Posts Tagged ‘Palestine’

Dr Allan Boesak speaks to MEM during the Russell Tribunal

Reverend Allan Boesak calls Israeli apartheid “more terrifying” than South Africa ever was .

Dr. Hanan Chehata  http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/3079-reverend-allan-boesak-calls-israeli-apartheid-qmore-terrifyingq-than-south-africa-ever-was
Thursday, 17 November 2011 16:50 .
‘When we built up the sanctions campaign it was not with governments in the West.’

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

The Reverend Allan Aubrey Boesak is a veteran of the South African anti-apartheid struggle. He is the former president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and is a signatory of the South African Christian response to the Kairos Palestine Document. This year he gave expert testimony at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine session in Cape Town, at which he spoke to MEMO’s Hanan Chahata.

Rev. Allan Boesak said of the Israeli policy of apartheid: “It is worse, not in the sense that apartheid was not an absolutely terrifying system in South Africa, but in the ways in which the Israelis have taken the apartheid system and perfected it, so to speak; sharpened it. For instance, we had the Bantustans and we had the Group Areas Act and we had the separate schools and all of that but I don’t think it ever even entered the mind of any apartheid planner to design a town in such a way that there is a physical wall that separates people and that that wall denotes your freedom of movement, your freedom of economic gain, of employment, and at the same time is a tool of intimidation and dehumanisation. We carried passes as the Palestinians have their ID documents but that did not mean that we could not go from one place in the city to another place in the city. The judicial system was absolutely skewed of course, all the judges in their judgements sought to protect white privilege and power and so forth, and we had a series of what they called “hanging judges” in those days, but they did not go far as to openly, blatantly have two separate justice systems as they do for Palestinians [who are tried in Israeli military courts] and Israelis [who are tried in civil, not military courts]. So in many ways the Israeli system is worse.”

Hanan Chahata: You were one of the signatories of the South African Christian response to the Kairos Palestine Document. In this you said that the Palestinian experience of apartheid is “in its practical manifestation even worse than South African apartheid”. Can you explain what you meant by this?

Allan Boesak: It is worse, not in the sense that apartheid was not an absolutely terrifying system in South Africa, but in the ways in which the Israelis have taken the apartheid system and perfected it, so to speak; sharpened it. For instance, we had the Bantustans and we had the Group Areas Act and we had the separate schools and all of that but I don’t think it ever even entered the mind of any apartheid planner to design a town in such a way that there is a physical wall that separates people and that that wall denotes your freedom of movement, your freedom of economic gain, of employment, and at the same time is a tool of intimidation and dehumanisation. We carried passes as the Palestinians have their ID documents but that did not mean that we could not go from one place in the city to another place in the city. The judicial system was absolutely skewed of course, all the judges in their judgements sought to protect white privilege and power and so forth, and we had a series of what they called “hanging judges” in those days, but they did not go far as to openly, blatantly have two separate justice systems as they do for Palestinians [who are tried in Israeli military courts] and Israelis [who are tried in civil, not military courts]. So in many ways the Israeli system is worse.

Another thing that makes it even worse is that when we fought our battles, even if it took us a long time, we could in the end muster and mobilise international solidarity on a scale that enabled us to be more successful in our struggle. The Palestinians cannot do that. The whole international community almost conspires against them. The UN, which played a fairly positive role in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, takes the disastrous position of not wanting to offend its strong members like the United States who protect Israel. So even in the UN, where international law ought to be the framework wherein all these things are judged, where international solidarity is not an assumption but is supposed to be the very foundation upon which the UN builds its views on things and its judgements as to which way it goes, the Palestinians don’t even have that.

Palestinians are mocked in a way that South Africans were not. In a sense, the UN tried in our case to follow up on its resolutions to isolate the apartheid regime. Here, now, they make resolutions against Israel one after the other and I don’t detect even a sense of shame that they know there is not going to be any follow up. Under Reagan the United States was pretty blatant in its so called constructive engagement programme and in its support for the white regime in South Africa, but what the United States is doing now in the week that UNESCO took the decision to support the Palestinian bid for a seat in the United Nations, to withdraw all US financial support; to resort immediately to economic blackmail, that is so scandalous. So in all those ways I think we are trying to say that what is happening in Israel today is a system of apartheid that in its perfection of that system is more terrifying in many ways than apartheid in South Africa ever was.

HC: During an event celebrating black history month earlier this year you likened the US Civil Rights Movement to the South African struggle against apartheid. Would you liken both of those struggles to the Palestinian struggle today?

AB: I have just finished a chapter for a book that I hope will be out next year in which I speak of the similarities between the civil rights struggle, the anti-apartheid struggle, and the Arab Spring and the lessons we can draw from them.

I think it is fascinating in so many different ways. It’s almost as if I personally lived through the difficult choices that people have to make in North Africa and in the Middle East every day. As every day goes by my admiration for them grows. I see what is happening in Syria and in Yemen and that there is still relatively little violence on the part of the protesters. You can still see that their basic fundamental goal is to get rid of the tyranny through non-violent protest and it is amazing to watch. I do believe that there is such a thing as historic moments that never disappear from which people learn. South Africa learned so much from Ghandi in India; Martin Luther King learned from Ghandi; we learned from Martin Luther King and we had our own traditions and I’m sure the young Arab people who saw some of these things happening are drawing on that. 1994 (when the first democratic government of South Africa was formed) and the 1980s are not that far behind us. Many of those people who are participating today were sat in front of their televisions watching when we were in the streets day after day after day braving the dogs and the guns and the tear gas, burying our people, funeral after funeral. When I see the funerals taking place in the Arab world I think of the time Archbishop Tutu and I buried 27 people (actually 42 were killed but the police would not release the other bodies); I think of that when I see bodies being carried out to be buried Friday after Friday in the Arab world.

Our struggle had all sorts of political ideologies but it was never completely secularised. The faith, as Archbishop Tutu said this morning, that there is a God of justice who will help us sustain the struggle is an amazing thing. When I see all those thousands of Muslims go down and bow down before Allah I must say, when I saw it for the first time I looked at my wife and I said, I tell you now, if people sustain that, all those tyrants will be quaking in their boots and they know that they will not be able to hold out against that power.

I believe that, just as a few years ago the civil rights struggle in the United States, and then more especially the anti-apartheid struggle, became the moral standard by which the world was judged in terms of its taking sides in terms of right or wrong and getting on the right side of the human revolution for humanity and for justice and for the restoration of dignity and for the future for children; that particular moment in history where the world is invited to participate in this revolution for the sake of the good and for the sake of the future and for the sake of justice; and where that decision hinges upon evil and wrong on the one side and justice and right on the other side and will mark the world in a way that says this is a litmus test for international solidarity and for international law and justice, that test today comes from the Arab Spring.

HC: The Arab Spring or Palestine?

AB: You have the Arab Spring taking place but at the hub of it all is Palestine. I believe that what is happening now would not have happened if it had not been for the perennial struggle of the Palestinian people. They may not be mentioned every time but I can tell you now that if it was not for them, nothing like the Arab Spring would ever have happened in the Middle East.

Just as we thought, when we watched Martin Luther King or when we went through our own struggle, that the face and direction of history and the world, whether they like it in the West or not and whether or not they come to it with hidden agendas for the sake of greed or whatever, it does not really matter; what is happening in the end is that something fundamental is changing in the Middle East and thereby something fundamental is changing in the history of the world. Those people, I believe, who are going through that revolution now will, for instance, never make the same mistakes that their parents and grandparents made, thinking that the West is always good and that the deals we make with the West are always for the good of our people. There is a new critical element that has come in. Never again will people think the same; what I am hoping is that the Arab revolutions will be so sustainable and so successful and morally so strong that they will force the West to think differently about themselves in terms of the viewpoints and stands they take on events.

HC: Christianity is under threat in the Holy Land. People tend to forget that this is not an issue between Jews and Muslims; there are Christian Palestinians too. There has been a disturbing trend over the years, which has seen Christian Palestinians leaving the Holy Land because of the extraordinary difficulties that Israel has placed on their lives. In what ways has the occupation affected Christians?

AB: The Christian community in Palestine has been decimated in many ways. By doing this the Israelis are doing two things: they are simplifying the presentation of the struggle as if it is only between Jews and Arabs, with the result that Christians outside think that there is nothing and nobody for us to be in solidarity with. Hence, the Christian Zionists, those ultra conservative fundamentalists in the United States who have for so long helped to dictate foreign policy under the Bush and Reagan administrations, they can say “it’s not about us; it’s not about Christians and Christian witness, it’s about those Muslims”; that, I think, is the intention. I’m hoping that those of us who are Christians outside the Middle East will keep that fact alive and will find ways and means to inject that argument into every single political situation so that the discourse that goes forward and gives rise to action does not push aside the reality of Christians in the Middle East, especially in the Holy Land.

The second thing they are doing is that they are dislodging, not just denying, but dislodging the roots of the Christian faith in the Middle East; that’s where it all started. If you dislodge that it’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face – you are cutting yourself off from the most ancient roots of Christianity and that will set the Christian church adrift, and in the end that will not be good for Israel. So I’m glad to see that the World Council of Churches is rising up again. It is not nearly as radical as it should be, it’s not nearly as clear as it should be nor as hard-nosed as it should be on this issue, but at least it is taking up the Palestinian issue and responding to the situation in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere where Christians are under pressure. In doing so they must remember that this is not just a Christian cause; it’s not important just because of the Christians involved, but also because the future of humanity is at stake.

HC: There are an estimated 50 million Christian Zionists worldwide. How would you counsel them with regards to their support for the state of Israel which is based, they would say, on Biblical reasoning?

AB: It’s like with so many things, it’s the way that people read and interpret the Bible and so we must just make sure that we are as clear and as enthusiastic and as open about our understanding of the Bible and as willing to engage our understanding of the Bible as they seem to be. There must be ways; we have just not been imaginative enough. I think one reason is because we have not, until very recently, realised the very dangerous nature of the views that those people hold, not just for Palestinians and for Muslims in general but also for the Christian Church itself. Now that we begin to see how deadly that kind of logic is, how absolutely anti-Christian and anti-human that logic is, we have no excuses left.

HC: Israel is demanding that Palestinians recognise it as an exclusively “Jewish state”. How would you respond to this demand?

AB: They can’t. There is no such thing as a specifically Jewish state. You can’t proclaim a Jewish state over the heads and the bodies and the memories of the people who are the ancient people who live there. That is Palestinian land we are talking about. Most of the Jews who are there come from Europe and elsewhere and have no claim on that land and we mustn’t allow it to happen to the Palestinians what happened to my ancestors who were the original people in this land (South Africa) but now there are hardly enough of them to be counted in the census. That is Palestinian land and that should be the point of departure in every political discussion.

HC: In the past you urged Western countries to impose economic sanctions on the South African apartheid regime. Would you support a similar call for sanctions against the state of Israel?

AB: Absolutely! Pressure, pressure, pressure from every side and in as many ways as possible: trade sanctions, economic sanctions, financial sanctions, banking sanctions, sports sanctions, cultural sanctions; I’m talking from our own experience. In the beginning we had very broad sanctions and only late in the 1980s did we learn to have targeted sanctions. So you must look to see where the Israelis are most vulnerable; where is the strongest link to the outside community? And you must have strong international solidarity; that’s the only way it will work. You have to remember that for years and years and years when we built up the sanctions campaign it was not with governments in the West. They came on board very, very late.

It was the Indian government and in Europe just Sweden and Denmark to begin with and that was it. Later on, by 1985-86, we could get American support. We never could get Margaret Thatcher on board, never Britain, never Germany, but in Germany the people who made a difference were the women who started boycotting South African goods in their supermarkets. That’s how we built it up. Never despise the day of small beginnings. It was down to civil society. But civil society in the international community could only build up because there was such a strong voice from within and that is now the responsibility of the Palestinians, to keep up that voice and to be as strong and as clear as they possibly can. Think up the arguments, think through the logic of it all but don’t forget the passion because this is for your country.

Click here to read the full South African Response to the Kairos Palestine document:

http://www.oikoumene.org/gr/resources/documents/other-ecumenical-bodies/south-african-response-to-kairos-palestine-document.html

Palestinians to re-enact the Civil Rights movements “Freedom Riders”

Dear friends,

In hours, brave Palestinians will risk attack and arrest to board public
buses that are forbidden to Arabs. This could be the beginning of a
game-changing, non-violent Palestinian spring
– direct action to win  freedom and a new state. Avaaz is webcasting the action LIVE — click to   watch, and provide the global solidarity the activists need to win:

 

In the next few hours, history could be made in
Palestine.
A small number of brave Palestinians will risk
attack and arrest to commit a forbidden act — they will board a public bus.

Lacking their own state, Palestinians are forbidden to use buses and roads
reserved for non-Arabs — part of a host of race-based rules that US President
Jimmy Carter has called “apartheid”. 50 years ago, African-Americans
in the US challenged these rules by simply and non-violently refusing to follow
them. In a few hours, Palestinians will take the same approach, and their
actions will be live webcasted by Avaaz teams at the link below.

As diplomats stall in the fight for a Palestinian state, the Palestinian people
are taking the fight into their own hands, one public service at a time. And
they’re doing it with the simple, elegant and unstoppable moral force of
non-violence in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The
Palestinian spring begins right now – click below to watch it LIVE, register
support, and give these brave activists the global solidarity and attention
they urgently need to win:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl

Non-violence is the game-changing force in this long-standing conflict.
Boarding buses is a symbolic act, but so was Gandhi’s salt march, and Rosa
Park’s own courageous ride on a segregated bus in the US. Just as non-violent
protest was able to topple dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, so can it finally
free the Palestinian people from 40 years of crippling military oppression by a
foreign power.

There are many dangers. Israel has been arming the extremist settler population,
a tactic which is likely, if not intended, to provoke awful violence that will
draw the news cameras away from the brave acts of non-violence. Even the
Palestinian authorities are pushing back on the action which they fear will
start a democratic protest movement that they cannot control. But these few
brave Palestinians have had enough, and if we stand with them now, we can
help them ignite a flame that will burn its way all the way to a free and
peaceful Palestinian state:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/palestine_freedom_riders/?vl

We have no idea what will happen in the next 24 hours. Maybe the authorities
will crush this brave action. Maybe it will spark into a massive conflagration.
Maybe it will sow the first seed of an unstoppable movement with tremendous
integrity. But we can watch it live, and lend our voices to the effort. And
maybe one day, we can tell our grandchildren that we were there when
Palestinians boarded the buses that would ultimately take them to freedom.

With hope and determination,

Ricken, Emma, Alice, Raluca, Pascal, Diego and the rest of the Avaaz team

Sources:

I Woke Up This Morning with My Mind Set on Freedom

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/i-woke-up-this-morning-wi_b_1087407.html

Freedom Riders: 1961 and the struggle for racial justice

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19foner.html

Palestinian Freedom Rides echo the Civil Rights Movement

http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/news/3888-freedom-rides

‘Freedom Rides’ to Resume in Palestine

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=17242

How countries voted on Palestine UNESCO membership

Breakdown of how Unesco countries voted on Palestinian membership

SOUTHERN AFRICAN COUNTRIES IN RED below

194 member states

173 votes cast

81 required majority

 

52 abstentions

14 “no” votes

107 “yes” votes

No:

Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, USA, Vanuatu.

Abstentions:

Albania, Andorra, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cook Islands, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Zambia.

Yes:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

 

Absent (includes states that lost right to vote because membership fees were not paid):

Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Niue, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, East Timor, Turkmenistan.

Nathan Geffen: Why is the South African Jewish Board of Deputies rejecting a two-state solution?

Why is the SAJBD rejecting a two-state solution?

Nathan Geffen
30 October 2011

 

Nathan Geffen says board shouldn’t be defending narrow interests of current Israeli govt

On 12 May 1948 the Provisional State Council of Israel decided by 6 votes to
4 to declare their state on the expiration of the British Mandate for Palestine,
two days later. It was also decided not to indicate the borders of the new state
in the declaration on independence, so as to leave open the possibility of
expansion beyond the 1947 UN partition plan.

Under Ben Gurion’s leadership, the early state began using a combination of
diplomacy and military force to acquire territory. Even in 1948 Israel had
military supremacy. Although it had a technological disadvantage until an arms
shipment arrived from Czechoslovakia, Israelies outnumbered the opposing forces
at all stages of the war.

Ben Gurion put the world to terms on recognizing Israel’s existence. He also
understood then something that has been true for the following 62 years:
non-specification of borders suits the strong.

The leadership of the Arabs in Palestine rejected the UN partition plan. As a
matter of principle we can understand it; they were allocated one third of the
land while constituting two thirds of the population. But the 1948-49 war left
them with less land and the permanent displacement of 700,000 men, women and
children.

The bid by the Palestinian Authority for United Nations recognition is an
attempt to transcend this history. It has opponents both left and right. Some on
the left advocate a single state, hoping to put aside national and religious
identities in a secular country. Considering that Germany and France – which in
two world wars killed millions of each other’s soldiers – now have an open
border and a common currency, it is possible that one day there will be normal
relations between Israelis and Palestinians, but a one-state solution is
currently inconceivable.

Unlike in South Africa where urbanization made black people the majority in
the cities, in Israel there is effective territorial separation, due in part to
the substitution of Palestinian labour by migrant workers from Asia. This is a
political fact which must be reckoned with by proponents of a one-state
solution. The Israeli military cannot be wished away, nor the root of its
support: a combination of Jewish nationalism across the world and the fear of
genocide.

For those interested in moving towards a just solution in
Israel and Palestine, stopping the settlement enterprise must be the first
objective. And this is the great strength of the current Palestinian move
towards recognition of statehood; although it won’t immediately give them the
reality of independence, it does define their aspirations in crystal clear
terms, drawing the border along the internationally recognized pre-1967 line,
rendering every settlement a violation of sovereignty, exposing the Israeli
occupation for the unilateral annexation that it is, and showing that the goal
of the Palestinian Authority is not to drive the Jews into the sea.

The Israeli right-wing, which is firmly in control of the country, opposes UN
recognition of Palestinian statehood precisely because it brings to a head the
questions they were hoping to spin out into eternity. They argue that the move
is ‘unilateral’ and therefore wrong. But as Yael Dayan, the chair of the Tel
Aviv city council asked recently: “Isn’t the occupation unilateral? Are both
sides occupying?”

What do the Palestinian, Israeli, US, EU and South African governments have
in common? They all claim to support a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Palestinian bid has exposed very clearly
that Israel and its allies are only ready to pay lip-service to the idea. The
truth is that the current Israeli government –and indeed all recent ones– are
not ready for a two-state solution. The occupation is not a source of sufficient
moral discomfort to Israelis. Except for the minority who do combat military
service, the oppression of Palestinians is out of sight and mind for the average
Israeli.

It is against this background that the Palestinian Authority has played its
gambit. It is undoubtedly risky, but what else is left for the Palestinian
leadership to do to try and shake the status quo? Betrayed by successive US
governments, increasingly excluded from the Israeli economy and with its
citizens suffering severe restrictions on movement and political organisation
what other options are left?

The Jewish Board of Deputies and South African Zionist Federation expressed regret that the South
African government has indicated its support for the Palestinian bid, with the
feeble excuse that the Palestinian decision is unilateral. They never oppose
Israel’s unilateral actions. The Zionist Federation’s position is unsurprising.
Its agenda as a front for the settler movement is barely disguised. It is
consistently to the right of even the Israeli ambassadors sent to South Africa.
Former Ambassador Alon Liel recently endorsed the Palestinian bid, stating: “I’d
like to see a state that will vote against Palestinian statehood. History will
judge them, and that includes Israel.”

It is however deeply disappointing, albeit expected, that the Board of
Deputies took the same position.

The Board has an important mission:

“The SAJBD works for the betterment of human relations between Jews and all
other peoples of South Africa based on mutual respect, understanding and
goodwill, and to protect the civil liberties of South African Jews. It is
committed to a South Africa where everyone will enjoy freedom from the evils of
prejudice, intolerance and discrimination.”

There is nothing about
supporting the narrow interests of the current Israeli government.

To a large extent the Board tries hard to fulfil its mission, especially the
Cape Town chapter. But it consistently fails when it takes positions on Israel.
The Board’s job is to represent South African Jews, defend our civil rights –no
matter what our positions on Israel– and to build ties with other communities.
By publicly opposing the Palestinian bid and our government’s position on it,
the Board does a disservice to its mission and to South African Jews.

Opposition to Palestinian statehood also does a disservice to Israelis.
International recognition of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, with its
capital in East Jerusalem, would give Israel recognition of West Jerusalem,
something it has never had before.

Let us hope that sense prevails before it is too late.

Nathan Geffen is visiting researcher at the Centre for Social
Science Research, UCT.

Diocese of Natal resolution on Palestine and Israel

From Rev Janet Trisk:

At its 117th session the synod of the
Anglican diocese of Natal in the Province of Southern Africa considered the
situation in Palestine and Israel. Speakers shared their own experiences of the
conditions under which Palestinians live and compared and contrasted these to
conditions for Black people in South Africa under apartheid. One speaker warned
against equating the modern state of Israel with God’s chosen people. The following
resolution was passed on 7 October 2011:

This Synod

Noting:

  1. The dispossession of  the people of Palestine from their land and the denial
    of their citizenship rights in the land of their birth
  2. The support of a military-industrial complex in Israel and the monopolising of
    natural resources
  3. The call in the Kairos Palestine document for a non-violent solution to the
    occupation

Resolves to:

  1. Commend the Palestine Kairos document for study by all our congregations
  2. Urge all parishes to observe the annual WCC week of Prayer for Palestine, but
    praying every Sunday for the peace of Jerusalem.
  3. Work and pray for a just peace in Israel and Palestine
  4. Develop Bible studies that would emphasise the reign of God rather than violence and
    land dispossession

Settlements in the West Bank: Peace, or piece by piece – Marthie Momberg

Marthie Momberg, an Afrikaans author from Stellenbosch,
is currently participating in an international humanitarian initiative in the
Holy Land on the SA Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Accompanier Programme (www.eappi.org). She writes from the West Bank,
Palestine. This article appeared in the Sunday Independent on 2 October 2011

Settlements in the West Bank: Peace, or piece by piece?

In his recent address to the United Nations, Palestinian
leader, Mahmoud Abbas, referred to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT) as “a systematic confiscation … that is eating up large
tracts of [Palestinian] land, dividing it into separate and isolated islands
and cantons, destroying family life and communities and the livelihoods of tens
of thousands of families.”

My team and I report on human rights abuses for three
months. We live in the ancient village of Yanoun, but also work in surrounding
villages and in the Jordan Valley, all in the Occupied West Bank.

Today my breakfast consists of grapes that we received
from a Palestinian shepherd as we passed him and his flock of sheep earlier
this morning. We do daily walks to monitor the roads of Yanoun. This is a
pleasant task, especially now that it is no longer so sweltering hot. With our
binoculars we search the hills for anything out of the ordinary such as new
(illegal) structures or the presence of (often armed) Israeli settlers. The
sheep, goats, donkeys, horses and the olive, fig, almond and pomegranate trees
stand by as we watch over the farming community. We, in turn, are watched from
another hill by members of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) – who should ensure
peace on both sides, but often collaborate with Israeli settlers.

Providing a protective presence to the Palestinian people
is one of our main priorities.  Local
farmers lived and worked here since the eighteenth century but today there are
only 75 inhabitants left after Yanoun was nearly wiped off the face of the map
in 2002. Israeli settlers invaded the village and forced everybody from their
homes. According to Mayor Rashed Murrar “They came with dogs and guns, every
Saturday night. They beat men in front of their children. One Saturday they
said that they didn’t want to see anyone here next Saturday … the whole village
left that week.”

Some families returned but only after intense
international media focused on their plight and with the assistance of an
Israeli peace group, Ta’ayush.  Since
2003 EAPPI members have provided a protective presence to the villagers.

However, Israeli inhabitants from the nearby Itamar
settlement still harass the town. Six months ago, on the 5th of March, they
polluted the water well (the only source of water for the inhabitants). A month
later, on the 27th of April they invaded the village with dogs. During the
night, on the 2nd of July, settlers together with over 30 armed IDF soldiers
launched a full incursion into the village to search, allegedly, for stolen
sheep (which was never found, the crime never proved, the harassment never
interrogated). Last month, on the 7th of August, when confronted by the EAPPI
team, the armed settlers and soldiers claimed to be carrying out “research” at
the Palestinian water well.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East
Jerusalem since 1967. All settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the
Fourth Geneva Convention. Peace talks came to a standstill a year ago precisely
due to Israel’s continuous expansion of settlements. Between the start of the
peace talks and now, Jewish settlers in the West Bank have doubled – they now
number just over half a million people, living in 121 settlements, at
approximately 100 outposts and they control more than 42 percent of the West
Bank.

The settlers gradually, piece by piece, confiscate land
in the West Bank and cultivate it with water at Israeli State subsidized rates.
All this while Palestinian houses, roads, wells and clinics are demolished and
they themselves are denied building permits and free access to roads, churches,
mosques, hospitals and schools.

Many of the Israeli settlers come from different parts of
the world and have no immediate genetic affiliation with the land.  Yet they claim: “This is the land of our
fathers and grandfathers…This is the land of Israel” – these are slogans on
posters placed by Israelis on the main road between Hebron and Jerusalem, in
the Occupied Palestinians Territories.

Since my arrival in the West Bank two weeks ago, I have
witnessed many forms of humiliation and oppression. In fact, on my third day
here, I attended the funeral of a young Palestinian man who was shot in a
nearby village after Israeli settlers damaged the olive groves for a third time
in three weeks, during prayer-time on Friday.

I write this as I sit outside the community center with
the mayor of the village.  We are waiting
for a delegation from Ramallah to discuss the construction of a road on
Palestinian soil that settlers began work on early this morning. He has already
contacted the Palestinian District Co-ordination Office but they in turn need
to ask the Israeli authorities to intervene.
There was no response from the Israeli authorities. “Maybe the Red Cross
would help,” the mayor said, “maybe.”

We both watch the settlers and their tractors work on
their new road that snakes downhill. We need no binoculars to do so, they are
so close. I do not know what to say to the mayor.  I am thinking of the shepherd, the women from
whom we buy almonds, yoghurt, cheese and eggs, the children who play in front
of our house at night.

Tonight we shall sleep under the bright security
spotlights that light up the houses and gravel roads. I do not sleep well
here.

Marthie Momberg writes in her personal capacity

http://marthiemombergblog.wordpress.com

http://www.eappi.org

 

DISCLAIMER:
Marthie Momberg currently works for the South African Council of
Churches as an Ecumenical Accompanier serving on the World Council of Churches’
Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). The views
contained in this e-mail and in her blog are personal and do not necessarily
reflect those of the South African Council of Churches or the WCC.  If anyone would like to publish the
information contained here or in her blog, or place it on a website, please
first contact dudu.masango@gmail.com
or the EAPPI Communications & Advocacy Officer (eappi-co@jrol.com) for permission.

 

tel.: +(972) 054 7446328
+(972) 059 551 2274

Writing from Palestine: Marthie Momberg

16/11:  Jordaanvallei, Wes-Oewer, Palestina: Die verskil wat water maak

Die songedroogde boer groet ons met vitaliteit, sy skraal
figuur in swart soos ‘n pen afgeëts op die blad van die pastelkleurige,
onbewerkte landskap. Dis ons eerste besoek aan die gemeenskap van Al Hadidiya.
Dis in die middel van die dag en warm. Hy boer met skaap en plant hawer en
koring in die winter as dit reën. Hy is nog besig met enkele sake en ons stap
solank oor die klipperige heuwel om die wêreld te bekyk. Aan die anderkant van
die dor stof onder ons voete lê ‘n lieflike groen strook met permanente geboue.
Dit is Roi, ‘n setlaarsgebied.

Water in die Jordaanvallei, soos elders in Palestina, is
kosbaar en skaars. Die Israeliese setlaars kry by verre die meerderheid daarvan
(45 miljoen kubieke meter /jaar vir 64 000 mense) teenoor die 31 miljoen
kubieke meter (in 2008) vir die 56 000 Palestyne in die vallei. Ons draai terug
en my oë val op die Israeliese militêre basis op die oorkantste heuwel. Ons
stap terug, af na die huis van tente, riete en ander vervoerbare materiaal.
Rialb-Abu Saker se vorige huis is deur soldate vernietig terwyl hy sy vrou
hospitaal toe geneem het vir ‘n bevalling.

Ons is bly vir die glasies tee wat ons aangebied word.
Ons stel onsself voor en Abu wil by my weet hoe dit was om in Suid-Afrika voor
1994 te woon. Ons gesels. Hy meen dat Palestina ‘n speelbal is vir wêreldmagte.
Dalk gee hulle geld, sê hy, maar hulle harte is nie oop vir ons nie. Hulle gee
nie regtig om wat van ons word nie. Om nou as ‘n staat verklaar te word, gaan
volgens hom niks beteken nie. Die land het hulp nodig met die opbou van ‘n
infrastruktuur. Ek kyk na hom, want daar is ‘n lig in sy oë. Ek vra wat laat
hom en sy familie dan aanhou. Ghassan, ons bestuurder en tolk, dra sy woorde oor:

This land is my life, if you take this away from me, I
will die. We will not leave our homes like those who left their properties in
1948. Not all Israelis are the same and our aims are supported by many
organisations and individuals in Israel and in other parts of the world. We
hope that this awareness of our humanity will grow. We want to live in peace
with the Jews and Christians. Peace and love is the essence of all three our
religious traditions. The current Israeli politics cannot last forever.”

Abu se vraag oor hoe dit was om in my land te woon voor
1994, en hoe dit nou met ons gaan, bly my by toe ons wegry.

For more information on life in the West Bank:  http://marthiemombergblog.wordpress.com

DISCLAIMER:

Marthie Momberg currently works for the South African
Council of Churches as an Ecumenical Accompanier serving on the World Council
of Churches’ Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel
(EAPPI). The views contained in this e-mail are personal and do not necessarily
reflect those of the South African Council of Churches or the WCC.  If anyone would like to publish the
information contained here, or place it on a website, please first contact dudu.masango@gmail.com or the EAPPI
Communications & Advocacy Officer (eappi-co@jrol.com) for permission. Thank you.

Zuma: South Africa will support Palestine’s UN bid

Zuma: SA will support Palestine’s UN bid

        Times LIVE, Sapa, and Reuters | 20 September, 2011

        President Jacob Zuma, his Finnish counterpart, Traja Halonen, and former British prime minister Gordon Brown share a joke at the start of a meeting on global sustainability at the UN headquarters in New York yesterday.
Image by: ELMOND JIYANE/GCIS

        President Jacob Zuma said last night that South Africa would support Palestine’s quest for statehood at the UN this week.

 ”We are dealing with a people who don’t have rights, and as a follow-up to UN human rights kind of condition and principle, I think they have to be given an opportunity because they have been blocked all the time.

“I think in their position I would do the same so that you move to a particular stage, and we will support that,” the SABC quoted the president as saying.

Zuma, who is scheduled to address the UN general assembly tomorrow, also said South Africa was “open” to discussing Libya’s future, but insisted on African Union participation.

“We do not want . the Libyan process to proceed without the AU participating. This is an AU member state,” Zuma said.

He said South Africa was prepared to discuss the matter “properly in the UN” in the hope of finding a “clear resolution”.

South Africa has repeatedly criticised Nato’s military intervention in Libya and the way in which the UN resolution 1973 on a no-fly zone was implemented by allowing air strikes.

South Africa has refused to recognise the National Transitional Council, the war-torn country’s current interim government.

Earlier yesterday, President Mahmoud Abbas said he was sticking to his plan to seek full UN membership for his Palestinian state, though “all hell had broken out” over the move, which has been opposed by both the US and Israel.

Abbas, speaking en route to the UN general assembly, said he had been told by the US and European governments that “matters will be bad” after a move that reflects his frustration with a moribund peace process.

“To what extent, we will know later on,” said Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, which depends on international financial aid for its survival in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Palestinian non-violence: Muslims, not Christians, are the leaders

Executive Director, Holy Land Trust

Palestinian Nonviolence: Muslims, Not Christians, Are the Leaders

Posted: 7/26/11 12:07 PM ET

Whenever I give talks on the effects of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian livelihood, the status of nonviolence as a means to resisting the occupation, and how I believe nonviolence is the only way to move forward to resolve the conflict and create a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, one of the first and immediate questions I get from foreign visitors to my office in Bethlehem is, “What you said is good, but what about the Muslims? Do they also believe in nonviolence? Do they understand it?” Even if I don’t mention religion in my presentation — and I rarely do — this question always seems to make its way in our discussions.

I have to admit that this question challenges me because within it lies an underlying stereotype, a bias, or at the least a grave misunderstanding of the Palestinian Muslim community — that they are violent people and do not have any understanding of nonviolence. The second challenge is in the biases toward Palestinian Christians. Western Christians simply think and assume that Palestinian Christians must engage in nonviolence and that it is “unchristian” if they use violence.

Even though we never look at it through a religious lens, the reality on the ground is that when it comes to nonviolence in Palestine, it is not Christians but Muslims who are engaging in this tremendous work. It is Palestinian Muslims who are the main leaders, the organizers, the activists and the strategists, and only some Christians are active in nonviolent resistance.

The men and women organizing the protests each week in villages where land is being confiscated and the separation wall is being built, chaining themselves to olive trees so they don’t get uprooted and laying in front of bulldozers are Muslims. When we organize protests that fall on Christian holidays, like an Easter protest or the Palm Sunday march to Jerusalem, 90 percent of the protestors were Muslims, standing in solidarity with the rights of the Christian brothers and sisters to pray in Jerusalem. Many Muslims, some of whom are my closest friends, like Basim and Naji Tamimi from a small village called Nabi Saleh whom I have worked with and trained with for years, are now locked up in Israeli prisons because of their nonviolent actions.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Christian community has limited numbers of leaders and activists in this work. One reason is, of course, demographic: Palestinian Christians are less than 1.8 percent of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories. But the main reason why Christians are not active is due to the fact that, like many Muslims, they have simply given up. They refrain from any actions working to end the military occupation and are simply resigned trying to live life day-to-day. The community sees the expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements, the increased regulations on movement by Israeli military checkpoints, the harder economic conditions and, most of all, the failure by our own political leadership to even sit together, let alone lead us to liberation. Sadly, this breeds hopelessness.

At the end of the day, while the question is always asked by our foreign friends, when it comes to how we live with each other and how the Israeli occupation treats us, there is actual agreement: We are all the same; we are “Palestinians.” I have never gone to a nonviolent demonstration and counted how many Christians and how many Muslims were there. I have never helped this family and not that because of their faith. Christian and Muslim farmers have had their olive trees uprooted and their fields burned by settlers, Christian and Muslim homes have been destroyed by Israeli military bulldozers. Christians and Muslims have been killed, injured or arrested by the Israeli military. The walls and fences surround Christian cities like Bethlehem and have confiscated hundreds of acres that belong to Christian and Muslim families. When I am stopped at a military checkpoint and interrogated, the Israeli soldier never says, “Oh, a Christian. Sorry, go ahead.” I am held up for hours along with my Muslim friends for no reason but intimidation.

I am proud of the fact that when it comes to the Palestinian community, with all the challenges, hardships, and divisions that we face, religious identity remains a sacred space, honored by the greatest overwhelming majority. It brings me the greatest joy to see Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) deeply engaged and committed to nonviolence. It gives me even greater pleasure when I see the growing number of Israeli Jews join us hand in hand in this struggle.

My prayer is that a new question will arise from my Christian friends in the U.S. and Europe and from our churches across the globe: What can we do to help you (Christians, Muslims and Jews) end this occupation and conflict, once and for all, and create a peace in the Holy Land that will bring us all pride in our religious faith, teachings and heritage?

Sami Awad is a Palestinian Christian active in the nonviolence movement. He is the Executive Director of Holy Land Trust in Bethlehem. His story is told in the film “Little Town of Bethlehem.” For more information visit www.holylandtrust.org and www.littletownofbethlehem.org

From www.huffingtonpost,com

Bertrand Russell’s last message, 31 January 1970

Bertrand Russell’s Last Message

By Bertrand Russell

This statement on the Middle East was dated 31st January, 1970, and
was read on 3rd February, the day after Bertrand Russell’s death, to an
International Conference of Parliamentarians meeting in Cairo.

The latest phase of the undeclared war in the Middle East is based upon a
profound miscalculation. The bombing raids deep into Egyptian territory will not
persuade the civilian population to surrender, but will stiffen their resolve to
resist. This is the lesson of all aerial bombardment.

The Vietnamese who have endured years of American heavy bombing have
responded not by capitulation but by shooting down more enemy aircraft. In 1940
my own fellow countrymen resisted Hitler’s bombing raids with unprecedented
unity and determination. For this reason, the present Israeli attacks will fail
in their essential purpose, but at the same time they must be condemned
vigorously throughout the world.

The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and
instructive. For over 20 years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every
stage in this expansion Israel has appealed to “reason” and has suggested
“negotiations”. This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it
wishes to consolidate with the least difficulty what it has already taken by
violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of the proposed negotiation
from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression. The
aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has
the right to annexe foreign territory, but because every expansion is an
experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate.

The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were
described recently by the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as “the moral
millstone around the neck of world Jewry.” Many of the refugees are now well
into the third decade of their precarious existence in temporary settlements.
The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a
foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was
that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently
homeless. With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer
is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is
abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which
they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing
conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse
from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept
a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of
the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine
settlement in the Middle East.

We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the
suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this
suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering. What Israel is doing today
cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of
the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number. of
refugees to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to
military rule; but also Israel condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging
from colonial status, to continued impoverishment as military demands take
precedence over national development.

All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that
any settlement does not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires
that the first step towards a settlement must be an Israeli withdrawal from all
the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world campaign is needed to help
bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East.

From: http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5576-RussellMidEast.htm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers