnation.  Hamas has ruled over Gaza since 2007 and has an unambiguous responsibility to prevent rockets from being fired from lands under its control.  Instead, Hamas has aided and abetted these lethal attacks.  In response, Israel exercised its right to defend its citizens and launched what it called Operation Pillar of Defense to halt these continued rocket attacks.  Almost 2,500 rockets have been fired at Israel in 2012, and around 3,700 rockets have been fired at the country since 2009.  Given the relentless barrage of rocket fire which endangers the lives of Israeli civilians, it is not unreasonable for Israel to exercise its right to defend itself.

Thankfully, a ceasefire was brokered after eight days with the help of both American and Egyptian diplomacy.  For this ceasefire to hold, and to avoid conflicts like this from breaking out again in the future, it is imperative that Hamas is prevented from re-arming.  While President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt played a constructive role in helping to negotiate the ceasefire, Egypt must do more to help bring about an enduring peace to a war-weary region.  That is why Senator Johnny Isakson and I sent a bipartisan letter to President Morsi, signed by 16 other senators, urging him to crack down on weapons smuggling into Gaza through Egypt.  You can find a copy of the letter on my website here: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-isakson-lead-bipartisan-letter-urging-morsi-to-crack-down-on-arms-smuggling-into-gaza-.

I am pro-Israel.  I am pro-Palestinian.  I am pro-peace.  My visits to the Middle East always leave me profoundly believing that the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians desire and deserve peace and a better life.  I am confident that if both sides decide to negotiate in good faith and without preconditions, that a two-state solution can be reached and peace can finally be achieved.  Please know that I will continue to keep a close eye on the situation.
Again, thank you for keeping me apprised of your views.  If I can be of any further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.




Sincerely,

Ron Wyden
United States Senator


To write to me, go to http://wyden.senate.gov/ and choose the "Contact" link. Please do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered.

Roots of Resistance: Witnessing History

Details

Written by Rev. Dr. Don Wagner Rev. Dr. Don Wagner

Published: 15 December 2012 15 December 2012

Hits: 4473 4473

This post is part of the series "Roots of Resistance: 25 year retrospective on the first intifada." Read the entire series here.

Looking back from today's vantage point leads one to affectionately remember the first Palestinian "Intifada" as "the good old days." After all, it pre-dated the violent second Intifada, the Apartheid Wall, the disastrous Oslo Accords, and so much more. For me, the journey into the first Intifada began with my family's arrival in Cyprus in mid-November, 1987, as I began a sabbatical that I assumed would be spent writing a book and volunteering for the Middle East Council of Churches.

As soon as we arrived at our apartment, the kids turned on the television and we were amazed (in the pre-cable and pre-satellite era) we could pick up stations from Jerusalem, Cairo, Amman, and Beirut. I was eager to see how these varied perspectives would cover the Arab Summit underway in Amman. The Egyptian station observed that when Yasser Arafat arrived at the Amman airport, there was no official delegation to meet him, a serious insult in the Arab world. Moreover, the issue of Palestine had fallen to the very bottom of the Summit agenda. That's the way it was in November, 1987.  

Everything changed on December 8th when an truck plowed into a group of poor Palestinian laborers, who had lined up for menial day-jobs in Israel. Most Palestinians believed this was a deliberate act of revenge after an Israeli was stabbed two days earlier. It was actually the spark that unleashed pent up anger that was channeled into tremendous creativity after twenty-two years of military occupation. Immediately, massive demonstrations erupted across the Gaza Strip and spread immediately to East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Israel responded with the usual brutal force, sending the Israeli Defense Forces (the IDF, which was trained for military combat), to attack small and large demonstrations comprised mainly of youth throwing stones. As the casualty rates mounted among the Palestinians, the western media parroted the familiar Israeli narratives that pitted the tiny Jewish State defending itself against the violent Arab masses. By late December, the MECC decided to send me to the Palestinian territories for the month of January to assess how they might respond.

Arriving in East Jerusalem, one could see and feel how the air itself seemed to breathe a new spirit of confidence and defiance. IDF patrols seemed to be everywhere but they were regularly confronted by the "Shebab," groups of young men and occasionally women, who seemed utterly fearless. The "Intifada" was beginning to capture the imagination of most Palestinian factions, religious communities, and I sensed an emerging unity that had not been evident in my ten years of regular visits.

The contagious energy generated by the "Intifada" was guided, at least in part, by an anonymous, underground leadership. It took several weeks for the PLO hierarchy in Tunis to catch up with events. The underground leadership issued "bayans", or directives at least weekly. I recall having my morning coffee with friends and discussing the new "bayan" that was slid under the door or posted on the windshield in the middle of the night. Multiple strategies were spelled out, including boycotting all Israeli products, organizing local relief committees, marches commemorating an important date in Palestinian history, tax revolts, and rotating store closures. Like clockwork, Jerusalem merchants might be told to close their doors at noon, Bethlehem at 1 pm, Ramallah at 2 pm, etc. If shopkeepers did not comply, the "shabab" would pay them a visit.

But there was a dark side as well. Casualties mounted and the "shabab" carried the brunt of the IDF abuse, with exceedingly high numbers who were martyred or seriously wounded. When Israeli Defense Minister Itzhak Rabin called for "beatings and the breaking of bones," the "Shabab" were the main targets. Shortly after Rabin's declaration, the Red Cross and Red Crescent documented the case was of three young men who were buried alive by the IDF after a demonstration in Jericho, supposedly as a warning to future protestors.

A meeting with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Director of the Union of Medical Relief Committees, revealed another important dimension of the first "Intifada." Barghouti described the Medical Relief Committees that were being organized not only in cities but in all refugee camps and remote villages. Their primary role was to provide medicine, food, and humanitarian services to those in need. Over 1000 medical professionals volunteered their services, including over 300 trained physicians. Mobile clinics were sent out to replenish the medicine and when requested, medical teams were deployed with nurses and physicians. The Local Relief Committees were a vital component of the grass-roots mobilization and support of the "Intifada. "

After two weeks in the West Bank, we drove down to the Gaza Strip where the energy and level of organization was equally impressive. I was staying with a human rights field-worker from Jabaliyeh refugee camp who drove me around crowded refugee camps and cities in the northern part of the Strip. Small bands of youth seemed to rise up throughout the crowded streets, confronting the IDF patrols a barrage of rocks or taunting them by flying kites with the colors of the Palestinian flag-which were illegal according to military regulations. The youth were chased or attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets (steel ball-bearings covered by rubber). They were fearless in their provocative games of confrontation and retreat. Again, the sobering aspect included visits with wounded young men, teen-agers, and children 12 and under in Shifa and Ahli hospitals. Upon arriving at Ahli Hospital, we saw my friend Dr. Swee Ang, all 4'11" of her, chasing three IDF soldiers out of the operating wing where they attempted to seize a young boy who was about to undergo surgery. Dr. Swee had served in the refugee camps during the Sabra/Shatila massacre and wasn't about to put up with the IDF behavior. Returning from Shifa Hospital, we passed several IDF patrols and noticed a demonstration in front of a new mosque. Strangely, the IDF patrols completely ignored the protest. I asked my host why this was the case and he said: "Oh, it's a new Muslim group called Hamas, and we suspect there might be some connection between them and Israel."

Returning to Jerusalem, I met with Faisel Husseini and his staff at Orient House in East Jerusalem. Faisel was recognized as a key leader in the Jerusalem district and had gained the respect of all the factions. I was impressed with his vision for a disciplined, sustained, non-violent movement that needed the support of the international community. Faisel and I had signed an agreement a year earlier between his Palestine Information Center and our Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the U.S. He had hired and trained eight human rights field workers who were deployed throughout Palestine, and directed by Dr. Jan Abu-Shakrah in Jerusalem. Our Chicago office, directed by Dr. Louise Cainkar, received and organized the reports, sometimes daily, on the dead, wounded, and of the extensive human rights violations. Their work became a staple of reliable information for a broad network of journalists, academics, attorneys, human rights organizations, and NGOs.

In retrospect, there are many legacies of the first Intifada that might be mentioned, but let me highlight two. The first observation is the power of organized, persistent, non-violent resistance. The 2004 call by Palestinian civil society to employ boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, including humanitarian flotillas and other creative challenges to Israeli power appears to be gaining momentum throughout Europe and North America. As more campus organizations, church bodies, and secular movements take up the call to boycott products made in Israeli settlements and move toward divestment, a movement for justice in Palestine is emerging. Organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, American Muslims for Palestine, and Students for Justice in Palestine, are beginning to cooperate using grass-roots organizing around these non-violent campaigns. In time, Israel will feel the pressure if the movement can expand significantly.

A second observation is the absolute importance of unifying our efforts on peace and justice. The unity of Palestinian factions, classes, and popular organizations broke down at points but was sustained for over four years. We are beginning to see some modest signs of unity emerging among secular and faith based groups, however embryonic it may be. If a broad based movement can be organized and sustained in North America and Europe, not only would it be a first, but it could have a far reaching impact.

A final lesson from the first Intifada was how it ended. The first Intifada forced Israel and the international community to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership was seduced by the illusion of peace and the false promises of the Oslo Accords. The power of grass-roots resistance was lost, perhaps in part by four to five years of exhausting sacrifice, but also because everyone's hopes shifted to support the negotiations. Perhaps the lesson here is to remain suspicious of negotiations, expect little, and keep the pressure on both Israel and the leadership, both in Palestine and globally. Perhaps there is no better component for a just peace than a unified and sustained grass roots international justice movement for justice in Palestine, both inside the Palestinian territories, one day within Israel, and globally, with no let up until there is a sovereign Palestinian state.

About Rev. Dr. Don Wagner
Rev. Dr. Don Wagner is the National Program Director for Friends of Sabeel-North America; was a Professor at North Park U from 1995-2010; National Dir. for the Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the 1980s; ordained Presbyterian minister and active with Israel-Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian church. He is the author of four books, including Anxious for Armageddon (on Christian Zionism) and Dying in the Land of Promise: Palestine and Palestinian Christianity from Pentecost-2000.

How the UN Voted

Details

Written by John V. Whitbeck John V. Whitbeck

Published: 05 December 2012 05 December 2012

Hits: 5416 5416

By John V. Whitbeck

The UN General Assembly has now voted, by 138 votes to 9, with 41 abstentions and 5 no-shows, to recognize the existence as a state “of the State of Palestine on the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967”.

The “no” votes were cast by Israel, the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama.

The Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, all former components of the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, are “freely associated states” of the United States, with U.S. zip/postal codes and “Compacts of Free Association” which require them to be guided by the United States in their foreign relations. They more closely resemble territories of the United States than genuine sovereign states – rather like the Cook Islands and Niue, “freely associated states” of New Zealand which make no claim to sovereign statehood and are not UN member states. They snuck into the UN in the flood of new members consequent upon the dissolutions of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, when the previous standards for admission were effectively ignored.

Nauru, a tiny island of 10,000 people in the central Pacific, has, since the exhaustion of the phosphate deposits which briefly made it the country with the world’s highest per capital income, had virtually no sources of income other than marketing its UN votes (reliably joining the United States in voting against Palestine) and diplomatic recognitions (joining Russia, Nicaragua and Venezuela in recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and housing in tents aspiring illegal immigrants who had been hoping to reach Australia. It is a sad place, an island with no beaches, the world’s highest obesity rate and no real alternative to diplomatic prostitution.

Accordingly, only three “real” states joined Israel and the United States in voting against Palestine and the two-state solution: Canada, the Czech Republic and Panama. They must make their own excuses.

In population terms, the opponents of Palestine represent approximately 5% of the world’s population, 370 million out of over 7 billion, and, of those, the United States accounts for 314 million. It follows that countries with less than one percent of the world’s population supported the United States in this vote.

The 41 states abstaining in the vote were Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Congo (DRC), Croatia, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Togo, Tonga, the United Kingdom and Vanuatu.

It is worth noting (and a bit puzzling) that 15 of these states (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Congo (DRC), Hungary, Malawi, Mongolia, Montenegro, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Togo and Vanuatu) have extended diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, although most of the formerly communist states of eastern Europe did so when they had communist governments.

They have been more than balanced out by the 27 states which have not yet recognized the State of Palestine but which voted in favor of Palestine: Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Eritrea, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Myanmar, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad & Tobago and Tuvalu.

Five states did not vote: Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar and Ukraine. Kiribati is no surprise. For economic reasons, it is the only UN member state which does not maintain a permanent mission in New York. Why the other four, all of which have extended diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, failed to push any of the three buttons is a mystery.

The European Union vote was 14 “yes”, 1 “no” and 12 abstentions. Aside from Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, all of the old “Western” members voted for Palestine. All ten of the new “Eastern” members (the three Baltic states, formerly part of the USSR, the six former members of the Warsaw Pact and Slovenia) abstained or, in one case, voted against Palestine. These “Eastern” states have passed from domination by one empire to domination by another empire without ever daring to fully assert their independence. That said, all except the Czech Republic did at least dare to abstain.

It may take some time for the results of this vote to be fully digested. In the best of all possible worlds, one might hope that the United States would finally recognize that, on the issue of Palestine, it is totally divorced and isolated from the moral and ethical conscience of mankind and must now stop blocking progress toward peace with some measure of justice, step aside and permit other states with a genuine interest in actually achieving peace with some measure of justice to take the lead in helping Israelis and Palestinians to achieve it.

Since we do not live in the best of all possible worlds, and since Americans persist in believing that they are the “indispensable” nation, other states will need to make clear to the United States that its vote on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People has definitively disqualified it not only from its prior monopoly control over the “Middle East peace process” but even from any further role in it and that its further involvement in the preeminent moral issue facing the international community is no longer needed or wanted.

- John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Read more: How the UN Voted

Israel settlements: Netanyahu defies outcry over E-1

Details

Written by BBC News BBC News

Published: 04 December 2012 04 December 2012

Hits: 5606 5606

Israel says it will not give in to international pressure to halt plans for 3,000 new settler homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu's office said Israel would continue to stand by its "vital interests" and would not change its decision.

The UK, France, Spain, Denmark and Sweden summoned Israeli ambassadors in protest at the plans.

The US also called on Israel to "reconsider" its decision.

"We urge Israeli leaders to reconsider these unilateral decisions and exercise restraint as these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Russia, Germany and the UN have also objected to the Israeli plans.

Israel authorised the 3,000 additional housing units a day after the UN voted to upgrade the Palestinians to the status of a non-member observer state.

Israel angrily condemned the Palestinian move as a "gross violation" of previous agreements.

Palestinians say the proposed new settlements would cut any future Palestinian state in half.

'Almost fatal blow'
But Mr Netanyahu remained defiant.

"Israel will continue to stand by its vital interests, even in the face of international pressure, and there will be no change in the decision that was made," an official from his office said.

Plans for construction in the E1 area - between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Maaleh Adumim - are strongly opposed by Palestinians.

They say it will bisect the West Bank, cut off Palestinians from Jerusalem and prevent the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon earlier warned that the E1 plans would have to be rescinded.

"It would represent an almost fatal blow to remaining chances of securing a two-state solution," Mr Ban said.

An Israeli official has described the proposals in the E1 zone as "preliminary zoning and planning work".

In a move that could raise tensions even higher, Israel on Monday said it would press ahead with plans to build another 1,600 settler homes in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo.

The controversial plan caused a diplomatic rift between Israel and Washington when it was first approved during a visit by US Vice President Joe Biden in March 2010.

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he hoped international pressure would convince Israel to suspend its plans.

"We hope that France and Britain can begin to show Israel that it cannot continue business as usual. Israel settlement activities cannot continue being business as usual. Every possible effort must be exerted in order to preserve the two-state solution."

However, Israel's minister of Environmental Protection, Gilad Erdan, said that after the UN vote on Palestinian status, Israel had no choice but to "initiate what is legitimate and what strategically strengthens the state of Israel".

"What strategically strengthens the state of Israel is not just utterances and journalistic briefings to this or that media outlet, what strengthens Israel is that it has a Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and a strong military that protects the area," he said.

The US State Department also issued a statement on Monday criticising the Israeli move.

"The United States opposes all unilateral actions, including West Bank settlement activity and housing construction in East Jerusalem, as they complicate efforts to resume direct, bilateral negotiations, and risk prejudging the outcome of those negotiations," deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.

"This includes building in the E-1 area as this area is particularly sensitive and construction there would be especially damaging to efforts to achieve a two-state solution. We have made clear to the Israeli government that such action is contrary to US policy.

'Negative view'
Earlier, the UK said it "deplored" the plans and called on Israel to reverse the decision.

French President Francois Hollande, speaking at a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, said: "We don't want to shift into sanctions mode. We are more focused on persuading."

Germany, which is due to host a visit by Mr Netanyahu on Wednesday, said it took a "very negative view" of the settlement announcement.

About 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

Two decades of on-off negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have failed to produce a permanent settlement, with the latest round of direct negotiations breaking down in 2010.