|
|
Home  News Feeds
|
Israeli settlements cover 42 percent of West Bank |
|
Written by AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer
|
|
Tuesday, 06 July 2010 |
JERUSALEM - Jewish settlements control more than 42 percent of the West Bank, and much of that land was seized from Palestinian landowners in defiance of an Israeli Supreme Court ban, an Israeli human rights group said Tuesday.
The group's findings echo what other anti-settlement activists have claimed in the past: That settlements have taken over lands far beyond their immediate perimeters, sometimes from private Palestinians. Israel's settlements have been a much-criticized enterprise throughout the decades and a major obstacle to peacemaking with the Palestinians.
"The extensive geographic-spatial changes that Israel has made in the landscape of the West Bank undermine the negotiations that Israel has conducted for 18 years with the Palestinians and breach its international obligations," the B'Tselem group said in a summary of its report.
Settlers disputed the figures and said the report by the B'Tselem group was politically motivated. Israeli officials had no comment.
The report was based on official state documents, including military maps and a military settlement database, the B'Tselem said.
|
|
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100706/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank |
|
Written by JIM RUTENBERG, MIKE McINTIRE and ETHAN BRONNER, New York Times
|
|
Tuesday, 06 July 2010 |
|
HaYovel is one of many groups in the United States using tax-exempt
donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied
territories — effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian
state, widely seen as a necessary condition for Middle East peace.
The
result is a surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks
to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a
Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain
the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.
A
New York Times examination of public records in the United States and
Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more
than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the
West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly
to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate
expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally
questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof
vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied
areas.
|
|
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/world/middleeast/06settle.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
US questions its unwavering support for Israel |
|
Written by Chris McGreal, The Guardian
|
|
Monday, 05 July 2010 |
US questions its unwavering support for Israel
Consensus forming in Washington that Israeli government is abusing support with policies seen to be risking US lives
Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu Binyamin Netanyahu, left, arrives in Washington tomorrow to patch up relations with Barack Obama and the US administration. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
There are questions that rarely get asked in Washington. For years, the mantra that America's intimate alliance with Israel was as good for the US as it was the Jewish state went largely unchallenged by politicians aware of the cost of anything but unwavering support.
But swirling in the background when Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, arrives in Washington tomorrow to patch up relations with the White House will be a question rarely voiced until recently: is Israel ‑ or, at the very least, its current government ‑ endangering US security and American troops?
Netanyahu would prefer to be seen as an indispensable ally in confronting Islamist terror. But his insistence on building Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, which is causing a deep rift with Washington, is seen as evidence of a lack of serious interest in the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. That in turn is seen as fuelling hostility towards the US in other parts of the Middle East and beyond, because America is perceived as Israel's shield.
In recent months Barack Obama has said that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a "vital national security interest of the United States". His vice-president, Joe Biden, has confronted Netanyahu in private and told the Israeli leader that Israel's policies are endangering US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senior figures in the American military, including General David Petraeus who has commanded US forces in both wars, have identified Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian land as an obstacle to resolving those conflicts.
More recently, Israel's assault on ships attempting to break the Gaza blockade has compromised relations with Turkey, an important American strategic ally.
A former director of intelligence assessment for the US defence secretary, last month caused waves with a paper called Israel as a Strategic Liability? In it, Anthony Cordesman, who has written extensively on the Middle East, noted a shift in thinking at the White House, the US state department and, perhaps crucially, the Pentagon over the impact of Washington's long-unquestioning support for Israeli policies even those that have undermined the prospects for peace with the Palestinians.
He wrote that the US will not abandon Israel because it has a moral commitment to ensure the continued survival of the Jewish state. "At the same time, the depth of America's moral commitment does not justify or excuse actions by an Israeli government that unnecessarily make Israel a strategic liability when it should remain an asset. It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbours.
"It is time Israel realised that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of US patience and exploits the support of American Jews."
Cordesman told the Guardian that the Netanyahu government has maintained a "pattern of conduct" that has pushed the balance toward Israel being more of a liability than an asset.
"This Israeli government pushed the margin too far," he said. "Gaza was one case in point, the issue of construction in Jerusalem, the lack of willingness to react in ways that serve Israel's interests as well as ours in moving forward to at least pursue a peace process more actively."
It was a point made forcefully by Biden to Netanyahu in March after the Israelis humiliated the American during a visit to Jerusalem by announcing the construction of 1,600 more Jewish homes in the city's occupied east.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that at a meeting between the two men, Biden angrily accused Israel's prime minister of jeopardising US soldiers by continuing to tighten the Jewish state's grip on Jerusalem.
"This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace," Biden told Netanyahu.
Obama's chief political adviser, David Axelrod, said the settlement construction plans "seemed calculated to undermine" efforts to get fresh peace talks off the ground and that "it is important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very difficult issue".
Netanyahu sought to head off the issue when he spoke to pro-Israeli lobbyists in Washington earlier this year. "For decades, Israel served as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism. Today it is helping America stem the tide of militant Islam. Israel shares with America everything we know about fighting a new kind of enemy," he said. "We share intelligence. We co-operate in countless other ways that I am not at liberty to divulge. This co-operation is important for Israel and is helping save American lives."
But that argument is less persuasive to the Americans now. Last month, Israel's ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said the Jewish state had suffered a "tectonic rift" with America. "There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs," he told Israeli diplomats in Jerusalem. "Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart."
Oren said that assessments of Israeli policy at the White House have moved away from the historic and ideological underpinnings of earlier administrations in favour of a cold calculation.
Cordesman said it is too early to tell whether Netanyahu has fully grasped that while there will be no change in the fundamental security guarantees the US gives Israel, "the days of the blank cheque are over".
He added: "I think it is clear there is more thought on how to deal with Gaza, how to deal with the underlying humanitarian issues, less creating kinds of pressures which frankly, from the viewpoint of an outside observer, have tended to push Hamas not toward an accommodation but toward a harder line while creating of all things an extremist challenge to Hamas. But until you see the end result, some comments and some token actions don't tell you there's been a significant shift."
|
|
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/05/us-israel-support
|
|
|
Rights Group Files FOIA Requests Regarding Israel Attack on Flotilla Delivering Aid to Gaza |
|
Written by Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
|
|
Friday, 02 July 2010 |
Rights Group Files FOIA Requests Regarding Israel Attack on Flotilla Delivering Aid to Gaza
Questions Asked Regarding U.S. Knowledge of, and Response
to, Attack that Killed One U.S. Citizen, Others Injured and Detained
http://
CONTACT:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
July 1, 2010, Washington, D.C. –
Yesterday, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed eight
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the United States
government’s knowledge of, and actions in relation to, the May 31, 2010
attack by Israel on a flotilla of six vessels in international waters
seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, and U.S. policy towards the
blockade of Gaza, which has entered its fourth year. The FOIA requests
were made to a number of U.S. departments and agencies, including the
Coast Guard, the Department of State, the Navy and the U.S. European
Command.
“One U.S. citizen was killed, others were injured, detained and
had their property taken, and a U.S.-registered vessel seized by Israel
during its attack in international waters last month,” said CCR
attorney Katherine Gallagher. “Serious questions remain
unanswered about the U.S. response to the attack, its actions and
policies, particularly in the context of the blockade of Gaza,
internationally condemned as illegal and unjust. Citizens need to know
their government will protect their rights under U.S. and international
law vis-à-vis a foreign government, including Israel—the biggest
recipient of U.S. aid over the last fifty years.”
Specifically, the FOIA requests seek information on what, if any,
communications were made between the U.S. government and Israel prior to
and after the attack; what, if any, information the U.S. shared before
or after with Israel about any of the U.S. citizens abroad; what was
done to secure the release of detained citizens; and what is being done
to return property seized from U.S. citizens and other passengers and to
ensure that such property, which includes evidence for any
investigations into the attack, is not tampered with or destroyed. A
FOIA request was also made regarding communications with other countries
and with organizations such as NATO in relation to the attack on the
flotilla and the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Finally, a
request was made for information about U.S. policy towards Israel’s
blockade of Gaza, which has been found to be a form of “collective
punishment” by various representatives of the United Nations.
Fourteen U.S. citizens were part of the flotilla, five of whom were
on the U.S.-registered vessel Challenger I and one of whom was killed
on the Mavi Marmara. U.S. citizens were injured, and their property,
including computers, video and photographic equipment which contain
potential evidence for investigations, was seized and appropriated by
Israel and has not been returned. CCR issued a statement with other
rights groups last month demanding that the U.S. insist that Israel
release seized property forthwith. The Center for
Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the
rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who
represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit
legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law
as a positive force for social change.
|
|
ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-group-files-foia-requests-regarding-israel-attack-flotilla-delivering-aid-gaza
|
|
|
Israelis, Internationals Take Action Against Silwan Demolitions |
|
Written by Michael Carpenter. Photography by Rebecca Fudala
|
|
Friday, 02 July 2010 |
|
Hundreds of Israelis joined Palestinians and international peace
activists in the streets of Silwan, East Jerusalem yesterday in protest
against the decision to destroy 22 Palestinian homes. The historic show
of support coincides with UN and US condemnation of the Municipality‘s
provocative scheme. Written by Michael Carpenter. Photography by Rebecca
Fudala. "The state of Israel has taken a bad path in the last several decades,
and we are here to say that not all Israelis support it." Said Shira
Wilkof, one of seven principle organisers of the Israeli-led protests in
Sheikh Jarrah. This week they lent their support to the people of
Silwan. Speaking just before the march began, she explained, "This is
going to be one of the biggest demonstrations in one of the most
sensitive and complex neighbourhoods where I would say some of the most
evil occupation is taking place. For me, this is an historic event,
because Israelis do not come to these areas, and today we expect between
four and five hundred." |
|
www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1464
|
|
|
The Last Keffiyeh Factory In Palestine |
|
Written by Palestine Monitor
|
|
Friday, 02 July 2010 |
Originating in ancient Mesopotamia, the Keffiyah
was popular among Arab men who used it to protect their face, head, and
neck from the elements of nature. The traditional pattern, which is
still used today in Palestine and other Arab Nations, was modeled after
fishing nets and ears of grain. During the Arab Revolt in the 1930s,
the keffiyah became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism and in the
1980s Yasser Arafat made the keffiyah a globally recognized symbol of
the Palestinian struggle. Today, cheaper imports of the keffiyah from
China threaten an already troubled industry. Rebecca Fudala takes a
look inside the last keffiyah factory in Palestine. To purchase Palestinian Keffiyah's from Palestine, goto the Palestine Online Store: http://www.palestineonlinestore.com/kufiyeh/
|
|
www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1461
|
|
|
Israel’s anti-boycott belligerence |
|
Written by Marcy Newman
|
|
Friday, 02 July 2010 |
A bill seeking to outlaw boycotts of Israeli institutions and products – including in settlements – is diplomatically explosive
o Miri Weingarten o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 June 2010 10.00 BST
A new “anti-boycott bill”, the third in a series of proposed laws that aim to curtail the ability of civil society to criticise Israeli government policy, will punish Israelis or foreign nationals who initiate or promote a boycott of Israel. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/30/israel-anti-boycott-bill
The bill not only prohibits boycotts of legal Israeli institutions, but also of settlement activities and products. It seeks to impose fines on Israelis who “promote boycotts” and transfer the fines to boycotted organisations.
It will impose a 10-year entry ban on foreign residents engaging in boycotts, and forbid them to carry out any economic activities in Israel.
Heavy sanctions will also be imposed on “foreign political entities” engaging in boycotts. Any government promoting a boycott will be “prohibited from carrying out any action in Israeli bank accounts, in shares traded in Israel, in land or in any other property requiring registration of transfer”, and no money or property will be transferred from Israel to that government.
Since the Palestinian Authority is defined by Israel as a “foreign political entity”, its recent decision to end its economic dependence on settlements for products, jobs and services will lead to punitive measures.
According to the bill, even money or property due to Palestinians and to the PA by virtue of previous “laws, agreements or governmental decisions” will not be transferred to them.
The geographical application of the anti-boycott bill to the West Bank (“Judea and Samaria”) and the potential annulment of prior agreements will signal a de jure annexation of the West Bank to Israel and a final demise of the Oslo accords signed by the PA and Israel in the mid-1990s.
This bill, like others recently tabled, comes against the backdrop of recent analysis by the current Israeli government and its advocates, who have sought to draw a distinction between “legitimate criticism of Israel” and criticism or campaigning that “delegitimises Israel” and is therefore beyond the pale.
Alan Dershowitz has called this approach “the 80% case for Israel” – that is, the possibility of criticising specific Israeli policies, such as the settlement project, while emphatically supporting Israel as a Jewish state.
Examples of “illegitimate” activities include universal jurisdiction (the prosecution of officials suspected of war crimes overseas), BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions), and questioning the definition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The recent series of proposed bills in Israel echoes each of these categories by seeking to prohibit them through law and to criminalise human rights activists who engage in such activities.
This approach is deeply flawed. There is a difference between disagreeing with criticism and seeking to silence it through law. If Israel is a democracy, its activists must be allowed to voice criticism and engage in protest, however unpopular.
By failing to distinguish between a boycott of settlements and that of Israel itself, the initiators of the bill are demonstrating that they are not “protectors of Israel” but promoters of a “Greater Israel”.
For them, a boycott of all Israeli products, as such, is no longer distinguishable from alternative, more limited options: the decision of Israeli or international activists to boycott settlement products in order to end the occupation, or the decision of the Palestinians themselves to stop supporting the very settlements that are denying them their sustenance.
The settlers and their supporters thus expect Palestinians not only to accept the divestment of their land and resources, but also to support those who have robbed them by buying their produce and working (for sub-minimum wages) on the very building sites that are encroaching on their lands.
The EU, also a “foreign political entity” under the Israeli definition, is likely to disagree strongly with this bill. The EU association agreements with Israel (1995) and with the PLO (1997) have a mutually exclusive territorial scope: the EC-Israel agreement applies to the territory of the state of Israel, whereas the EC-PLO agreement applies to the territory of the West Bank and Gaza.
When challenged on the issue of settlement products from the West Bank, the European court of justice recently ruled that only the Palestinian Authority can issue origin certificates for goods originating in the West Bank.
In court, the EU advocate-general was even clearer. He said that as a matter of international law, the borders of Israel are defined by the 1947 partition plan for Palestine, and any territories outside the 1947 borders do not form part of the territory of Israel for purposes of the association agreement.
If the bill passes into law, the EU would qualify as a “promoter of boycott”, whereas Israel could be seen to be breaking the terms of the association agreement. The implications of this could be explosive. |
|
usacbi.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/israels-anti-boycott-belligerence/
|
|
|
Red Team: CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah. |
|
Written by MARK PERRY
|
|
Thursday, 01 July 2010 |
|
While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hizballah* and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), that is exactly what a team of senior intelligence officers at U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- has been doing. In a "Red Team" report issued on May 7 and entitled "Managing Hizballah and Hamas," senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements. Instead, the Red Team recommends a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams. While a Red Team exercise is deliberately designed to provide senior commanders with briefings and assumptions that challenge accepted strategies, the report is at once provocative, controversial -- and at odds with current U.S. policy.
Among its other findings, the five-page report calls for the integration of Hizballah into the Lebanese Armed Forces, and Hamas into the Palestinian security forces led by Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Red Team's conclusion, expressed in the final sentence of the executive summary, is perhaps its most controversial finding: "The U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah; and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities -- the government of Lebanon and Fatah -- that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively" (emphasis in the original). The report goes on to note that while Hizballah and Hamas "embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies," the two groups are "pragmatic and opportunistic."
The report opens with a quote from former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron David Miller's book, The Much Too Promised Land, which notes that both Hizballah and Hamas "have emerged as serious political players respected on the streets, in Arab capitals, and throughout the region. Destroying them was never really an option. Ignoring them may not be either." The report's writers are quick to acknowledge that the two militant groups "are vastly different," and that treating them together is a mistake. Nevertheless, the CENTCOM team directly repudiates Israel's publicly stated view -- that the two movements are incapable of change and must be confronted with force. The report says that "failing to recognize their separate grievances and objectives will result in continued failure in moderating their behavior."
. . . |
|
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/29/red_team?page=full
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 65 - 72 of 1385 |
|
|
