هذا نصرالله

ناصر قنديل

ديسمبر 12, 2017

– كقائد حرب يُعدّ لها العِدّة ظهر الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصرالله، فهي لحظته التاريخية التي انتظرها طويلاً ولن يدعَها تضيع، ولن يسمح لأحد مهما كلّف الأمر أن يسرقها أو يحوّلها عن المسار الذي يجب أن تسلكه وصولاً للحظة الحاسمة. فخلال سنوات ما بعد حرب تموز استعدّت المقاومة والسيد نصرالله على رأسها لهذه المواجهة، ولما جاءت الحرب على سورية حاولت تفاديها، وكلما اتضح أنها جزء من الحرب الكبرى حول فلسطين صارت حرب المقاومة، حتى رسم نصرها، وتعاظمت قوة المقاومة، وهي تتساءل كيف ستربط تظهير فائض قوّتها في جبهتها الرئيسية لقتال «إسرائيل»، واكتفت بضمان لعبة التدافع عبر الجنوب السوري لتربحها في الدبلوماسية بحرمان «إسرائيل» من تحقيق أيّ مكسب يخفّف من وطأة خسائرها في حروب المنطقة، وكلها حروب بالوكالة مع «إسرائيل»، من انفصال كردستان إلى حرب اليمن والصواريخ اليمنية، وصولاً إلى حرب الحدود السورية العراقية، وما بينها حرب الفتنة التي صُمّمت من خلال احتجاز رئيس الحكومة اللبنانية واستقالته، وقد خاضتها المقاومة جميعها وربحتها حتى صارت «إسرائيل» وجهاً لوجه أمام الجدار، وصار خيار الحرب الانتحارية وحده يحفظ لها ماء الوجه، حتى تفتقت العبقرية الأميركية «الإسرائيلية» عن قرار ترامب الأخير تعويضاً معنوياً لـ»إسرائيل» عن الخسائر وربحاً معنوياً ظاهراً، ورسماً لحدود المواجهة المقبلة من وراء أسوار القدس بصفتها عاصمة «إسرائيل» المزعومة.

– في مثل هذه اللحظات لا تنشغل المقاومة بالمفاضلة للإجابة عن سؤال افتراضي، أليس هذا من مصلحة المقاومة أن تمنح شرف خوض حربها للدفاع عن القدس، بدلاً من أن تكون حرب الدفاع عن وجود المقاومة؟ وها هي الفتن تسقط على أسوار القدس قبل أن تبدأ الحرب، ومعها تسقط أوهام التسويات والمفاوضات، وتندلع الانتفاضات، وتتوحّد المقاومات. هنا يصير همّ المقاومة كما بدا في كلام سيدها، الانشغال بما هو كائن، وما يجب أن يكون وما سيكون، وليس بما كان يمكن أن يكون، فلتنشغل «إسرائيل» وأميركا بالسؤال عما إذا كانت حساباتهم الخاطئة تجعلهم دائماً يصلون متأخرين؟

– المهمّ أنّ المقاومة تستعدّ لحربها، وقد ترسملت من الحروب التي خاضتها مزيداً من الجهوزية والانتصارات والسلاح والمقدّرات والتحالفات، والخبرات. وها هي تُنهي هذه الحروب، قبل أن تدخل حربها الكبرى التي انتظرتها طويلاً، وفي الطريق إليها ترسم الخطوات بدقة، وعناوينها، أوّلها تأمين أوسع مروحة من العزلة للعدو، قوامها مَن كانوا أطراف التفاوض والتسوية معه، ويستشعرون بالصفعة التي تلقّوها منه اليوم، وبالتوازي ضمان أوسع مشاركة شعبية في نصرة القدس وفلسطين، وشارعها الذين كانوا مستهدَفين بالتعبئة والدعوات للتظاهر ضدّ المقاومة تحت عناوين مذهبية وطائفية، ويكتشفون هويتهم الحقيقية مع القدس ومَن معها في الميدان وقد سقطت الأقنعة عن الوجوه، وعلى ضفة موازية رصّ صفوف المقاومين وفصائلهم وجيوشهم وأسلحتهم، لإدارة هادئة غير متوتّرة، محسوبة غير متهوّرة، لتدرّج يواكب التصاعد الطبيعي والمنهجي في المواجهة، وهذا يستدعي ترتيب بيت قوى المقاومة وتصالح أطرافها بعد كلّ ما جرى، وطيّ صفحات الانقسام، وقد عقدت للسيد القيادة في محوره ليكون هو المايسترو لهذه الحروب الثلاثة، حرب الدبلوماسية وحرب الشارع وحرب العسكر، وقد حدّد لكلّ حرب سقفها وخريطة طريقها.

– خطاب السيد نصرالله خريطة طريق حربه، بمثل ما هو خريطة طريق القدس… هذا هو نصرالله… هذا حفيد محمد… هذا نشيد علي… هذا بشائر عيسى… هذا نصرالله.

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Global Research, December 08, 2017
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013

Introduction

The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government,  the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by Global Research on April 29, 2013).

President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements (including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank).  

Moreover, by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and allowing for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and beyond, the US president has provided a de facto endorsement of the “Greater Israel” project as formulated under the Yinon Plan.

Bear in mind this design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, namely Washington’s intent to fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

 

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia bear and intimate relationship to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East.

The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, the Saudi-Israeli rapprochement is from Netanyahu’s viewpoint a means to expanding Israel’s spheres of influence in the Middle East as well as confronting Iran. Needless to day, the Geater Israel project is consistent with America’s imperial design. 

“Greater Israel” consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates. According to Stephen Lendman, “A near-century ago, the World Zionist Organization’s plan for a Jewish state included:

• historic Palestine;

• South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

• Syria’s Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

• control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Some Zionists wanted more – land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East, comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.”

The Zionist project supports the Jewish settlement movement. More broadly it involves a policy of excluding Palestinians from Palestine leading to the eventual annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel.

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia. (See map).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article,   The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:

“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation…  This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of  the process of Israeli territorial expansion.

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hizbollah constitute a significant setback for the Zionist project.  

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 06, 2015, updated December 8, 2017


The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

Translated and edited by

Israel Shahak

The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

from

Oded Yinon’s

“A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Published by the

Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.

Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982

Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8)

Table of Contents

 Publisher’s Note1

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.

2

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

3

This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication,  Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties.

4

The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967” that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.”

5

The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled  “Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine.

6

It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later.

7

Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.

Khalil Nakhleh

July 23, 1982

Foreward

by Israel Shahak

1

The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

2

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

3

2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.

4

3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted, such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to be regarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfully the geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.

5

The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.

Israel Shahak

June 13, 1982


 

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties

by Oded Yinon

This essay originally appeared in Hebrew in KIVUNIM (Directions), A Journal for Judaism and Zionism; Issue No, 14–Winter, 5742, February 1982, Editor: Yoram Beck. Editorial Committee: Eli Eyal, Yoram Beck, Amnon Hadari, Yohanan Manor, Elieser Schweid. Published by the Department of Publicity/The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem.

1

At the outset of the nineteen eighties the State of Israel is in need of a new perspective as to its place, its aims and national targets, at home and abroad. This need has become even more vital due to a number of central processes which the country, the region and the world are undergoing. We are living today in the early stages of a new epoch in human history which is not at all similar to its predecessor, and its characteristics are totally different from what we have hitherto known. That is why we need an understanding of the central processes which typify this historical epoch on the one hand, and on the other hand we need a world outlook and an operational strategy in accordance with the new conditions. The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs.

2

This epoch is characterized by several traits which we can already diagnose, and which symbolize a genuine revolution in our present lifestyle. The dominant process is the breakdown of the rationalist, humanist outlook as the major cornerstone supporting the life and achievements of Western civilization since the Renaissance. The political, social and economic views which have emanated from this foundation have been based on several “truths” which are presently disappearing–for example, the view that man as an individual is the center of the universe and everything exists in order to fulfill his basic material needs. This position is being invalidated in the present when it has become clear that the amount of resources in the cosmos does not meet Man’s requirements, his economic needs or his demographic constraints. In a world in which there are four billion human beings and economic and energy resources which do not grow proportionally to meet the needs of mankind, it is unrealistic to expect to fulfill the main requirement of Western Society, 1 i.e., the wish and aspiration for boundless consumption. The view that ethics plays no part in determining the direction Man takes, but rather his material needs do–that view is becoming prevalent today as we see a world in which nearly all values are disappearing. We are losing the ability to assess the simplest things, especially when they concern the simple question of what is Good and what is Evil.

3

The vision of man’s limitless aspirations and abilities shrinks in the face of the sad facts of life, when we witness the break-up of world order around us. The view which promises liberty and freedom to mankind seems absurd in light of the sad fact that three fourths of the human race lives under totalitarian regimes. The views concerning equality and social justice have been transformed by socialism and especially by Communism into a laughing stock. There is no argument as to the truth of these two ideas, but it is clear that they have not been put into practice properly and the majority of mankind has lost the liberty, the freedom and the opportunity for equality and justice. In this nuclear world in which we are (still) living in relative peace for thirty years, the concept of peace and coexistence among nations has no meaning when a superpower like the USSR holds a military and political doctrine of the sort it has: that not only is a nuclear war possible and necessary in order to achieve the ends of Marxism, but that it is possible to survive after it, not to speak of the fact that one can be victorious in it.2

4

The essential concepts of human society, especially those of the West, are undergoing a change due to political, military and economic transformations. Thus, the nuclear and conventional might of the USSR has transformed the epoch that has just ended into the last respite before the great saga that will demolish a large part of our world in a multi-dimensional global war, in comparison with which the past world wars will have been mere child’s play. The power of nuclear as well as of conventional weapons, their quantity, their precision and quality will turn most of our world upside down within a few years, and we must align ourselves so as to face that in Israel. That is, then, the main threat to our existence and that of the Western world. 3 The war over resources in the world, the Arab monopoly on oil, and the need of the West to import most of its raw materials from the Third World, are transforming the world we know, given that one of the major aims of the USSR is to defeat the West by gaining control over the gigantic resources in the Persian Gulf and in the southern part of Africa, in which the majority of world minerals are located. We can imagine the dimensions of the global confrontation which will face us in the future.

5

The Gorshkov doctrine calls for Soviet control of the oceans and mineral rich areas of the Third World. That together with the present Soviet nuclear doctrine which holds that it is possible to manage, win and survive a nuclear war, in the course of which the West’s military might well be destroyed and its inhabitants made slaves in the service of Marxism-Leninism, is the main danger to world peace and to our own existence. Since 1967, the Soviets have transformed Clausewitz’ dictum into “War is the continuation of policy in nuclear means,” and made it the motto which guides all their policies. Already today they are busy carrying out their aims in our region and throughout the world, and the need to face them becomes the major element in our country’s security policy and of course that of the rest of the Free World. That is our major foreign challenge.4

6

The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes. The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorites and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. 5 Most of the Arabs, 118 million out of 170 million, live in Africa, mostly in Egypt (45 million today).

7

Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria. Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians. In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.

8

All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict even more than those of the Maghreb. Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.

9

Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.

10

All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.

11

Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus. All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.

12

Alongside the Arabs, split as they are, the other Moslem states share a similar predicament. Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds. In Afghanistan there are 5 million

Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population. In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.

13

This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.

14

In this giant and fractured world there are a few wealthy groups and a huge mass of poor people. Most of the Arabs have an average yearly income of 300 dollars. That is the situation in Egypt, in most of the Maghreb countries except for Libya, and in Iraq. Lebanon is torn apart and its economy is falling to pieces. It is a state in which there is no centralized power, but only 5 de facto sovereign authorities (Christian in the north, supported by the Syrians and under the rule of the Franjieh clan, in the East an area of direct Syrian conquest, in the center a Phalangist controlled Christian enclave, in the south and up to the Litani river a mostly Palestinian region controlled by the PLO and Major Haddad’s state of Christians and half a million Shi’ites). Syria is in an even graver situation and even the assistance she will obtain in the future after the unification with Libya will not be sufficient for dealing with the basic problems of existence and the maintenance of a large army. Egypt is in the worst situation: Millions are on the verge of hunger, half the labor force is unemployed, and housing is scarce in this most densely populated area of the world. Except for the army, there is not a single department operating efficiently and the state is in a permanent state of bankruptcy and depends entirely on American foreign assistance granted since the peace.6

15

In the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt there is the largest accumulation of money and oil in the world, but those enjoying it are tiny elites who lack a wide base of support and self-confidence, something that no army can guarantee. 7 The Saudi army with all its equipment cannot defend the regime from real dangers at home or abroad, and what took place in Mecca in 1980 is only an example. A sad and very stormy situation surrounds Israel and creates challenges for it, problems, risks but also far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967. Chances are that opportunities missed at that time will become achievable in the Eighties to an extent and along dimensions which we cannot even imagine today.

16

The “peace” policy and the return of territories, through a dependence upon the US, precludes the realization of the new option created for us. Since 1967, all the governments of Israel have tied our national aims down to narrow political needs, on the one hand, and on the other to destructive opinions at home which neutralized our capacities both at home and abroad. Failing to take steps towards the Arab population in the new territories, acquired in the course of a war forced upon us, is the major strategic error committed by Israel on the morning after the Six Day War. We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. 8 Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.

17

In the course of the Nineteen Eighties, the State of Israel will have to go through far-reaching changes in its political and economic regime domestically, along with radical changes in its foreign policy, in order to stand up to the global and regional challenges of this new epoch. The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. 9 The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs.

18

(Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political prioritywhich is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967. The Egyptians will not need to keep the peace treaty after the return of the Sinai, and they will do all they can to return to the fold of the Arab world and to the USSR in order to gain support and military assistance. American aid is guaranteed only for a short while, for the terms of the peace and the weakening of the U.S. both at home and abroad will bring about a reduction in aid. Without oil and the income from it, with the present enormous expenditure, we will not be able to get through 1982 under the present conditions and we will have to act in order to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai prior to Sadat’s visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed with him in March 1979. 10

19

Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israelwith the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-

Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the longrun. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day. 11

20

The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow. 12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. BreakingEgypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.

21

Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join thedownfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run. 13

22

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab worldincluding Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today. 14

23

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate forIsrael’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and willshorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. 15

24

The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure. 16

25

Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.

26

There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of theJordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 17

27

Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river andbeyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.

28

Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today. l8

29

Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation. l9

30

From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with nocompromises. 20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future. 21

31

Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

1

Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.

2

The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.

3

It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.

4

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to bepersuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.

5

Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?

6

In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, TheJerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak

June 17, 1982 Jerusalem

About the Translator

Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)

Notes

 1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

 2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

 3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

 4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

 5. Elie Kedourie, “The End of the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 3, No.4, 1968.

 6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

 7. E. Kanovsky, “Arab Haves and Have Nots,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No.1, Fall 1976, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79.

 8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

 9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

 10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10.

According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

 11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

 12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

 13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

 14. Arab Press Service, Beirut, 8/6-13/80. The New Republic, 8/16/80, Der Spiegel as cited by Ha’aretz, 3/21/80, and 4/30-5/5/80; The Economist, 3/22/80; Robert Fisk, Times, London, 3/26/80; Ellsworth Jones, Sunday Times, 3/30/80.

 15.  J.P.  Peroncell  Hugoz,  Le  Monde,  Paris  4/28/80;  Dr.  Abbas  Kelidar,  Middle  East  Review,  Summer  1979;

Conflict Studies, ISS, July 1975; Andreas Kolschitter, Der Zeit, (Ha’aretz, 9/21/79) Economist Foreign Report, 10/10/79, Afro-Asian Affairs, London, July 1979.

 16. Arnold Hottinger, “The Rich Arab States in Trouble,” The New York Review of Books, 5/15/80; Arab Press Service, Beirut, 6/25-7/2/80; U.S. News and World Report, 11/5/79 as well as El Ahram, 11/9/79; El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, Paris 9/7/79; El Hawadeth, 11/9/79; David Hakham, Monthly Review, IDF, Jan.-Feb. 79.

 17. As for Jordan’s policies and problems see El Nahar El Arabi Wal Duwali, 4/30/79, 7/2/79; Prof. Elie Kedouri, Ma’ariv 6/8/79; Prof. Tanter, Davar 7/12/79; A. Safdi, Jerusalem Post, 5/31/79; El Watan El Arabi 11/28/79; El Qabas, 11/19/79. As for PLO positions see: The resolutions of the Fatah Fourth Congress, Damascus, August 1980. The Shefa’amr program of the Israeli Arabs was published in Ha’aretz, 9/24/80, and by Arab Press Report 6/18/80. For facts and figures on immigration of Arabs to Jordan, see Amos Ben Vered, Ha’aretz, 2/16/77; Yossef Zuriel, Ma’ariv 1/12/80. As to the PLO’s position towards Israel see Shlomo Gazit, Monthly Review; July 1980; Hani El Hasan in an interview, Al Rai Al’Am, Kuwait 4/15/80; Avi Plaskov, “The Palestinian Problem,” Survival, ISS, London Jan. Feb. 78; David Gutrnann, “The Palestinian Myth,” Commentary, Oct. 75; Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO,” Commentary Jan. 75; Monday Morning, Beirut, 8/18-21/80; Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1980.

 18. Prof. Yuval Neeman, “Samaria–The Basis for Israel’s Security,” Ma’arakhot 272-273, May/June 1980; Ya’akov Hasdai, “Peace, the Way and the Right to Know,” Dvar Hashavua, 2/23/80. Aharon Yariv, “Strategic Depth–An Israeli Perspective,” Ma’arakhot 270-271, October 1979; Yitzhak Rabin, “Israel’s Defense Problems in the Eighties,” Ma’arakhot October 1979.

 19. Ezra Zohar, In the Regime’s Pliers (Shikmona, 1974); Motti Heinrich, Do We have a Chance Israel, Truth Versus Legend (Reshafim, 1981).

 20. Henry Kissinger, “The Lessons of the Past,” The Washington Review Vol 1, Jan. 1978; Arthur Ross, “OPEC’s Challenge to the West,” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 1980; Walter Levy, “Oil and the Decline of the West,” Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Special Report–“Our Armed Forees-Ready or Not?” U.S. News and World Report 10/10/77; Stanley Hoffman, “Reflections on the Present Danger,” The New York Review of Books 3/6/80; Time 4/3/80; Leopold Lavedez “The illusions of SALT” Commentary Sept. 79; Norman Podhoretz, “The Present Danger,” Commentary March 1980; Robert Tucker, “Oil and American Power Six Years Later,” Commentary Sept. 1979; Norman Podhoretz, “The Abandonment of Israel,” Commentary July 1976; Elie Kedourie, “Misreading the Middle East,” Commentary July 1979.

 21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.

 

قرار ترامب بين الأعمال بالنيات أم بالنتائج؟ سقوط صفقة القرن أعاد «إسرائيل» وراء الجدار

ناصر قنديل

ديسمبر 9, 2017

– يختلف الكثيرون بالحكم على الأعمال أخلاقياً بين القول إنّ الأعمال بالنيات أو القول إنّ الأعمال بالنتائج، فكثيرون يدعون لمغفرة أخطاء جسيمة بحقهم، إذا ثبت أنّ النية كانت صادقة للخير وكثيرون يقولون العكس إنّ التسبّب بالأذى واحد، ويستحق مسبّبه المعاملة ذاتها، أكان بنيّة حسنة أم سيئة. وفي السياسة تتفاوت الأحكام أيضاً بين ما يُسمّى بحساب الحقل وحساب البيدر، والقصد حساب الزرع وحساب الحصاد، فما ينويه صنّاع السياسة بأفعالهم هو خدمة مصالحهم وفقاً لرؤيتهم وحساباتهم، وكثيراً ما تكون النتيجة عكسية فتتضرّر المصالح المقصودة خدمتها، بسبب قصور الحسابات أو ضيق الخيارات، أو محاولة الجمع بين الضعف والتعجرف، بين العجز والإنكار. وفي مثل هذه الحالات كانت حروب أميركا و«إسرائيل» خلال العقد الماضي، النيات عكس النتائج، فهل يجب استبعاد أن يكون قرار الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب حول القدس واحداً من هذه القرارات المحكومة بالمعايير ذاتها، للحرب على سورية وقبلها حرب تموز 2006، ومثلهما فرضية الانتصار بفرض الأحادية على العالم؟

– الأكيد أنّ الحسابات التي حكمت ترامب في تكرار فعل ما فعله الرؤساء الذين سبقوه، بتوقيع تأجيل تنفيذ قانون الكونغرس قبل ستة شهور، تمّت عكس وعده الانتخابي، فلا يفسّر هذا الوعد توقيع تنفيذ القانون الآن، فالحسابات التي أجريت وأفضت ليفعل ما فعله أسلافه، هي حسابات أسلافه ذاتها، وهي ما تغيّر، والتغيير عند من يُجري الحسابات وليس عند الرئيس، وكلّ أسلاف ترامب تشاركوا معه بالوعد ذاته ولم ينفذوه، وبقي مَن يجري الحسابات يوعز بتوقيع التأجيل ستة شهور بستة، ويستجيبون للإيعاز، وترامب فعل مثلهم قبل ستة شهور، حتى كان الإيعاز المعاكس وفقاً لحسابات جديدة. ولا يمكن التحدّث هنا عن خصوصية ترامبية، كان يفترض ظهورها برفض التمديد للتأجيل في المرة الأولى لو كانت هي السبب، وما خضوعه لما فعله أسلافه إلا الدليل على وجود مرجعية تحسب وتقرّر يلتزم بها الرئيس، في عهد ترامب وفي عهود أسلافه، فما هي الحسابات؟

– التوقيت هو الذي يفسّر التغيير، وهو توقيت يتصل بنتائج الرهان الأميركي على السعودية كمرجعية قادرة على إمساك معادلات المنطقة، تتوجّب مراعاتها، بحفظ ماء الوجه، طالما هي قادرة على تخديم المصالح الأميركية والإسرائيلية، وتثبت الأهلية لمزيد من القدرة، وهو رهان زادت أهميته بعدما ضعفت «إسرائيل» منذ تحرير الجنوب اللبناني عام 2000، وفشل حروبها على لبنان وغزة، وصولاً لعجزها عن خوض الحروب، بالتوازي مع فشل الحروب الأميركية في تطويع سورية وإيران، وصولاً لحروب الربيع العربي، والفشل المشترك الأميركي «الإسرائيلي» التركي السعودي في ربح الحرب على سورية، وما نتج عن ذلك من معادلات جديدة في المنطقة، وحجم التهديد الوجودي الذي تعيشه «إسرائيل» بنتيجة كلّ ذلك.

– خاضت السعودية كلّ مراحل إثبات الأهلية للأميركيين بقدرتها على تغيير المعادلات لتستحقّ بيعها حلاً يحفظ ماء الوجه في القضية الفلسطينية، وارتضت حلفاً معلناً مع «إسرائيل» بوجه المقاومة وإيران، فكان سقف ما تمكن الأميركيون و«الإسرائيليون» من تقديمه هو ما سُمّي بصفقة القرن، وتعلم السعودية أن لا ماء وجه في هذه الصفقة، فحاولت خلق مناخ يسهم بتمريرها حرق أوراق قوتها دفعة واحدة، ليكون دخان الحرائق الكبرى سبباً لانعدام الرؤية والانشغال عن الصفقة المهينة، وما فيها من تنازلات، أوّلها التنازل عن القدس، فخاضت انفصال كردستان وتفجير لبنان باستقالة رئيس حكومته بعد خطفه، وصولاً لتوريط الرئيس اليمني السابق بالانقلاب في صنعاء، وفشلت بها جميعاً. وضغطت على السلطة الفلسطينية لانتزاع قبول الصفقة، ففشلت، لأنّ الثمن الفلسطيني سيكون مكلفاً لكلّ من يبيع، وأمام أعين الفلسطينيين انتصارات محور المقاومة. فصار السؤال الأميركي ماذا يمكن أن نقدّم لـ«إسرائيل» في زمن استعصاء السلم واستعصاء الحرب، ولماذا علينا أن نبقى نقيم الحساب لحفظ ماء الوجه السعودي، وهل بقي لعملية السلام من موجب؟

– الجواب ببساطة، كان أنّ عملية السلام ماتت، لأنّ الطرف العربي الذي يمكن مواصلتها معه لم يعُد يملك قدرة منح الشرعية للاعتراف بوجود «إسرائيل» ولا منحها الأمن ولا التطبيع. وهذه كلها باتت بيد محور المقاومة الرافض منحها، وأنّ قيمة الشريك العربي في هذه العملية بعد فقدان قدرته على كلّ ذلك هو قدرته على تقبّل حدود الشرعية والأمن والتطبيع التي تسمح لـ«إسرائيل» بمواجهة التحديات التي يواجهها بفعل تعاظم قوة محور المقاومة، وليس بالشروط التي تحفظ ماء وجه هذا الشريك العربي، والمشهد الجديد يقول إنّ على «إسرائيل» أن تنتظر حروباً مقبلة، ليست راهنة الآن، لكنها مقبلة، ولذلك عليها ترسيم جدار الحماية العقائدي والسياسي والاجتماعي، لضمان تماسك جناحيها العلماني والديني، وخوض حروبها المقبلة من وراء هذا الجدار، والقدس في قلب هذا الجدار، والقدر الممكن من الشرعية يجب أن تمنحه واشنطن لقيام هذا الجدار.

– تدرك واشنطن أنّ هذه الجائزة لـ «إسرائيل» تحتاج لهضمها وتثبيت خطوط دفاعها خلفها، لتضحيات وأثمان ومواجهات، وسنوات، وهي السنوات ذاتها التي تعتبر أميركا و«إسرائيل» أنّ محور المقاومة سيستعملها لهضم انتصاراته في سورية ولبنان والعراق، وربما في اليمن، وتدرك أنّ هذه الجائزة هي الشيء الوحيد الذي يمكن تقديمه لـ«إسرائيل» بعد الفشل بضبط مضمون التسويات المعروضة حول سورية والعراق، بالشروط المطمئنة لـ «إسرائيل». وفي المقابل تدرك حجم التداعيات الناتجة عن ذلك، لكنها تقيس الأمر بقياس الزمن، فالتداعيات اليوم أقلّ من الغد، والغد أسوأ من اليوم، فإن كان على «إسرائيل» مواجهة أخطار مواجهة، فليكن ذلك بمراحل، وليكن في أفضل الظروف المتاحة، لأنّ البديل هو قبول «إسرائيل» بحلّ سياسي يؤدّي لتفكّكها، بانقسام جناحيها العلماني والديني، كما أشارت تجربة رئيس الحكومة السابق اسحق رابين الذي دفع حياته ثمناً للواقعية السياسية، في زمن كانت التوازنات أفضل بكثير لحساب «إسرائيل» من اليوم، وسبقت صدور قانون الكونغرس بشبه إجماع حول القدس بسنة فقط.

– القرار الأميركي هو تعويذة أخيرة، يزوّد بها الأميركيون «إسرائيل»، والنيات هي تعزيز القدرة على مواجهة القدر القاتم، والنتائج هي تقريب ساعة هذا القدر، كما تقول فلسطين، والسياقات التي يبشر بها التناغم التصاعدي بين محور المقاومة والشارع الفلسطيني ومقاومته، إذ يكفي أنّ الأوهام والفتن قد سقطت مع صدور القرار، وهي السلاح الأميركي الحاسم، وقيمة الأعمال والنيات هي بالنتائج، هكذا تقول السياسة. والسؤال، كيف يشعل القادة الكبار الحروب فينتصرون أو يهزمون، إذا كانت الحروب، وهي أعلى مراتب السياسة في الحسابات، لا تُخاض إلا بحسابات صحيحة، أليست حرب العراق وعدوان تموز 2006 أمامنا مثالاً؟

Related Videos

Related Articles

Trump’s Al-Quds Move is a Natural Progression of US Policies

Darko Lazar

09-12-2017 | 09:16

In its pursuit of legitimacy, the political and military establishment in Tel Aviv has often attempted to justify the “Israeli” occupation of Palestine by claiming that it was an embodiment of a biblical covenant.

US President Donald Trump

In 1971, then-“Israeli” Prime Minister Golda Meir famously claimed that “Israel” “exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.”

Aside from justifying hypothetical “Israeli” military adventures from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq, this claim also guarantees perpetual war in the region – driven by one side’s uncompromising notion of a moral high ground and its rejection of the ‘other’.

Unconditional American support for this “Israeli” narrative, as well as the shared geopolitical interests of the elites in Washington and Tel Aviv, have insured the aggressive expansion of the Zionist entity over the last seven decades.

Donald Trump’s recognition of Al-Quds as the “Israeli” capital is little more than a continuation; or rather the ramping up of the same old policies – ensuring that the highly unstable Middle East continues to burn.

Of course, this decision has nothing to do with “the pursuit of peace between “Israel” and the Palestinians”, as Trump proclaimed during his announcement on Wednesday.

The so-called ‘peace process’, in which the Americans play the role of a self-appointed mediator, can best be described as a scheme guaranteeing the annexation of Palestinian land and the suppression of Palestinian rights.

Former US diplomat Jim Jatras believes that Trump’s Al-Quds move further underscores the fact that the negotiations were never meant to spawn “an independent Palestinian state.”

“I think this simply makes clear what has been latent all the time; there will not be a peace settlement,” Jatras opined.

In the best interests of the United States

During his short speech at the White House, Trump also directed the state department to start making arrangements to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Al-Quds.

He asserted that this was in “the best interests of the United States”.

However, Trump’s announcement did not only manage to provoke condemnation from US foes, but its allies as well.

The move infuriated Palestinians and the entire Muslim world. Within minutes of the speech, US embassies in Turkey, Jordan, Germany and Britain issued security alerts urging Americans to exercise caution.

Meanwhile, US troops in Afghanistan were put on a special notice and threats from a number of armed groups in the Middle East only stoked fears of attacks on American military installations.

Grant Smith, who works as the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, warned that “unless the US can free itself from the “Israel” lobby’s hold over the political campaign contribution process, it is just going to reel from disaster to disaster and undermine its own national security and credibility”.

A violation of international law

Trump’s Al-Quds move does not only offer renewed support for illegal “Israeli” settlement expansion, it also endorses the decades-old religious obscurantism articulated by Zionist heavyweights like Golda Meir – validating their claims to the ‘promised land’.

Often lost in the translation is the fact that Al-Quds is an indisputable part of occupied Palestine, recognized as such by both the UN General Assembly and multiple Security Council resolutions.

As such, Trump’s declaration is a blatant violation of international law.

“The message that Trump sent out from the White House is that the United States under the Trump Administration will reward countries for violating international law,” said Ramallah-based political analyst Nour Odeh.

“[They] will reward countries for being bullies, will reward countries for violating human rights and shield them from any kind of accountability,” she added.

The barrage of international criticism directed at the White House over the announcement testifies to the illegality of the move and Washington’s seemingly reckless approach to international affairs.

The deal of the century

Amid growing fears over the possible repercussions of Trump’s announcement and a spike in violence across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told his Russian counterpart that Trump’s announcement is part of an elaborate plan.

“Rex [Tillerson]… hinted to me that the United States is expecting to strike a ‘deal of the century,’ which would resolve the Palestinian-‘Israeli’ problem in one swoop,” Sergey Lavrov said.

“We certainly want to understand how they see this happening,” he added.

And Lavrov is not the only one beaming with anticipation.

During an emergency meeting of the Security Council, convened to discuss Trump’s decision, UK’s ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, called on the US to release detailed proposals for an “Israeli”-Palestinian settlement.

Few are buying Trump’s now widely discredited ‘art of the deal’ tactics.

According to Grant Smith, “there is no plan”.

So if Trump’s policy is really more of the same and if his maneuvers are largely driven by his domestic concerns as some have suggested, what comes after the Al-Quds declaration?

Fueling more hostilities in the Middle East risks further undermining “Israel’s” regional clout at a time when countries like Iran and Turkey are only strengthening and expanding their regional alliances.

Such schemes can only translate into further losses for Washington and a further suppression of American influence in the region.

Source: Al-Ahed News

If Trump Declares Al-Quds the Capital of ‘Israel’, Chaos Will Reign


06-12-2017 | 10:11

Amid three catastrophic Middle East wars, it would be difficult to imagine anything more provocative, dangerous – or just plain insane – than for the Americans to move their embassy from Tel Aviv to [Al-Quds] ‘Jerusalem’. Yet that is just what Donald Trump is this week thinking of doing. In a way, we should have expected this: mad presidents do mad things.
 

AlQuds


But is there no one in the White House able to restrain him? Not even Jared Kushner, who is supposed to be Trump’s Middle East hand? Or is Kushner too bound up in his latest scandal – just revealed by Newsweek that he failed to disclose his co-directorship of a foundation funding illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank when he filed financial records with the Office of Government Ethics this year – to speak out?

For it’s not that the embassy itself is just a symbolic move. It means that the United States would acknowledge that the city of al-Quds, sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians, is the capital of ‘Israel’, and that the Palestinians can never share it. The slovenly “peace process” – abandoned by the ‘Israelis’, then by the Palestinians and then by the Americans years ago, although “statesmen” still talk about it in the dream world in which they live – would no longer exist even in our imaginations.

That’s why everyone from Macron to Erdogan, from the Saudis to the EU, and of course the poor old Palestinians, have been variously criticizing and condemning Trump’s potential decision. If he doesn’t sign the old waiver – which has to be renewed every six months – to the US law to move the embassy, then he will indeed, to quote the Palestinian leadership, be risking an “ethnic” conflict.

Aren’t there enough wars in the Middle East to keep even the crazed White House busy? Trump has long ago taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shia conflict – but now he risks turning up the heat by infuriating both of them. The Arabs all know – and many ‘Israelis’ agree – that President Trump is bananas. But the ramifications of any movement of the embassy – or acceptance by Trump that al-Quds is indeed the ‘capital’ of ‘Israel’ – will be enormous. It will tell the Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, that their second most holy city belongs to the Jews of ‘Israel’ and not to them. It will tell the Iranians the same. It will mean the same to all the Muslim countries of the world.

Could Trump expect another warm welcome and traditional sword dance in Riyadh? Would the Saudis choose to buy all those billions of weapons from the US if it hands al-Quds to the ‘Israelis’? Muslims generally believe that the Prophet, born in Arabia, ascended from al-Quds to heaven.

In the West, it will further tear apart the relationship between Washington and the EU, it will damage Canadian-American relations – for Ottawa is surely not going to follow Washington’s move – and the EU, still fondly believing in the famous “peace process”, is certainly not going to respond by moving its own embassies to al-Quds. There are, of course, European consulates in al-Quds – but to cover the East al-Quds and the West Bank, not ‘Israel’.

Bibi Netanyahu and his extraordinarily right-wing ‘Israeli’ government will certainly be happy, for it will unleash a new and far greater expansion of Jewish colonies – which we still oddly call “settlements” – on Arab land, further aggravating the Palestinians. The ‘Israelis’ have been stealing land from their legal Arab owners for years, but President Trump would be taking from them even the hope of a capital in East al-Quds.

And how would the Palestinians of the refugee camps in Lebanon respond? There is scarcely a Palestinian home without a photograph of the al-Aqsa mosque on the wall. How will Hezbollah respond? Can they merely satisfy themselves with rhetoric – or will they need to fire some missiles over the ‘Israeli’-Lebanese border to express their fury?

And the Russians, the greatest ally of Syria – where Bashar al-Assad would surely declare his regime the standard bearer in a new battle for a “liberated al-Quds” – can scarcely let such a moment pass without taking the Arab side. And selling them the warships, fighter aircraft and missiles which they have hitherto bought from the Americans.

An ‘Israeli’ dream might come true if Trump announces al-Quds as ‘Israel’s’ capital. But so will an Arab nightmare. At least when al-Quds remained the subject of ‘Israeli’-Palestinian negotiations, the Arabs of the West Bank could believe in the vague hope of a share of the city. But if Trump goes ahead, then America can never field another “peace process”, even an imaginary one. “A colossal blunder” will be the least the world will say about the United States if Trump does not sign the waiver.

Source: The Independent, Edited by website team

Weekly Report On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (09– 15 November 2017)

Source

A house belonging to the family of Nemer al-Jamal was blown up in Beit Sorik villageA house belonging to the family of Nemer al-Jamal was blown up in Beit Sorik village

Israeli forces continue systematic crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)

(09 – 15 November 2017)

 

  • Israeli forces continued to apply the collective punishment policy
  • A house belonging to the family of Nemer al-Jamal was blown up in Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem.
  • Israeli forces conducted 89 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 7 similar incursions in Jerusalem.
  • 82 civilians, including 20 children and 2 women, were arrested.
  • 34 of them, including 19 children and the 2 women, were arrested in Jerusalem and its suburbs.
  • Israeli forces continue to target the border areas in the Gaza Strip, but no casualties were reported.
  • Israeli authorities continue to make a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem.
  • A shop and part of a house were self-demolished in Silwan village.
  • Israeli forces demolished an under-construction building and agricultural facility in al-‘Issawiyah village.
  • A storehouse was demolished, and a container was confiscated in al-Joz Valley neighbourhood.
  • Israeli forces continue settlement activities in the West Bank
  • A waterline supplying 250 dumums planted with onion was levelled in al-Baqi’ah area in the Northern Jordan Valley.
  • A road was built for military purposes, and 300 meters of the road between ‘Atouf and al-Ras al-Ahmar were destroyed.
  • Israeli forces continued to target the Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip Sea.
  • 4 shooting incidents targeting the Palestinian fishing boats occurred in the Northern Gaza Strip, but no casualties were reported.
  • Israeli forces turned the West Bank into cantons and continued to impose the illegal closure on the Gaza Strip for the 10th
  • Dozens of temporary checkpoints were established in the West Bank and others were re-established to obstruct the movement of Palestinian civilians.
  • 14 Palestinian civilians, including 6 children, were arrested at the checkpoints in the West Bank.

 

Summary

Israeli violations of international law and international humanitarian law in the oPt continued during the reporting period (09 – 15 November 2017).

 

Shooting:

During the reporting period, Israeli forces continued to use force against the protests in the West Bank.  In the Gaze Strip, They also continued to chase Palestinian fishermen in the Sea and target farmers and houses in the border areas.

 

In the Gaza Strip, as part of targeting fishermen in the sea, PCHR monitored the Israeli naval forces’ escalation against fishermen in the Gaza Sea although it was announced that the Gaza fishermen are allowed to sail to 9 nautical miles instead of 6.  This proves that the Israeli forces continue their policy of targeting fishermen in their livelihoods.  During the reporting period, Israeli gunboats chased fishing boats and opened fire at them 4 times; 3 of them in the north-western Beit Lahia and one in the western Soudaniyah area, west of Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip.

 

As part of targeting the border areas, on 09 November 2017, Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip, east of Gaza Valley village in the central  Gaza Strip opened fire at the agricultural lands along the eastern areas.

 

On 13 November 2017, Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip, east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip opened fire at the agricultural lands, east of ‘Abasan al-Kabirah.  As a result in both incidents, farmers there were terrified and forced to flee and leave their work behind.  Neither casualties nor property damage was reorted.

 

In the West Bank, Israeli forces continued to use force against the protests organized by Palestinian civilians and international human rights defenders against the annexation wall, confiscation of lands and crimes of settlement expansion.  During the reporting period, dozens of Palestinian civilians, international human rights defenders and Israelis organized protests in Ni’lin and Bil’in villages, west of Ramallah, al-Nabi Saleh village, northwest of the city, and Kafer Qadoum village, northeast of Qalqiliyah, in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities. Israeli forces forcibly dispersed the protests. As a result, many of the protesters suffered tear gas inhalation while others sustained bruises due to being beaten up by the Israeli soldiers.

 

Incursions:

 

During the reporting period, Israeli forces conducted at least 89 military incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank while they conducted 7 incursions into Jerusalem and its suburbs. During those incursions, Israeli forces arrested at least 48 Palestinian civilians, including a child, in the West Bank while 34 civilians, including 19 children and 2 women, were arrested in Jerusalem and its suburbs.

 

Collective Punishment Measures:

 

As part of the collective punishment policy applied by the Israeli forces against the families of Palestinians accused of and/or carried out attacks against the Israeli soldiers and/or settlers, on Wednesday, 15 November 2017, Israeli soldiers blew up a house belonging to the family of Nemer Mahmoud al-Jamal in Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem.  The house is an apartment in a residential building.  As a result of blowing up the house, the other apartments in the building sustained severe damage in addition to the nearby houses.  Residents of the area said that their houses are in danger of collapse due to the severe damage and cracked walls.  It should be mentioned that al-Jamal carried out an armed attack on 27 September 2017 against the soldiers stationed at the entrance to “Har Adar” settlement and killed 3 of them before al-Jamal being killed by an Israeli military force in the area.

 

Measures to Make a Jewish Majority in occupied East Jerusalem

 

As part of house demolitions and demolition notices, on 11 November 2017, ‘Abdel Moghni Dweik self-demolished parts of his house in al-Bustan neighbourhood in Silwan village, south of Jerusalem’s Old City, upon a decision by the Israeli municipality, which threatened him of demolishing the house and charging him with all the demolition costs, which are usually very high.  Dweik said that the Israeli Municipality threatened to fine him with 80,000 shekels.  He added that he built his house 2 years ago and tried to obtain a license but in vain, noting that the 60-square-meter house sheltered 4 family members.

 

On 14 November 2017, Amin al-‘Abasi self-demolished his shop in ‘Ayn al-Lozah neighborhood in Silwan village, south of East Jerusalem’s Old City, upon the Israeli Municipality’s decision.  The abovementioned civilian said that his 55-square-meter shop was built of reinforced sheet 2 years ago.  It should be mentioned that in the latest incursion, the municipality officers orally threatened of forcing him to pay the demolition costs in case he did not self-demolish the shop.

 

On 15 November 2017, Israeli municipality’s heavy vehicles demolished an under-construction building belonging to Ibrahim Salamah in al-‘Issawiyah village, northeast of East Jerusalem, without any prior warning.

 

Following this, an Israeli municipality bulldozer demolished an agricultural facility belonging to ‘Omer Dari and comprised of rooms built of tin plates and a storehouse in al-‘Issawiyah village. Meanwhile in al-Joz Valley neighborhood, the Israeli municipality and Nature Authority crews demolished a storehouse and confiscated a container.

 

Settlement Activities and Settlers’ Attacks against Palestinian Civilians and their property:

 

As part of the demolition of houses and other civil facilities, on 13 November 2017, Israeli forces built a road for military purposes passing in the civilians’ lands in al-Ras al-Ahmar area in the Northern Jordan Valley.  Meanwhile, the Israeli forces destroyed 300 meters of the road between ‘Atouf and al-Ras al-Ahmar.

 

On the same day, the Israeli forces levelled a 70-meter waterline belonging to al-Baqi’ah Modern Company in al-Baqi’ah area in the Northern Jordan Valley.  This waterline supplied 250 dunums planted with onion, so this would cause severe damage to the area.

 

On the same day, the Israeli forces established an iron gate, which is the third of its kind in al-Khelat in al-Ras al-Ahmar area in the Northern Jordan Valley.  Therefore, civilians and owners of lands can hardly reach their lands in al-Baqi’ah area.

 

As part of the Israeli settlers’ attacks against Palestinian civilians and their property, on 09 November 2017, Israeli settlers in the outposts in Hebron’s Old City set up tents in al-Ibrahimiyah yard adjacent to the Ibrahimi Mosque to receive the settlers coming to the city to celebrate the “Sarah Shabbat.”

 

On 11 November 2017, Israeli settlers raided an archeological tomb, claiming it is a tomb for one of their ancestors namely “Othniel.”  The tomb is a Palestinian archeological building on Beersheba Street where the religious rituals are held.  While the Israeli soldiers were protecting settlers, an Israeli soldier attacked Ahmed Merwan Hadib (16) by hitting him with the riffle’s nozzle.  As a result, Ahmed started to bleed and then taken to the government hospital in the city.  A number of young men threw stones at the Israeli soldiers; meanwhile, the settlers left the area and went back behind Checkpoint 56 after finishing their religious rituals.  The soldiers then randomly fired sound bombs and gas canisters at the civilians, and one of the sound bombs fell in front of Salah Wa’ed al-Zarou (22), who suffers from a mental disorder. A number of soldiers attacked him and started severely hitting him with the riffles’ butts and kicking him.  He was then handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to the abovementioned military checkpoint.  He was later released and taken by a PRCS ambulance to the government hospital in the city to receive medical treatment.

 

 

Restrictions on movement:

 

Israel continued to impose a tight closure of the oPt, imposing severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

 

The illegal closure of the Gaza Strip, which has been steadily tightened since June 2007 has had a disastrous impact on the humanitarian and economic situation in the Gaza Strip.  The Israeli authorities impose measures to undermine the freedom of trade, including the basic needs for the Gaza Strip population and the agricultural and industrial products to be exported. For 9 consecutive years, Israel has tightened the land and naval closure to isolate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, and other countries around the world. This resulted in grave violations of the economic, social and cultural rights and a deterioration of living conditions for 2 million people.  The Israeli authorities have established Karm Abu Salem (Kerem Shaloum) as the sole crossing for imports and exports in order to exercise its control over the Gaza Strip’s economy.  They also aim at imposing a complete ban on the Gaza Strip’s exports. The Israeli closure raised the rate of poverty to 65%. Moreover, the rate of unemployment increased up to 47% and youth constitutes 65% of the unemployed persons.  Moreover, 80% of the Gaza Strip population depends on international aid to secure their minimum daily needs. These rates indicate the unprecedented economic deterioration in the Gaza Strip.

 

In the West Bank, Israeli forces continued to suffocate the Palestinian cities and village by imposing military checkpoints around and/or between them. This created “cantons” isolated from each other that hinders the movement of civilians. Moreover, the Palestinian civilians suffering aggravated because of the annexation wall and checkpoints erected on daily basis to catch Palestinians.

 

 

Details

 

  1. Incursions into Palestinian Areas, and Attacks on Palestinian Civilians and Property in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

 

Thursday, 09 November 2017

 

  • At approximately 01:00, Israeli forces moved into Qabatyah village, southeast of Jenin. They raided and searched several houses after which they arrested 4 civilians namely Mustafa Hamdi Zakarnah (20), Mahmoud ‘Ali Jaber Zakarnah (22), Ahmed Sati Abu al-Rab (24), and Jawad Hasan kamil (19).

 

  • At approximately 03:00, Israeli forces moved into ‘Aydah refugee camp, north of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses and then arrested Khader Abu Rafi’ah and Khader J’aiwi (55).

 

  • At approximately 08:20, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of Gaza Valley (Johr al-Deek) in the central Gaza Strip, opened fire at agricultural lands in the eastern areas. As a result, the farmers were forced to leave their work fearing for their lives, but neither casualties nor material damage was reported.

 

  • At approximately 10:00, dozens of Israeli soldiers moved into the vicinity of al-Mutanabi, al-Hajeriah, and al-Khalil Primary Schools in al-Hasin Valley area in the southern area in Hebron. This area is adjacent to the street used by the Israeli settlers from “Kiryat Arba” settlement established on confiscated lands, east of the city, to reach the Ibrahimi Mosque. The raid occured to ban establishing a celebration to be held by students on the 13th death anniversary of the Late Palestinian President Yasser ‘Arafat. The soldiers forced the students and school staff to cancel the celebration for security claims and threatened to fire tear gas canisters at the schools if the students and staffs did not obey their orders. Meanwhile, further Israeli backups arrived accompanying a settler known as “Ofer”, who cursed and insulted the teachers and students. The Israeli forces arrested 2 teachers from al-Mutanabi School namely as Ibrahim Rateb Ibrahim Zaherda (32) and Rashad Ahmed Ezreqat (28) and took them to “Kiryat Arba” settlement to interrogate them.

 

  • At approximately 02:30, Israeli forces moved into Betounia village, west of Ramallah. They raided and searched several houses and then arrested Mohammed Maher al-Shawamrah (22) and Abdullah Abdul Karim al-Tarri (28).

 

  • At approximately 16:00, Israeli forces moved from “Carmi Tsur” settlement into al-Thaher area, south of Beit Ummer village, north of Hebron. The soldiers deployed between houses and topped roofs of several houses belonging to Baher family. A number of youngsters gathered and threw stones at the Israeli soldiers, who fired tear gas canisters at them in response. However, no incidents were reported.

 

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (7) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: Shuweikah Suburb, east of Tulkarm; Bruqin and Kafer al-Deek villages, west of Salfit; Sa’ir, Bani Na’im, al-Burj, and Deir Samet villages in Hebron.

 

Friday, 03 November 2017

 

  • At approximately 01:30, Israeli forces moved into Ya’bud village, southwest of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses after which they arrested Khalid Fathi Zaki Abdullah Abu Baker (20), Mahmoud Bassam Hamarshah (19) and Noor Eden Mahmoud Ibrahim Qabha (22).

 

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (7) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: Shuweikah Suburb, east of Tulkarm; Far’oun village, south of the city; Bruqin and Kafer al-Deek villages, west of Salfit; Birzeit village, northwest of Ramallah; al-Shuyoukh and Beit Awla villages in Hebron.

 

Saturday 11 November 2017:

 

  • At approximately 01:00, Israeli forces moved into Jenin refugee camp, west of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses and then arrested 4 civilians namely Mohammed (20), Ehab Hasan Wushahi (21), Omer Mohammed al-Sa’di (20), and Yahya Mahmoud Balalu (26).

 

  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into Kafer Dan village, west of Jenin. They raided and searched several houses and then handed summonses to 4 civilians namely Mohammed  Mohyee Eden Salah (21), Maher Hani ‘Abed (200, Baraa’ Mohammed Sobhi ‘Abed (19), and Ahmed Abdul Rahman ‘Abed (26),  to refer to the Israeli Intelligence Service in Salem military camp, west of the city.

 

  • At approximately 06:25, Israeli gunboats stationed off al-Sudaniyah shore, west of Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 4 nautical miles and chased them. The shooting continued for 20 minutes. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives, but neither casualties nor material damage was reported.

 

  • At approximately 08:05, Israeli gunboats stationed offshore, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 3 nautical miles and chased them. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives, but neither casualties nor material damage was reported.

 

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (9) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: Dura, Deir al-‘Asal, Beit Ummer and Sa’ir villages in Hebron; Shuweikeh Suburb, east of Tulkarm; Nazlah and Baqah al-Sharqiyah villages, north of the city; Far’oun village, south of the city, and Deir Ballout village, west of Salfit.

 

Sunday, 12 November 2017:

 

  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into al-Dheisheh refugee camp, south of Bethlehem. They raided and searched several houses after which they arrested Wa’el Khalil ‘Atallah (23), ‘Omran (28) and his brother Ma’ali ‘Essa Ma’ali (36).

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Beit Awa village, southwest of Dura, southwest of Hebron. They raided and searched a house belonging to Na’im Abdul Hamid Masalmah (36) and then arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 03:00, Israeli forces moved into Bethlehem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Walid Mohammed Nowarah and then arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 04:00, Israeli forces moved into Taqou’ village, east of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Muhanned Husain Abdul Khalil al-Badan (20) and then arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 09:00, Israeli gunboats stationed offshore, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 2 nautical miles and chased them. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives, but neither casualties nor material damage was reported.

 

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (13) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: Hebron, Tulkarm, al-Burj village, Shuweikah Suburb, and Noor Shams refugee camp, east of the city; ‘Ezbet Shufah village, southeast of the city; Qafin, Baqah al-Sharqiyah, Zetaa, Nazlet ‘Essa villages, Nazlet Abu al-Nar, al-Nazlah al-Wusta, north of the city, and Beit Ummer village, north of Hebron.

 

Monday, 13 November 2017

 

  • At approximately 01:30, Israeli forces moved into Yatta, south of Hebron, and stationed in al-Faqir and Roq’ah neighborhood. They raided and searched 2 houses belonging to Mahmoud Jebril Makhmrah (51), Nezar Mousa Mohammed (21) and then arrested them.

 

  • At approximately 00:50, Israeli force moved into Kafer al-Deek village, west of Salfit. They raided and searched a house belonging to Nabil Abdullah ‘Ali Ahmed (55) and then arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into ‘Arabah village, southwest of Jenin. They raided and searched a house belonging to Tareq Husaim ‘Awad Dar Husain Qa’dan (45) and then arrested him. It should be noted that Qa’dan is member of the Islamic Jehad Movement in the West Bank.

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Taqou’ village, east of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a number of houses and then arrested Mohammed Na’el Hamdah (20) and Yusuf Jamal Sabbah (18).

 

  • At approximately 03:30, Israeli forces moved into Beit Ummer village, north of Hebron, and stationed near Tomb of prophet Matta (Matthew) in the center of the city. They raided and searched a house belonging to Mohammed Abdul Jawad Ekhleil (55) and then arrested his son Amir (19).

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into al-Waljah village, west of Bethlehem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Husam Omer Abu Khalifa (17) and then arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 08:00, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian agricultural lands located into the east of ‘Abasan al-Kabirah. As a result, the farmers were forced to leave their work and flee fearing for their lives, but neither casualties nor material damage was reported.

 

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (7) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: Hebron, Halhoul, al-Thaheriyah, Ethna, Baqah al-Sharqiyah, Zeta and Nazlet al-Nar villages, northeast of Tulkarm.

 

Tuesday, 14 November 2017

 

  • At approximately 00:30, Israeli forces moved into Qafin village, north of Tulkarm. They raided and searched a house belonging to Ahmed ‘Adel Mahmoud ‘Ammar (23) and then arrested him.

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Siada village, northeast of Tulkarm. They raided and searched 2 houses belonging to Eyad Lutfi al-Ashqer (24) and Nidal Bilal ‘Ajaj (22) and then arrested them.

 

  • At approximately 00:50, Israeli forces moved into Tulkarm. They raided and searched several houses and then arrested 3 civilians namely ‘Alaa’ Abu Shanab (22), Khaldoun Mohammed al-Qetta (23), and Hesham Rabah Farij (24).

 

  • At approximately 01:00, Israeli forces moved into Beit Ummer village, north of Hebron, and stationed in Khelat al-‘Ein, al-Ettesalat and al-Khellah neighborhoods. They raided and searched 4 houses belonging to Mohammed ‘Essa Mousa ‘Awad, ‘Essa Mohammed Mousa ‘Awad, whose house windows were broken by the soldiers, Montaser Abdul Hamid ‘Awad where the Israeli soldiers damaged the floor tiles claiming to search for weapons, and Mohammed Kamel Mousa Za’aqiq. After three hours, the Israeli forces withdrew, and no arrests were reported.

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Qalqiliyah, southeast of Jenin. They raided and searched a number of houses and then arrested 3 civilians namely ‘Ali Yusuf Kamil (32), Abdul Rahman Mohammed al-Rab (30), and Ibrahim Khalid Saba’nah (22).

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Deir Abu Mash’al village, northwest of Ramallah. They raided and searched a house belonging to Bara’a Saleh ‘Ata. The soldiers locked the family members in one room and searched the house for 3 hours. They then arrested Bara’a’s brother Nidal Saleh ‘Ata (19). They also confiscated about NIS 5,000.

 

  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into Tulkarm. They raided and searched a house belonging to Mo’ath ‘Ammar Haroun (30) and then arrested him. It should be noted that Mo’ath is a former prisoner since 2012 as he served 2 years imprisonment in the Israeli prisons.

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Ethna village, west of Hebron, and stationed into the west of the village. They raided and searched 2 houses belonging to Tareq Ibrahim ‘Awad (25) and Mohammed ‘Ali Abu jahishah (30) and then arrested them.

 

  • At approximately 16:30, Israeli forces moved into Tulkarm for the second time. They raided and searched a house belonging to Mohammed Jamal Abu Hasnah (22) and then arrested him.

 

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (14) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: al-Samou’, Karmah, Deir Razeh villages and Dura in Hebron; Shuweikah Suburb, Noor Shams refugee camp, ‘Atil, ‘Alar, Deir al-Ghusoun and Bal’a villages, north of Tulkarm; Nazelt ‘Essa and al-Jaroushiyah villages, southeast of the city; Joyous village, north of Qalqiliyah; and Deir Estia village, northwest of Salfit.

 

Wednesday, 15 November 2017

 

  • At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into al-‘Obaidiyah village, east of Hebron. They raided and searched a house belonging to Amin Dawoud al-‘Esawi and then arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 08:30, Israeli gunboats sailing offshore, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at Palestinian fishing boat sailing within 3 nautical miles and chased them. As a result, the fishermen were forced to flee fearing for their lives, but neither casualties nor material damage was reported.

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces conducted (3) incursions in the following areas and no arrests were reported: ‘ Ejjah village, south of Jenin, Fahmah village, southwest of the city, and Howrah village, south of Nablus.

 

 

Demonstrations in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities

 

West Bank:

 

  • Following Friday prayer on 10 November 2017, dozens of Palestinian civilians, international human rights defenders and Israelis organized protests in Ni’lin and Bil’in villages, west of Ramallah, al-Nabi Saleh village, northwest of the city, and Kafer Qadoum village, northeast of Qalqiliyah, in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities. Israeli forces forcibly dispersed the protests, firing live and metal bullets, tear gas canisters and sound bombs. They also chased the protesters into olive fields and between houses. As a result, many of the protesters suffered tear gas inhalation while others sustained bruises due to being beaten up by the Israeli soldiers.

 

  • Following the end of Friday prayer, dozens of civilians from Kherbet Qalqas, east of Hebron, organized a protest at the southern entrance to the village that has been closed by the Israeli forces for 17 years under security claims, hindering the movement of the village residents. Large Israeli forces arrived at the area, and an Israeli officer in the Civil Administration known as “Hariz” promised the residents to find solutions. However, the soldiers threatened the residents if they do not leave the area they will use force to disperse them. It should be noted that the village residents are about 1300 persons, who take dirt roads while others use the entrance, which is closed with sand down to the main street. During those years, 7 deaths were reported in the village due to run-over accidents by the vehicles on the bypass road when civilians walk on it.

 

Collective Punishment Procedures:

 

  • As part of the collective punishment policy applied by the Israeli forces against the Palestinian families of those accused of carrying out attacks against the Israeli forces and/or settlers, on Wednesday, 15 November 2017, Israeli forces blew up a house belonging to the family of Nemer Mahmoud al-Jamal from Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem.

According to PCHR’s investigation and eyewitnesses’ accounts, at approximately 05:00 on Wednesday, large force of Israeli soldiers moved into Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied Jerusalem and imposed a security cordon on it. They then surrounded the neighborhood, raided the house of Nemer Mahmoud al-Jamal and forced its residents, who were about 15 persons, to leave it immediately. The soldiers also evacuated the neighboring houses and gathered all the residents in a school yard in the village. Following that, special forces planted a big amount of explosives in the house, which is an apartment in a residential building and then blew it up.  As a result, the apartment was demolished, and the other apartments sustained cracks. Moreover, the owners of the neighboring houses said that their houses might collapse due to the material damage as the walls cracked. It should be noted that the Israeli forces handed the family through their lawyer an evacuation decision until the 4th of this month in preamble to demolish it. They also raided the house on 09 November 2017 and handed al-Jamal family a decision to evacuate the house within a week to demolish it. It should be noted that al-Jamal carried out an armed attack on 27 September 2017 against Israeli soldiers stationed at the entrance to “Har Adar” settlement. As a result, 3 soldiers were killed and then al-Jamal was killed by an Israeli military force that was in the area.

 

  1. Continued closure of the oPt

 

Israel continued to impose a tight closure on the oPt, imposing severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

 

Gaza Strip

 

Israeli forces continuously tighten the closure of the Gaza Strip and close all commercial crossings, making the Karm Abu Salem crossing the sole commercial crossing of the Gaza Strip, although it is not suitable for commercial purposes in terms of its operational capacity and distance from markets.

Israeli forces have continued to apply the policy, which is aimed to tighten the closure on all commercial crossings, by imposing total control over the flow of imports and exports.

 

Israeli forces have continued to impose a total ban on the delivery of raw materials to the Gaza Strip, except for very limited items and quantities. The limited quantities of raw materials allowed into Gaza do not meet the minimal needs of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

 

Israeli forces also continued to impose an almost total ban on the Gaza Strip exports, including agricultural and industrial products, except for light-weighted products such as flowers, strawberries, and spices. However, they lately allowed the exportation of some vegetables such as cucumber and tomatoes, furniture and fish.

 

Israel has continued to close the Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing for the majority of Palestinian citizens from the Gaza Strip. Israel only allows the movement of a limited number of groups, with many hours of waiting in the majority of cases. Israel has continued to adopt a policy aimed at reducing the number of Palestinian patients allowed to move via the Beit Hanoun crossing to receive medical treatment in hospitals in Israel or in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel also continued applying the policy of making certain civilian traveling via the crossing interviewed by the Israeli intelligence service to be questioned, blackmailed or arrested.

Movement at Karm Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing, southeast of Rafah, is designated for the movement of goods

 

Beit Hanoun (“Erez”) crossing, in the north of the Gaza Strip, is designated for the movement of individuals, and links the Gaza Strip with the West Bank.

Note:

PCHR apologizes for not publishing the tables of the Movement at Beit Hanoun and Karm Abu Salem Crossings and will publish them in the weekly report next week.

 

Israel has imposed a tightened closure on the West Bank. During the reporting period, Israeli forces imposed additional restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians:

 

  • Hebron: Israeli forces established (17) checkpoints all over the city.

On Thursday 09 November 2017, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the entrances to Beit Ummer village and al-Fawar refugee camps.

On Friday, 10 November 2017, Israeli forces established 3 checkpoints at the entrances to al-Dahiriyia and al-Hadab villages and at the entrance to al-‘Aroub refugee camp.

On Saturday, 11 November 2017, 4 similar checkpoints were established at the entrances to Yatta, Samou’a, and al- Simah villages and on al-Fahes road, south of Hebron.

On Sunday, 12 November 2017, Israeli forces established 4 checkpoints at the entrances to Ethna and Sureef villages, at the western entrance to Hebron, and at the entrance to ‘Oyoun Abu Said Road.

On Monday, 13 November 2017, 2 similar checkpoints were established at the northern entrance to Hebron and at the entrance to al-Shayyoukh village.

On Tuesday, 14 November 2017, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the western entrance to Hebron and at the northern entrance to Halhoul village.

 

Qalqiliyia: Israeli forces established (4) checkpoints all over the city.

At approximately 11:00 on Thursday, 09 November 2017, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to ‘Azoun village, east of Qalqiliyia.

On 11 November 2017, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the eastern entrance to Qalqiliyia and at the entrance to ‘Azoun village, east of the city.

At approximately 13:20 on Sunday, 12 November 2017, Israeli forces re-established the checkpoint again.

 

Salfit: Israeli forces established (4) checkpoints all over the city.

At approximately 10:25 on Thursday, 09 November 2017, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Salfit.

On 11 November 2017, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the northern entrance to Salfit and at the entrance to Kaful Hares village, north of the city. At approximately 13:25 on Sunday, 12 November 2017, the Israeli forces re-established the checkpoint again at the entrance to Kaful Hares village.

 

Tulkarm:

At approximately 13:20 on Sunday, 12 November 2017, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the eastern entrance to Tulkarm.

 

Maltreatment at Checkpoints 

 

  • On Thursday, 09 November 2017, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the main entrance to al-Nabi Saleh village, northwest of Ramallah. They searched Palestinian civilians’ vehicles and checked their IDs. During which, an Israeli soldier severely beat Ramiz Yehia Rahimy (17), from Beit Rimah village.

Ramiz said to PCHR’s fieldworker that:

At approximately 13:30 on Thursday, 09 November 2017, while I was crossing the military checkpoint established at the entrance to al-Nabi Saleh village, northwest of Ramallah, returning to my house in Beit Rimah village, an Israeli soldier approached the vehicle I was in and ordered the all the passengers to step out of the vehicle. The soldier then approached and told me in Arabic “give me your ID card” I told him that my ID card is not with me. In the meantime, he pulled a stick and then started hitting me throughout my body and I was shouting. The soldier stopped beating me and then ordered the driver to take me to the vehicle. The driver then took me to Yaser ‘Arafat Hospital in Salfit, where the X-ray showed that I sustained fracture to the right hand and sustained bruises throughout my body. I was treated and exited hospital on the same day.”

 

 

Arrests at Military Checkpoints:

 

  • At approximately 14:00 on Thursday, 09 November 2017, Israeli forces stationed at the northern entrance to Bethlehem, arrested Ahmed Muhanad al-‘Izzah (11), from al-‘Izzah refugee camp, north of the city. The Israeli forces took Ahmed to an unknown destination without revealing the arrest reasons.

 

  • At approximately 10:00 on Friday, 10 November 2017, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Ya’boud village, branching from Nablus-Jenin Street. The Israeli forces stopped Palestinian civilians’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. They then arrested Mohamed Khalid Sa’ied Kamil (22), from Qabatia village, southeast of the city.

 

  • Around the same time, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to al-Dahiriyia village, south of Hebron. The Israeli forces stopped Palestinian civilians’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. They then arrested Ahmed ‘Amer Nassar (21), from Madamah village, south of Nablus.

 

  • At approximately 17:30 on Friday, 10 November 2017, Israeli forces arrested the Jerusalem’s Suburbs Police Chief, Colonel Ali al-Qumiri, while he was on his way back home in Ramallah. He was arrested at a military checkpoint in “Gosh ‘Etzion” area, south of Bethlehem. The Israeli forces claimed that Ali was arrested because he has secret information, so his detention was extended. The Jerusalem’s Suburb Police stated that the Colonel Ali al-Qumiri is arrested pending investigation in al-Maskobiyia Police Station in West Jerusalem. Persons close to Ali said that his arrest may be on grounds of chasing drug dealers and thieves by the Jerusalem’s Suburb Police. On Sunday, 12 November, Ali was released.

 

  • At approximately 21:00 on Friday, Israeli forces arrested 4 civilians, including 2 children, from Nahaleen village, west of Bethlehem, while they were at the eastern entrance to the village. The Israeli forces claimed that the Israeli forces chased and then arrested a number of Palestinian young men attempted to sneak into “Neve Daniel” settlement in “Gosh Etzion” Complex, south of Bethlehem. The arrested persons were then taken to the Israeli Intelligence Service for interrogation. The arrested persons were identified as Mo’min Mohamed Mahmoud Fanoun (22), Mahmoud Ibrahim Fanoun (27), Dawoud Mahmoud Fanoun (17), and Jamal Mohamed Fanoun (17).

 

  • At approximately 08:00 on Monday, 13 November 2017, Israeli forces stationed at a military checkpoint established at the entrance to al-Salimah neighborhood, north of al-Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron’s Old City, arrested 3 children while heading to school. The Israeli forces claimed that the children threw stones at the Israeli soldiers. The children were then taken to al-Ibrahim Mosque police station and then handed him to the Palestinian Liaison. The children were identified as Samer Hussain Nahnoush (12), Othman Ibrahim Murad (11), and Abed al-Raheem Abed al-‘Azeez al-Rajbi (12).

 

  • At approximately 16:00 on Monday, Israeli forces arrested Khalil Zahran Abu Qubitah (26), from Roq’a neighborhood in Yatta, south of Hebron, after stopping him at a military checkpoint at the northern entrance to the city.

 

  • At approximately 20:00 on Monday, Israeli forces established a checkpoint near al-Majd Petrol Station between ‘Aqabah and Tubas. The Israeli forces stopped Palestinian civilians’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. They then arrested Mohammed Jameel Moahmed Sawaftah (30).

 

  • On Wednesday, 15 November 2017, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance to Jabi’ village, south of Jenin. The Israeli forces stopped Palestinian civilians’ vehicles and checked the passengers’ IDs. They then arrested Ma’moun Ghasan Abu ‘Oun (25), from Qabatia village, southeast of the city.

 

Efforts to Create Jewish majority

 

Israeli forces escalated their attacks on Palestinian civilians and their property. They have also continued their raids on al-Aqsa Mosque and denied the Palestinians access to it:

 

  • Arrests and Incursions:

 

  • At approximately 00:00 on Thursday, 09 November 2017, Israeli forces moved into Beit Sorik village, northwest of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Nemer al-Jamal and handed his family a decision to vacate the house within this week to demolish it.

 

  • At approximately 02:00 on Thursday, Israeli forces moved into Hizmah village, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Khattab al-Khatib and arrested his son Suliman (24) and his daughter Mervat.

 

  • At approximately 11:00 on Friday, 10 November 2017, Israeli forces arrested Rami ‘Emad Mmansour (19), from Qalandia refugee camp, north of occupied Jerusalem. Rami was arrested while he was near “Kochav Ya’akov” settlement, northeast of the city. The Israeli police later issued a statement claiming that Rami was arrested under the pretext of attempting to carry out a stabbing attack in the area.

 

  • At approximately 18:30 on Saturday, 11 November 2017, Israeli forces arrested Ameer Khalid Abu Mefreh (15) while walking in al-Tour neighborhood, east of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City.

 

  • At approximately 01:30 on Sunday, 12 November 2017, Israeli forces moved into many neighborhoods in Silwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched many houses from which they arrested 5 civilians, including 4 children. The arrested persons were then taken to al-Mascobiyia police center in West Jerusalem. They arrested persons were identified as Abed al-Rahman Showiki (14), Qusai Husam Zaitoun (13), ‘Imran Mofeed Mansour (15), Mahdi Mofeed Mansour (12) and Khalid Waleed Abu Maiyalah (20).

 

  • At approximately 18:00 on Sunday, Israeli forces moved into Beit Haninah neighborhood, north of occupied Jerusalem. They raided a house belonging to the colonel in the Palestinian police, Hussain al-Kasawani, who was not home during the incursion. The Israeli forces then arrested his wife and 2 children, taking them to a police station in “Prophet Jacob” Colonel Hussain al-Kasawani said that the Israeli forces along with Israeli Intelligence officers raided and searched his house for 3 hours and then arrested his wife and 2 children. He added that the Israeli forces called him and summoned him for interrogation. Al-Kasawani said that the Israeli Intelligence Service did not tell him anything about the arrest or summons reasons. It should be noted that the Israeli forces arrested the Police Chief of Jerusalem’s Suburbs, Colonel Ali al-Qumairi, 2 days ago and asked him about the Palestinian Security Services’ activities in the areas around occupied Jerusalem. The Israeli forces released later him.

 

  • At approximately 01:00 on Tuesday, 14 November 2017, Israeli forces moved into many neighborhoods in Silwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. They raided and searched many houses from which they arrested 5 children. The arrested children were identified as Mo’taz Abdullah Zaytoun (15), Mohamed Zaytoun (16), Qusai Nidal al-Rajbi (11), ‘Odai al-Rajbi (16) and Mahdi Qara’een (14).

 

  • At approximately 03:00 on Tuesday, 14 November 2017, Israeli forces moved into ‘Anata village, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched a house belonging to Baraa’ Khalil ‘Isaa (22) and arrested him.

 

  • At approximately 00:30 on Wednesday, 15 November 2017, Israeli forces moved into al-Tour neighborhood, east of occupied East Jerusalem. They raided and searched houses from which they arrested 16 civilians, including 7 children. The arrested persons were then taken to Salah al-Deen Police Station for investigation. PCHR keeps the names of the arrested persons.

 

  • House Demolitions and Notices:

 

  • On Saturday, 11 November 2017, ‘Abed al-Moghni al-Doweek self-demolished parts of his house in al-Bustan neighborhood in Silwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, after the Israeli municipality threatened to demolish his house and force him to pay all demolition costs. Al-Doweek said that on Saturday, he vacated his house contents and then demolished it to implement the Municipality decision. The Israeli Municipality threatened him to fine him with NIS 80,000, unless he demolished it himself. Abed al- Moghni said that his house was built 2 years ago and he attempted to license it but in vain. The abovementioned 60-square-meter house was comprised of 2 rooms and sheltered 4 persons.

 

  • On Friday, 10 November 2017, the Israeli Municipality staff, under the Israeli forces’ protection, moved into Silwan village, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City. The Municipality staff took photos of the houses and streets in many neighborhoods before handing house demolition notices to civilian under the pretext of non-licensing.

 

  • On Monday, 13 November 2017, the Israeli Municipality staff took photos of shops in al-‘Issawiyia village, northeast of occupied Jerusalem. Mohamed Abu al-Humus, Member of al-‘Issawiyia Follow-up Committee, said that the Israeli Municipality staff accompanied with an Israeli military force moved into al-‘Issawiyia village and took photos of 5 shops, including a pharmacy. He also said that the Municipality staff hanged a decision to vacate and remove a commercial container in the village. It should be noted in the morning that the Municipality staff handed administrative demolition notices and summonses for many civilians, ordering them to refer to the Israeli Municipality, west of the city, regarding their houses under the pretext of building without licenses.

 

  • At approximately 17:00 on Monday, 13 November 2017, Ameen al-‘Abasi self-demolished his shop in ‘Ain al-Louza neighborhood, south of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, to implement the Israeli Municipality decision. Ameen said that he forced to demolish his house after the Israeli Municipality raided his shop many times and 2 weeks ago the Municipality raided the shop and hanged a demolition decision issued by the Israeli Court. The Israeli Municipality gave Ameen 30 days to carry out the demolition. Ameen said that his 55-square-meter shop was built of tin plates 2 years ago. It should be noted that the Israeli Municipality staff orally threatened him of paying the Municipality’s demolition costs, if he did not obey the orders.

 

  • At approximately 09:00 on Wednesday, 15 November 2017, Israeli Municipality bulldozer without prior warning demolished an under-construction residential building in al-‘Issawiyia village, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem, under the pretext of non-licensing.

 

Mohamed Abu al-Humus, Member of al-‘Issawiyia Follow-up Committee, said that the Israeli forces accompanied with the Israeli Municipality staff and bulldozers moved into al-‘Issawiyia village and stationed in the center of the village.  The Israeli forces surrounded a residential building belonging to Ibrahim Mousa Salamah and denied him access to the building. They then demolished the building under the pretext of non-licensing. Ibrahim Salamah said that he was surprised with a phone call from one of the neighbors informing him of the demolition. When Ibrahim arrived at the village, the Israeli forces refused to allow him to enter the area until they finish the demolition. Ibrahim said that he received a demolition decision under the pretext of licensing months ago, and his lawyer managed to extend the demolition decision until Wednesday, 15 November 2017, but the Israeli municipality bulldozers demolished the building without waiting the court to issue the decision to stop the demolition. It should be noted that Salamah built the 350-square-meter building 8 months ago comprised of 2 floors and another one under-construction. Lately, the Israeli Municipality targeted al-‘Issawiyia village by raiding the village and taking photos of houses, buildings and shops.

 

  • In the same context, at approximately 12:00, the Israeli Municipality bulldozers demolished an agricultural facility and storehouse in al-‘Issawiyia village. Mohamed Abu al-Humus, Member of al-‘Issawiyia Follow-up Committee, said that the Israeli Municipality bulldozers demolished an agricultural facility comprised of many agricultural rooms built of tin plates. The agricultural facility belonging to Omar Dari was demolished under the pretext of non-licensing. It should be noted that Dari attempted to license the facility and had a decision to stop the demolition. Abu al-Humus added that the demolition was in the area, which is threatened of confiscation in favor of the “National Park.”
  • In al-Joz Valley neighborhood, northeast of occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, the Israeli Municipality accompanied with the Nature Authority staff demolished a storehouse and also confiscated a container in Imro’a al-Qais Street in Wad al-Jouz neighborhood.

 

  • Israeli settlers’ attacks against Palestinian civilians and property

 

  • At approximately 08:00 on Monday, 13 November 2017, Israeli forces accompanied with 2 military bulldozers moved into Ras al-Ahmar area in Northern Jordan Valley, east of Tubas. The bulldozers built a road for military purposes in the civilian’s lands. The road is 1000 meters long and 6 meters wide. While building the road, the Israeli forces destroyed parts of a road between ‘Atouf and Ras al-Ahmar. The destroyed parts were 300 meters long. This project was carried out at the end of 2016 and donated by institutions in the European Union (EU).

 

  • At approximately 09:00 on Monday, Israeli forces accompanied with a bulldozer moved into al-Boq’iyia al-Haditha area in Northern Jordan Valley, east of Tubas. The bulldozer demolished a 700- meter -long water line belonging to al-Boq’iyia al-Haditha Company. It should be noted that the abovementioned water line was supplying a 250-dumums planted with onion. This demolition completely damaged the area.
  • At approximately 14:30 on Monday, Israeli forces accompanied with a bulldozer and a crane moved into al-Khilaat area in al-Ras alAhmar in Northern Jordan Valley. They established an iron gate in the area, which is the 3rd one in the area. As a result, civilians and lands’ owner were denied access to their lands located in al-Boqi’a area.
  • On Tuesday, 14 November 2017, Israeli forces accompanied with a military vehicle and a vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration moved into Khelit al-Dabie’ area, between “Mitzpe Yair” and “Maon” settlements, east of Yatta, south of Hebron. The Israeli Civil Administration officer handed Jaber Ali al-Dababsah (39) a notice to stop construction and vacated his 40-square-meter house, which is comprised of 2 rooms built of bricks and roofed with tin plates, under the pretext of non-licensing. Jaber was given 7 days to carry out the orders.
  • At approximately 14:55 on Tuesday, Israeli forces accompanied with a vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration moved into Hares village, northwest of Salfit. The Israeli Civil Administration officer handed a notice to stop building of an under-construction house belonging to Husam Ali Jaber. Moreover, Jameel Moahmed Dawoud was handed a notice to stop construction a barrack for breeding livestock, under the pretext of non-licensing in the area (C) which is under the Israeli control, according to Oslo Accord.
  • Settlement activities and attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians and property

 

Israeli Forces’ attacks

 

  • At approximately 08:00 on Monday, 13 November 2017, Israeli forces accompanied with 2 military bulldozers moved into Ras al-Ahmar area in Northern Jordan Valley, east of Tubas. The bulldozers built a 1000-meter road for military purposes on Palestinians’ lands. While building the road, the Israeli forces destroyed 300 meters of the road between ‘Atouf and Ras al-Ahmar.
  • At approximately 09:00 on Monday, Israeli forces accompanied with a bulldozer moved into al-Boq’iyia al-Haditha area in Northern Jordan Valley, east of Tubas. The bulldozer demolished a 700-meter waterline belonging to al-Boq’iyia Modern Company. It should be noted that the abovementioned waterline was supplying 250 dumums planted with onion, so this would completely damage the area.At approximately 14:30 on Monday, Israeli forces accompanied with a bulldozer and crane moved into al-Khilaat area in al-Ras alAhmar in Northern Jordan Valley. They established an iron gate in the area, which is the 3rd of its kind in the area. As a result, civilians and lands’ owner were denied access to their lands in al-Boqi’a area.
  • On Tuesday, 14 November 2017, Israeli forces accompanied with a military vehicle and vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration moved into Khelit al-Dabie’ area, between “Mitzpe Yair” and “Maon” settlements, east of Yatta, south of Hebron. The Israeli Civil Administration officer handed Jaber Ali al-Dababsah (39) a notice to stop the construction and vacated his 40-square-meter house, which is comprised of 2 rooms built of bricks and roofed with tin plates, under the pretext of non-licensing. Jaber was given 7 days to apply the notice.
  • At approximately 14:55 on Tuesday, Israeli forces accompanied with a vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration moved into Hares village, northwest of Salfit. The Israeli Civil Administration officer handed a notice to stop the construction works in an under-construction house belonging to Husam Ali Jaber. Moreover, Jameel Moahmed Dawoud was handed a notice to stop construction works in a barrack for breeding livestock under the pretext of non-licensing in Area (C) which is under the Israeli control, according to Oslo Accords.

 

  • Israeli settlers’ attacks

 

  • On Thursday, 09 November 2017, Israeli settlers from the outposts in Hebron’s Old City, set up tents in in al-Ibrahimiyah yard adjacent to the Ibrahimi Mosque in order to receive settlers coming to the city to celebrate the “Sarah Shabbat”. This coincided with the Israeli closure of the area and tightening the security measures in the vicinity of the Ibrahimi Mosque and checkpoints leading to the Old City. The Israeli forces also prevented civilians outside the village from entering the area.

 

  • At approximately 10:00 on Saturday, 11 November 2017, Israeli forces closed Bab al-Zawiyia area and Beersheba Street in the center of Hebron and forced the shops’ owners to close. A large force of Israeli soldiers and border guard officers deployed in the area in preparation for the arrival of Israeli settlers via the closed Shushed Street at an archeological site, which the settlers claim it is a tomb for one of their ancestors namely “Othniel.” The tomb is a Palestinian archeological building on Beersheba Street where the religious rituals are held.  While settlers were passing by, some of them attempted to climb to remove the Palestinian flags attached to the shops’ doors in the area.  The Palestinians who were in the area expressed their anger by chanting slogans and exclaiming Allah is great under the very eye of the Israeli soldiers.  During the soldiers’ movement between the gathered civilians, an Israeli soldier attacked Ahmed Merwan Hadib (16) by hitting him with the riffle’s nozzle.  As a result, Hadeeb started to bleed and then taken to the government hospital in the city.  A number of young men threw stones at the Israeli soldiers; meanwhile, the settlers left the area and went back behind Checkpoint 56 after finishing their religious rituals.  The soldiers then randomly fired sound bombs and gas canisters at the civilians, and one of the sound bombs fell in front of Salah Wa’ed al-Zarou (22), who suffers from a mental disorder.  As a result, his pants was torn, and a number of soldiers attacked him and started severely hitting him with the riffles’ butts and kicking him.  He was then handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to the abovementioned military checkpoint.  A number of civilians attempted to intervene so he would be released, but in vain.  His detention continued for a few hours before being released and taken by a PRCS ambulance to the government hospital in the city to receive medical treatment.

 

  • Recommendations to the International Community

 

PCHR warns of the escalating settlement construction in the West Bank, the attempts to legitimize settlement outposts established on Palestinian lands in the West Bank and the continued summary executions of Palestinian civilians under the pretext that they pose a security threat to the Israeli forces. PCHR reminds the international community that thousands of Palestinian civilians have been rendered homeless and lived in caravans under tragic circumstances due to the latest Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip that has been under a tight closure for almost 11 years. PCHR welcomes the UN Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334, which states that settlements are a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and calls upon Israel to stop them and not to recognize any demographic change in the oPt since 1967.  PCHR hopes this resolution will pave the way for eliminating the settlement crime and bring to justice those responsible for it. PCHR further reiterates that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are still under Israeli occupation in spite of Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan of 2005.  PCHR emphasizes that there is international recognition of Israel’s obligation to respect international human rights instruments and international humanitarian law.  Israel is bound to apply international human rights law and the law of war, sometimes reciprocally and other times in parallel, in a way that achieves the best protection for civilians and remedy for the victims.

  1. PCHR calls upon the international community to respect the Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334 and to ensure that Israel respects it as well, in particular point 5 which obliges Israel not to deal with settlements as if they were part of Israel.
  2. PCHR calls upon the ICC in 2017 to open an investigation into Israeli crimes committed in the oPt, particularly the settlement crimes and the 2014 offensive on the Gaza Strip.
  3. PCHR Calls upon the European Union (EU) and all international bodies to boycott settlements and ban working and investing in them in application of their obligations according to international human rights law and international humanitarian law considering settlements as a war crime.
  4. PCHR calls upon the international community to use all available means to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their right to self-determination through the establishment of the Palestinian State, which was recognized by the UN General Assembly with a vast majority, using all international legal mechanisms, including sanctions to end the occupation of the State of Palestine.
  5. PCHR calls upon the international community and United Nations to take all necessary measures to stop Israeli policies aimed at creating a Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem and at voiding Palestine from its original inhabitants through deportations and house demolitions as a collective punishment, which violates international humanitarian law, amounting to a crime against humanity.
  6. PCHR calls upon the international community to condemn summary executions carried out by Israeli forces against Palestinians and to pressurize Israel to stop them.
  7. PCHR calls upon the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC to work hard to hold Israeli war criminals accountable.
  8. PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations under article (1) of the Convention to ensure respect for the Conventions under all circumstances, and under articles (146) and (147) to search for and prosecute those responsible for committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions to ensure justice and remedy for Palestinian victims, especially in light of the almost complete denial of justice for them before the Israeli judiciary.
  9. PCHR calls upon the international community to speed up the reconstruction process necessary because of the destruction inflicted by the Israeli offensive on Gaza.
  10. PCHR calls for a prompt intervention to compel the Israeli authorities to lift the closure that obstructs the freedom of movement of goods and 1.8 million civilians that experience unprecedented economic, social, political and cultural hardships due to collective punishment policies and retaliatory action against civilians.
  11. PCHR calls upon the European Union to apply human rights standards embedded in the EU-Israel Association Agreement and to respect its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights when dealing with Israel.
  12. PCHR calls upon the international community, especially states that import Israeli weapons and military services, to meet their moral and legal responsibility not to allow Israel to use the offensive in Gaza to test new weapons and not accept training services based on the field experience in Gaza in order to avoid turning Palestinian civilians in Gaza into testing objects for Israeli weapons and military tactics.
  13. PCHR calls upon the parties to international human rights instruments, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to pressurize Israel to comply with its provisions in the oPt and to compel it to incorporate the human rights situation in the oPt in its reports submitted to the relevant committees.
  14. PCHR calls upon the EU and international human rights bodies to pressurize the Israeli forces to stop their attacks against Palestinian fishermen and farmers, mainly in the border area.

Two More EU-Funded Palestinian Schools under Threat of Destruction by israeli Army

Source

A West Bank ‘school’ where children are studying in the open-air due to Israeli military restrictions. (Photo: File)

Two new Palestinian schools in the occupied West Bank, funded by European governments, are under threat of destruction and seizure, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). An Israeli court has already ordered students not to attend class in one of them, the NGO says.

Built over the last year with European funding, the schools in Wadi as-Seeq and Al Muntar serve Palestinian Bedouin communities who have long suffered neglect and discrimination at the hands of the Israeli occupation authorities.

Many of the families served by the schools have “already suffered destruction of their property over many years”, NRC states.

Now, the schools are the subject of Israeli court proceedings “that could lead to their destruction and seizure”, with hearings scheduled for 20 November and 10 December.

Abu Hassan, a parent and community representative, said that the children “do not have any other place to study in our community. This school allows our children to study without having to leave our community and use risky roads close to the nearby [Israeli] settlement”.

The NRC’s Information Counselling and Legal Aid Program is providing humanitarian legal assistance to represent the communities in court.

Once again, Palestinian children are facing the traumatic prospect of turning up for school and finding that it no longer exists

“Once again we have to ask: Why are children being denied their fundamental right to education? This attack on schools is part of a wider drive to forcibly transfer Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to create space for illegal settlement expansion,” said NRC Country Director in Palestine Kate O’Rourke.

O’Rourke added that NRC and other NGOs are urging “the governments and donors funding Palestinian children’s education to increase diplomatic pressure to prevent the demolition and seizure of school infrastructure, which is in violation of International Humanitarian Law.”

Both donor-funded schools of Al Muntar and Wadi as-Seeq serve over 100 pupils, with the former expected to expand its intake in February 2018. The Wadi as-Seeq school community, meanwhile, “has received 11 stop-work orders for their structures in the last nine years”.

Two structures were demolished in 2012 and 2014, and all mobile latrines provided by a local NGO in 2011 were confiscated by Israeli occupation authorities.

%d bloggers like this: