Jewish Peace News

Monday, September 22, 2008

Judaization in the Negev

The article below from Haaretz is by Dr. Erez Tzfadia, who is affiliated with BIMKOM, a highly respected organization of planners and architects which works in both Israel and the West Bank to strengthen democracy and human rights in the field of planning (www.bimkom.org ).

The article addresses the inequality in treatment of current and future communities in the Negev based on whether said communities are Jewish or Bedouin. The author discusses "Judaization" of the Negev as the spoken or unspoken reason for different policies according to ethnicity in land use, home demolitions, education, healthcare and the environment, and the need for sustainable development in the region.

Last year I witnessed a very personal exchange that exemplifies these conditions. I went on a "Negev Unplugged" tour sponsored by BUSTAN (a Bedouin and Jewish environmental and social justice organization--www.bustan.org--that I now work for.) These tours are meant to expose visitors and residents to the real issues of the region—beyond the stereotypical "camels, carpets and coffee." On that tour, there were a few Bedouin women from Rahat who were among the participants. We stopped at one of the large Jewish farms that are described in this article, and talked at length with the owner, who was very bitter toward the Israeli government because he had not received official permission to be on the land. As it turned out, the land that the Jewish farmer was using was the historical grazing grounds of one of the Bedouin women's husbands' family. She was greatly moved to see the land for the first time, and she spoke very emotionally about the decision to move to an urban township and
what that had cost her family. She spoke without anger and she and the farmer had a very interesting exchange. At the end of the conversation, however, he made a final, illuminative comment that showed he didn't really understand the underlying issues. He clearly felt that he was not receiving the special treatment he believed he was entitled to as a Jewish Israeli. Israel, he said, with anger and incredulity, "was treating him like a Bedouin."

--Rebecca Vilkomerson

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022588.html

Haaretz, September 19th, 2008

In the Name of Zionism

Dr. Erez Tzfadia

Twenty-four official evacuation orders are stirring up emotions here. No, it is not West Bank settlements that have been told to shut down, but single-family farms built early in the decade in the Negev.

The Wine Route Farms, as they are known collectively, were a joint project of the Ramat Negev Regional Council, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund and the state. In approving the project, retroactively, in May 2003, the government stated that "settlement by individuals is an implementation of government policy to develop the Negev and Galilee and protect state lands in the Negev." The terminology has a subtext that suggests the need for "Judaization" of the Negev as a means of thwarting attempts by the Arab-Bedouin population to take control of public lands.

The Israel Lands Administration and the planning authorities have legal procedures for establishing single-family farms, but they were disregarded in this case, with the farms gaining approval only retroactively. No less significant was the fact that lands on which they were built were allocated without proper bids being solicited. However, like many other informal settlements that have been established to strengthen the Jewish hold on the Negev and the Galilee, neither of these facts prevented government ministries and local authorities from divvying up state land in lots of 400 dunams (100 acres), connecting the farms to the electricity and water grids, and dedicating hundreds of thousands of shekels to their development. It was assumed by all parties involved that, since the act of settling the land is deeply inherent to Zionist ideology, these farms would eventually be legalized by the authorities.

But something went wrong. A year ago, the attorney general served the farms with evacuation orders, arguing that the land had been allocated to them illegally. The farmers, it seemed, were being made to pay the price for improper decisions on the part of senior officials who thought they were acting in the name of Zionism.

In a petition to the High Court of Justice last spring (a case yet to be heard), the farmers argued that the state was discriminating against them. They claimed that Arab-Bedouin residents of the Negev consistently build illegally, but are never served evacuation orders.

The facts on the ground reveal quite a different picture. For six decades now, the state has refused to recognize the existence of 46 Bedouin villages in the Negev, some of them more than 400 years old; in other cases, their populations were transferred during the 1950s, mainly to the east of Be'er Sheva, under orders from military governors. Even a new master plan for the Be'er Sheva region, which was supposed to offer a solution for the unrecognized villages, ignores their existence, proposing instead that the Bedouin move to one of the seven permanent Bedouin townships established by the authorities in the 1970s and '80s. These townships are regularly ranked among Israel's poorest municipalities. From the Bedouin point of view, relocating to the townships means abandonment of their traditional way of life, of agriculture and of a demand - which the state rejects outright - for recognition of their ownership of the land.

For the 80,000 Bedouin residents in unrecognized villages, life in Israel means seeing their homes demolished by the hundreds, on the grounds they were built illegally. It means having their fields plowed under, and not being connected to water, electricity or sewerage infrastructure. In many cases, education and health services are provided only after petitions are made to the court. This is why the claim of discrimination by the Wine Route Farms owners is especially absurd.

Then there is the exposure to environmental hazards. Bedouin who live in Wadi al Na'am, situated near the Ramat Hovav industrial-waste dump, suffer the country's highest rates of infant mortality, illness and miscarriages.

Although the Wine Route Farms may be on the way to being dismantled, the policy of Jewish settlement in the Negev continues to be pursued. After all, many consider the Zionist imperative to settle the land to be above the law. It appears that the development of the Negev is something intended exclusively for Jews.

Nonetheless, in recent years there have been signs of change. Thanks to human rights organizations, like Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights, and environmentalist groups, the government has recognized 10 Bedouin villages. And a new committee, headed by former Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Goldberg, has been tasked with coming up with a new overall policy for the Bedouin. At the same time, there is a growing movement pushing to stop the settlement of undeveloped parts of the Negev, on environmental grounds. Today's trend is toward more dense residential living, not sparsely inhabited and remote farms.

These developments represent very initial steps in the right direction, but real change will only be achieved when state planning takes into account the unrecognized Bedouin villages and provides a sustainable solution for their residents. Nevertheless, these steps breed hope that a new era of co-existence in the Negev may be closer than we think, and that the vision of developing Israel's south for both Jews and Arabs alike could soon begin to take form.

Dr. Erez Tzfadia is a senior lecturer of public policy and administration at Sapir College and a board member of Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights.

................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Uri Avnery: Today's Kadima Election - "Tzipi's Choice"

In his most recent column, Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom compares the two candidates competing to replace Ehud Olmert as chair of the Kadima Party and therefore most likely Prime Minister of Israel. Avnery focuses on Mofaz-as-military-man and gives us a clear assessment of the overwhelming dominance of security-culture in Israel, by which the military dominates state policy and budgets and military professionals dominate 'civil' institutions. The army, Avnery says, is Israel's "only real [political] party," and more: it is "an economic empire," "a political lobby," and, "in a way, a religion - with Security as its only god." The dominance of security-culture and the military mean that many, many people have a "vested interest in the absence of peace."

Avnery rightly notes that the dominance of security-culture excludes women from having an equal say in Israeli affairs, and he cites the organization New Profile (www.newprofile.org) as publicly addressing this issue (see the 9/16/2008 JPN on the new political persecution of New Profile). I would like to add to or amend Avnery's view on the exclusion of women from positions of power, because the issue at hand is not _only_ the exclusion of women. If that were the case, then the just struggle would be for women's inclusion, which is a position that numerous feminist groups have taken. Rightly understanding that military service is the dominant path to power in Israeli society, these feminist groups have worked to unlock the gates for women to advance within the military, including achieving positions for women combat soldiers and pilots in the last decade. (see the work of the Israel Women's Network: http://www.iwn.org.il/innerEn.asp?newsid=179) According to this logic, the election
of
Tzipi Livni would be a great achievement for women. And while I am glad that a woman can and might advance - again - to the highest political position in Israel, I think it's important to remember what even Avnery observes: that Mofaz and Livni are saying basically the same things in their campaign. Thus the elevation of a woman does not promise any change in political agendas. (As we in the U.S. are seeing, now, with the lauding of a woman candidate as a boon for all women, even though her politics and worldview are extremely hostile to the major challenges facing women, including poverty, lack of health- and child-care, inequality in the workplace, as well as valorizing military service as the most important contribution one can make to society.)

New Profile takes a different position than feminist groups that work to advance women within the military and Israel's dominant power structure. Instead of accepting the structure as is and working to fill it up with women (and men), New Profile seek to overhaul the power structure itself and undermine the dominance of security-culture overall. The exclusion of women from positions of power is one manifestation of Israel's security-culture, but New Profile is more focused the ways in which men and women are continuously recruited into supporting that culture. New Profile's analysis shows us that while women may rarely hold top positions in government, finance, academia or other major institutions, they are constantly acting in small and large ways to support the very structure that both keeps them out and keeps their society in a state of perpetual war. (New Profile focuses not only on women but on all those excluded or marginalized by a power structure that most privileges Jewish,
male and primarily Ashkenazi combat soldiers.) Israelis are socialized into Israel's security-culture and socialized to act appropriately within it - such as by serving in the military or supporting family members who do, or by not challenging or even questioning the continued absence of non-military alternatives in relations with Palestinians, other Arab nations, and Iran. New Profile calls this ongoing socializing process "militarization" and challenges it directly, including by assisting the very substantial numbers of young people who are no longer willing to serve in the military. The new criminal investigation of New Profile is a sign of the significant impact of their challenge.

And finally: in this column, Avnery concentrates on Mofaz as a symbol of Israeli militarism and not on Mofaz as the actual military man - the professional soldier who was initially Chief of Staff and then Defense Minister during the second Intifada. I think it's worth returning to Mofaz's actual terms in office, which were marked by brutal abuses of military might and high Palestinian casualty rates, as well as assassinations of Palestinians, bombings in heavily-populated neighborhoods and the reoccupation of Palestinian cities by the IDF. And it has now been reported that in May 2001, a few months into the Intifada, Mofaz called for the IDF to kill 70 Palestinians per day, in a directive that may fall into the category of war crime. The Independent's August 2008 article on Mofaz's statement is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/candidate-who-wants-olmerts-job-once-sought-deaths-of-70-palestinians-a-day-882628.html and Democracy Now's brief mention of the war
crime speculation is here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/12/headlines#9.

Sarah Anne Minkin

Uri Avnery
13/09/08
Tzipi's Choice

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1221503857

AS AN ISRAELI, I am ashamed. An incumbent Prime Minister has been compelled to resign because of personal corruption. How awful!

As an Israeli, I am proud. An incumbent Prime Minister has been compelled to resign because of personal corruption. How wonderful!

Compelled not by a revolution, not by a military coup, not by rioting in the streets, not by the machinations of a rival party. But by the normal processes of the law enforcement agencies, the free media and public opinion.

In this sordid affair, democracy has triumphed. In his delightful little book, "The Trial of Socrates", I. F. Stone (a man I knew and greatly admired) defined the peaceful removal of a political leader as a hallmark of democracy. Socrates advocated a dictatorship by the man of "knowledge". Stone laid great stress on the fact that there would have been no way to remove such a ruler in case of necessity.

IN ANCIENT Athens, major leaders were elected by all those with full citizenship (about half the free citizens, and slaves, of course, were excluded). Less prominent officials were appointed by lot - the theory being that all full citizens are equally qualified to conduct the affairs of state. Sometimes I think that this may not be such a bad idea.

However, the Kadima party thinks otherwise. On Wednesday, the party's rank and file will elect Ehud Olmert's replacement as Party Chairman, who will then almost automatically become Prime Minister, unless he or she fails to put together a governing coalition - in which case new elections will take place, probably at the beginning of 2009. Until then Olmert would still act as a lame duck Prime Minister.

The real choice is between two candidates: Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz. They could hardly be more different.

First of all, because it is Man against Woman. For the first time in Israeli history, there is a straight confrontation between the genders. (When the late unlamented Golda Meir was appointed Prime Minister in 1969, after the sudden death of Levy Eshkol, she had no competitors.)

Their background reflects the two extremes of Jewish Israeli society; Mofaz is an "Oriental", born in Iran, an outsider. Livni is a native-born Ashkenazi Israeli, an insider. She is also a "princess" - her father was a leader of the Irgun underground and (like Olmert's father) a member of the Knesset.

But the real difference is between the forces they represent.

AS A professional soldier, Shaul Mofaz represents the force that has dominated Israel from its very beginning: the "security establishment".

This vast complex has unmatched political, economic and ideological power. Since all major political parties have degenerated into cynical trade unions of party hacks, without an ideology or any real political program, the army is now, in my view, the only real party in Israel.

It is not the Turkish army or the Pakistani army. It is an instrument of a democratic system, fully obedient to the civil authority. But behind this faחade it is much more: it is an economic empire that consumes by far the largest share of the annual budget, a pressure group, a political lobby, an ideological center.

It is, in a way, a religion - with Security as its only god and the high command as its priesthood. Nothing trumps Security in Israel, and when its name is mentioned, everything else is forgotten. Hear oh Israel, Security thy God, Security is One.

Like almost any religion, it is connected with huge economic interests. The "security" industry, with its production of weapons and other military equipment, plays a central role in the Israeli economy and in its exports, turning the twenty or so tycoons who dominate our economy into natural allies of the generals. Dwight Eisenhower would recognize the pattern.

The immeasurable impact on political decision-making of the "security establishment" - the armed forces, the General Security Service (Shin Bet), the Mossad and the police - is underlined by the fact that the Chief of Staff takes part in all cabinet meetings. He never dictates to the government - perish the thought! - but it would be a very brave politician indeed who contradicted "the considered opinion of the army".

Since Israel was born in war and has been in a state of war ever since, there is hardly any area of Israeli life that does not lie within the scope of Security. And in security matters, it is of course the security chiefs whose opinions are decisive. Also, the army is the sole ruler of the occupied territories (as, indeed, demanded by international law).

In this connection, the settlers must be considered. They are an immensely strong pressure group. While many of them have established their settlements "illegally", no settler would be where he is today if he had not been put there by the army. In many places, the symbiosis between settler and soldier is so perfect that they are one and the same: many army officers are settlers themselves.

FOR A nation at war, it is natural that the army also shapes the national ideology. The media are willing, indeed eager, collaborators. Peace is a silly concept for effete, weak-kneed wimps. It is also, of course, a complete and dangerous illusion.

All this is reinforced by an immense network of ex-officers, the "ex" being only formal. With a few honorable exceptions, all ex-army officers belong to the same club and hold the same beliefs. Since the army looks after its own, senior officers who leave the army in their middle 40s, as is usual, generally find high positions in industry, the public services or the political parties - extending the army's "sphere of influence".

What this means is that very many people have - mildly put - a vested interest in the absence of peace.

Shaul Mofaz personifies all of this. He belongs to this complex, he made his career there as a general, chief of Staff and Minister of Defense. No one has ever heard him voice an original thought - his whole mental world is shaped by the army. In all his jobs he has been reliable and diligent mediocrity.

When he had finished his army career and was looking for political opportunities, he had - like many of his predecessors - no party preference. Such a person can easily find his place in Labor, the Likud or Kadima, not to mention the radical right. The Likud offered the best prospects at that moment. When his way there was blocked, he jumped at the very last second onto Ariel Sharon's bandwagon - 24 hours after solemnly promising that he would never, but never, entertain such a treacherous thought.

MILITARY DOMINANCE of Israeli affairs has one hidden effect: it excludes women. The macho, he-man atmosphere of the army has no place for them.

This was brought up some years ago by a feminist group called New Profile, which declared its goal to be the de-militarization of Israeli society. Perhaps by accident, it is this group which the Attorney General decided to prosecute this week for anti-army activities, inciting against joining the army, helping draft evaders, advising potential recruits to pose as mental cases and such.

Livni is not just a Foreign Minister, a job traditionally despised by the Security Establishment, but also a Civilian and, even worse, a Woman. That is what makes this choice so tempting.

In public, the two candidates say almost the same. They repeat the usual mantras. But there are the (almost) hidden agendas.

There is the racist angle, the sin that does not dare speak its name. Like the race factor in the US elections, the "ethnic" factor may play a far bigger role here than we like to admit. Orientals tend to vote for Mofaz, Europeans - Ashkenazis - for Livni.

There is the gender factor. Women may tend to vote for one of their own.

And there is the military factor: a vote for Livni is - consciously or mostly unconsciously - a vote against the military domination of our lives.

What kind of states(wo)man would a Prime Minister Tzipi Livni be? No one can know, perhaps not even she herself. Her basic mental world is right-wing. Her world view is centered around the concept of a Jewish State. Jewish in the old Jabotinsky way of thinking: not In a religious sense (Jabotinsky was quite secular) but in a 19th century nationalistic one. That could lead to peace based on a sincere belief in the two-state concept (to which Mofaz, too, pays lip service). But I would not count on it.

Mofaz we know. Livni we don't know. That may lead some Kadima members on Wednesday to vote for Livni.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Israel -- A State "War" on Youth

Ratcheting up their campaign against so-called "shirkers", Israeli authorities have declared a new front in their "war" – as it is termed by the news item below – on Israeli youth.

Growing numbers of young men and women currently find themselves unable or unwilling to accept or trust the worn Israeli dictate: "There's no other choice". Four generations and over six decades of repeated, unending "military solutions" have engendered an expanding movement of young people who experience and express excruciating inner struggles and rifts in face of the legal duty to serve. Despite the attempt of state courts, both military and civilian, to compartmentalize such processes as either 'political', (very rarely) 'conscientious', or 'psychological', these internal conflicts are both emotional and ideological, combining views, feelings, convictions, ideas, beliefs, questions, personality, life experience and sense-of-self. For some young people, they also involve highly dangerous levels of personal distress and indeed, in recent years, suicide has claimed the lives of more Israeli soldiers than all other causes-of-death combined.

Rather than listening to the voice raised by these future citizens, rather than fathoming the social change it reflects and responding with changed, innovative policies, Israel's state institutions have chosen to wage a "war" against these youths and the developments they represent. Criminalizing the movement, state authorities will now attempt to seek out illegalities in open and legal resistance work, a move characteristic of a militarized state abusing its power in a bid to keep in place an old, cracking order.

The news item below reports on a criminal investigation now to be conducted into the activities of the "New Profile" movement. Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has, the piece reports, ordered a probe into the actions of this movement, suspected among other things of "convincing [people] to obtain exemptions from service".

I have been an active member of "New Profile" since it was founded ten years ago. We are a feminist group of both women and men that has identified and recognized the existence of the unorganized social movement borne by youth today in Israel. "New Profile" acknowledges the major importance of this movement, responding to the need and rights of the young people involved to open discussion of the pressing questions they face, equipped with full and accurate information about their prospects – information with which the authorities are not forthcoming, to put it mildly. This is only one of many ways in which "New Profile" works to change the militarized thinking holding all of the people in Israel/Palestine hostage to the policy of use-of-force, implemented to date by virtually every Israeli government. While "New Profile" activities may enrage some, whether individuals or institutions, they are totally legal.

The short item below, however, written by Amos Harel, with contributions by Yuval Azoulay, is illustrative of the type of militarized justice and slanted exposure that state institutions and media tend to dispense in Israel to dissenting groups. Deputy Attorney General Shai Nitzan, whose letter the item quotes, has apparently upended the legal principle: 'innocent until proven guilty'. Investigation or none, on dispatching his instructions to conduct a probe he has already determined, "the severity of [New Profile's] incitement to draft evasion". Parroting rather than scrutinizing the claims of this state official, journalist Amos Harel also has no use for the yet-to-be-held investigation. He proceeds to convict "New Profile" casually, describing it – as if he were simply recounting facts – as a movement that "encourages draft dodging".

What "New Profile" encourages, in my experience of the movement, is posing, studying and openly discussing unobvious unorthodox questions, taking personal and collective responsibility for some of the answers, learning and creating ways to act on these through the exercise of civil, human and legal rights. I believe that we speak with and for a future that will not be silenced.

Rela Mazali

------------------------------

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020999.html

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m

-----------------------------

Last update - 09:45 15/09/2008

Web site for IDF draft dodgers faces criminal probe

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz recently ordered the police to open a criminal investigation against the New Profile organization - the first time a criminal probe has ever been launched against a group that encourages draft dodging.

The probe, launched in response to a request from the Israel Defense Forces, constitutes an intensification of the army's war on draft dodging. It was prompted by concern over the growing extent of this phenomenon. Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mendelblit asked Mazuz to order the probe in February, and earlier this month, Mazuz acceded to his request.

New Profile's Web site defines the group's purpose as supplying "detailed and reliable information about the procedures that enable one to obtain an exemption from military service," as well as "moral support" for those seeking such an exemption.

Under Israeli law, "incitement to draft dodging" is a crime in itself, though no group has ever before been investigated for this offense. In addition, however, New Profile is suspected of helping people secure exemptions fraudulently. "The severity of [New Profile's] incitement to draft evasion, which includes convincing [people] to obtain exemptions from service, necessitates opening up an investigation," Deputy Attorney General Shai Nitzan wrote in a statement informing Mendelblit of Mazuz's decision.

The main reason for the probe's launch is apparently the fact that New Profile's web site tells people what to say to IDF mental health officers to create the impression that they are psychologically unfit for service. In a document entitled "The goal: 21," it details various ways of getting army evaluators to assign the applicant a profile of 21, which is the IDF code for unfit to serve. Many teens say that such advice has helped them in obtaining draft exemptions.

Last summer, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi declared war on draft evasion, in response to data showing that in 2007, almost 28 percent of all draft-age males would not be drafted. Since then, the IDF has tried various tactics: media campaigns aimed at increasing motivation to serve, closer cooperation with high schools and municipalities, and barring artists who did not serve from performing for the troops.

The IDF's Personnel Directorate claims that these efforts, coupled with a stricter attitude on the part of the army's mental health officers, have begun to bear fruit: This year, the proportion of draft-age males who obtained mental-health exemptions fell to 5.1 percent, from 5.5 percent last year, and the number of soldiers who obtained mental-health exemptions during their service also dropped.

Army sources expressed satisfaction with Mazuz's decision. "Thorough legal treatment of this movement is very important to deter evaders and those who urge them to evade," explained one.

IDF Spokesman Avi Benayahu termed the decision "another important step" in the war on draft dodging. This war, he added, "must be a joint effort by the IDF, the state authorities and Israeli society in general."

Yuval Azoulay adds: Sergei Sandler, one of New Profile's leaders, said in response: "Our activity is completely legal. We give information to young people about to be drafted about the various procedures open to them, which the army obviously has an interest in hiding. The decision to open an investigation against New Profile contains an element of persecution. Every such decision is ultimately a political decision aimed at shutting our mouths and protecting a certain kind of social order. But if they want to investigate, let them. Our activity is legal; we don't encourage fraud; and we're proud of our activity."

• Barak: Draft dodgers must face public scorn, carry 'mark of Cain'
• IDF chief: We must make draft dodgers 'blush with shame'
• Fox clothing chain, Bar Rafaeli to fight IDF draft-dodgers

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Jonathan Cook: Israel's dark arts of ensnaring collaborators

[In this article independent British reporter Jonathan Cook, who lives in Nazareth, explores the issue of Palestinians who collaborate with the Israeli occupation. The many forms of coercion used by the Israeli security forces have turned the illegally occupied territories into an informer society, in some ways (although Cook does not say this) similar to the permeation of the social fabric of former German Democratic Republic with Stasi secret police informers. The forms of pressure Israeli forces can exert vary: from outright torture amongst the vast number of Palestinian detainees to small 'favors' granted to those who are willing to cooperate. As Cook points out, almost everyone is in need of such favors from the regime at some point, and therefore almost everyone is under some pressure to inform. The Israeli military regime therefore exploits the very misery it creates to undermine resistance to that regime. Alistair Welchman]

Jonathan Cook: Israel's dark arts of ensnaring collaborators
September 13, 2008
http://zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18803

Nazareth) Israel's enduring use of Palestinian collaborators to entrench the occupation and destroy Palestinian resistance was once the great unmentionable of the Middle East conflict.

When the subject was dealt with by the international and local media, it was solely in the context of the failings of the Palestinian legal system, which allowed the summary execution of collaborators by lynch mobs and kangaroo courts.

That is beginning to change with a trickle of reports indicating the extent of Israel's use of collaborators and the unwholesome techniques it uses to recruit them. "Co-operation", it has become clearer, is the very backbone of Israel's success in maintaining its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Collaboration comes in various guises, including land dealers, who buy Palestinian-owned land to sell it to settlers or the Israeli government; armed agents who assist Israeli soldiers in raids; and infiltrators into the national organisations and their armed wings who foil resistance operations.

But the foundation of the collaboration system is the low-level informant, who passes on the titbits of information about neighbours and community leaders on which Israel's system of control depends.

Recent reports in the Israeli media, for example, suggest that the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, far from reducing the opportunities for collaboration, may actually have increased them. The current siege of the Strip -- in which Israel effectively governs all movement in and out of Gaza -- has provided an ideal point of leverage for encouraging collusion.

Masterminding this strategy is the Israeli secret police, the Shin Bet, which has recently turned its attention to sick Gazans and their relatives who need to leave the Strip. With hospitals and medicines in short supply, some patients have little hope of recovery without treatment abroad or in Israel.

According to the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights, the Shin Bet is exploiting the distress of these families to pressure them to agree to collaborate in return for an exit permit.

Last month, the group released details of 32 cases in which sick Gazans admitted they were denied permits after refusing to become informants.

One is Shaban Abu Obeid, 38, whose pacemaker was installed at an Israeli hospital and needs intermittent maintenance by Israeli doctors. Another, Bassam Waheidi, 28, has gone blind in one eye after he refused to co-operate and was denied a permit.

But these cases are only the tip of an enormous iceberg. Those Palestinians who refuse to collaborate have every interest in making their problems public. By contrast, those who agree to turn informant have no such interest.

As with other occupation regimes, Israel has long relied on the most traditional way of recruiting collaborators: torture. While a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1999 banned torture, the evidence suggests the Shin Bet simply ignored the ruling.

Two Israeli human rights groups, B'Tselem and Hamoked, found last year that seven "special" interrogation methods amounting to torture are still being regularly employed, including beatings, painful binding, back bending, body stretching and prolonged sleep deprivation.

Detention provides other opportunities for recruitment. In the past 17 years alone, 150,000 Palestinians have been prosecuted by the military regime. According to the Israeli group Yesh Din, 95 per cent of these trials end in plea bargains, offering yet another chance to persuade a detainee to turn informant in return for a reduced sentence.

Cell-sharing in Israel's prison system, as Salah Abdel Jawwad, a Ramallah-based political scientist, has observed, is also the perfect environment in which the Shin Bet can collect data not only about the detainee but also about the wider society from which he or she is drawn.

With hundreds of thousands of Palestinians having passed through its prisons since 1967, Israel has been able "to control the population from an early stage", Mr Abdel Jawwad said, "particularly because it is able to identify those who are the potential future leaders of the society."

An example of the use of pressure during detention emerged last week when a gag order was lifted on the case of Hamed Keshta, 33, from Gaza. A translator for news agencies and the European Union, he was arrested in July when he tried to use a permit to cross the border into Israel for a meeting with his EU employers.

Mr Keshta said he was taken into detention and offered the chance to turn collaborator. When he refused, interrogations by the Shin Bet "began in earnest", the Haaretz newspaper reported. He was held for a month, accused of serious charges including "security violations" and conspiring to commit "a crime against state security".

"I assume that it is the standard interrogation that thousands of other Palestinians undergo," he noted after his release. "They did not hit me, but I was placed in restraints and forced to sit on a chair", he said referring to the infamous "shabah" stress position that becomes unbearably painful after a short period. Keshta also had medication withheld.

For decades, the occupation has imposed a system of absolute control on the lives of Palestinians that requires them to apply for permits either from the military regime ruling over them, known misleadingly as the Civil Administration, or from the Shin Bet.

Most Palestinians need a permit to carry out such essential daily tasks as building or altering a home; passing through a checkpoint to visit a relative or reach a hospital; passing through a gate in Israel's separation wall to farm their land; driving a taxi; receiving import or export licences; leaving the occupied territories, including for business; visiting a relative in prison; winning residence for a loved one; and so on.

There are few Palestinians who have not needed such a "favour" from the military authorities at some point, either for themselves or someone they know. And it is at this point that pressure can be exerted. In her book Sharon and My Mother-in-Law, Suad Amiry describes this process eloquently. In return for help or a permit, a small favour is given by the occupation regime. Once taken, the recipient's integrity is compromised and slowly greater demands are made.

It is this gentle ensnaring of large sections of the Palestinian population -- together with open threats of physical violence to smaller sections of the population -- that ensure collaboration with the occupation is endemic. This, as Israel well understands, creates an environment that frustrates successful resistance, which requires organisation, co-operation and intelligence-sharing between armed factions. As soon as the circle widens beyond a few individuals, one of them is likely to be an informant.

The result can be seen in the dismal failure of most armed acts of resistance, as well as the ease with which Israel picks off Palestinian leaders it "targets" for execution.

Mr Abdel Jawwad calls this approach "psychological warfare" against Palestinians, who are made to believe that their society is "weak, sickly and composed of untrustworthy characters".

In short, it encourages social fragmentation in which Palestinians come to believe that it is better to stab their neighbour in the back before they get stabbed themselves.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

This article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Militarized Knowledge-Building -- Israeli Academia

A multileveled and multi-faceted process of militarization has dominated Israeli society and state since before independence. While much of this process remains submerged, extensive and varied evidence testifies to its predominance in political and other culture in Israel, in its economy and social structures.

Militarization has formed, and kept intact, the perceptions and practices that ensnare the thinking of so many Israelis within the confines of the mantra "[we have] no other choice"(no other choice, that is, except using military force repeatedly).

The constant fear effectively fostered in Israelis by this social-cultural-economic-political structure usually usually serves well to divert public attention from the benefits it creates for a particular part of Israeli Jewish society. While an increasing number of voices in Israel are currently criticizing the process and its effects, military (and 'security force') men still enjoy special status in a broad variety of organizations and hierarchies, affording them substantial material benefits.

Gideon Levy's article below sounds one of the critical voices challenging the assumption that 'security forces' should be allowed special benefits and special programs at Israel's universities. Levy is commenting on the recent rejection, by Hebrew University rector, Haim Rabinowitz, of a proposed special program for members of the 'General Security Service' ("Shin Bet").

Levy's discussion, however, addresses and exposes a much broader issue, that is, the subtle but deep-running militarization of Israeli academia. "Those who support an academic boycott of Israel," he says, "often argue that Israel`s universities serve the occupation and its army. There is something to this."

The programs Levy discusses, run by every university in Israel (except, he says, the Hebrew University which has cancelled them) are designed especially and exclusively for security personnel. These, however, are merely the most visible face of militarization in Israeli academia and science. Academic research funding often comes from security agencies, numerous top academics (as well as top politicians and top CEOs) are ex-military personnel who often extend their military experience and connections directly into their academic work.

"A civil society striving for economic and intellectual growth," Levy writes, "must be weaned from its worship of those in uniform, whose role in benefiting or damaging the state remains controversial."

Rela Mazali

-----------------------------

Last update - 10:05 08/09/2008

The Shin Bet`s academic freedom

By Gideon Levy
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1018912.html

On the face of it, we are talking about a heated exchange between the rector of Jerusalem`s Hebrew University and the head of the Shin Bet security service, but in fact the matter concerns Israeli society`s order of priorities. Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin complained last week about the `haughty and disparaging` attitude displayed toward his organization by Hebrew University rector Haim Rabinowitz, after the university decided not to hold a special study program - awarding a humanities degree to Shin Bet members in 16 months - by virtue of their `work toward foiling terror attacks at the university,` as Diskin put it.

The Shin Bet head felt that his foilers were entitled to an academic reduction; Rabinowitz ruled that Shin Bet operatives are subject to the same laws as any other student. He should be praised for that ruling, which in effect confirms the Hebrew University`s unique position - it no longer provides special programs for members of the security forces. Perhaps that is one of the reasons it is the only Israeli university ranked among the world`s 100 leading universities.

The twisted thought process according to which members of the security forces have the right to special academic conditions has become deeply entrenched in the Israeli academic world. Today there is hardly a university that does not offer special courses for officers, pilots and secret agents. As such, all it takes for students of the National Security College to receive a master`s degree in political science from Haifa University is two classes a week for one semester. Pilots receive a bachelor`s degree at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev after one year`s study, while Shin Bet operatives receive a B.A. from Bar-Ilan University after a mere 16 months.

Bar-Ilan deserves the title of the most militaristic university of them all - it offers a plethora of programs for the security forces only: There is the Jericho program for the Shin Bet and a whole host of programs for officers in the Israel Defense Forces, officers about to enter the IDF and officers who have already reached the rank of battalion commander. The entire nation is an army and Bar-Ilan is all security. The difference between this reality and outstanding academia is immense, whereas the difference between such practice and receiving a fictitious degree from the University of Latvia is minute.

No one would dare suggest that the cleaning staff who sweep out the lecture halls receive special academic conditions - even though their work, too, is essential. The head of the Shin Bet is quick to mention the foiling of terrorist attacks as supporting evidence for getting an academic degree. What is the connection? A proposal is currently circulating in the Knesset for legislation that would offer academic points in return for reserve duty. Why academia, Rabinowitz asks, proposing instead that they get points with El Al or the Co-op supermarket chain.

This is an old curse that has widely affected society: The idea that members of the security forces are entitled to more - not just exaggerated and scandalous pay, as was recently revealed in TheMarker, not just discounts for those in uniform at the steak houses, but also at the ivory towers. They don`t deserve special treatment; Israel`s academia has no need for such distortions.

It is good for those dealing with national security to study. True, sometimes they do so merely with the goal of boosting their salaries and pensions, and sometimes the university serves merely as a safe haven until tempers have cooled - as is the case with police superintendent Uri Bar-Lev - or as a change of atmosphere and a place to rest. Whatever the motive, we must welcome this thirst for knowledge.

Perhaps at university these security specialists will learn a few important lessons in political science, civics, history and human rights, about the division of powers and the rule of law. They will rub shoulders with an environment that is generally very foreign to them: the intellectual milieu. They will read and write, and - who knows - maybe they will also think and ask questions. The experience will surely broaden their horizons, which sometimes resemble the narrow barracks in which they serve.

But the universities must not capitulate to any conditions. Their studies must be exactly the same as those of every other student - no separate groups with special conditions and most of all no shortened programs. The universities must not allow themselves to be conscripted into safeguarding Israel`s security. They must not bow down to this idol. It contradicts their academic and intellectual existence. Those who support an academic boycott of Israel often argue that Israel`s universities serve the occupation and its army. There is something to this.

`An academic education is an academic education is an academic education,` Rabinowitz says. He admits that it is possible to cram in a three-year program into one year, but believes that academic studies are not merely a race toward a degree or fulfilling a quota of hours. In the tortuous schedule dictated by the Shin Bet, it is impossible to teach in a proper fashion, Rabinowitz says. Diskin, who holds a B.A. from Bar-Ilan and an M.A. from Haifa University, calls this attitude `haughty and disparaging.` What we are talking about, therefore, is a basic misunderstanding of the university`s role.

But of course the subject is much broader. A civil society striving for economic and intellectual growth must be weaned from its worship of those in uniform, whose role in benefiting or damaging the state remains controversial. Just as the time is long gone when pictures of IDF generals hung on the walls of garages and restaurants, now the time has come to say to those in uniform: Your contribution is no more important than that of other members of the population. Welcome to the university, just like anyone else.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Water Issues in the Middle East

This article, from Time Magazine, isn't directly about the occupation, but touches on a key regional issue in Israel, Palestine and Jordan: water. It nicely sketches out the direness of the issue and also the opportunities to build partnerships across borders. It does note that the decimation of the Jordan, "is helping decimate Palestinian towns in the occupied West Bank--home to some of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities--which are slowly dying of thirst without access to the river or the authority to dig their own wells."

However, the fact that they don't have access to the river or the authority to dig their wells is due to Israeli control of the region is not explicitly mentioned. Neither is it noted that Israeli national agricultural policies that subsidize water usage to grow tropical fruits for export in the desert are often subsidizing Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine with plenty of water while their Palestinian neighbors have no running water at all.

--Rebecca Vilkomerson

Postcard From Jordan Valley
By Andrew Lee Butters, Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1837222,00.html

For centuries, the children of Abraham--Jews, Christians and Muslims
alike--have venerated the Jordan River. So much so that "crossing over
Jordan" has become a mystical metaphor for liberation and resurrection. These days, it's the river itself that could use some resurrecting. Instead of a mighty torrent "deep and wide," as the
gospel songs proclaim, much of the river is a thin rivulet of brown slime largely obscured by reeds. Most of what now flows in between the Jordan's banks is human sewage, almost all of it untreated. The river where John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah, a river so
sacred it doesn't need a priest's blessing to be considered holy
water, is today, for all intents and purposes, full of crap.

Almost all the water that used to flow into the river is now diverted for human use, and in past decades, both the Israeli and Jordanian governments have blocked off the Jordan's sources. The relative trickle is so shocking that American pilgrims are often heard
exclaiming "That's it?" when crossing the river at Allenby Bridge, the
checkpoint separating the Kingdom of Jordan on the river's east bank
from Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories on the west.

The decline of the river has had profound social and environmental consequences for the Jordan Valley. It has reduced habitats for the 500 million birds migrating each year from Europe to Africa. It is killing the Dead Sea, which, without replenishment from the Jordan, is being reduced in depth about a meter a year. And it is helping
decimate Palestinian towns in the occupied West Bank--home to some of
the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities--which are slowly
dying of thirst without access to the river or the authority to dig
their own wells.

But the plight of the Jordan Valley is also galvanizing a new generation of environmental activists in the region. For Palestinians, reviving the river is a necessary part of establishing a national
water system, vital for a future Palestinian state. For Israelis--with
environmentalism replacing Zionism as a motivating ideology among idealistic secular Jews--learning to live with their dry country's fragile ecosystem is giving new meaning to the old imperative to "make
the deserts bloom." And for all the communities that live along the Jordan, sharing its blessings is an opportunity to nurture the region's fragile peace.

The trick is to convince the national governments that use the Jordan's water that they would be better off returning the river to its natural course. For Gidon Bromberg, founder of Friends of the
Earth Middle East (FOEME), a joint Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian
environmental organization that is leading the effort to revive the
Jordan, the future of water conservation in the Middle East lies in
transforming rural economies. Right now the Israeli and Jordanian governments provide precious water at subsidized prices to their agricultural industries. Farming consumes the majority of the water
supply but contributes little to national economies. Because they don't pay full price for their resources, farmers grow water-hungry crops such as garden vegetables, fruits and flowers, most of which are shipped to Europe. "We are exporting our water," says Bromberg.
"Bananas are a tropical fruit. Why are we growing them in the desert?"

Rural communities in the valley would be better off if they developed themselves as destination spots. In particular, a healthy and accessible Jordan River (much of its banks on the Israeli side are in
a restricted military zone) could be a much bigger draw for pilgrims
visiting holy sites. FOEME and Yale University architects have developed a showcase ecotourism project: a Peace Park on an island in the middle of the river, where Jordanians and Israelis may one day
meet without passports or visas. The Peace Park would also be a concrete way of fighting the mistrust that pushes countries to grab and hoard as much water as they can. "War will not generate water," says Nader Al-Khateeb, the Palestinian director of FOEME. "But peace
can."

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

HaCohen: Occupation by another name

In his latest column, Ran HaCohen looks at the current state of the so-called peace process, what Henry Siegman calls "one of the longest and cruelest deceptions in the annals of international diplomacy." HaCohen looks at the mechanics of how the latest episode in this process has been twisted and spun to appear as (another) act of Palestinian rejectionism. His lucid analysis is well worth reading.

Judith Norman

Occupation by another name

By Ran HaCohen
Anti-War.com
August 27, 2008
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=13362

Meron Benvenisti in an excellent article mentions the `success of the propaganda campaign known as `negotiations with the Palestinians,` which convinces many that the status quo is temporary.` There`s indeed no better way to describe the ongoing talks between the two politicians living on borrowed time – Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas – than as a pastime orchestrated by the Bush administration. In the past, peace talks were supposed to lead to a peace agreement, which would in turn lead to peace; now, not even that little is assumed. What the negotiations are expected to yield is at best a `shelf agreement` to be implemented at some vague point in the future, or not. No one believes such an agreement can be reached, as agreed, by the end of this year, but even the shelf doesn`t really care.

But the show must go on. Last week the papers announced a great leap forward: Olmert`s Israel has submitted a detailed proposal for the final status. In true negotiations, one could have said: Now we know what Israel wants. This is not the case, since everybody knows Prime Minister Olmert is no longer relevant. So what`s the value of the proposal? We don`t really know what Israel wants, but at least we can see what Israel is willing to say.

This is an important issue in Israeli political discourse. During the last one-and-a-half decades, this has been a central point of controversy between the Zionist left and the radical left. Any honest person has to admit that nothing changed on the ground, at least not for the better: the occupation, supposed to be ending since 1993, has been worsening all the time, with the illegal Israeli settlements growing like a fatal tumor. The radical left sees this as evidence that Israel has no intention to end the occupation. The Zionist left, however, has another argument: `Listen to the way they talk.` West Bank and Gaza realities are indeed worse than ever, but, claims the Zionist left, now even the Israeli mainstream openly talks about a Palestinian state, and words will inevitably become deeds – if we just support those good guys who keep entrenching the occupation while saying they want to end it (Rabin, Peres, Barak, etc. – even Sharon, who was wise enough to join the club).

The New, Generous Offer

So let`s see what official Israel is ready to say – not do – these days. The final-status proposal, according to Ha`aretz, includes the following points:

Israeli withdrawal from some 93 percent of the West Bank, keeping Ma`aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, the settlements surrounding Jerusalem, and some land in the northern West Bank adjacent to Israel, all in all about 7 percent of the West Bank.

In return, the Palestinians would receive alternative land in the Negev, adjacent to the Gaza Strip, equivalent to 5.5 percent of West Bank.

Free passage between Gaza and the West Bank without any security checks.

The proposal rejects a `right of return` for Palestinian refugees, but includes a `detailed and complex formula` for solving the refugee problem. (No details given.)

Olmert has agreed with Abbas that the negotiations over Jerusalem will be postponed.

Now this doesn`t sound all too attractive, not even as a `shelf agreement.` Jerusalem is a core issue that hasn`t even been dealt with. Furthermore, as Ha`aretz explains, `Olmert`s proposal for a land swap introduces a new stage in the arrangement: Israel would immediately receive the settlement blocs, but the land to be transferred to the Palestinians and the free passage between Gaza and the West Bank would only be delivered after the PA retakes control of the Gaza Strip` (emphasis mine). The chances that the PA ever retakes control of the Gaza Strip are perhaps lower than that of Hamas taking control of the West Bank, but this only makes the proposal more attractive for Israel: we take the goods now, but we pay only after the Messiah comes.

Ha`aretz chooses to include an inevitable propaganda item in the otherwise informative report: `Over the past few months, Olmert has approved construction of thousands of housing units in these settlement blocs, mostly around Jerusalem, and some are intended for the voluntary evacuees.` As always, Israel is breaching international law and is building more houses in the illegal settlements – but it is doing so with only one thing in mind: peace. For sure, the best way to end the occupation is to build thousands of new Israeli houses in occupied land. Their construction is (yet more) evidence of Israel`s deep commitment to peace.

Why This Eternal Pessimism?

But still, one may argue, still. Of course Olmert`s proposal will never be implemented. Of course it`s incomplete, dubious, and definitely not generous. But still: Israel is ready to pledge openly its commitment to the idea a Palestinian state on 93 percent of the West Bank, plus a 5.5 percent land swap. Doesn`t it mean that Israel finally admits the occupation`s days are numbered? Even one MK for the right-wing Likud Party consequently accused Kadima of advancing the worldview of the Zionist left: `Any [left-wing] Meretz faction member could have signed on to Olmert`s proposal.` Is there any better evidence for a good proposal than the attacks from the right wing?

`Security Arrangements`

Not quite. As the report in Ha`aretz very briefly mentions, `Israel also presented the Palestinians with a detailed model of new security arrangements under the proposed agreement.` At first, no details were given. Why spoil the peace party with small technical details? The initial report only mentioned a demand that the Palestinian state be demilitarized and without an army, a demand that the Palestinians accept, more or less. But obviously, the next day the Palestinians were reported to have rejected Olmert`s proposal as `unserious,` in full accordance with the Israeli misconception about the alleged `Palestinian rejectionism` from 1947 to this day.

One had to wait a couple of weeks to find out what those unnamed `security arrangements` really meant. Tuesday, Ha`aretz reported that `the Palestinians oppose any Israeli military presence in the territory of a future Palestinian state.` Once again, then, those unreasonable Palestinian demands: why must they insist on an independent state without an Israeli army presence?! Surely they know that Israeli soldiers are cute 18-year-old kids who never do any harm. But that`s not the end of it: the report also states that `For its part, Israel would like to supervise border crossings, maintain a limited deployment in the Jordan Valley, continue overflights of the Palestinian territory, maintain early warning stations on mountain ridges, and hold emergency response units in Palestinian areas.`

Oh, so that`s what Israel means by a `two-state solution`: An `independent` `Palestinian` `state` with Israeli supervision on its borders crossings, full of Israeli soldiers, Israeli jets, Israeli military stations – and, of course, Israel`s right to send even more soldiers into it in `times of emergency.` Shall we – to expose Israel`s true face – suggest mutuality? How about Palestinian control on Israel`s border crossings, a Palestinian military presence along Israel`s Mediterranean coast, Palestinian jets free to fly over Tel Aviv and Dimona, Palestinian military stations in Haifa and Ramat Yishay, and Palestinian emergency response units in Israeli areas? Obviously, such `security arrangements` are completely incompatible with a sovereign, independent state.

The Israeli proposal – as its `security arrangements` reveal – proves once again that Israel is no partner for peace. On the ground, all that Israel seeks is time to expand the settlements and strangle Palestinian society, hoping the `Palestinian problem` will eventually disappear. On the discourse level, however, things are just as bad. Despite the false contrary impression cultivated by the Israeli propaganda machine, Israel clearly rejects the notion of an independent Palestinian state, other than a Bantustan under total Israeli control. If you wonder why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, this is the simple answer: the two-state solution, proposed by the UN 60 years ago and endorsed by the Palestinians 20 years ago, is still unacceptable to Israel`s military and political leadership.