Archivio Palestinese

Questo blog continua a:

<http://palestina-etulsai.blogspot.com>

Dror Etkes*. ynetnews. 28/6/07. Olmert says Israel doesn’t wish to rule Palestinians, but reality proves otherwise. The problem faced by all of us, is that one cannot fool the Palestinians, who continue to see on a daily basis how more land is being taken away and paved under the wheels of the settlement and annexation machine, which does not rest even for a day.

Once again, for the countless time in the past decade and a half, a senior Israeli statesman is declaring openly that Israel is not interested in maintaining its control over the Palestinians. This time it was Prime Minister Olmert, who upon the Sharm summit’s conclusion on Monday declared that Israel has no intention of dictating the way of life in the Palestinian Authority.

And it is indeed unpleasant to put a damper on such a rare joyous occasion such as a four-way summit where such noble declarations are made, yet the simple facts (which, unfortunately, very few people in Israel take the time to confirm) do not quite match such declarations.

Olmert’s problem, and in fact the problem faced by all of us, is that in reality one cannot fool all the people all the time. Certainly not the Palestinians, who continue to see on a daily basis how more land is being taken away and paved under the wheels of the settlement and annexation machine, which does not rest even for a day.

At one location land is being seized for building the fence, with “only” 80 percent of it being built east of the Green Line, that is, in West Bank territory. Elsewhere land is being seized in favor of expanding one or another “consensus settlement.”

Simultaneously, at the heart of the West Bank, settlers who are fans of organic agriculture, plant vineyards on land that up until recently was worked by Palestinian farmers, while yet another bypass road is being paved on land confiscated with the High Court’s approval for “public benefit.”

After all, in the West Bank everything is always done for public benefit ? the Israeli public that is (which accounts for only 10 percent of the West Bank’s population).

In order to calibrate the national expectation gauge of the Sharm el-Sheik summit and the festive declarations that followed it, it would be worthwhile for us Israelis to one day clarify to ourselves, among the other terms we use routinely in order to describe our realities, the term “consensus.”

The Even-Shoshan dictionary defines the term as follows: “general agreement,” “unanimity,” or “homogenous position.” Where then does consensus have to prevail when it comes to the issue of settlements? Are we talking about a consensus between the Labor and Kadima parties? Or perhaps a consensus between the settler Right and all those who have yet to pledge their allegiance to the notion of the Greater Land of Israel?

What are we fighting for?

After 40 years and tens of thousands of people killed and wounded on both sides, the time has come for political discourse within Israel society regarding the future of the West Bank and its Palestinian population to reflect the fact that the main conflict takes place neither on the axis between the settler Right and the rest of Israeli society, nor on the axis between the Israeli government and the American administration, which every prime minister ensures to be fully coordinated with.

The conflict in this country is between Israelis, most of them the children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren of immigrants, and the Palestinians, who are the natives of this land. The conflict’s focal point is the legitimacy of the collective existence of both these groups.

It is true that both peoples include groups carrying considerable public weight that reject the legitimacy of the other group’s existence, yet the settlement enterprise on all its “consensual” and “non-consensual” forms and derivatives is the State of Israel’s official 40-year contribution to the escalation in mutual de-legitimization.

The unreasonable gap between the declarations of Israeli politicians in the past decade and a half since Oslo and the acts of those same politicians ? acts that most Israelis prefer to barely know about, while the Palestinians cannot escape their implications, even if they wished to do ? is the gap that continues and will continue to feed and escalate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dror Etkes coordinates the settlement monitoring project for the Peace Now movement

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3418560,00.ht

Francesca Paci intervista Ismail Hanyieh. La Stampa. 4/7/07. Il primo messaggio è per il presidente dell’Autorità nazionale palestinese Abu Mazen: «Attenzione all’abbraccio mortale con gli americani». Il secondo per i rapitori del reporter della Bbc, il potente clan dei Dormush: «Vogliamo una soluzione pacifica ma siamo pronti a usare tutta la forza necessaria». Il terzo per Romano Prodi che il 9 luglio arriverà in Medio Oriente: «Lo aspettiamo a Gaza se vorrà». Il premier di Hamas Ismail Hanyieh, doppio petto grigio e camicia bianca, apre a La Stampa le porte del quartier generale di Hamas per la prima intervista ufficiale dopo la guerra civile di Gaza. Dalla finestra del suo ufficio, al terzo piano di un edificio modesto, si sentono gli impiegati che protestano per gli stipendi congelati da mesi. Abu Mazen ha nominato un nuovo governo sostituendola con Salem Fayed. Come si sente? «Mi sento il primo ministro palestinese. Hamas ha la maggioranza parlamentare e io sono stato votato. Secondo il nostro sistema costituzionale resto legittimamente in carica fino alla formazione di un nuovo esecutivo regolarmente eletto. Le nostre leggi non prevedono governi d’emergenza, al massimo casi d’emergenza. Questo è un caso d’emergenza? Bene: sono qui, pronto a collaborare per trovare una soluzione». Intanto Hamas è chiuso a Gaza, tagliato fuori dal mondo. La prossima settimana Prodi incontrerà i leader politici israeliani e palestinesi a Gerusalemme e a Ramallah. Lei non è stato invitato. «Personalmente ho rapporti amichevoli con Prodi. L’ho chiamato due volte per congratularmi con lui: la prima quando è stato eletto, la seconda quando l’Italia ha vinto il mondiale di calcio. Contiamo molto sull’iniziativa italiana, manteniamo ottime relazioni con il vostro Paese». Prodi andrà a Ramallah? Breve risata. «Faccia pure, con comodo. Ma sappia che se vorrà è benvenuto a Gaza». Che rapporti ha con Abu Mazen? «Gira voce che l’avrei definito un debole. Non è vero. Siamo politicamente diversi, ma Hamas rispetta il sistema democratico e gli alleati. Dopo quanto è accaduto a Gaza ci aspettiamo che Abu Mazen reagisca in modo razionale e non emotivo, che non ascolti i cattivi consiglieri e capisca che l’abbraccio con l’amministrazione Usa è mortale. Le nostre priorità sono un governo di unità nazionale basato sugli accordi della Mecca e apparati di sicurezza a tutela di tutto il popolo palestinese. Inutile parlare di elezioni, non c’è una buona atmosfera per votare». Lei invita l’Anp al dialogo ma fino a due settimane Hamas e Fatah hanno combattuto una guerra civile violentissima. Cosa è cambiato? «A Gaza è tornato l’ordine. C’è qualche problema in Cisgiordania, ma non siamo noi a crearlo. È Fatah. La storia è piena di movimenti di resistenza fratelli che a un certo punto si scontrano per questioni interne. È accaduto anche in Libano. Certo, è negativo per l’immagine dei palestinesi. Ma crediamo nel dialogo». È vero che avete una Executive Force in sonno in Cisgiordania, pronta a combattere gli avversari come a Gaza? «Quello che accade in questi giorni in Cisgiordania è vergognoso. Gli uomini di Fatah stanno lavorando contro Hamas seminando terrore. Ma non troveranno niente contro di noi. Così facendo dimostrano solo quel che sono. Lunedì hanno arrestano 9 membri di Hamas regolarmente eletti e di sicuro li terranno in carcere per anni. Noi a Gaza non arrestiamo i loro rappresentanti, non occupiamo i loro uffici. Hamas ha vinto le elezioni e anzichè distruggere Fatah si occupa di risolvere i problemi di Gaza, la criminalità, la sicurezza, l’embargo». Sembra che la guerra civile di Gaza sia una leggenda. Chi erano quelli che solo ieri scovavano gli uomini di Fatah casa per casa? «A Gaza non c’è stata guerra civile né colpo di Stato. Abbiamo combattuto per la sicurezza, non per ragioni politiche. Dopo 15 mesi di anarchia, per la corruzione di Fatah, siamo arrivati alla resa dei conti. Le devastazioni sono state causate da alcuni comandanti di Fatah che abbandonando le postazioni hanno lasciato il campo alla furia cieca della gente. La calma oggi a Gaza dimostra che il conflitto è finito e i fratelli di Fatah sono liberi di uscire e lavorare, non perché Hamas gliene faccia dono ma perché è loro diritto. Guardate invece come ci trattano loro in Cisgiordania…». Abu Mazen ha chiesto l’intervento di una forza internazionale. «Sbaglia. Vuole risolvere i problemi palestinesi aprendo alle ingerenze esterne. Noi lavoriamo dall’interno». Ma Gaza dipende quasi interamente da Israele, la benzina, gli alimenti, l’acqua. «Sia chiaro: non cambieremo la nostra politica per fame. Che Israele ci riconosca e poi dialogheremo». Come pagherete gli stipendi? «Discriminando tra palestinesi di Cisgiordania e Gaza Abu Mazen porterà alla vera separazione tra noi. Hamas pagherà tutti senza guardare l’appartenza politica. Guardate com’è cambiata la sicurezza da quando governiamo: niente più check point, niente miliziani col volto coperto. Nei primi 15 giorni di giugno ci sono stati 15 omicidi tra clan, nelle ultime due settimane appena tre. La sicurezza è la base dello sviluppo economico, ma non ci sarà mai sicurezza né sviluppo sotto l’occupazione». Le strade sono sicure ma sembra che stia per esplodere una nuova guerra tra Hamas e il clan Dormush, quello che ha rapito il reporter della Bbc. «Non abbiamo problemi con la famiglia Dormush ma con le persone accusate di aver rapito Johnston. Conduciamo negoziati da 3 mesi, ufficialmente e sotto banco. Inutile: non mollano e ci tengono tutti in ostaggio. Ma noi abbiamo il diritto di arrestarli. Non si tratta di sequestri: facciamo il nostro lavoro e non smetteremo finchè non avremo finito». Siete pronti a usare la forza? «Preferiramo la via del dialogo ma tutte le strade sono aperte». Istaurerete a Gaza la sharia? «Quel che è accaduto a Gaza nelle settimane scorse è il risultato di un problema di sicurezza, non di politica. Non instaureremo alcun emirato islamico: siamo una parte importante dello Stato palestinese». Fine. Ismail Haniyeh si porta le mani alla bocca per dire che ha finito di parlare, le guardie del corpo, giovanissime, barbute e vestite di nero, lo marcano stretto. La strada ora è silenziosa.

la Repubblica.it. 4/7/07. La protesta, dopo la decisione di Benedetto XVI di riammettere il rito Tridentino. Ci sono espressioni molto pesanti come: “Perfidi giudei“. Molti passi della liturgia latina comprometterebbero il dialogo con la comunità ebraica. Si teme che il ripristino del rito tridentino porti con sé altre novità sgradite.

LONDRA – Perplessità e accuse di antisemitismo contro il ripristino della Messa in latino da parte dei cattolici del Regno Unito. La decisione di Benedetto XVI di autorizzare la celebrazione della Messa secondo il vecchio rito Tridentino nella lingua degli antichi romani, trova il disaccordo dei britannici che appartengono alla Chiesa romana, una comunità impegnata da anni in un cammino di riconciliazione e comprensione reciproca con gli anglicani e la comunità ebraica.

Al centro dei dubbi l’espressione usata dalla liturgia preconciliare nei confronti del popolo ebraico, bollato nelle celebrazioni del Venerdì Santo come “i perfidi giudei”. E’ dal 1969, anno in cui divenne effettiva la disposizione del Concilio Vaticano II sulla celebrazione della messa nelle lingue nazionali e sulla revisione di parte della liturgia, che un’espressione del genere non rimbomba più tra le navate di una chiesa cattolica britannica. La questione ha spinto il cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, primate della chiesa di Inghilterra e Galles, ad inviare già la settimana scorsa una lettera in Vaticano per sottolineare come il cambiamento sia da considerarsi inutile.

Una presa di posizione che rispecchia l’andamento di un dibattito interno alla comunità cattolica britannica che dura da mesi, da quando cioè venne fatta trapelare per la prima volta l’intenzione papale di dare nuova legittimazione al rito tridentino. Tra i passaggi più discussi, oltre all’espressione “perfidi giudei”, quello in cui si afferma che gli ebrei vivono “nelle tenebre” e nella “cecità”. Come anche la preghiera “affinché Nostro Signore sollevi il velo che copre i loro cuori ed essi riconoscano il Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo”.

Esistono anche timori che si tratti di un primo passo in direzione di ulteriori riforme del dettato conciliare, in particolar modo quelle rigudardanti la posizione del celebrante rispetto all’altare (prima del Concilio volgeva le spalle all’assemblea, stando in piedi davanti ad esso) e la facoltà di far leggere le Letture ai laici.

Secondo le regole attualmente in vigore, l’autorizzazione alla celebrazione della messa in latino deve essere data dalle autorità ecclesiastiche britanniche sulla base di una precisa richiesta.

“Seguiamo sempre le indicazioni di Roma”, hanno confessato al quotidiano The Independent sacerdoti cattolici inglesi, “ma il fatto è che ancora adesso non sappiamo quali siano i nuovi indirizzi”. Non si tratta solo di questo. “La questione fondamentale”, sostiene il gesuita Keith Pecklers, “non è certo limitata alla sola liturgia. La cosa ha implicazioni ben più ampie per la vita della Chiesa”. Dietro ci sarebbe il fatto che i fan della messa in latino “tendono ad opporsi al ruolo sempre più presente del laicato nella vita delle comunità parrocchiali, così come alla collaborazione con le altre confessioni cristiane ed al dialogo con ebrei e musulmani”.

(4 luglio 2007)
Riferimenti: http://www.repubblica.it/2007/06/sezioni/esteri/benedet

LUISA MORGANTINI. Vicepresidente del Parlamento Europeo (GUE/NGL). Bruxelles 4/7/07. “Ora l?UE prema per il rilascio di Shalit e lo scambio dei prigionieri politici palestinesi. E’ davvero un grande sollievo e una gioia la liberazione del reporter della BBC Alan Johnston. Spero vivamente che questo evento non sia visto come un successo politico di una sola parte in causa, ma serva come incentivo alla ripresa del dialogo tra Hamas e Fatah, per il bene e l’unità del territorio e del Popolo Palestinese. Mi auguro che le dichiarazioni dei rappresentanti di Hamas che considerano i sequestri dei giornalisti nella Striscia di Gaza come “appartenenti ad un’altra era” e la volontà di “assicurare a tutti la piena libertà di espressione”, siano concrete e che l?apparente ordine che regna a Gaza non diventi la restrizione delle libertà e dei diritti fondamentali, quali quello di espressione, di associazione, i diritti delle donne e quelli che garantiscono, a tutti e tutte, una piena partecipazione alla vita politica del Paese, indipendentemente dalle posizioni ideologiche o religiose.

Dopo la liberazione di Johnston, la speranza è che anche il Caporale Israeliano Gilad Shalit venga rilasciato in base ad uno scambio con i prigionieri politici palestinesi, che in quasi 11000 -tra questi 45 tra ministri e deputati eletti, ma anche donne, ammalati e bambini- sono rinchiusi nelle carceri israeliane, in modo arbitrario, sequestrati, senza un giusto processo, e molti di essi sottoposti a tortura. Per ottenere questo è necessaria una pressione sul Governo Israeliano e non solo su Hamas.

L’Unione Europea, potrebbe avere un ruolo fondamentale, non operando per la divisione ma incentivando il dialogo intra-palestinese, riprendendo gli aiuti diretti anche nella Striscia di Gaza, dove a pagare la crisi economica e politica è sempre la popolazione civile.

Riaprire le frontiere di Rafah per far fronte alla drammatica condizione di migliaia di palestinesi che sono in condizioni tragiche in Al Arish, tra loro molti ammalati gravi, è un imperativo politico e morale, così come riaprire Gaza alle importazioni ed esportazioni e al libero movimento di merci e persone. Ma le condizioni di mancanza di libertà di movimento valgono anche per la Cisgiordania, dove più di 500 check point e il muro rendono impossibile ai palestinesi di lavorare e commerciare o persino di andare in ospedale.

Il Quartetto deve far riprendere i negoziati. Il Presidente Mahomoud Abbas e l’Olp sono gli interlocutori riconosciuti da tutti anche da Hamas per le trattative. Mi auguro anche che il governo di emergenza possa svolgere il suo lavoro e preparare la strada per nuove elezioni alle quale possano partecipare tutte le forze politiche palestinesi, e che mai più da parte della Comunità Internazionale vi sia l’errore di non riconoscere un governo liberamente eletto.

La pace è necessaria a palestinesi ed israeliani. Bisogna certo far cessare i rockets sulla popolazione civile di Sderot, ma è indispensabile che il Governo israeliano cessi immediatamente di violare impunemente la legalità internazionale, fermi le uccisioni di civili palestinesi in Cisgiordania e a Gaza e mostri concretamente di volere la pace accettando l’Iniziativa araba e ottemperando alle risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite?.

Per info Luisa Morgantini 0039 348 39 21 465 o Francesca Cutarelli 0039 340 56 49 335

Jonathan Cook. The Electronic Intifada.26/6/07. Israel and the US have made sure that no Palestinian strongman arises to replace Yasser Arafat. They are encouraging civil war as an alternative to resistance to occupation, as Palestine’s resources — land — are stolen. They are causing a permanent and irreversible partition, in this case between the West Bank and Gaza, to create more easily managed territorial ghettoes. The likely reaction is an even greater extremism from the Palestinians that will undermine their cause in the eyes of the international community.

After deposing the Hamas government, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abas meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt. King Abdullah of Jordan and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak were also present at the meeting arranged to discuss Hamas’ control of Gaza, 25 June 2007. (Omar Rashidi/MaanImages/POOL/PPO)

The boycott by Israel and the international community of the Palestinian Authority finally blew up in their faces with Hamas’ recent bloody takeover of Gaza. Or so argues Gideon Levy, one of the saner voices still to be found in Israel. “Starving, drying up and blocking aid do not sear the consciousness and do not weaken political movements. On the contrary … Reality has refuted the chorus of experts and commentators who preached [on] behalf of the boycott policy. This daft notion that it is possible to topple an elected government by applying pressure on a helpless population suffered a complete failure.”

But has Levy got it wrong? The faces of Israeli and American politicians, including Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush, appear soot-free. On the contrary. Over the past fortnight they have been looking and sounding even more smug than usual.

The problem with Levy’s analysis is that it assumes that Israel and the US wanted sanctions to bring about the fall of Hamas, either by giving Fatah the upper hand so that it could deal a knockout blow to the Palestinian government, or by inciting ordinary Palestinians to rise up and demand that their earlier electoral decision be reversed and Fatah reinstalled. In short, Levy, like most observers, assumes that the policy was designed to enforce regime change.

But what if that was not the point of the sanctions? And if so, what goals were Israel and the US pursuing?

The parallels between Iraq and Gaza may be instructive. After all, Iraq is the West’s only other recent experiment in imposing sanctions to starve a nation. And we all know where it led: to an even deeper entrenchment of Saddam Hussein’s rule.

True, the circumstances in Iraq and Gaza are different: most Iraqis wanted Saddam out but had no way to effect change, while most Gazans wanted Hamas in and made it happen by voting for them in last year’s elections. Nevertheless, it may be that the US and Israel drew a different lesson from the sanctions experience in Iraq.

Whether intended or not, sanctions proved a very effective tool for destroying the internal bonds that held Iraqi society together. Destitution and hunger are powerful incentives to turn on one’s neighbor as well as one’s enemy. A society where resources — food, medicines, water and electricity — are in short supply is also a society where everyone looks out for himself. It is a society that, with a little prompting, can easily be made to tear itself apart.

And that is precisely what the Americans began to engineer after their “shock and awe” invasion of 2003. Contrary to previous US interventions abroad, Saddam was not toppled and replaced with another strongman — one more to the West’s liking. Instead of regime change, we were given regime overthrow. Or as Daniel Pipes, one of the neoconservative ideologues of the attack on Iraq, expressed it, the goal was “limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement … Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden.”

In place of Saddam, the Americans created a safe haven known as the Green Zone from which its occupation regime could loosely police the country and oversee the theft of Iraq’s oil, while also sitting back and watching a sectarian civil war between the Sunni and Shia populations spiral out of control and decimate the Iraqi population.

What did Washington hope to achieve? Pipes offers a clue: “When Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims [that is, US occupation forces and their allies] are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.” In other words, enabling a civil war in Iraq was far preferable to allowing Iraqis to unite and mount an effective resistance to the US occupation. After all, Iraqi deaths — at least 650,000 of them, according to the last realistic count — are as good as worthless, while US soldiers’ lives cost votes back home.

For the neocon cabal behind the Iraq invasion, civil war was seen to have two beneficial outcomes.

First, it eroded the solidarity of ordinary Iraqis, depleting their energies and making them less likely to join or support the resistance to the occupation. The insurgency has remained a terrible irritation to US forces but not the fatal blow it might have been were the Sunni and Shia to fight side by side. As a result, the theft of Iraq’s resources has been made easier.

And second, in the longer term, civil war is making inevitable a slow process of communal partition and ethnic cleansing. Four million Iraqis are reported to have been forced either to leave the country or flee their homes. Iraq is being broken up into small ethnic and religious fiefdoms that will be easier to manage and manipulate.

Is this the model for Gaza now and the West Bank later?

It is worth recalling that neither Israel nor the US pushed for an easing of the sanctions on the Palestinian Authority after the national unity government of Hamas and Fatah was formed earlier this year. In fact, the US and Israel could barely conceal their panic at the development. The moment the Mecca agreement was signed, reports of US efforts to train and arm Fatah forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas became a newspaper staple.

The cumulative effect of US support for Fatah, as well as Israel’s continuing arrests of Hamas legislators in the West Bank, was to strain already tense relations between Hamas and Fatah to breaking point. When Hamas learned that Abbas’ security chief, Mohammed Dahlan, with US encouragement, was preparing to carry out a coup against them in Gaza, they got the first shot in.

Did Fatah really believe it could pull off a coup in Gaza, given the evident weakness of its forces there, or was the rumour little more than American and Israeli spin, designed to undermine Hamas’ faith in Fatah and doom the unity government? Were Abbas and Dahlan really hoping to topple Hamas, or were they the useful idiots needed by the US and Israel? These are questions that may have to be settled by the historians.

But with the fingerprints of Elliott Abrams, one of the more durable neocons in the Bush administration, to be found all over this episode, we can surmise that what Washington and Israel are intending for the Palestinians will have strong echoes of what has unfolded in Iraq.

By engineering the destruction of the unity government, Israel and the US have ensured that there is no danger of a new Palestinian consensus emerging, one that might have cornered Israel into peace talks. A unity government might have found a formula offering Israel:
# limited recognition inside the pre-1967 borders in return for recognition of a Palestinian state and the territorial integrity of the West Bank and Gaza;
# a long-term ceasefire in return for Israel ending its campaign of constant violence and violations of Palestinian sovereignty;
# and a commitment to honor past agreements in return for Israel’s abiding by UN resolutions and accepting a just solution for the Palestinian refugees.

After decades of Israeli bad faith, and the growing rancor between Fatah and Hamas, the chances of them finding common ground on which to make such an offer, it must be admitted, would have been slight. But now they are non-existent.

That is exactly how Israel wants it, because it has no interest in meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians or in a final agreement. It wants only to impose solutions that suit Israel’s interests, which are securing the maximum amount of land for an exclusive Jewish state and leaving the Palestinians so weak and divided that they will never be able to mount a serious challenge to Israel’s dictates.

Instead, Hamas’ dismal authority over the prison camp called Gaza and Fatah’s bastard governance of the ghettoes called the West Bank offer a model more satisfying for Israel and the US — and one not unlike Iraq. A sort of sheriff’s divide and rule in the Wild West.

Just as in Iraq, Israel and the US have made sure that no Palestinian strongman arises to replace Yasser Arafat. Just as in Iraq, they are encouraging civil war as an alternative to resistance to occupation, as Palestine’s resources — land, not oil — are stolen. Just as in Iraq, they are causing a permanent and irreversible partition, in this case between the West Bank and Gaza, to create more easily managed territorial ghettoes. And just as in Iraq, the likely reaction is an even greater extremism from the Palestinians that will undermine their cause in the eyes of the international community.

Where will this lead the Palestinians next?

Israel is already pulling the strings of Fatah with a new adeptness since the latter’s humiliation in Gaza. Abbas is currently basking in Israeli munificence for his rogue West Bank regime, including the decision to release a substantial chunk of the $700 million tax monies owed to the Palestinians (including those of Gaza, of course) and withheld for years by Israel. The price, according to the Israeli media, was a commitment from Abbas not to contemplate re-entering a unity government with Hamas.

The goal will be to increase the strains between Hamas and Fatah to breaking point in the West Bank, but ensure that Fatah wins the confrontation there. Fatah is already militarily stronger and with generous patronage from Israel and the US — including arms and training, and possibly the return of the Badr Brigade currently holed up in Jordan — it should be able to rout Hamas. The difference in status between Gaza and the West Bank that has been long desired by Israel will be complete.

The Palestinian people have already been carved up into a multitude of constituencies. There are the Palestinians under occupation, those living as second-class citizens of Israel, those allowed to remain “residents” of Jerusalem, and those dispersed to camps across the Middle East. Even within these groups, there are a host of sub-identities: refugees and non-refugees; refugees included as citizens in their host state and those excluded; occupied Palestinians living under the control of the Palestinian Authority and those under Israel’s military government; and so on.

Now, Israel has entrenched maybe the most significant division of all: the absolute and irreversible separation of Gaza and the West Bank. What applies to one will no longer be true for the other. Each will be a separate case; their fates will no longer be tied. One will be, as Israelis like to call it, Hamastan, and other Fatahland, with separate governments and different treatment from Israel and the international community.

The reasons why Israel prefers this arrangement are manifold.

First, Gaza can now be written off by the international community as a basket case. The Israeli media is currently awash with patronizing commentary from the political and security establishments about how to help avoid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the possibility of air drops of aid over the Gaza “security fence” — as though Gaza were Pakistan after an earthquake. From past experience, and the current menacing sounds from Israel’s new Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, those food packages will quickly turn into bombs if Gaza does not keep quiet.

As Israeli and US officials have been phrasing it, there is a new “clarity” in the situation. In a Hamastan, Gaza’s militants and civilians can be targeted by Israel with little discrimination and no outcry from the international community. Israel will hope that message from Gaza will not be lost on West Bank Palestinians as they decide who to give their support to, Fatah or Hamas.

Second, at their meeting last week Olmert and Bush revived talk of Palestinian statehood. According to Olmert, Bush “wants to realize, while he is in office, the dream of creating a Palestinian state.” Both are keen to make quick progress, a sure sign of mischief in the making. Certainly, they know they are now under no pressure to create the single viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza once promised by President Bush. An embattled Abbas will not be calling for the inclusion of Gaza in his ghetto-fiefdom.

Third, the separation of Gaza from the West Bank may be used to inject new life into Olmert’s shopworn convergence plan — if he can dress it up in new clothes. Convergence, which required a very limited withdrawal from those areas of the West Bank heavily populated with Palestinians while Israel annexed most of its illegal colonies and kept the Jordan Valley, was officially ditched last summer after Israel’s humiliation by Hizballah.

Why seek to revive convergence? Because it is the key to Israel securing the expanded Jewish fortress state that is its only sure protection from the rapid demographic growth of the Palestinians, soon to outnumber Jews in the Holy Land, and Israel’s fears that it may then be compared to apartheid South Africa.

If the occupation continues unchanged, Israel’s security establishment has long been warning, the Palestinians will eventually wake up to the only practical response: to dissolve the Palestinian Authority, Israel’s clever ruse to make the Palestinian leadership responsible for suppressing Palestinian resistance to the occupation, thereby forcing Israel to pick up the bill for the occupation rather than Europe. The next stage would be an anti-apartheid struggle for one state in historic Palestine.

For this reason, demographic separation from the Palestinians has been the logic of every major Israeli policy initiative since — and including — Oslo. Convergence requires no loss of Israel’s control over Palestinian lives, ensured through the all but finished grid of walls, settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints, only a repackaging of their occupation as statehood.

The biggest objection in Israel to Olmert’s plan — as well as to the related Gaza disengagement — was the concern that, once the army had unilaterally withdrawn from the Palestinian ghettoes, the Palestinians would be free to launch terror attacks, including sending rockets out of their prisons into Israel. Most Israelis, of course, never consider the role of the occupation in prompting such attacks.

But Olmert may believe he has found a way to silence his domestic critics. For the first time he seems genuinely keen to get his Arab neighbors involved in the establishment of a Palestinian “state”. As he headed off to the Sharm al-Sheikh summit with Egypt, Jordan and Abbas this week, Olmert said he wanted to “jointly work to create the platform that may lead to a new beginning between us and the Palestinians.”

Did he mean partnership? A source in the Prime Minister’s Office explained to The Jerusalem Post why the three nations and Abbas were meeting. “These are the four parties directly impacted by what is happening right now, and what is needed is a different level of cooperation between them.” Another spokesman bewailed the failure so far to get the Saudis on board.

This appears to mark a sea change in Israeli thinking. Until now Tel Aviv has regarded the Palestinians as a domestic problem — after all, they are sitting on land that rightfully, at least if the Bible is to be believed, belongs to the Jews. Any attempt at internationalizing the conflict has therefore been strenuously resisted.

But now the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office is talking openly about getting the Arab world more directly involved, not only in its usual role as a mediator with the Palestinians, nor even in simply securing the borders against smuggling, but also in policing the territories. Israel hopes that Egypt, in particular, is as concerned as Tel Aviv by the emergence of a Hamastan on its borders, and may be enticed to use the same repressive policies against Gaza’s Islamists as it does against its own.

Similarly, Olmert’s chief political rival, Binyamin Netanyahu of Likud, has mentioned not only Egyptian involvement in Gaza but even a Jordanian military presence in the West Bank. The “moderate” Arab regimes, as Washington likes to call them, are being seen as the key to developing new ideas about Palestinian “autonomy” and regional “confederation.” As long as Israel has a quisling in the West Bank and a beyond-the-pale government in Gaza, it may believe it can corner the Arab world into backing such a “peace plan.”

What will it mean in practice? Possibly, as Zvi Barel of Haaretz speculates, we will see the emergence of half a dozen Palestinian governments in charge of the ghettoes of Gaza, Ramallah, Jenin, Jericho, and Hebron. Each may be encouraged to compete for patronage and aid from the “moderate” Arab regimes but on condition that Israel and the US are satisfied with these Palestinian governments’ performance.

In other words, Israel looks as if it is dusting off yet another blueprint for how to manage the Palestinians and their irritating obsession with sovereignty. Last time, under Oslo, the Palestinians were put in charge of policing the occupation on Israel’s behalf. This time, as the Palestinians are sealed into their separate prisons masquerading as a state, Israel may believe that it can find a new jailer for the Palestinians — the Arab world.

Photo. After deposing the Hamas government, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abas meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt. King Abdullah of Jordan and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak were also present at the meeting arranged to discuss Hamas’ control of Gaza, 25 June 2007. (Omar Rashidi/MaanImages/POOL/PPO)

Jonathan Cook, a journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, is the author of Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State (Pluto Press, 2006). His website is www.jkcook.net.

Riferimenti: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7059.shtml

Israeli soldiers shoot dead a fifteen-year-old Palestinian boy in Hebron. Ma’an. 3/7/07. His intestines were hanging out of his body and his right hand showed signs of mauling by dogs. He had also been riddled with bullets. Israeli soldiers have killed a Palestinian teenage boy on Tuesday evening in the Wadi At Tuffah neighborhood of the southern West Bank city of Hebron.

The Israeli army claimed that one of their patrols in Hebron saw a Palestinian boy holding a toy gun, and when they ordered the boy to stop, the troops shot him dead.

Palestinian medical sources at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Hebron stated that the boy, Ahmad Abed Al-Muhsin Skafi, 15, was already dead when he arrived at the hospital. According to our Hebron correspondent, the medical sources said that Al-Skafi was “brutally murdered”; his intestines were hanging out of his body and his right hand showed signs of mauling by dogs. He had also been riddled with bullets, our correspondent added.

Border crossing to remain closed
Ghassan Bannoura & John Smith. IMEMC Report. Wednesday July 04, 2007 16:42
The Kerem shalom crossing, scheduled to reopen on Wednesday, will remain closed due to ?technical problems? on the Egyptian border, officials announced on Wednesday.

Despite reports on Tuesday of an agreement between the Israeli and Egyptian governments that would allow thousands of stranded Palestinians to enter the Gaza Strip, officials announced that the crossing would not reopen today and did not declare any future opening date.
The crossing, the only way in and out of the Gaza strip for Palestinians, along with all commercial crossings surrounding the Gaza strip, were closed by Israel shortly after Hamas took total control of the area two weeks ago, leaving around 6000 Palestinians stranded.

These stranded people lacked basic accommodation, facilities and supplies. Human rights organizations stated that three Palestinians died while waiting to cross into Gaza.

Most of those stranded at the crossing had been in Egypt receiving medical treatment. Mohamed Al Lubas, a Gaza resident who has been stranded at the Rafah border crossing for 60 days talked about the situation there:

“There are around three thousand people at the border, more than 70% are sick and unwell. The Red Cross says they came here, but we did not see them or anyone else. We just want to return to our homes in Gaza. We are dying here. People are starving and no one cares about us. We just want to go home to Gaza.”

Hamas, which has control only inside the Gaza Strip, rejects all moves to establish any Israeli control of the borders between Gaza and Egypt.

Fouzi Barhoum, Hamas spokesperson in Gaza:

“The terminal used before was an Egyptian-Palestinian one, but now using an Israeli terminal threatens the safety of the passengers who need to enter or exit the Gaza Strip. It also legalizes the separation and the isolation of the Gaza Strip and strangles the Palestinians who live there.”

After failing to curb the resistance, the Israeli army reverts to a policy of assassination
IMEMC Staff. Wednesday July 04, 2007 16
For the third time in the last two weeks, the Israeli army conducted a military operation designed to ambush a leader of a Palestinian resistance faction. In the latest ambush, Mohammed Abu al-Hija, a leader of the Fatah-affiliated al-Aqsa brigades was killed. This proves that the Israeli army has returned to a policy of targeted-assassinations, if they ever ceased to implement such a strategy.

The internal Palestinian dialogue aiming to resolve issues surrounding Palestinian armed groups, an issue highlighted in the aftermath of Abbas? decree ordering all resistance groups to surrender their weapons, announcing that any weapon not held by security forces is illegal, and promising to end the targeting of Palestinian fighters by the Israeli army, has been met only with Israeli intransigence.

Additionally, in targeting Palestinian fighters such as Abu Hija and several others leaders, especially in the Jenin refugee camp, Israel has shown that it is not interested in establishing peace in the West Bank.

The ambush policy

If we look at the circumstances surrounding the recent extra-judicial assassination attempts, we notice a change in Israeli policy. After the strategy of invading and surrounding targeted locations and persons, especially in Jenin, Jenin refugee amp, Kufr Dan and Qabatiya village, the Israeli army has re-implemented a policy of illegal targeted-assassinations.

The army failure

In June 2007, the Israeli military conducted 33 invasions of the city of Jenin. All of these failed to curb resistance activity for in each operation, Israeli forces were met with fierce resistance from local fighters, who, in a number of cases, injured the invading troops and damaged their vehicles.

Because of these failures, Israeli forces now use undercover soldiers to locate resistance fighters. After their location is discovered, a massive force is pushed into the area and the targeted leaders are illegally assassinated. This policy can be witnessed in the previous 3 assassinations in the Jenin area and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Translated by Ghassan Bannoura

Israeli army invades the Old City of Nablus for the second consecutive day
Ameen Abowarda. IMEMC. Wednesday July 04, 2007 11:12
For the second consecutive day, a massive Israeli force invaded the old City of Nablus in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

Local sources reported that the army wreaked much destruction in the city, destroying shops and infrastructure, and kidnapping 4 Palestinians. The men were identified as Adnan Khashana, 15, Munthir Al Kakhan, 30, Marwan Brake, 30, and Kamal Calbouna, 25.

Eyewitnesses reported that Israeli army opened fire on the street lights in the city and on the commercial center, with Israeli bulldozers also damaging the streets.

In the same operation, the army invaded Ibrahim Fatouh’s home, an officer in the preventative security force who was kidnapped in Tuesday?s invasion of Balata Refugee camp. The army searched the home, confiscated some property and interrogated family members.

Palestinian resistance clashed with the army during their withdrawal, with fighters firing homemade shells at military vehicles. No injuries were reported.

Nine Palestinians were kidnapped in Tuesday and Wednesday?s invasions of Nablus, with the Israeli army claiming that all are so-called “wanted Palestinians.?

Three Palestinian civilians kidnapped as Israeli army invades Tulkarem city
Ghassan Bannoura. IMEMC News. Wednesday July 04, 2007 10:58
A massive Israeli army force invaded the northern West Bank city of Tulkarem and Tulkarem refugee camp, kidnapping three Palestinian civilians on Wednesday morning.

Witnesses said that Israeli armored vehicles and troops stormed the city from several directions, firing live rounds and sound bombs at homes and searching scores of houses in the city center and the nearby refugee camp.

During house-to-house searches, the Israeli army kidnapped three civilians. Local sources identified the men as Mohamed Al Taneeb, 34, Yousif Ishtawi, 21, and Mohaned Badran, 17.

Meanwhile Israeli troops stationed at various military checkpoints around the city barred entry to and exit from the area for Palestinian men between the ages of 15 and 35.

Settlers forged documents to take over a Palestinian house in Hebron
Saed Bannoura. IMEMC & Agencies. Wednesday July 04, 2007 02:18
Israeli sources reported on Tuesday that the Israeli state prosecutors stated that the police investigation revealed that the settlers who occupied a Palestinian house in the southern West Bank city of Hebron, and claimed ownership, had presented forged documents.

The police also stated that the documents are now contradicting with the Palestinian story of the event.

The settlers submitted a document which they claim proves their ownership of the Palestinian house, but it also had contradictions which may indicate forgery, Israeli Ynetnews reported.

The case surfaced after a Palestinian man filed a case against the settlers and said that they had illegally seized his house.

The State?s reply to the case was that the settlers and the Tal Investments presented different documents that have been found to be forged, or there is a serious doubt regarding their authenticity.

Also the Israeli prosecution stated that the State does not know for sure if the settlers? claim of purchasing the house is untrue.

Also, the prosecution stated that petitioner ?admitted that he made a deal to transfer the ownership of the house to a third party?, and that he ?did not present any documents which prove that he cancelled the deal later on?. the Ynetnews added.

The Ynetnews also reported that Noam Arnon, spokesperson of the Hebron settlers, said that the ?purchase was legal, and valid?.

200 settlers occupied this house three months ago, and claimed that they bought the land and said that they will not leave. The house in question in on the main route that connect Kiryat Arba Israeli settlement with the Ibrahimi Mosque, known as the ?Tomb of the Patriarchs?.

Palestinian killed after being rammed by a settlers bus
IMEMC Staff. Wednesday July 04, 2007 01:40
Palestinian sources in the West Bank city of Bethlehem reported on Tuesday that one resident died after being rammed by a settlers bus as he was standing on the side of the road at the Um Salmouna junction on Tuesday morning.

The resident was identified as Mahmoud Abudl-Hamid Taqatqa, 45, a resident of Beit Fajjar town, west of Bethlehem.

Eyewitnesses reported that he died instantly after he was rammed by the bus which belongs to Egged Israel bus company.

Dozens of Israeli police officers arrived at the scene and barred a Red Crescent ambulance from transferring the body of Taqatqa.

His body was transferred by an Israeli ambulance to a forensic center in Israel, apparently for autopsy.

Palestinian sources considered this attack deliberate since several similar attacks took place since settler busses accompanied by Israeli military jeeps always drive fast on the bypass roads which are close to the Palestinian areas.

Israeli policemen bar Palestinian children from entering Al Aqsa Mosque
Maisa Abu Ghazala. IMEMC. Wednesday July 04, 2007 01:22. Eyewitnesses reported on Tuesday that Israeli policemen barred hundreds of Palestinian children from reaching Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. The children, from Shufat refugee camp in Jerusalem, were on a summer trip activity which is part of summer camps held by their school.

TThe children were held at the gates of the Al Aqsa Mosque, and were forced back.

The eyewitnesses added that the children tried to enter the mosque but the policemen chased them, harassed female supervisors who accompanied them, and interrogated several male supervisors.

The Foundation For Rebuilding Islamic Sanctities slammed the Israeli violation and considered it as part of the Israeli policies that aim at emptying the mosque from its worshipers, even from the children, while it allows extreme Jewish groups to enter it.

The Foundation added that the repeated attacks against the mosque will only increase the Palestinian steadfastness and determination to liberation the mosque and the occupied City of Jerusalem.

The Foundation also called on all Palestinian and Arab institutions in Jerusalem to participate in defending the mosque against the continuous Israeli attacks and violations, and added that Israel does not have the right to bar any Muslim from entering the mosque.

The Palestine Center. The Jerusalem Fund. 3/3/05. According to the Palestinian Prisoners Club, 3,000 Palestinian children have been arrested from 2000 to February 2005. Today, March 2005, there are 300 Palestinian children in Israeli custody. Four percent of the incarcerated children are in administrative detention. The majority, 55 percent, were arrested for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. According to Israeli military orders, Palestinian children 16 and older are treated as adults and are tried and sentenced by Israeli military courts as adults. Israeli military orders are applied to Palestinian children, even as juvenile legislation defines Israeli children as 18 or younger.

Furthermore, Palestinian children receive the same treatment as adult prisoners. They are subject to torture, solitary confinement, and/or overcrowded cells. They are deprived of sleep, adequate education, medical treatment, family visits, and recreational programs.

Defense for Children International and Save the Children have stated that Palestinian children are being “physically and mentally abused.” They confirm Palestinian accusations that children are denied access to their families and legal representation during interrogation and are held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israel
Information Brief #116, 3 March 2005
By Samar Assad

Overview: On February 28, 2005, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the U.S. Department of State released its 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In the section on Israel and the Occupied Territories, the report points to “problems in some areas” in reference to Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners and detainees. The report quotes complaints made by “credible” non-governmental organizations (NGOs) against the Israeli Prison System (IPS)?complaints that Palestinian NGOs and prisoners’ rights groups have been making for decades?that Israel’s treatment and detention of Palestinian political prisoners is in violation of international law and human rights.

Torture, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment

The U.S. government report states that “some” members of Israel’s security forces abuse Palestinian detainees. However, according to the Israeli Human Rights group B’Tselem, in Israel, “for years, torture was commonly used by Israel’s General Security Service (GSS) interrogators. Since 1987, the GSS interrogated at least 850 Palestinians a year by means of torture. The methods included violent shaking, binding the detainees in painful positions, and covering their head with a foul-smelling sack. All governmental authorities?from the Israeli army to the Supreme Court?took part in approving torture, in developing new methods, and in supervising them.”

In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that only “some” methods of interrogation used against Palestinian detainees were illegal and unacceptable. By not fully banning torture, the Israeli Supreme Court has legally condoned some forms of torture, which is in violation of international law. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This principle was ratified by the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, argued that Chief Justice Aharon Barak’s ruling came after pressure from American legal academics. Adalah lawyers added that in the past, Barak had issued many decisions in favor of the use of torture to extract information or confessions from Palestinian suspects.

Israel and International NGOs

The U.S. Human Rights Report points out that in June 2003, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) in Israel petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to end the IPS’s “systematic abuse of prisoners” in Israel’s Sharon Prison. In July the court closed the case after the appointment of a new prison warden. However, a November 2003 PHR report found that Palestinian detainees in Jerusalem’s Russian Compound interrogation center were given medical examinations upon arrival to determine if the prisoner could endure “the application of violent approaches to those jailed.” The U.S. report states that “a reputable international organization with access to this facility also reported during 2003 that it is investigating the use of Israeli doctors in this capacity.”

The U.S. report found that although IPS facilities?home to common law criminals and convicted security prisoners?generally meet international standards, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) found that police detention and interrogation facilities for Palestinians were “overcrowded and had austere, provisional conditions.”

Palestinian Prisoners’ Rights Groups

According to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Association there are close to 8,000 Palestinians currently being held in Israeli prisons or detention centers. Of those, 400 Palestinians were sentenced before the Oslo Peace Accords and remain in prison despite the Accords’ call for their release. Nineteen are serving sentences of 20 years or more; 140 are sentenced to over 15 years; 300 are children; and 1,200 are being held under administrative detention. Israeli law allows its military to hold Palestinians under administrative detention for up to six months without charge or trial. Israel routinely renews the detention orders and may do so without limitation, thereby holding Palestinians indefinitely without charge or trial. There are 128 Palestinian female prisoners in Israeli jails.

In February 2005, Israel released 500 Palestinians as part of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement. However, according to the IPS, the majority of those released were administrative detainees. The bulk of the released prisoners?250?are members of PA President Mahmoud Abbas? Fateh party. One hundred seventy are members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The remaining eighty have no political affiliation.

Palestinian prisoners’ rights advocates and the Palestinian Authority (PA) were not happy with the recent release. They argue that the release was not coordinated with them through a joint committee as stipulated in the Sharm agreement. Furthermore, they argue that the release did not address the urgent need to release prisoners who are ill, the elderly, those who are serving sentences of 20 years or more, or most importantly, child prisoners.

Child Prisoners

According to the Palestinian Prisoners Club, 3,000 Palestinian children have been arrested since 2000. Today, there are 300 Palestinian children in Israeli custody. Four percent of the incarcerated children are in administrative detention. The majority, 55 percent, were arrested for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. According to Israeli military orders, Palestinian children 16 and older are treated as adults and are tried and sentenced by Israeli military courts as adults. Israeli military orders are applied to Palestinian children, even as juvenile legislation defines Israeli children as 18 or younger.

Furthermore, Palestinian children receive the same treatment as adult prisoners. They are subject to torture, solitary confinement, and/or overcrowded cells. They are deprived of sleep, adequate education, medical treatment, family visits, and recreational programs.

Defense for Children International and Save the Children have stated that Palestinian children are being “physically and mentally abused.” They confirm Palestinian accusations that children are denied access to their families and legal representation during interrogation and are held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

Political Prisoners

Israel insists that it will not release Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis. However, in most cases, Israeli courts fail to prove a detainee’s direct responsibility for the death of Israelis. According to the IPS, only 2,731 Palestinian prisoners have “blood on their hands.” If that is the actual number, then the vast majority of Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners who have been arrested for political expression or for no legitimate security reason. Imprisonment for political reasons is in contradiction to international covenants enshrining the freedom of speech for all persons, especially political dissidents.

According to B’Tselem: “Security is interpreted in an extremely broad manner such that non-violent speech and political activity are considered dangerous?. [This] is a blatant contradiction of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion guaranteed under international law. If these same standards were applied inside Israel, half of the Likud party would be in administrative detention.”

Minimum Standards under International Law

Administrative detentions and imprisonment of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories inside Israel are both illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

According to Article 76: “Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.”

Furthermore, Palestinian prisoners are routinely tortured by Israel and held in detention centers and prisons that do not meet the minimum international standards and are routinely denied visitation rights. Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as “any act by which sever pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession….”

The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development

Photo. Naji Al-Ali cartoon
Riferimenti: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief

Ezzedin ALQASSAM Brigades. 4/7/07. The Zionist occupation forces, during the first half of the current year (2007), abducted more than 581 Palestinian citizens from the city of Hebron, southern West Bank, including twenty-seven children and four girls. According to the Palestinian Prisoners Club in the city, the first half of this year witnessed an escalation in the raids, abductions in Hebron, villages and cities surrounding. The report pointed out that most of the children under age (18 years), were exposed to beatings, torture and humiliation.

The Prisoners Club in his report, explained that seventy-four prisoners who had been arrested and turned to the administrative detention for periods ranging from four to six months, as long kidnappings (29) satisfactory situation is still suffering from health deliberate neglect by the Department of the Zionist prisons which subjected the prisoners to cruel investigations.

The club’s lawyer quoted that all of the arrested were subjected to violent and constant specter for long hours, in addition to insults and offending the dignity of the person, and try to extract confessions by force in a clear violation of human rights charters and Geneva Conventions.

Riferimenti: http://www.alqassam.ps/english/?action=showdetail&fid=5

la Repubblica.it. 4/7/07. Il giornalista sequestrato nel marzo scorso consegnato a funzionari di HamasIl leader del movimento islamico Meshaal: “Abbiamo riportato l’ordine”. GAZA – Dopo 113 giorni di prigionia, Alan Johnston è libero. Il giornalista della Bbc, sequestrato nella Striscia di Gaza nel marzo scorso, è stato consegnato oggi dai suoi rapitori islamici a funzionari di Hamas. Il reporter è stato liberato nella notte e ha già lasciato la striscia di Gaza in direzione Gerusalemme. E’ in buone condizioni di salute. La soddisfazione del primo ministro inglese Brown e della BBC: “è una notizia meravigliosa”.

“Essere libero è la cosa più bella – sono state le prime parole di Johnston – questi mesi di prigionia sono stati un’esperienza terrificante, credevo di non farcela: spesso i miei rapitori parlavano di uccidermi. A volte sognavo di essere libero, ma mi risvegliavo in cella. Ringrazio tutti coloro che mi hanno aiutato, in tutte le parti del mondo. Anche Hamas. I rapitori sembravano molto sicuri dell’operazione fino a quando Hamas ha assunto il controllo della sicurezza”.

Subito dopo il rilascio, Johnston si è incontratato con il premier palestinese destituito Ismail Haniyeh, per il quale la liberazione del giornalista della Bbc è il primo successo politico dopo l’isolamento sul piano internazionale seguito all’occupazione di tutte le istituzioni nella striscia di Gaza compiuta due settimane fa da Hamas.”Per noi era una priorità – ha spiegato Haniyeh – ma per ragioni umanitarie. IL rapimento di giornalisti nella Striscia – ha assicurato – appartiene ormai al passato”.

Khaled Meshaal, leader di Hamas in esilio a Damasco, ha sottolineato come la liberazione del giornalista dimostri che il suo movimento islamico ha portato ordine nella Striscia di Gaza. “Siamo stati in grado di chiudere questo capitolo che ha danneggiato moltissimo l’immagine del nostro popolo. Grazie a Dio, gli sforzi compiuti da Hamas hanno portato alla liberazione di Alan Johnston” ha detto Meshaal telefonando dalla Siria. “Abbiamo espresso il nostro rammarico nel nome del popolo palestinese per il rapimento del giornalista della BBc, che rappresenta un’offesa per il nostro popolo”.

Il governo di Hamas ha spiegato che Alan Johnston “è stato liberato in seguito a un accordo con i suoi rapitori”. Ma il rilascio del giornalista, sostengono fonti palestinesi, sarebbe avvenuto al termine di uno scambio di prigionieri concordato nella notte con i negoziatori di Hamas. Prima del rilascio di Johnston, che si trovava nelle mani dei sequestratori dal marzo scorso, l’Esercito dell’Islam legato al clan palestinese dei Doghmoush, avrebbe liberato dieci esponenti di Hamas sequestrati tre giorni fa, mentre Hamas avrebbe a sua volta scarcerato almeno quattro uomini appartenenti al clan Doghmoush imprigionati nei giorni scorsi proprio nel corso di una vasta operazione per la liberazione di Johnston.

(4 luglio 2007)
Riferimenti: http://www.repubblica.it/2007/06/sezioni/esteri/medio-o