Israel continues attacks on the captive civilian population of Gaza

Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) Press Release

In the early morning of Thursday, 25 August 2011, two Palestinian civilians were killed and 25 others, including 11 children and 7 women, were wounded as Israeli warplanes bombarded a sports club in a densely-populated area in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia.

The attack resulted extensive damages to dozens of neighboring houses and facilities. On Wednesday, 24 August 2011, an elderly farmer and a worker were killed and four civilians were wounded, while three other persons are missing inside a tunnel at the Egyptian border due to an Israeli air strike against the tunnels. These crimes are part of the Israeli military escalation against the Gaza Strip, which started on Thursday 08 August 2011. As a result of such escalation, 17 Palestinians were killed, including two children, and 14 others were wounded by shrapnel and dozens were injured to glass fragments because of attacks. Besides, civilian properties were damaged as a result. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) is gravely concerned over increasing casualties resulting from the Israeli excessive use of force and targeting civilian facilities that are located in densely-populated areas, which reflects disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians and property.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 00:05 on Thursday, 25 August 2011, Israeli warplanes launched a missile on al-Salama Sports Club near Beit Lahia project’s market in the northern Gaza Strip. The attack resulted in the full destruction of the 3-storey building; the first floor includes a gym, the second floor includes the administration offices and a multi-use hall, while the third one includes a football and volleyball field established on a 1,000-square-meter area. Additionally, two Palestinian civilians were killed due to the attack, as they were in the garden of an adjacent house belonging to Abdul Rahman Mohammed al-Masri in the northwestern side of the club. The victims are: Salama Abdul Rahman al-Masri, 18, the son of the house’s owner, who died immediately; and Alaa ‘Adnan Mohammed al-Jakhbeer, 22, from Jabalya, who was accompanying al-Masri. Al-Jakhbeer suffered from a hemorrhage in the pelvis because of shrapnel and was transferred to the hospital, but he died two hours later. Additionally, 25 Palestinian civilians, including 11 children and seven women, sustained wounds and bruises due to the falling of smashed glass and stones at them. Moreover, extensive damages were caused to al-Huda Children Complex in Beit Lahia to the north of the club. The Complex established on an area of 1600 square meters consists of a kindergarten and a primary school. Dozens of houses surrounding the Club, three stores and three vehicles were damaged.

On Wednesday, 24 August, IOF killed an elderly famer, Isma’il Nemr Ammoum, 62, from al-Buriej refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. His body was torn apart and had not been found until the evening. Ammoum’s body was transported to al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Hospital in Deir al-Balah, where he was identified. According to investigations conducted by PCHR, Ammoum was working in a farm belonging to al-Khaldi family in the northeast of al-Buriej refugee camp when he was targeted by a missile from an Israeli warplane.

In another crime, at approximately 23:30, the Israeli warplanes launched a missile on al-Brazil neighborhood in the south of the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, targeting a tunnel in the area. As a result, a worker, Hisham ‘Adnan Abdul Razeq Abu Harb, 20, from al-Shaboura refugee camp in Rafah, was killed. Besides, another four persons were wounded, three of whom are workers and the fourth is a member of the National Security Forces. The wounded were transported to Martyr Mohammed Yusef al-Najjar Hospital in the town, where their wounds were described as moderate. The Palestinian Civil Defense declared that three workers were missing in the atragted tunnel.

PCHR condemns IOF’s crimes against the Palestinian civilians, and:

1- Stresses that targeting houses, densely-populated areas and civilian targets reflects IOF’s disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians, and warns of more escalation of crimes against Palestinian civilians and their property in light of statements and threats launched by Israeli political and military leaders, which will bring about more victims in the Gaza Strip;

2- Points out that crimes committed by IOF constitute acts of reprisal and collective punishment in violation of Article 33 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; and

3- Believes that the failure of the international community, particularly the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to effectively act to stop crimes committed by IOF serves to encourage Israel and IOF to commit more crimes against Palestinian civilians and their property. The legal protection provided by the United States to Israel, and deliberate obstruction of the application of international humanitarian law, in addition to the conspiracy of silence practiced by European States towards crimes committed against Palestinian civilians do not only place Israel above the international humanitarian law, but also encourage it to unrestrictedly commit more crimes against Palestinian civilians.

By Budour Youssef Hassan

On 15 July, thousands of Israelis marched in occupied East Jerusalem to show their support for a Palestinian “state” in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Portrayed by its Israeli organizers as a joint Palestinian-Israeli march and ornamented with the slogans of “shared struggle” and “solidarity,” the Palestinian participation in the event was however scarce — a fraction of those in attendance were Palestinians. This event came a few weeks after a similar march in Tel Aviv, and while the Jerusalem march garnered more publicity due to its location, both events expose the failures of the purported solidarity of the Israeli Zionist “left” with the Palestinians.

The term solidarity — much like co-existence — is so overused in the liberal Zionist discourse as to render it meaningless. The misconception of solidarity raises the question: what does solidarity mean and, more specifically, when can an act carried out by Israelis in the name of supporting Palestinians be considered an act of true solidarity?

Can every instance of Israelis flocking to the streets chanting “End the occupation” be blithely described as solidarity? Should every occasion of Israelis carrying Palestinian flags be ecstatically celebrated as a major boost for the Palestinian cause? Should Palestinians be simply grateful that, amid the increasing construction of settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the overwhelming surge of racism in Israeli society, there are still some Israeli voices willing to “recognize” a Palestinian state?

When persons in a position of privilege formulate and design a solution and impose it on a colonized and occupied people as the only viable solution and the “sole remaining constructive step,” as the 15 July call to action put it, this is not solidarity but rather another form of occupation. Solidarity means not telling people what you think their problem is, let alone telling them what you think the solution should be. Solidarity means not agreeing on everything or even agreeing on a fixed solution but fighting for a shared cause irrespective of the differences.

A quasi-state built on 22 percent of the land of historic Palestine is not what Palestinians have been fighting for over the last 63 years and presenting it as such strips Palestinians of their voices and of their right to decide their own destiny.

Many argue, though, that struggling shoulder-to-shoulder with Zionist leftists widens the support base for Palestine and provides Palestinians with an opportunity to debate and convince the other side. This would be true if Zionists viewed Palestinians as equal partners but they do not. The whole idea of two states for two peoples as the only solution to the Palestinian-Israeli impasse — extremely popular among liberal Zionists — is predicated upon isolationism, exceptionalism and Zionists’ sense of moral righteousness and superiority to Palestinians which grants them the legitimacy to determine the problem, the solution and the means by which this solution shall be achieved.

A “joint” Palestinian-Zionist march does not offer an opportunity to engage in a productive dialogue; it rather gives Zionists one more chance to marginalize Palestinians’ voices and lecture Palestinians on how they should resist and what they should accept.

Thus, these demonstrations that ostensibly demand equality in reality maintain the privileged status of Israeli Jews. And although such demonstrations are capable of drawing thousands of Israelis every once in a while, they do not really widen the Israeli support base for Palestinians. Instead, they reflect support for a “solution” that overlooks the refugee problem — the core of the Palestinian struggle — and fragments the Palestinian nation and dooms Palestinian citizens in Israel to perpetual inferiority and discrimination.

Solidarity is not measured by numbers; it’s not about how many people came to a pro-Palestine demonstration. It is about why those people came. Fighting alongside fifty Israelis who are truly committed to the Palestinian cause is, therefore, much more important and valuable than marching in the shadow of thousands of Israelis who think Palestine is merely the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

On its Facebook page, the 15 July Jerusalem march was titled in Hebrew “Marching for the independence of Palestine” while the Arabic version read, “Together towards the liberation of Palestine.” There is a huge difference between liberation and an “independent state.” Freedom for Palestinians means much more than establishing a bantustan in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The inconsistency in the Arabic and Hebrew wording is telling but it is neither new nor rare for “leftist” Israeli organizations to address the Palestinian public in a different language and tone to that used for addressing the Israeli public.

Of the hundred or so Palestinians who attended the march, many may have joined because of the false perception that the aim of this march was to demand freedom, rather than to call for bogus “independence.” In addition, members of the Palestinian popular committees of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, whose neighborhoods face house demolitions and a silent, grinding process of ethnic cleansing, say that they felt they had no option but to join the march in order to draw attention to their struggle. But their plight was exploited by the organizers to advertise the march as a “joint struggle,” to score political points and serve their public relations purposes.

The contributions of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, the main organizers of the 15 July march, should not be diminished. The weekly demonstrations it has been organizing in Sheikh Jarrah and al-Lydd shed light on the struggle of the Palestinian residents against Israel’s systematic policy of house demolition and evictions. Leading members of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement and other Israeli leftist peace organizations receive vicious attacks from the Israeli far right, including death threats and accusations of treason.

This, however, must not place them beyond criticism. For all their activism, they have failed to fully embrace the Palestinian public and get it involved. Their demonstrations are dominated by white, secular liberal Zionists and the Palestinian voice, which they supposedly want to make heard, is inaudible amid a chorus of Hebrew-language chants about peace and coexistence. Even the slogans and the placards which were raised during the demonstrations were decided beforehand by the Israeli organizers, turning the protests into a tedious, painfully predictable and elitist routine.

In sum, Israeli “solidarity” is a double-edged sword. It has the potential of advancing the Palestinian cause and influencing Israeli public opinion and bringing the Palestinian struggle into the mainstream media. However, there is a great risk of groups hijacking the growing grassroots movement of Palestinian popular resistance under the cloak of solidarity and coexistence.

That there is a sweeping tide of blatant extremism among the Israeli ruling elite and wider society does not mean that Palestinians should gratefully cheer soft-core Zionist “compromises.” Solidarity is neither an act of charity nor a festival of boastful speeches and empty rhetoric. It is a moral obligation that should be carried out with full, unwavering and unconditional commitment.

Those who seek appreciation and gratitude had better stay in their cozy chairs in Tel Aviv. Attempts to exploit the Palestinian plight for political purposes and to turn the Palestinian cause from a struggle for human rights, justice, freedom and equality into a parade of fake independence and cliches must be called out and countered.

Article courtesy Budour Youssef Hassan and Electronic Intifada.  Hassan, originally from Nazareth, is a Palestinian socialist activist and third-year law student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  Photo courtesy UPI.

By Greg Carlstrom

The protests sweeping Israel this summer are striking not just for their size but for their politics: 300,000 people demanding social justice on the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities makes the Israeli left seem like a viable political force again, perhaps for the first time in years.

“The left here was all but dead,” one protester said, a common sentiment in interviews over the last few days. Its formal institutions, after all, are moribund. The Labor party broke apart earlier this year, and until recently it was an uneasy member of Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition; Kadima, Israel’s other main centre-left party, has had little influence since 2009, and its leader, Tzipi Livni, has been nearly invisible.

And so the protest movement was born out of frustration: with a seemingly ineffective opposition, and with an array of attacks on left-wing groups, such as the so-called “NGO bill” that would have authorised investigations into liberal human rights groups.

“Kadima not only said nothing about it, but in some cases they participated in the attacks on groups with leftist ideas,” said Ran Cohen, the executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. “Kadima is not an opposition party.”

The left’s sudden return to politics has, in turn, led some commentators to speculate that protesters might broaden their focus beyond purely socioeconomic issues – that they might agitate for equal rights for Israeli Arabs, or push for an end to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Those issues were visible at Saturday’s massive rally in Tel Aviv attendees say, though far from the focal point of the protests. People waved Palestinian flags, chanted “end the occupation”, and carried posters with slogans linking Israel’s occupation to the broader demand for social justice. The “1948″ tent on Rothschild Boulevard houses Palestinian and Israeli activists who argue for Palestinian rights. It was attacked on Sunday by nationalist Jewish extremists belonging to a Kahanist group.

But for all those efforts, activists do not expect the protest movement to speak out loudly on the occupation or social justice for Palestinians. Organisers are reluctant to touch the issue, they say, because of fear that it will divide a movement which so far has almost universal support in Israel.

A costly occupation

Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories may at first seem unrelated to the protests, which have focused on socioeconomic issues inside Israel – skyrocketing rents, the high cost of living, social services and the like.

Activists tend to make two arguments for connecting the two. One is moral: A movement that wants social justice for Israeli Jews should demand the same for Israeli Arabs, and for the Palestinian people, they argue.

The other argument is more pragmatic. Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank is expensive, and activists argue that those resources could be better spent on social programmes inside Israel.

Settlers, after all, receive benefits – such as subsidised mortgages and tax breaks – not unlike the ones protesters are demanding.

The government spends at least 2 billion shekels ($570 million) per year to subsidise life in the settlements, according to the Israeli group Peace Now. The Adva Center, a think tank in Tel Aviv, estimates the occupation’s total cost since 1967 at more than $50 billion.

That annual spending is admittedly a fraction of Israel’s 350 billion shekel budget, a fact often pointed out by settler groups. But critics retort that the “settlement subsidies” are unfair, benefiting only a small minority of Israelis who choose to live in settlements which most of the world considers illegal.

The housing ministry, for example, will spend 76 million shekels ($22 million) to provide security for Israelis living illegally in predominantly Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, places such as Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. Roughly 2,000 Israelis live in these neighbourhoods, according to Peace Now, meaning the Israeli government spends 38,000 shekels ($11,000) per settler. That’s more than double what the Israeli government spends on a per-child basis for primary education.

Some of the subsidies given to settlers are hard to quantify, meaning the 2 billion shekel figure may be an underestimate.

One example: Most West Bank settlements are designated “national priority areas”, which means Israelis buying homes are eligible for low-interest mortgage loans subsidised by the state. They also receive discounts on the land they buy – up to 70 per cent, in some cases.

The government will spend 160 million shekels this year ($46 million) to subsidise those national priority areas, but the budget does not specify how much will be spent in the settlements, and how much within Israel proper.

Other settlement-related costs are contained within the defence budget, which is not detailed to the public.

“You can go further. I believe that if we didn’t have the settlements we would have a peace agreement, so we would have lower costs for the military, for security; we would have more investment, we would have peace,” said Hagit Ofran, the director of Peace Now’s settlements project.

“And we can’t calculate how much that would be worth.”

‘Trying to be universal’

A poll conducted last week by Israel’s Channel 10 news found that 88 per cent of Israelis endorse the protests. That sort of near-universal support is rare anywhere, but especially so in Israel, where the political scene has become ever-more fragmented in recent years.

Support is strongest among self-described Labor party voters, but runs almost as high – 85 per cent – among those who belong to Netanyahu’s centre-right Likud party.

The only parties not to overwhelmingly support the protests, according to Channel 10’s poll, are Shas (a Sephardic Orthodox Jewish party) and HaBayit HaYehudi (a right-wing party which caters to settlers).

But Israelis are far more divided about the occupation. Polls conducted over the past few years have found the public almost evenly split on a variety of questions, such as whether Israel should freeze new construction in the settlements, or whether Israelis would support a peace agreement with the Palestinians which required evacuating settlements in the West Bank.

“[This is] an amazing stage for us to push our message, and all organisations feel the same,” said Elizabeth Tsurkov, a Hebrew University student who protested with a group that chanted about the occupation. “But I don’t think this will translate to the official demands, interviews of the leaders, because they know that this will split the movement right away.”

Indeed, a group from the Yesha Council, the umbrella organisation which represents settlers in the West Bank, actually met last week with organisers of the protest in Tel Aviv. Naftali Bennett, the head of the council, called some of the protesters “anarchists”, but described their goals as “righteous”.

That support would quickly disappear if the protesters vocally criticised the occupation.

“The people who are running the protest movement right now are trying to be universal, in the sense of including all citizens of Israel,” said Shlomo Swirski, the academic director at the Adva Center.

A spokesman for the Yesha Council did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Settlement advocates have even tried to spin Israel’s affordable housing crisis to their political advantage: Forty-two members of the Knesset signed a petition last week urging Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu to solve the crisis by building more homes in illegal West Bank settlements (a suggestion Ofran described as “a bunch of crap”).

The decision to include settlers, and to focus primarily on issues of concern to Israeli Jews, means that many in Israel’s Arab community feel left out.

“We as Palestinians can’t really feel this movement is our own,” said Rami Younis, a 26-year-old biologist and activist who lives in Ramla, near Tel Aviv. “If they don’t mention occupation, settlements … it’s not going to change anything for the Palestinian people.”

‘The rise of a new movement’

The financial cost of the occupation is also a far more abstract issue for many Israelis than, say, the price of cottage cheese or their monthly rent bill.

“Generally the awareness of the costs of the occupation to Israel is not that high,” Swirski said. “To most Israelis, what happens on the other side of the Green Line might as well happen in Afghanistan or on the Moon.”

So it seems unlikely that the occupation or Arab rights will become major causes on Rothschild Boulevard. “It’s not like Netanyahu would withdraw from the West Bank if we demanded it, anyway,” one protester told Al Jazeera.

In private conversations, though, many protesters say they care about these issues, and argue that a liberal Israeli government would be more likely to halt construction in the settlements. The protests will not bring about short-term policy change, in other words, but many Israelis hope they will lead to a long-term shift in politics.

“This is the rise of a new movement and it could have a big impact on Israeli policy, Israeli politics,” Cohen said.

“This might bring a new party into the political scene. At least it will bring new politicians, and younger ones, who can connect leftist ideas about the economy to other leftist issues like the occupation.”

Article and image courtesy English Al Jazeera.net

Israeli protests began in tents

Nearly three weeks ago angry young residents of Tel Aviv took to the streets to protest soaring housing prices. The protests have rapidly reached different sectors of the Israeli society. The Israeli media has propagated the event as a glorious democratic manifestation, while Western media rushed to compare it to the people revolutions in neighboring Arab countries.

Yet it must be recalled that by far the Tel Aviv protests are taking place within the Zionist consensus. For many Arab citizens, the protests are widely seen as a bourgeois distributional conflict over Zionist colonial spoils. No wonder the protests are directed against high housing prices per se rather than against the founding policies and fundamental causes behind the crisis.

We should remember that the real victims of the state’s housing policies are not the middle-class Jewish Israelis longing for the exclusive and luxurious privileges offered by the Tel Aviv center. They are the poor Arab residents of Jaffa who have been pushed out of the city by decades of ethnic gentrification, urban exclusion and alienation.

In the meantime, the Israeli media reports the event as if the Arab population, the real victims of the state’s economic policies, does not exist. The real narrative- the dispossession, the disempowerment, the unrelenting daily grind of injustice and discrimination, and the daily violation of human rights and dignity – does not fit into the format of the Israeli media’s agenda.

When a year ago Arab residents of Jaffa took to the Ajami neighborhood to protest the new housing plan designed exclusively for Zionist-Jews, known as Be’emuna Jews-Only housing project, they were dismissed as subversives to the state’s Jewish character. When they later marched to Jerusalem to demonstrate ahead of the High Court hearing over the project, they were widely presented as a punch of unruly Arabs. Requests and petitions by Ajami residents to stop work in the project have been unanimously dismissed by the Tel Aviv District Court and the High Court of Justice.

While the shortage of housing had been threatening Arab residents of Jaffa for decades, the Israel Lands Administration gave itself a right to sell public land to a construction company devoted to pushing Arab residents out of the city. Nothing has been done to stop Bemuna’s attempts to dilute Arab neighborhoods by moving in religious Zionist Jews at the expense of local residents. Nor to address Be’emuna’s repeated racist statements, discriminatory marketing methods and housing policies. The “domino effect” of the project has instead brought more and more racist housing projects to Jaffa.

The process of internal occupation of Arab lands is by no means confined to Jaffa. Judaization is expanding all over the country from the Negev region in the South down to the Galilee in the North, including the Arab Triangle in the center, and the major mixed cities of Haifa, Acre and Jerusalem. Policies of transfer, dislocation, land expropriation and housing demolition continue uninterrupted. Statics show that over the past few decades, Arab lands in Israel were rapidly diminished from nearly 19.5 million dunams (in 1947) to only 404 thousand dunams (in 2005). At the same time, Jewish settlements inside Israel has grown from 317 to 907, and they now constitute 96 percent of the country territory.

Moreover, we have not seen a single protest against the wave of fascist and racist laws directed against the Arab population, starting from the Nakba law through the loyalty law, and multiple bills regulating admission to “Jews-only” communities. Protests by Arab residents were rather rooted out by state violence and widely condemned by the Israeli society. Only when the state’s economic policies began to threaten the narrow interests of the White Ashkenazi society did they draw attention and media coverage.

It can be argued that bourgeois Israeli Jews are now paying the prize that Arabs in Israel have been paying for decades. But we should remember that soaring housing prices in Tel Aviv are themselves the outcome of the racist policies that were originally designed to prevent Arabs and other poor Jewish communities from approaching the city center. We should also remember that those middle-class Israeli yuppies that came to live in Jaffa for an “oriental” experience are no less responsible for turning Jaffa into a fashionable neighborhood and making prices unaffordable for the local Arab residents.

The dirty secret of the Tel Aviv protests is that the bulk of those middle-class Ashkenazi protestors are moved by a racist hysteria. They are simply afraid of being moved to the city peripheries and the far less fashionable parts of the country. For when they complain that they only feel at home in Tel Aviv, they explicitly express a racist desire to stay away from the development towns and neighborhoods populated by Arabs, poor Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews.

This should not be taken as an invitation for a common struggle between Arabs and poor Mizrahi, Ethiopian and Russian Jews. Nor should it let us forget that the struggle of Arab Palestinians with the state cannot be simply reduced from a struggle over land and existence to class and civil struggles. Indeed, nothing is more ironic than to see Arabs protesting against high housing prizes in Tel Aviv as if they were allowed to live in Tel Aviv at all.

Calls for Bedouins from the unrecognized villages of the Negev to join the protests are quite revealing here. For we know very well that the struggle of these Bedouin communities is primarily against the state not the government. Not surprisingly Israel is now suing Bedouin of al-Arakib village (which has been recently destroyed by the state more than twenty times) for NIS 1.8m for “illegal invasions” of state lands and “destruction expenses”.

The struggle of Palestinians in Israel cannot be separate from politics colonization, ethnic discrimination and racism. That is to say that Palestinians in Israel have not to join the protests so much as to make sure they formulate their own struggle away from the Tel Aviv bourgeois protests that are now taking on racist Zionist formulations and being joined by racist settler movements like Yesha Council and Im Tirzu.

We are running out of time. Even as we speak, the circle of internal colonization is closing up. Palestinians in Israel should be fully aware that their struggle cannot be formulated within the Zionist framework, but only outside of it.

- Seraj Assi is a PhD Student in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, Washington DC. This article is published here courtesy PalestineChronicle.com. Photo courtesy AP.

June 6, 2011
Dear Ms. Pelosi,

Thank you for your response regarding the Israel/Palestine issue.

While I am gratified to know you support peace in the Middle East, I differ with your perspective on Israel and on how that peace might be achieved. Many of my
voting colleagues agree with me that preserving the national security of Israel no longer equates to security for the United States . The following significant events
changed that flawed assessment:

* The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 removed most of the geographic strategic importance of Israel to the US .
* The attack on Gazan civilians in 2008 discredited Israel as a “partner of peace” and established it as criminally malfeasant.
* Attack on the Turkish flotilla in 2010 reaffirmed point #2.
* Assassination of Osama Bin Laden last month removed the principle threat of terrorism to the US . Israel provides no tangible assistance on that battlefront.
* The Arab Spring is giving birth to long-suppressed democratic aspirations across the Middle East . These new democracies will be more influenced by their Arab
populations which will closely monitor American foreign policy.

These five points above, together with the current campaign to block Palestinian statehood at the UN in September serves to establish Israel more as a pariah state and
hence a strategic liability to the US.

I can very much understand your commitment to the Jewish people and their unique plight after WWII. But that was over 65 years ago, and to support a foreign nuclear
power at the expense of America ’s security and world standing strikes more as dictatorial PAC influence over Congress than as a legitimate desire to protect our
“democratic ally.”

The way you stood up countless times to rejoice in the baseless declarations of PM Netanyahu two weeks ago was shameful. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be disrespectful,
but AIPAC influence was all too apparent.

Please do your American constituents a big favor and start supporting our best interests, not only those of right-wing Zionist lobbyists. Maybe it’s too late for a twostate
solution, thanks to the ongoing quisling nature of our House and Senate. I think one, democratic state of Israel for all people, Jew and Arab may be a more sensible
course of action at this time, given the “facts on the ground” and recent world events.

Respectfully,

Dr. John Qaqundah
Bay Area, California

Response:

By IHSAN ALKHATIB, Ph.D, ESQ. Staff Writer
Dearborn, MI

“[S]tark reality of national selfishness behind the rhetoric of commitment to the cause of the Palestine Arabs”
Abdullah I changes the League’s attack plans to suit his dynastic ambitions
There are a many myths surrounding the Palestine question. Many of these myths are demolished by Avi Shlaim’s Collusion Across the Jordan, a book that serious supporters of Palestine would not only buy it and read it, they would also buy it and gift it to their friends. This article is the third article based on Shlaim’s invaluable book. This article deals with the 1948 war and the circumstances surrounding it as presented by Shlaim.
In his memoirs, the late Hussein of Jordan defends his grandfather by saying that he was basically a realist who saw the Zionist threat and tried to deal with it while other Arab leaders basically  spoke nonsense and did not prepare for the challenge. Shlaim responds to that by countering that Abdullah’s collusion with the Zionists was a self- interested ploy and at the expense of the Palestinians. The collusion of Abdullah I with the Zionists prevented the creation of a Palestinian state and thwarted the internationalization of Jerusalem- invaluable strategic goals for the Zionist movement.
A study of the record of that war is not only an exercise in understanding critical history but of understanding today’s Arabs and today’s Arab regimes. The sage saying of there is nothing new under the sun comes to mind when reading Shlaim’s description of inter-Arab politics. The following are questions answered by direct quotes, without quotation marks, from Shlaim’s book.
*Were the Arabs united in their confrontation with the Zionists in the 1948 war? A second major casualty is the notion of Arab unity which is so dear to the hearts of all Arab nationalists. In a very real sense this book is a case-study in inter-Arab conflict, rivalry, intrigue, an deception. It exposes the stark reality of national selfishness behind the rhetoric of commitment to the cause of the Palestine Arabs. It shows the Arab leaders to have been incapable of co-ordinating their diplomatic moves or their military strategy in face of the common enemy. When one looks at the military operations of the 1948 war, as dozens of historians have done, one gets one the familiar picture of a broad and united Arab coalition in confrontation with Israel for possession of the whole of Palestine. But the politics underlying this war give a very different picture of a tacit understanding between Abdullah and the Zionists, with limited territorial objectives on both sides, and with common interests which Abdullah did not share with his comrades -in-arms. In short, the Hashemite-Zionist connection is one of the keys to understanding how Palestine came to be partitioned , and why the Palestinian national movement suffered such a catastrophic defeat while the Jewish national movement realized its ambition of establishing an independent Jewish state over a substantial part of Palestine.
* Did the Arab contingents fight well enough that they posed a threat to the Jewish state? Did they do better than the petty politicians who “lost” Palestine? The amateurism in operational matters displayed by Arab politicians was fully matched by the political amateurism of the Arab military some of whom embodied the worst vices of both groups: the politicians’ bombastic trumpeting of Arab rights without due regard for the balance of forces, and the officers’ tendency to be diverted from their true task by political interests and political considerations…A swarm of Syrian and Iraqi officers buzzed around the building seemingly more familiar with the science of intrigue than with that of warfare. The distribution of funds, of commands, or rank, of operational zones, of arms and materials, all were objects of bargaining as intensive as any displayed in the city’s souks.’
* Did the Arab regimes commit the manpower and the resources needed for battle? Eleven days was the estimated duration of the campaign. To carry it out [East Jordanian officer]Tall asked that virtually all the Arab armies be placed under one supreme commander. In the opinion of informed observers, if those forces, prepared or not, could have been made available, Tall’s plan would have had every chance of success- ‘It was the stuff of which Ben Gurion’s nightmares were made.’ But the forces demanded by the young and very capable operations officer could not be made available and as a result Ben-Gurion’s worst nightmare did not come true. The forces actually made available by the Arab states for the campaign in Palestine were well below the level demanded by the Military Committee.
*Why was the original plan developed by the Arab League changed, who wanted it changed and what impact on the war did it have? The danger to the Jewish state [from the original war plan] did not materialize however, because the Damascus plan was not put into operation in the way that the Arab chiefs of staff had originally recommended. General Mahmud changed the plan by moving the Syrian army from the north to the southern tip of Lake Tiberias, alongside the Iraqi army. This change was made at the request of the Transjordanian authorities. The Transjordanians insisted on the concentration of their forces in the Jerusalem area, Hebron and the Nablus-Jenin-Tulkarem Triangle, and despite all his efforts Mahmud was unable to persuade the m to act in accordance with the original plan….No doubt, the original agreement that Jews would not stand in his [Abdullah’s] way played a part here. Nevertheless, Abdullah did not subvert the Arab Leagues invasion plan in collusion with the Jews, he replaced it with a different plan tailored to serve his specific dynastic ambitions.
*  What is Shlaim’s assessment of the Arab leaders who were involved in the Palestine [ongoing} nakba? [w]hereas all the other Arab states sided with the Palestine Arabs in their conflict with the Jews, Abdullah pursued a policy of collaboration with the enemy. Does this make Abdullah the only villain in the Palestine story or are the other Arab leaders no less culpable? If Abdullah double-crossed his partners just as they were about to do battle with the Zionist enemy in Palestine, none of those partners appear in retrospect to have been a shining example of integrity or altruism. All betrayed by their actions the pan-Arab ideal they professed to be serving in their rhetoric. All displayed suspicion and anxiety lest their rivals should exploit the Palestinian Arab cause as a vehicle for promoting their separate regional ambitions. Indeed, it may be argued that the Arab League’s decision to intervene was rooted not in a common interest to save Palestine for the Palestinians or to defeat Zionist ambitions but in inter-Arab fears and rivalries… It is because the Arab military effort in May 1948 was in itself inadequate and related to wider societal factors and temperamental peculiarities, and because suspicion and conflicts of interest among the Arabs themselves was so pervasive, that it would be misleading to single out Abdullah’s deviousness and duplicity as the sole reason for the marked disarray in Arab League quarters on the eve of battle. Such a single-factor explanation may seem superficially plausible but it does not survive a more penetrating analysis of the kind offered by Wasfi Al -Tall.

By JAMES ZOGBY

When it comes to Israel, politicians in Washington can get hysterical, making the stupidest of statements or acting idiotically. Evidence of such behaviour is common and varied; this week, for example, newly-elected Republican senator for Illinois Mark Kirk called for the US to use military means to stop Freedom Flotilla 2 heading for Gaza to break Israel’s siege. He said that the United States should “provide all the necessary special operations and naval support to the Israeli naval forces in order to stop the ships before they pose a threat to Israeli coastal security or put Israeli lives in danger”. When and how would or could unarmed activists and peace campaigners on ships heading for Gaza “pose a threat to Israeli coastal security or put Israeli lives in danger”?

Apparently, it is not an issue of concern for this Senator that dozens of American citizens are on board those ships (including retired US military personnel), or that any hostile action by US forces could endanger the lives of US citizens. Nor does the low esteem in which America is held in the Middle East as a result of the wars in which it is engaged appear to bother Mr. Kirk.
Meanwhile, the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has written to the US Attorney General calling for participation in flotillas trying to break Israel’s immoral and illegal siege of Gaza to be prohibited because such participation is “illegal”. He doesn’t say under which law it is illegal, but that doesn’t bother someone planning, it is claimed, to stand for the Republican nomination for President of the USA; a scary thought indeed.

In Washington, the US Senate voted unanimously for a resolution expressing “its opposition to bring Hamas into a government of national unity” through the recent Palestinian reconciliation agreement. The Senate statement pointed out that Palestinian efforts to obtain recognition for an independent state of Palestine at the United Nations “reflects an absence of commitment towards the peace negotiations [which] will have repercussions on the continuation of American aid” to the Palestinian Authority.

In the course of the discussion on the wording of the resolution, Republican Senator for Maine Susan Collins accused the United Nations of having a “documented record of being hijacked” by the Palestinians to be used against Israel. Her Democratic colleague for the state of Maryland, Ben Cardin, denounced the efforts of the United Nations, describing them as “a unilateral attempt by the United Nations to establish a Palestinian state”. This is sheer and utter nonsense, of course, but since when did that bother top US legislators? Neither Collins nor Cardin have ever expressed any concern that the US Congress has been hijacked by the powerful Israel Lobby in the United States, such as when it voted to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a decision which had a devastatingly negative effect on public perceptions of America across the Arab world.

This is not harmless chit-chat for these are professional politicians. What they say and do has consequences beyond the shores of North America. It is clear, though, that American politicians are incapable of dealing with Middle East issues impartially due to an inbuilt bias towards Israel. The resultant political, economic, financial and military cover that they give to the Zionist state serves to encourage hardliners in the Israeli government to expand their settlements and aggressive policies. The Arab voice isn’t heard in Washington on anywhere near the same level.

All of the above statements and others like them point to more than simply pro-Israel political hysteria (serious though that is) or stupidity. They are direct evidence that a just conclusion to the Arab-Israeli conflict remains a distant dream and that America has lost all claim to be an honest broker for peace.

Courtesy of Middle East Monitor

The concerted Zionist campaign to smear the Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) failed dismally last night as the two groups co-hosted one of their most successful public events to date. The topic up for discussion was “Complicity in Oppression – Does the Media Aid Israel?” The panellists consisted of Prof. Greg Philo who discussed his new book “More Bad News from Israel” (an excellent academic analysis of the media’s skewed coverage of news coming out of Palestine-Israel); Tim Llewellyn, former BBC Middle East correspondent, and Abdel Barri Atwan, expert Palestinian commentator on the Middle East. The discussion was chaired by Victoria Brittain, former associate foreign editor of the Guardian.

The atmosphere of the evening was lively and informative, despite the cloud of tension that had threatened to overshadow the proceedings. Having advertised the topic of our public lecture weeks previously, the event had come under heavy attack from Zionist and Islamophobic lobby groups. The English Defence League’s (EDL) Jewish division leader Roberta Moore had tried to rally her minions to hold a demonstration outside the event venue at Amnesty International’s Human Rights Centre in London, and other Zionists had circulated a petition and had begun a letter campaign to try and get Amnesty to cancel the event. Even the Labour Party Friends of Israel (LFI) had sent around a mass email trying to get their members to write in and complain to Amnesty about the event. Nevertheless, Amnesty, PSC and MEMO stood firm, unwilling to back down from holding what was a legitimate discussion on an important subject. The irony seems lost on the detractors of this event that they were essentially trying to censor a public debate on the topic of censorship! In the end there was, what must have been – for the Zionists – an embarrassing turn out of demonstrators as probably no more than a dozen people made it and they all left before the event even started. Their presence had no effect on the meeting whatsoever and the event was extremely well received by our guests many of whom gave their thanks to the teams for organizing it.

Professor Greg Philo, who kindly signed books at the end of the evening, was the first speaker. He explained that there are clearly two sides to every story and yet for some reason the Israeli narrative is consistently given preference over the Palestinian narrative by news and media outlets in the West. His academic and objective analysis of the news coverage, as set out in his book, clearly shows that the Israeli side is relentlessly churned out while the Palestinian narrative is rarely put forward, and if it is, it is to a much lesser degree. He puts this down to the dedication and cohesion of the Israeli lobby groups and the Zionist propaganda machine that essentially serves to inform the language and tone of the media. He discussed the level of tension inside media bodies and the fact that many news groups are actually afraid of complaints from the Zionist lobby who are experts at sending in complaints in relation to any news items that do not show Israel in a positive light. He therefore emphasised the importance of direct contact with these news and media bodies and the importance of utilising the internal power structures and complaints procedures to ensure a fair and accurate representation of the reality of the news.

Having worked for the BBC for around 10 years in senior positions, including many years as BBC Middle East Correspondent based at times in Palestine, Israel and around the Arab world, Tim Llewellyn was able to give a very valuable insight into the inner workings of the organisation. He stated that although overall he greatly admires the BBC “on this particular crisis the BBC is failing to tell us the truth.” His main focus was the lack of independent review of BBC programmes and decisions. He stated that “the BBC has started to build an iron wall around itself.” He confirmed what we all know, which is that it is almost impossible to raise complaints with the BBC about their programmes. Phone calls and emails are not answered, he said, even from someone like himself who they know well.

He used the BBC’s report into the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara as a case in point. Hundreds of complaints were made about the nature of the programme and finally the BBC did look into it and came up with a 50,000 word report which was “one of the most tendentious pieces of garbage I’ve ever read in my life” full of “self-contradictions”.
He attributed the media’s kowtowing to the Israeli narrative partly to Israel’s massive propaganda campaign, fronted by organisations like BICOM, as well as to the way the Israeli propaganda machine successfully “co-opted the terror of 9/11” and managed to convolute issues in people’s minds. He ended his talk by saying that we must ensure that the BBC “no longer is its own final judge and final arbiter on the question of its own editorial policy” and that the BBC should be made to answer to an “independent body” in the same way that other media outlets do.

Abdel Bari Atwan gave a very riveting and poignant account of his own personal experiences as a commentator on the Middle East and his desire as a Gazan to give a voice to the Palestinian struggle. He elucidated on the Zionist attempts to smear his character over the years in an effort to discredit experienced Palestinian commentators such as him in order to give more weight to Israeli commentators. He expressed his disgust at the fact that an expert and experienced commentator such as himself, who is from Gaza no less, was given almost no airtime on many high profile news outlets at the time of the Israeli attacks on Gaza in the winter of 2008-9 relative to Israeli spokespersons who were given as much airtime as they wanted. This lack of impartiality pervades the Western media and we need to step up our campaigns to persuade media outlets to be more unbiased and fair in their coverage.

All in all the night was extremely successful and the message to come out of the meeting was that the battle to present the truth about Palestinian-Israeli issues can be won if we just all work together to get fairer, unbiased coverage of the facts and issues surrounding the conflict. We must use all forms of media and social networking available to get the truth of the matter out there, as once the facts are laid bare then the wider public can judge matters for themselves in which case they will see Israel for the occupier that it is and the Palestinians as the occupied fighting for the preservation of their homes and their lives.

By IHSAN ALKHATIB, Ph.D, ESQ. Staff Writer
Dearborn, MI

The Zionist Movement: Flexible tactically, inflexible strategically
Ben Gurion: “The rest will come in the course of time”

Recently the discussion on Palestine centered on the 1967 borders and the declaration of the future state of Palestine. Zionist voices oppose the Palestinians going to the UN for recognition and repeat the lies of Zionists suing for peace while the Arabs rejecting peace. The lies that get repeated over and again are that the Palestinians initiated the conflict and rejected the 1948 partition which the peace- loving Zionists embraced.

Tactically flexible, strategically inflexible

Avi Shlaim’s Collusion across the Jordan, using the historical record, helps debunk these widespread myths. Myth number one is that the Palestinians have refused the UN partition plan while the Zionists sincerely accepted it and grabbed what they could of Palestine in the war merely as a result of Palestinian refusal and war contingencies. The record exposed by Shlaim shows that this is a blatant lie. The key explanatory principle about the Zionist movement is that it was, as Shlaim summarized it, tactically flexible but strategically inflexible. The inflexible strategic goal is the control of the whole of Palestine, including the East Bank of Jordan. In working toward this strategic goal, the Zionists are willing to make tactical compromises along the way. An example of this tactical flexibility is how the Zionists dealt with the 1948 UN partition plan. The Zionists colluded with Abdullah I of Transjordan to divide mandatory Palestine and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and the internationalization of Jerusalem as the UN mandated. From the beginning the strategic goal of the Zionists is the control of the entirety of Palestine. However, as a tactical compromise the Zionists were willing to let Abdullah I have a portion of Palestine for some time until opportunity develops or is manufactured to “redeem” the rest of Palestine. Abdullah I must have gotten that sense when the Zionists insisted that Abdullah I’s common defense agreement with Britain not apply to the portion of Palestine temporarily ceded to Abdullah I in 1948. By making this tactical compromise with Abdullah, the Zionists neutralized the threats of internationalization of Jerusalem and the creation of an Arab state in Palestine. They waited until 1967 to move toward the strategic goal of complete domination of Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. A number of questions are answered with direct quotes from Shlaim:

*What do the diaries of Theodor Herzl indicate as to the intentions of Zionists as to the Arabs of Palestine- was it a vision of sharing or of armed conquest and ethnic cleansing?  By quoting from the diaries of Theodor Herzl, Hirst tries to show that the prophet of Zionism foresaw that coercion and physical force were inevitable, that military power was an essential component of his strategy, that, ideally, he wanted the Zionists to acquire the land of their choice by armed conquest, but he also contemplated more discreet and circumspect means for removing the native population and expropriating its land. The French saying , ‘Qui vent la fin, veut les moyens’- he who desires the end desires the means- was cited by Herzl with approval. ‘But in proposing such an end- a Jewish state in Palestine- and such means,’ argues Hirst, ‘he was proposing a great deception, and laying open his whole movement to the subsequent charge that in any true historical perspective the Zionists were the original aggressors in the Middle East, the real pioneers of violence, and that Arab violence, however cruel and fanatical it might eventually become, was an inevitable reaction to theirs.”

*Were the Zionists, especially Ben-Gurion, sincere in speaking about peaceful coexistence at the beginning of the colonization process? A wide gulf separated Ben- Gurion’s public utterances on the Arab question from his real convictions…A careful comparison of Ben Gurion’s public and private positions leads to the conclusion that the twenty-year denial of the nature of the conflict was dictated not by genuine conviction but by the tactical need to gain time and retain British support for the Zionist project…Reluctant to embark overtly on a collision course when the balance of power between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine could not guarantee the desired outcome, Ben-Gurion developed a gradualist long-term strategy whose starting point was the acceptance of the principle of partition. A final point, a final goal, a final destination did not exist. In Ben- Gurion’s thinking, as his biographer points out, every objective, every goal was just a stage in the march of history and every goal, once attained, became a staging post for the attainment of the next goal. The partition lines were of secondary importance in Ben-Gurion’s eyes because he intended to change them in any case; they were not the end but only the beginning.

* Why were the Zionists so eager to declare a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948 was it to take a share of the land and live in peace with their neighbors if they accept the 1948 borders or was that UN- recognized state a first step in an expansionist project? The key question was: would the formation of a Jewish state help to turn the country into a Jewish one or would it hamper this? Ben-Gurion professed himself to be an enthusiastic advocate of a Jewish state, even if it involved the partitioning of Palestine, because he worked on the assumption that a partial Jewish state would not be the end but only the beginning. The acquisition of land was important not only for its own sake but because it would increase the strength of the Jews and help them acquire the whole country. The formation of a state could accelerate this process and constitute ‘a powerful lever in our historic effort to redeem the country in its entirety’. The plan was to bring into this state all the Jews it could possibly hold, to build a Jewish economy, to organize a first-class army, and then ‘I am certain we will be able to settle in all the other parts of the country, whether through agreement and mutual understanding with our Arab neighbours or in another way’.  With a state, continued Ben- Gurion, the Jews would be able to penetrate deeper into the country. They would be stronger vis-à-vis the Arabs, and as the Jews grew in strength the Arabs would realize that it would be impossible to oppose them and that it would be and that it would be best to work together and to allow them to settle in all parts of the country. If the Arabs were to act from ‘sterile national feelings’ and say ‘We don’t want your honey or your sting. We would rather the Negev remained desert than that it should be settled by Jews’, it would be necessary ‘to speak to them in another language. And we will have another language then- which we should not have without a state. ‘Both his mind and his heart told Ben-Gurion: ‘Establish a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.’

By MAZIN QUMSIYEH
Courtesy of Popular Resistance

Israel reported a record $7.2 billion weapons exports solidifying its position in the top four countries profiting from war and destruction.  The other two main official sources of income for Israel (foreign aid and its pillaging of the Palestinian economy) are also at a record high.  A fourth source of income that is less publicized but certainly is in the billions is money laundering and other criminal activities.  Many make billions by illicit schemes in their own countries and then move to Israel or at least move their money there (there are many example among Russian and American Zionists).  Israel is indeed in a very strong position financially and militarily.  Israel is also aided by a massive media campaign that vilifies Palestinians (and now Muslims and Arabs in general). On the ground, Jerusalem has largely been transformed and its multi-ethnic, multi-religious character meticulously eroded just like what happened to Jaffa and Haifa before and just like what is happening in Hebron and elsewhere today.  But we are not entirely helpless in facing the last remaining bastion of fascism and racism that is protected by state power and a global network of hate peddlers.

Yes, it is true that our struggle is more difficult than what transpired against apartheid in South Africa. Yes, it is true that our “leadership” has been reduced making weak declarations in fancy hotels and conference centers and to the media. This “leadership” is paid handsomely for doing nothing useful to change the political discourse or even increase the cost of this colonial Zionist venture.  Worse yet, a good segment of this “leadership” actually aids and abets the occupiers.  Salam Fayyad who worked at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), declares that he is fully in favor of the appointment of the head of the Central Bank in Israel as head of the IMF!  He also worked hard to get funding to pave alternative roads that made it easier on the apartheid system isolating Palestinians in cantons than need not interfere with the plans to control the natural resources and best lands of the West Bank. And then there is Mahmoud Abbas who declared on more than one occasion and also even signed a provisional agreement with Israelis that also declared that refugees need not return to their homes and lands but only to the demilitarized denuded bantustan called a Palestinian state.  Abbas also declared repeatedly that his options are negotiations, negotiations, negotiations.  He and his associates (Saeb Erekat, Abu Ala’ etc) have been negotiating for 20 years with the only tangible accomplishment being giving Israel economic and diplomatic space to consolidate Zionist colonialism.  But this era of Israeli colonial superiority must and is coming to an end.

While we in the civil society still hope for these “leaders” to change their ways, we have not been waiting.  We have been acting and must act more. The upcoming escalation in confrontation will not be between states nor will it be with “insurgency” in its classic sense.  What we see instead is a growth in boycotts, divestment, and sanctions and what transpired by freedom flotilla I, events of May 15, June 5th, the upcoming freedom flotilla II, and July 8-16 are so critical.  We have individual and collective responsibility to change things by moral and determined ways.  The other options have been proven catastrophically negative: relying on politicians (elected or self-appointed) or on the vagaries of shifting military capabilities (a dangerous development in the era of advanced science that makes development of weapons of mass destruction relatively easy even for small state and non-state actors).  Let no one have any illusion: we are coming to a major confrontation.  It can either be 1) a civil confrontation where civil society wins the struggle because it got engaged in these tactics of strong and determined popular resistance, or 2) it can happen via armed insurgency that uses modern technology to challenge conventional military forces.  Hezbollah in Lebanon provides a model of mixing the two but with more reliance on the second.  In challenging local dictatorship, we saw the power of civil resistance in Egypt and Tunisia.  Challenging colonialism successfully happened with a mix of the two in Algeria (liberated in the 1960s) and South Africa (more recently).  But the mix in South Africa was improved thanks to International civil participation. Each situation is unique and our local history here and the upcoming confrontation will also be unique to Palestine and different than in these other places. But it is clear that we have a responsibility as individuals in our society to try to shape the coming confrontation so that it is not catastrophically violent (i.e less “military might makes right” and more “people power”).  Our future as humans depends on us working together to change our circumstances.  Those who think they can afford to sit and wait (and watch TV news) will miss the moving train of justice and will regret their apathy.  We Palestinians must carry the bulk of the weight (I remember the image of the old man carrying Jerusalem and Palestine on his back).  But we humans are all responsible.  We cannot be lulled by “humanitarian aid” or by “state” and non-state structures that give the illusions of safety and security whether in the US, Europe, Australia, the apartheid state of Israel, or in the bantustans called a Palestinian state.  Everyone knows that that old system merely makes the rich richer, the poor poorer, destroys our environment, and lets us have fake elections between waves of certain economic downturns and the occasional war or terror attack that aims to distract us.

For those of you in Palestine, you may want to join us for a workshop this Saturday, 18 June, at 11 Am in the Bethlehem area that will bring dozens of activists from throughout Palestine and some internationals to help organize us better for the week of activities in July and beyond.  We also just updated our website with new answers to frequently asked questions on this (see http://palestinejn.org/section-blog ).  For those of you abroad, you could intensify your efforts to challenge the status quo.  We are one world and our struggles are one.