Palestine News: Settler Violence Continues; Lieberman on Iran

More settler violence in West Bank (Ynet)

The Israeli government's decision to crack down on illegal settler outposts in the West Bank has led to continued violence by settlers against both Palestinians and Israeli security.

Attacks continued Wednesday. Ha'aretz reported:

at about 5 A.M. yesterday, masked settlers began blocking roads and stoning Palestinian cars near Karnei Shomron, Kedumim and Yitzhar. Palestinians responded by throwing rocks at the settlers. Four Palestinian civilians were injured in the ensuing clash, but since they were traveling in a car with Israeli license plates it is not clear whether they were hit by Israeli or by Palestinian stone-throwers.

The International Middle East Media Center reported:

Witnesses said that settlers from the nearby Yitshar settlement stopped the truck driver then beat him up. They added that the driver escaped with cuts and bruises. Extremist Israeli settlers carried out a series of violent attacks against Palestinians residents and orchards near Nablus this week.

The settlements are emerging as a key point of contention between the United States and Israel, both raising tensions in Israel and meeting resistance from Israeli leaders.

Lieberman: Israel is not planning to bomb Iran

According to Reuters, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated yesterday in Russia, "We do not have a need," to carry out attacks on Iran, he said. "Israel is a strong country and we can defend ourselves."

HEADLINES

Obama begins Mideast tour in Saudi Arabia (Los Angeles Times)

As Obama Begins Mideast Trip, Focus Is on Israel (Washington Post)

Global ranking: Only 3 countries more dangerous than Israel (Ynet)

Obama to tell Israel: Form new peace policy by July (Ha'aretz)

Barak lobbies US officials on settlements (Daily Star)

Palestine and the Palestinians

Gaza’s Gritty Mixture of Dirt, Despair Produces Houses of Mud (Bloomberg.com)

Gaza aid still in Egypt (The Electronic Intifada)

Hamas officials hand over documents to UN's Gaza war crimes inquiry (Ma'an)

Israel

Israel OKs contentious hotel in east Jerusalem (AP)

Israel Removes 2 West Bank Roadblocks (Voice of America)

Israel's Leumi gets extension to sell Paz stake (Reuters)

Sirens ring out for Israel largest emergency drill (Ha'aretz)

Israeli Army Accused of Stealing Private Palestinian Land for Military Facility (The Media Line)

Ethics Committee: MK Zahalka's participation in anti-Israel rally legitimate (Ynet)

Climate change could prompt Israel to resist Golan pullout (Ha'aretz)

Meretz: Obama's line on Israel correct (Jerusalem Post)

The Neighbors

Sirens heard in south Lebanon as Israel rehearses 'doomsday'(Daily Star)

US, Hezbollah thaw in the cards (Hurriyet Daily News)

Egyptians suspicious of Obama, US policies: poll (Emirates Business)

Syrian president appoints new defense minister (Ynet)

Hezbollah No. 2 wants Lebanon unity government (AP)

US Foreign Policy

Obama Plays Down Divide With Israel (New York Times)

Audio: Obama's Israeli-Palestinian agenda on track, but danger signs (NPR)

White House: No 'rancor,' 'ultimatums' for Israel (Politico)

U.S. envoy Mitchell expected in Middle East soon (Reuters)

International Relations/Law

Arab States Cool to Obama Pleas for Peace Gesture (New York Times)

FM: Israeli-Palestinian conflict part of regional clash of moderates, radicals (Ynet)

Palestinian rights groups slam UN chief over Gaza war inquiry (Xinhau)

Palestinian village sends pair to sue Quebec companies (CBC)

EU leader: Israel relations linked to Palestinian state (Ma'an)

UN chief urges Israel to cooperate with Gaza human rights probe (Xinhua)

Canadian PM: No double-speak on Israel (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

Ya'alon: N. Korea's nuclear tests will have indirect effect on Israel (Jerusalem Post)

Arts and Activism

NGO organizes health festival for Palestinian children (Daily Star)

Palestinian community educators win children's literature's richest prize (Guardian)

A Lifeline From The United States To Gaza (Australia.to News)

Berkeley activist Barbara Lubin shares the wealth—and the love—with children in the Middle East (The Monthly)

Misc.

Joint Israeli-Palestinian team takes part in European tourney (Ha'aretz)

Rebuilding lives, healing minds (Bulletin of the World Health Organization)

Israel's official blog gets new design (Jerusalem Post)

Israel Parade Has Fewer Delays, And Marchers (The Jewish Week)

Visiting the Samaritans on their holy West Bank mountain (Reuters)

Commentary

Analysis: Obama plans to teach Netanyahu tough love (Ha'aretz)

Benjamin: Obama should visit Gaza (Electronic Intifada)

Eldar: American policy on Israel will require some fine tuning (Daily Star)

Friedman: Obama on Obama (New York Times)

Hijab: A Stifling Embrace (Agence Global)

Kagan: Obama Courageous, Foolish or Both? (Washington Post)

Meretz: Obama's line on Israel correct (Jerusalem Post)

Rabbani: Embattled Palestinians, Elusive Peace (International Relations and Security Network)

Views expressed on this post or on linked web pages do not represent the Palestine Center, the educational program of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development. All content is for educational purposes only.

read more...

Jerusalem Fund Sends $100,000 in Medical Equipment to Gaza

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
Contact: Samar Assad
(202) 338-1958

Washington, D.C. (May 21, 2009) - The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development (The Fund) purchased medical equipment worth $107,783, which will be used to assist in the relief of civilian victims in the Gaza Strip. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip is the recipient organization of the Fund's humanitarian assistance donation.

In January 2009, the Fund launched several fundraiser campaigns for Gaza in response to Israel's military offensive against 1.5 million Palestinian civilians enclosed in the coastal territory.

"The Jerusalem Fund wants to thank its loyal donors who have been with us for many years and because of them we are able to carry out our humanitarian work. I want to specifically thank the Arab community in Houston, Texas for their pivotal effort in the purchase of the medical items," said Jerusalem Fund Treasurer Dr. Eid Mustafa.

The Fund's Humanitarian Link program fundraises and gives thousands of dollars annually in grants to hospitals, orphanages, clinics, schools, universities and civil society organizations in Palestine and in refugee camps in the diaspora to assist the Palestinian people. It also launches emergency aid campaigns to help Palestinians meet the challenges of life under occupation.

For more information about the Fund's Humanitarian Link program and the Fund's other programs, the Palestine Center and Gallery, visit www.thejerusalemfund.org.

DONATE TODAY.

###

read more...

Building Palestinian Civil Society within Challenging Realities

Building Palestinian Civil Society within Challenging Realities
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Mr. Jafar Farrah, Dr. Mary Totry and Dr. Khaled Furani from the Mossawa Center.

Today, there are 1.4 million Palestinian citizens in Israel. However, since the establishment of the Jewish state 61 years ago, this minority continues to struggle for their civil rights and equal rights as citizens of the self-declared "only democracy in the Middle East." A delegation from The Mossawa Center, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel, explained the challenges and the triumphs of the Palestinian citizens in Israel.

The Palestine Center
Washington, D.C.
23 April 2009

Read the Transcripts.

read more...

Info Brief: The Gaza Offensive and Ending Israel’s Legal Impunity

Thursday, May 7, 2009
Palestine Center Brief No. 176

By Will Youmans

Overview

The announcement by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) of the formation of a fact-finding mission to investigate alleged war crimes during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009 is both warranted and necessary to establish the facts and to determine if international legal transgressions occurred. The team of investigators, which includes two notable jurists, a military specialist and an international legal scholar, is meeting in Geneva this week before beginning their fact-finding mission next week.

Israel previously refused to cooperate with the panel of jurists tasked with the investigation. UN Spokesman Rolando Gomez reported this week that the team was assured by Israeli and Palestinian authorities that the mission can proceed, a notable departure from previous Israeli obstruction of two investigations into Gaza. The extent of cooperation by Hamas and Israel will be seen in the coming weeks. It was reported that Israel was comforted that the eminent South African judge and former International War Crimes Prosecutor Richard Goldstone, the team's head, would be fair and impartial. Goldstone, a trustee of Hebrew University, has been described in the Jewish press as a "Jewish South African with close ties to Israel."

International and regional human rights groups helped push for broad cooperation. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International lobbied the U.S. and the EU to pressure Israel to cooperate. Ten Israeli human rights organizations called "for an external, extra-military investigation and called on Israel to cooperate with the United Nations investigation," according to the BBC.

Beyond fact-finding, the inquiry, or international institutions, should contemplate and propose mechanisms that would enforce accountability, such as an internationally-mandated tribunal or other means of giving actionable substance to its findings. However, political obstacles--namely the American government's interest in re-establishing peace talks--will block most effective measures of accountability; international legal enforcement is often seen as a threat to, rather than a basis of, peace negotiations. The American effort to bring about Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution means it will maintain its diplomatic protection of the country for the fear that ostracizing the country will encourage its disengagement. This strategy has proven to be faulty.

Its impunity has only engendered more extreme Israeli violations of international law--from settlement construction, to land appropriations, to extra-legal assassinations and mass collective punishment. International institutions that the United States supports could better encourage Israeli compliance with international norms, which is consistent with dominant prescriptions for peace. In other words, it is vital to re-establish the domain of international law if there is to be movement towards a peace that comports with relevant UN resolutions, such as UN Security Council Resolution 242.

This all depends on a credible, legitimate investigation. While the team is going to consider violations committed both by Hamas and Israel, war crimes by one party are not a defense for war crimes by another. This will present the international community with an interesting array of choices, but only if the world powers do not continue to prioritize the political track over international law. This information brief overviews the investigation and applicable international law, highlights a few areas of Israeli transgressions and analyzes the need for accountability.

The Investigation

The appointment of the eminent jurist, South African Judge Richard Goldstone, who was the chief UN prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, came after a widespread call for the United Nations to take seriously the allegations about, as well as the applicability of international law to, Israel's actions in Gaza. In March, Judge Goldstone himself signed on to a letter with fifteen other prominent individuals and Amnesty International calling for an "investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict."

Although the 47-member UN Human Rights Council voted overwhelmingly to arrange an inquiry into "grave" human rights violations on January 12, putting together an actual inquiry proved difficult. Israel and its allies opposed the resolution as one-sided.

The inquiry will look into possible war crimes committed by Hamas and other Palestinian parties that intentionally targeted civilians. The UN Human Rights Council President Martin Uhomoibhi said the fact-finding mission would deal "with all violations." Goldstone will take a broader view and argued that such an inquiry is necessary. He said, "[i]t is in the interest of all Palestinians and Israelis that the allegations of war crimes and serious human rights violations related to the recent conflict on all sides be investigated."

Critics doubt Israel will be held accountable. They can point to international inaction following the International Court of Justice's 2004 advisory opinion on the wall Israel is constructing in the West Bank. Israel's flaunting of the ICJ opinion challenged directly the reach of international law and the United States acquiesced. More recently, a senior Israeli foreign ministry official indicated Israel would deny the four-person delegation's entrance into the country. Israel has turned back other UN personnel, such as UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk, late last year. It also refused to cooperate with an earlier UN mission in Beit Hanoun led by the South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Again, American complicity enabled this.

Israel conducted its own investigations into its military's conduct and found it free of wrongdoing. This does not preclude the Goldstone investigation. Legally, it may not prevent other countries from invoking universal jurisdiction as the basis for trying Israeli officials for war crimes in the future. Recently, a Spanish judge ruled that its National Court could investigate Israel for a potential "crime against humanity" for a 2002 bombing in Gaza. To assassinate suspected Hamas commander, Salah Shehadeh, Israel bombed his building, killing 15 people and wounding 150 others. The judge who gave the case a green light rejected objections that Israel's internal investigation preempts a third country from examining the case. The judge wrote, "Israel judicial authorities have not begun any criminal proceeding to determine if the events could lead to some type of penal responsibility."

How the international community and the United States, especially, react to the Goldstone findings may indicate whether Israel continues to enjoy impunity from international law. Hamas, which is already sanctioned by the world's powers, may prove to be as deserving of repercussions as Israel is; but the party has not enjoyed the historic immunity Israel has.

The Investigation and International Law

The investigation should look into whether Israel met its obligations under international law. There are two prevailing legal questions that should be considered. First, did the Israeli attack contravene international law itself? Second, did Israel's conduct violate any of the established laws of war?

This inquiry must examine whether Israel was in compliance with the United Nations' Charter. It says recourse to force can only be in self-defense and as a last resort after exhausting all other remedies. Other international humanitarian laws can apply to peacetime behaviors, such as Israel's embargo of the Gaza Strip. One source of such law is the London Agreement. It outlined punishable crimes in the planning of war for the purpose of the Nuremberg Tribunals. Therefore, "crimes against the peace" are also considered part of customary international law.

The laws of war are established by the four Geneva Conventions and the two protocols (Israel is party to the former but not the latter). The Fourth Geneva Convention, for instance, provides for numerous protections civilians must enjoy in times of war and under any military occupation by a foreign power. Article 3 expressly forbids violence to life and person, hostage-taking, outrages upon personal dignity and denying people certain aspects of fair trials. Articles 13 to 26 also lay out the obligations of belligerent parties towards civilians of the country under attack.

A National Lawyers Guild delegation to Gaza issued a detailed report suggesting violations of the following international legal principles emanating from treaties and custom: the principle of distinction, meaning attacks should distinguish between military and civilian targets; the principle of proportionality, which says the attacks should be proportionate to the ends sought; and the obligation to provide medical care as well as the prohibition on attacking medical facilities and personnel, inter alia. The NLG study is based on a delegation to Gaza that detailed first-hand evidence of Israeli violations. The study concludes that an expert inquiry is necessary for a more conclusive investigation.

In the months since the cessation of the attack, numerous allegations of Israeli misconduct emerged. An impartial, fact-finding investigation is justified by the gravity of the allegations, the high proportion of civilian casualties and the failure of the Israeli government to seriously investigate them. Also, not every violation is a war crime. Ultimately, criminal intent will need to be established, as only grave breaches can be prosecuted.

Israel’s legal position invokes Article 51 of the United Nations charter, which gives states the right to military action in the name of self-defense. The investigation will need to evaluate the merit of this claim.

Despite Israel's opposition to the investigation, the international community's credibility depends on decisive action. There are too many documented instances that could constitute prima facie violations, potential grave breaches, for the international body to avoid a full investigation with the serious intent to prosecute.

Allegations of Israeli Transgressions

The fact-finding mission will be looking into a conflict that left behind a considerable number of civilians. According to the Israeli military's estimates, they killed 1,166 Palestinians, 709 (60 percent) of whom were "terror operatives." If the remaining 40 percent were civilians, this implies a 3 to 2 ratio of militant to civilian deaths. While there is no numerical trigger, such a proportion should necessarily raise questions into the extent by which the military avoided civilian casualties. Richard Falk, relayed different estimates in a report to the UN General Assembly: Of the 1,434 Palestinians killed, 960 (67 percent) were civilians, including 121 women and 288 children. The United Nations News Service reports that Israel "left at least 1,300 Palestinians dead and some 5,300 injured."

1) Proportionality, Distinction and Targeting Civilians

In a New York Times op-ed, George Bisharat outlined six possible areas of war crimes. He argued that Israel deliberately attacked civilian targets. This is only permissible when it makes "an effective contribution to military action." Israeli military officials described a strategy of a generalized attack on non-military institutions. One general said, "We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas government and all its wings." Israeli military spokeswoman, Maj. Avital Leibovich, declared "anything affiliated with Hamas" as "a legitimate target."

Bisharat listed sites the Israeli military destroyed or damaged: "mosques, hospitals, factories, schools, a key sewage plant, institutions like the parliament, the main ministries, the central prison and police stations, and thousands of houses." This calls into question whether Israel properly distinguished between military and non-military targets.

While Palestinian accounts are bountiful, the release of soldier's testimonies made such an inquiry requisite. A leading Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, published the personal stories of a group of Israeli fighters who graduated from the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Tivon. In summary, the report announced, "Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property." An Israeli military investigation closed on the subject, finding no criminal activities and dismissing the soldiers' stories in the news reports as "hearsay."

There is more evidence of broad destruction of residential areas. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) released videos exposing the extent of the damage. According to the ICRC, patches of the Gaza Strip "were wiped out, leaving the people who lived there without homes." They found that "10,000 houses have been partially or completely ruined because of the Israeli operation."

2) Targeting Medical Workers and Police

There is also strong evidence that Israel directly targeted specially protected classes of persons, medical workers and police. A team of five international medical experts sponsored by the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society interviewed 44 civilians and health workers in Gaza. Their report presents evidence that Israeli troops attacked Palestinian medical workers to prevent them from helping wounded people. The team gathered "individual cases in which soldiers had been within seeing, hearing and speaking distance of their victims for significant stretches of time" and had "denied wounded people access to lifesaving medical care, or even shot at civilians at short range."

This corroborated earlier ICRC accusations that Israel intentionally delayed ambulances and denied them safe access in at least one instance. In a statement, ICRC said it believes "the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded." However, Dominik Stillhart, ICRC deputy director of operations, said this was for the International Criminal Court (ICC), not the ICRC, to adjudicate. The ICC, however, lacks jurisdiction since Israel is not a ratified signatory to the Rome Statute. The ICC could gain jurisdiction if the case were referred by the UN Security Council. Without a proper, formal and fair investigation, it is impossible for any such case to proceed.

Professor John Dugard, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and visiting distinguished professor of law at Duke University, spoke recently at the Palestine Center. He described the "opening salvo," in which Israel killed fifteen policemen as a potential transgression of international law. He said, "Israelis view policemen as militants whereas in fact policemen are, under international law, classified as civilians." Professor Dugard has visited the Gaza Strip twice each year since 2001 and previously "witnessed evidence of horrendous bombings and killings and house destructions." "But," he added, "the most recent attack surpassed all the others."

3) Attack Justified?

For Falk, the questions of proportionality and distinction are not central. His report states, "Recourse to force was not legally justified given the circumstances and diplomatic alternatives available, and was potentially a crime against peace." Similarly, the high rate of civilians suggests Israel either disregarded, or never considered, whether proper distinction between civilian and military targets was even possible. Without the possibility of distinction, the attack was legally dubious from the start. Also, he raises the question of whether Israel was truly acting in self-defense. He cited Hamas efforts to procure a new truce as well as Israeli provocations during the truce period as evidence that Israel may have not been. Another question is whether it faced "imminent" attack and exhausted all its non-violent options.

Falk also suggested that by denying Palestinians the right to flee Gaza and bombarding the tiny strip, Israel committed an "unprecedented belligerent" move. In light of the difficulty Israel had distinguishing between military and civilian targets, this resulted in a high degree of civilian casualties. Though international law has not conceived of such an offense, the panel should evaluate it as a possible breach of other norms.

The UN team must also consider Israeli policies since the offensive ended as well. Prior to the hostilities, during and since, Israel has maintained a blockade of Gaza. By systematically denying food and medicines to the civilians, Israel is undermining prohibitions against collective punishment, such as Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The embargo banned such staples as lentils, tea and pasta, as noted by two American Congressmen who visited Gaza. Falk named the embargo as a "massive violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Accountability

Special Rapporteur Falk proposed an empowered expert inquiry, rather than a mere investigation. Beyond the scope, he argued the panel should consider the applicability of the ad hoc tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, especially the jurisprudence they relied upon to examine and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity in those respective sites. Ultimately, he argues, the "most efficient mechanism for assessing accountability would be to establish, under the authority of the Security Council, an ad hoc criminal tribunal for occupied Gaza."

The National Lawyers Guild report suggested something similar:

The United Nations to establish a commission of inquiry mandated to conduct a comprehensive and independent investigation into the gross violations of international humanitarian law reported herein and to issue recommendations for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a 'subsidiary organ' under U.N. Charter Article 22 to prosecute Israel's top generals and other military and political leaders for gross violations of the law.

Accountability should not be a controversial expectation. However, given the political ramifications and power of Israel and the states granting it support, it will be very unlikely to lead to anything more than the investigation it is mandated with. That has become a consensus position of sorts, even if it falls below the standards of international law. One critic who accused Falk of downplaying Israel's self-defense argument still agreed that it "should be investigated thoroughly."

Conclusion: Credibility, American Policy and the United Nations

UN Human Rights Council President Martin Uhomoibhi elaborated on the rationale for the inquiry. "The ultimate purpose of the council," he said, "will not be served if that mandate does not allow for the establishment of an independent and impartial fact-finding mission…that would gain the credibility of all sides." Given the United Nations' role as the leading institution embodying international law, there are simply too many serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity to not investigate. However, the record already suggests that more than an investigation is needed.

Weakening international regimes is ultimately at odds with the United States' agenda of a two-state solution since it, and its long-term credibility, are rooted in international law. This means a serious system of accountability must be considered if the facts prompt its establishment. Yet, the international rule of law will likely be subordinated to the potential for an Israeli engagement in peace negotiations.

Such investigations face a difficult paradox. An actual mechanism of accountability is likely required for the undertaking to be seen as credible. Given the trend of prioritizing peace processes over international law application, it is unlikely the powerful states will risk Israeli engagement at the negotiating table for the sake of the integrity of international law. Even in the face of international sanctions, Israel would effectively hold hostage the prospects of a negotiated peace since punishing Israel is nearly unimaginable in American politics. The United States is eager enough for negotiations that it would acquiesce to Israeli legal intransigence. Recent proposals by Israeli leaders, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, suggest Israeli re-engagement will be full of qualifications and pre-conditions as to render an agreement unlikely, yet possible enough to pursue. The American strategy of taming international law to the benefit of Israel shields it from a credible source of pressure.

There is a related paradox. The forces and pressures at work, as well as the history of such inquiries, suggest the investigation will have the teeth of a paper tiger. Yet, the text of the findings must be true to the facts. The end result is usually a disproportionate testament to Israeli impunity: strong findings combined with punitive inaction. This puts the institutions of international law in an awkward position vis-à-vis an international community and observers expecting more. International institutions end up as marginal forces in the cause of peace, as they are effectively blocked by the United States in the name of a non-existent process.

As enthusiastic as many are for a renewed American commitment to the two-state solution, its efforts to shield Israel from international law will undermine its own agenda. Israeli impunity will shield it from international norms. Peace will rest on an American power subject to its own internal whims and politically fluid regional goals. In short, the United States is strong enough to block the international community but is too interested to construct a credible process rooted in international law. Strengthening the hand of the international community will ultimately best serve the interests of peace. This means allowing for international, coordinated action to push Israeli compliance.

Will Youmans is a former Palestine Center fellow.

Views expressed on this post or on linked web pages do not represent the Palestine Center, the educational program of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development. All content is for educational purposes only.

read more...

Interview with John Ging, UNRWA

Samar Assad, the Executive Director of the Palestine Center, spoke with John Ging on 1 May 2009 about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Ging is the head of the United Nation's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the Gaza Strip. He has been in this position since 2006.

Ging called the humanitarian crisis in Gaza "man-made." He said aid agencies had the funds to ameliorate it, but do not have proper access to Gaza.

Listen:



Download (mp3)

Views expressed on this post or on linked web pages do not represent the Palestine Center, the educational program of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development. All content is for educational purposes only.

read more...

Landscapes of Desire, Drawings by John Halaka (April 2009)

John Halaka's drawings 'Landscapes of Desire' are inspired by the ruins of Palestinian villages and homes that were destroyed by Israel during and after the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine.  He discussed his art at a recent Jerusalem Fund event.

View photos from the exhibit.

read more...

A Poster-Based Curriculum on the Palestinian-Zionist Conflict by Dan Walsh

"Answering Obama’s Call: An Open Conversation About The Palestinian-Zionist Conflict"
with Dan Walsh

19 March 2009

In February of 2008 then-candidate Barack Obama said:

one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was…I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation…I'm saying though that actually, ultimately, should be our goal.

Dan Walsh will present parts of a new high school curriculum specifically designed to open up the conversation President Obama alluded to in 2008. This new curriculum titled: Teaching the Formative History of Political Zionism (1897-1947) through Poster Art: A Plain Language/Language Rights Curriculum Model for American High School Educators uses historical poster art to engage American students and teachers in a more open, natural conversation about the Palestinian-Zionist conflict. It differs from existing high school teaching resources that cover the conflict in a number of ways including that it is dedicated to the concept of “civic competence”. This approach puts the students needs for jargon-free language foremost and evaluates its usefulness based on whether or not the students can carry on a civil and historically holistic discussion about the conflict. All lessons include opportunities for students to analyze the content of Zionist and/or Palestinian nationalist posters—symbols, colors, texts, styles—allowing them to engage their own critical faculties.

Dan Walsh is a graduate student at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. He was first introduced to the Palestine poster genre as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco in the mid-1970’s. While there he collected several hundred Palestine posters. Over the years he has continued to acquire Palestine poster art and he now curates what many specialists believe to be the largest such archives in the world, containing approximately three thousand original posters.

Press TV news story
Dan Walsh's PowerPoint outline

read more...

Helena Cobban: Shifting Dimensions of the Palestinian Question

Shifting Dimensions of the Palestinian Question: Conclusions from a Reporting Trip

Download Audio



Transcripts

Helena Cobban
Writer and Researcher
Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Back from a month-long reporting trip to the Middle East that took her to Egypt, Jordan, the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, Helena Cobban shares her findings and conclusions based on first-hand accounts of developments on the ground. During the trip, Cobban interviewed more than 45 people ranging from Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to several Hamas lawmakers and senior officials with aid agencies working in the Gaza Strip.

Helena Cobban is a writer and researcher who has worked on Palestinian issues since 1974. She worked for The Christian Science Monitor for many years, first as a reporter and later as a columnist. Over the past decade, Ms. Cobban has written extensively in The Boston Review on her long-maintained blog, 'Just World News', and elsewhere on developments in Israel and Palestine.

read more...

Apartheid and Occupation under International Law by John Dugard

Download Audio or Play it:



Read transcripts.

Hisham B. Sharabi Memorial Lecture

“Apartheid and Occupation under International Law”

with

Professor John Dugard
Former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Visiting Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke University

26 March 2009

While the international community continues to posture and push for a settlement to the decades-long Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory, international legal institutions are positioned to offer insights based on developed international treaties and customs. They are underutilized to the detriment of peace. Drawing on his experience as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Professor John Dugard, who returned from a fact-finding mission to Gaza early this month, will discuss how international law and the institutions charged with upholding it can enable a break in the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

Professor Dugard is a member of the Institut de Droit International. Since 1997, he has been a member of the U.N. International Law Commission and was, from 2000 to 2006, the Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection to the Commission. From 2002 to 2008, he was a judge ad hoc in the International Court of Justice. From 2001 to 2008, Dugard served as Special Rapporteur to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. His present principal interests are international criminal law and diplomatic protection.

read more...

Film Showing and Discussion: Palestinian Refugees: Identity Without a Homeland

As part of the Syrian Cultural Lecture Series, The Jerusalem Fund Gallery and Dr. Rafif Al-Sayed Moustapha invite you to a lecture and film discussion entitled:

"Palestinian Refugees: Identity Without a Homeland"

with

Director Adam Shapiro and Dr. Laurie King-Irani

Friday, 20 February 2009
The Jerusalem Fund

Dr. Laurie King-Irani and Adam Shapiro will discuss the global Palestinian refugee experience as portrayed in the new 6-part documentary film series Chronicles of a Refugee. Several segments chosen by Adam Shapiro will be screened.

Filmed in over 15 countries, with more than 250 interviews of Palestinian refugees who have lived in over 25 countries, Chronicles of a Refugee is the first documentary film to look at the global Palestinian refugee experience over the last 60 years. Produced by Perla Issa, Aseel Mansour and Adam Shapiro.

Adam Shapiro is a human rights activist, dedicated to fostering dialogue between Jewish and Palestinian youth through "Seeds of Peace". Together with his wife, Shapiro founded the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), an organization that attempts to bring civilians from around the world into non-violent resistance efforts in Palestine. His previous works include a documentary entitled About Baghdad.

Laurie King-Irani is an Adjunct Professor at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University, and is a founding member of The Electronic Intifada. Currently, she serves as Managing Editor of The Journal for Palestine Studies. She is a frequent commentator on national and international news programs, including MSNBC and CNN, on political, cultural and military developments in the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy in the region.

read more...

First Person: Recent Palestinian Art

This video features the current Gallery exhibit at the Jerusalem Fund. It is called "First Person: Recent Palestinian Art."

In the course of a research trip for a story on Israeli art, New York-based critic and curator Mary Evangelista was introduced to a number of outstanding young Palestinian artists. Evangelista's editor refused to include these artists in the magazine, but the experience ignited in Evangelista an ongoing interest in Palestinian contemporary art.

This exhibition will offer a first-person account of one curator's venture into Palestinian contemporary art through a selection of painting, sculpture, mixed media, photography, and video works. Artists include Hani Zurob, Taysir Batniji, Said Abu Shakra, Farid Abu Shakra, Samir Salameh, Nabil Ananni, Ahmad Canann, and Shadi al Habib.

The exhibit will be on display at the Jerusalem Fund Gallery from 30 January - 27 March 2009.

read more...

US Launch of The Lancet Series on Palestinian Health at the Center

Today, The Lancet, one of the world's best-known and most respected general medical journals released its latest edition. It focused entirely on "Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."

The launch took place in London and was broadcast via videolink at Palestine Center in Washington DC on March 4th. Journalists, government officials, academics and members of the general public gathered at the Center to hear several of the papers' authors present.

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, said the issue was created "to make the invisible visible." By documenting scientifically the health consequences of the Israeli occupation of Palestinians, the issue suggests that Palestinian "human security" is essential to peace, as former President Jimmy Carter suggests in his Comment.

The Lancet became well-known among political observers when in 2004 it published estimates of the Iraq war's civilian death toll. At the time, many were not discussing it publicly, and that study forced it into the open.

This edition of The Lancet brought together the best researchers and epidemiologists from the occupied Palestinian territory, UN agencies, and international scientists, to examine in depth the long term health issues for all groups living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The United States launch was made possible by the work of the Vineeta Foundation, in collaboration with The Lancet, Birzeit University, Medical Aid for Palestinians, and The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Want more information about this issue?

Listen to the Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton discuss this issue.

read more...

Politico Quotes Palestine Center Fellow

In "Israeli nationalist, charm offensive", Politico writer Ben Smith discussed Yisrael Beitanu leader Avigdor Lieberman, whose electoral success in Israel alarms many. Smith wrote that supporters of Israel in the United States are embracing him to dilute the negative PR consequences of his role in Israeli politics. At the same time, Lieberman is distancing himself publicly from his rich record of anti-Palestinian positions.

In the article, Smith quoted Ali Abunimah:

“Lieberman's politics are truly odious, racist and incompatible with any notion of democracy and equality in a modern state,” said Ali Abunimah, a fellow at the Palestine Center in Washington. He added that “much of the anti-Arab racism he expresses publicly is deeply embedded in Israel's society, economy, and political system and tacitly endorsed by all the other major Zionist parties.”

read more...

Post-Election Entanglements: Israel, Palestine and Settlements

Gershom Gorenberg
Author and Journalist
Friday, 13 February 2009

For Israel to move forward following its general elections, it must understand that the deepest threat to a Jewish state's future is its entanglement in the occupied territories - its rule and settlement enterprise. Otherwise, it will lead us to the one-state non-solution, to a state built on an internal eternal ethnic conflict.&

Gershom Gorenberg is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect and author of The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977 (Times Books).

Download Audio File.

For Transcripts of the event.

read more...

Interview with Dr. Robert Pastor: Israeli Elections

Palestine Center intern Nicolas Kabat interviewed Dr. Robert Pastor about the recent Israeli elections. Dr. Pastor is the Vice President of International Affairs and Professor of International Relations, American University; Senior Adviser on Conflict Resolution in the Middle East, The Carter Center.



Download mp3

read more...

From Talk to Change: The Test for President Obama’s Israel-Palestine Policy

Palestine Center Brief No. 175

12 February 2009

By Peter Gruskin*

Much has been said of the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians under U.S. President Barack Obama's administration. Although it is too early to tell exactly how American policy will unfold, many are pessimistic given the ambiguous political circumstances, with the dominance of the right-wing in Israeli politics and the lack of clarity in Obama's declarations and moves, both as a candidate and in his short time in office. Optimists, on the other hand, consider an Obama administration the best chance for encouraging a peaceful resolution. They argue if anyone can break from the American record of unwavering commitment to Israel's policies, it is this president. This essay contends that the best test for how much change there is in U.S. policy is the extent to which American policymakers disagree with their Israeli counterparts.

On the Campaign Trail

Political commentators debated Barack Obama's past views on Israel-Palestine, mostly during the 2008 election. Many in the Republican Party, as well as some pro-Israel activists and pundits, feared that Obama was "anti-Israel" by virtue of his associations [1]. If they did not explicitly state this, they pointed to his alleged ties to "radicals" critical of America and Israel, such as William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi [2] and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This was, of course, in the context of a heated presidential campaign. The Republican presidential candidate U.S. Senator John McCain, by and large, stayed away from such criticism in his public pronouncements.

These commentators may have been wrong to the extent that understanding the plight of the Palestinian people is not the same as being "anti-Israel." Regardless, there is evidence that Obama was cognizant of the Palestinian narrative. Ali Abunimah, co-editor of Electronic Intifada and a Palestine Center fellow, knew Obama from the activist scene in Chicago. He claims he spoke to Obama at a 2000 campaign fundraiser at which Obama called for an even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Obama also, according to Abunimah, went to a community fundraiser in 1998 at which Palestinian academic Edward Said was the keynote speaker [3]. In college, Obama was a student of Professor Said at Columbia University [4].

Indeed, Obama drew some political inspiration from leftist critics of U.S. foreign policy, such as the radical organizer Saul Alinsky [5], as well as from critics of Israel, such as the international financier George Soros. Some who knew Obama from his pre-Senate days claim that he was somewhat sympathetic to the Palestinians. One such person, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, claims that Obama used to be "on the line of Peace Now… He was a moderate peacenik [before getting further into politics]" [6].

One reason for the sustained speculation is the lack of clarity and consistency in Obama's positions and statements. In March 2007, the candidate told a small group in Iowa, "Nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people" [7]. This statement was later qualified [8] just as he corrected his remark about Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem [9] at a speech to AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in June 2008. His public pronouncements in support of Israel's 2006 war against Lebanon [10] and his statement that Israel's recent offensive in Gaza was self-defense demonstrated his vocal commitment to Israel. As a candidate, he sought to comfort pro-Israel voters and projected himself as a pro-Israel candidate. Yet, at the same time, he provided kernels of hope to those seeking a more honest and impartial American engagement in the region by speaking of the need for change generally in American foreign policy and promising to put Israel-Palestinian peace at the top of his agenda.

This triangulation led some Israel supporters to argue that he, as a candidate, was untrustworthy. For example, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Danny Ayalon, wrote in an op-ed to the Jerusalem Post that Obama's candidacy was cause for "some degree of concern" [11].

The triangulation did not just worry advocates for Israel. Many pro-Palestinian activists believed President Obama catered to the Israel lobby for electoral purposes and will most likely continue America's pro-Israel agenda. During his AIPAC speech, which many observed, he made no references to "settlements," "occupation" or "territorial compromise" [12]. His repeated calls for a two-state solution have not impressed these critics, as presidents before him have said the same. President Obama recognizes, as he said in his interview with Al-Arabiya shortly after taking office, that he will be judged for his actions not his words.

Although there is a debate right now about U.S. policy towards Hamas, Obama's statements during the campaign did not give much hope to those who prefer a more realistic approach of engagement. He remarked on the campaign trail, while talking to a group of Palestinians, that the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates until the group renounces its mission to destroy Israel. Obama claims he told this to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a 2006 meeting [13]. In his January 2008 letter to UN ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, he expressed qualified support for the Israeli bombing of Gaza. He wrote, "Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians" [14]. A perfect example of his attempt at balance is in this same letter: "We all are worried about the consequences of the blockade on Palestinian families. Nonetheless, we must understand why Israel is forced to do this" [15].

In Office

There is disagreement over whether President Obama is going to be even-handed and fair. The test is how hard Obama is going to push Israel on issues such as the settlements (whose expansion Israel sought to hide publicly), Palestinian control of East Jerusalem, the borders, a Palestinian unity government, the refugee quagmire and Palestinian sovereignty. For too long, American officials merely echoed Israeli positions. The extent of the difference between the Obama administration's policy and the next Israeli government will determine how much change there actually is.

Besides his well-publicized symbolic gestures--calling Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas first, appearing on Al-Arabiya and the $20 million in aid sent to the Gaza Strip--he took the bold step of naming George Mitchell as a Middle East envoy. While these moves certainly signal the potential for change, the question of how far the administration will confront the anti-peace agenda of certain prominent elements within Israel's political establishment, especially those most empowered by the recent election, is an open one.

Skeptics argue that even if he is serious about peacemaking, Obama will be constrained by the Israeli lobby. Pro-Israel lobby groups provided him over $110,000 from 2000 to June 2006 alone [16]. Furthermore, he has chosen a rabidly pro-Israel Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, to oversee the implementation of his policies and to advise on political moves. His silence on the Gaza conflict before his inauguration was another hint. Despite the positive steps he took, he still affirms Israeli positions on the Gaza offensive and the cause of the conflict at-large; for instance, that Israel acts out of security and that Palestinian militants are the source of the current conflagration. Others argue that the two-state solution, the end goal President Obama has affirmed, is past its moment in history.

The more optimistic argue Obama has a firm understanding of the need for a constructive American approach and is just playing politics with rhetoric to appeal to pro-Israel sentiments. They think Obama will outreach to both sides and put the necessary pressure on Israel and the Palestinians in order to lessen the tensions between the two. They also argue that a negotiated settlement is necessary for American interests in the region and is thus inevitable. For holders of this view, any parties seeking a just resolution should embrace the Obama administration with hope, even if expectations are low.

Conclusion

As a candidate, Barack Obama used some degree of political triangulation to appear balanced yet sufficiently pro-Israel in order to sustain political support from an indispensable constituency and lobby network. Yet, in his first weeks in office, he made interesting and noteworthy moves that rub against his election rhetoric. However, none of them indicate a break from the traditional U.S.-Israel alliance, and we cannot expect such nudging anytime soon while Israel sorts out its ruling government coalition--one likely to be divided by partisanship--and the dust in recent Palestinian politics settles. Ultimately, the only way to prompt change will be if the United States confronts the most untenable of Israeli positions--something former President George W. Bush's administration never did. The challenge lies in the inescapable fact that many of those positions, including Israel's control over certain settlement blocs, use of collective punishment against Palestinians, construction of the Wall and denial of responsibility for the Palestinian refugee crisis, are orthodoxy in the dominant political persuasion of Israel.

For those who believe peace between Israel and the Palestinians is attainable, President Obama offers optimism. Even his symbolic acts suggest a marked departure from the Bush administration, which explicitly took the position that conditions are not optimal to negotiate with Palestinians. Still, the degree of change possible is limited by domestic political constraints as well as the abysmal state of affairs on the ground. This optimistic vision is incongruent with the sour pessimism on the ground, as Palestinians mourn the Gaza offensive and remain divided politically and Israel's anti-peace right dominates its politics and public opinion--increasingly pitting it against Obama's stated agenda.

Given the rightward trajectory in Israeli politics and the growing gap between the rhetoric of Obama and the Israeli right, the best measure of change will be how much actual tension arises between the American and Israeli positions. Resolving such disputes between traditionally close "allies" in a way that corrects the power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians will be crucial since that is the only way a just settlement can really be effected. Concretization of Palestinians' losses since 1993, when the peace process began, is simply no basis for peace. Only an insistent and tough approach towards Israel can bring about a solution along the lines Obama outlined.

*This brief was written by Palestine Center intern Peter Gruskin as part of his research project during the Spring 2009 Internship Program.

The views expressed within are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund or its educational program, The Palestine Center. This brief maybe be used without permission if credit is given to the Center.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Sammy Benoit, "An Election Plea To Those Who Love Israel," American Thinker, November 2, 2008.

2 Hilary Leila Krieger, "McCain camp pushes Obama-Khalidi ties," Jerusalem Post, October 29, 2008.

3 Ali Abunimah, "How Barack Obama learned to love Israel," The Electronic Intifada, March 4, 2007.

4 Peter Wallsten, "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama," Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2008.

5 Peter Slevin, "For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone," Washington Post, March 25, 2007, A01.

6 Larry Cohler-Esses, "Obama Pivots Away From Dovish Past," The Jewish Week, March 8, 2007.

7 Justin Elliott, "Obama's Israel Shuffle," Mother Jones, February 1, 2008.

8 A spokesman for Obama later said that it was Hamas who was causing the Palestinian people’s suffering; see "Obama under fire for comment on Palestinians," Associated Press, March 15, 2007.

9 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/05/obama_backtracks_on_jerusalem.html.

10 Larry Cohler-Esses, "Obama Pivots Away From Dovish Past," The Jewish Week, March 8, 2007.

11 Shmuel Rosner, "Gaza overlooked by U.S. voters; economy dominates race," Ha’aretz, January 24, 2008.

12 Larry Cohler-Esses, "Obama Pivots Away From Dovish Past," The Jewish Week, March 8, 2007.

13 "Transcript of remarks by Senator Barack Obama," AIPAC Policy Forum (Chicago, Illinois), March 2, 2007.

14 Justin Elliott, "Obama's Israel Shuffle," Mother Jones, February 1, 2008,

15 Shmuel Rosner, "Gaza overlooked by U.S. voters; economy dominates race," Ha’aretz, January 24, 2008

16 Larry Cohler-Esses, "Obama Pivots Away From Dovish Past," The Jewish Week, March 8, 2007

read more...

Abunimah: No peace for Israel

No Peace for Israel
By Ali Abunimah
guardian.co.uk

Whenever Israel has an election, pundits begin the usual refrain that hopes for peace depend on the "peace camp" – formerly represented by the Labour party, but now by Tzipi Livni's Kadima prevailing over the anti-peace right, led by the Likud.

This has never been true, and makes even less sense as Israeli parties begin coalition talks after Tuesday's election. Yes, the "peace camp" helped launch the "peace process", but it did much more to undermine the chances for a just settlement.

In 1993, Labour prime minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo accords. Ambiguities in the agreement – which included no mention of "self-determination" or "independence" for Palestinians, or even "occupation" – made it easier to clinch a short-term deal. But confrontation over irreconcilable expectations was inevitable. While Palestinians hoped the Palestinian Authority, created by the accord, would be the nucleus of an independent state, Israel viewed it as little more than a native police force to suppress resistance to continued occupation and colonial settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Collaboration with Israel has always been the measure by which any Palestinian leader is judged to be a "peace partner". Rabin, according to Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, "never thought this [Oslo] will end in a full-fledged Palestinian state". He was right.

Throughout the "peace process", Israeli governments, regardless of who led them, expanded Jewish-only settlements in the heart of the West Bank, the territory supposed to form the bulk of the Palestinian state. In the 1990s, Ehud Barak's Labour-led government actually approved more settlement expansion than the Likud-led government that preceded it headed by Binyamin Netanyahu.

Barak, once considered "dovish", promoted a bloodthirsty image in the campaign, bolstered by the massacres of Gaza civilians he directed as defence minister. "Who has he ever shot?" Barak quipped derisively about Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the proto-fascist Yisrael Beitenu party, in an attempt to paint the latter as a lightweight.

Today, Lieberman's party, which beat Labour into third place, will play a decisive role in a government. An immigrant who came to Israel from the former Soviet republic of Moldova, Lieberman was once a member of the outlawed racist party Kach that calls for expelling all Palestinians.

Yisrael Beitenu's manifesto was that 1.5 million Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel (indigenous survivors or descendants of the Palestinian majority ethnically cleansed in 1948) be subjected to a loyalty oath. If they don't swear allegiance to the "Jewish state" they would lose their citizenship and be forced from the land of their birth, joining millions of already stateless Palestinians in exile or in Israeli-controlled ghettos. In a move instigated by Lieberman but supported by Livni's allegedly "centrist" Kadima, the Knesset recently voted to ban Arab parties from participating in elections. Although the high court overturned it in time for the vote, it is an ominous sign of what may follow.

Lieberman, who previously served as deputy prime minister, has a long history of racist and violent incitement. Prior to Israel's recent attack, for example, he demanded Israel subject Palestinians to the brutal and indiscriminate violence Russia used in Chechyna. He also called for Arab Knesset members who met with officials from Hamas to be executed.

But it's too easy to make him the bogeyman. Israel's narrow political spectrum now consists at one end of the former "peace camp" that never halted the violent expropriation of Palestinian land for Jewish settlements and boasts with pride of the war crimes in Gaza, and at the other, a surging far-right whose "solutions" vary from apartheid to outright ethnic cleansing.

What does not help is brazen western hypocrisy. Already the US state department spokesman affirmed that the Obama administration would work with whatever coalition emerged from Israel's "thriving democracy" and promised that the US would not interfere in Israel's "internal politics". Despite Barack Obama's sweet talk about a new relationship with the Arab world, few will fail to notice the brazen double standard. In 2006, Hamas won a democratic election in the occupied territories, observed numerous unilateral or agreed truces that were violated by Israel, offered Israel a generation-long truce to set the stage for peace, and yet it is still boycotted by the US and European Union.

Worse, the US sponsored a failed coup against Hamas and continues to arm and train the anti-Hamas militias of Mahmoud Abbas, whose term as Palestinian Authority president expired on 9 January. As soon as he took office, Obama reaffirmed this boycott of Palestinian democracy.

The clearest message from Israel's election is that no Zionist party can solve Israel's basic conundrum and no negotiations will lead to a two-state solution. Israel could only be created as a "Jewish state" by the forced removal of the non-Jewish majority Palestinian population. As Palestinians once again become the majority in a country that has defied all attempts at partition, the only way to maintain Jewish control is through ever more brazen violence and repression of resistance (see Gaza). Whatever government emerges is certain to preside over more settlement-building, racial discrimination and escalating violence.

There are alternatives that have helped end what once seemed like equally intractable and bloody conflicts: a South African-style one-person one-vote democracy, or Northern Ireland-style power-sharing. Only under a democratic system according rights to all the people of the country will elections have the power to transform people's futures.

But Israel today is lurching into open fascism. It is utterly disingenuous to continue to pretend – as so many do – that its failed leaders hold the key to getting out of the morass. Instead of waiting for them to form a coalition, we must escalate the international civil society campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to force Israelis to choose a saner path.

read more...

Audio: Zachary Lockman on the Israeli Elections

The Palestine Center interviewed NYU professor Zachary Lockman about the recent Israeli elections.

Zachary Lockman is a professor of Middle Eastern Studies and History at New York University.

This interview was conducted 11 February 2009



Download as mp3

read more...