End of the road for the Bedouin
The Arab Bedouin are Israeli citizens and many fight in the Israeli army. But an attempt to force them off their land has led to violent clashes with the police
By Donald Macintyre
Published in the Independent: 29 November 2005
The 3,000 or so residents of Bir al Mshash are distinctly unmoved by the prospect of Israeli elections next March. The villagers, who like all their fellow Bedouin in the Negev desert are Israeli citizens, many of whom serve in the Israeli army, normally vote Labour. "I don't want to vote for any party now," says Ibrahim Abu Speyt, 48. "I want to boycott the elections."
The reason isn't hard to find. Two weeks ago, a 50-year-old problem came to a head for Bir al Mshash. Israeli police and ministry of interior officials arrived to put formal notices on 12 houses slated for demolition in what the villagers believe is the first of a multi-stage operation in which they will be moved off the land they regard as having been theirs since Ottoman times.
Violence erupted. According to the ministry of interior, warning shots were fired in response to stone throwing by children specifically called out of school for the purpose by "leaders of the tribe", and police were in fear of their lives. According to Naef Abu Speyt, 35, a member of the residents' committee, the violence started after police struck his uncle Ahmed as he tried to mediate between a force of 65 police, with helmets and riot shields, and 200 angry residents. He said 16 people were arrested and 18 people, including nine women, were injured by baton-wielding police.
Broken windows and doors taken off their frames were visible in several houses in the village. Surprisingly, given the normally deeply conservative attitudes to women among the Bedouin, Muna Abu Speyt, 19, who was in her ninth month of pregnancy at the time, was willing to display a deep bruise on her back which she said was a result of being struck by police. She started to have contractions after the incident and gave birth to her (healthy) baby in Beersheeva's Seroka hospital where she had been taken by an ambulance ordered by the police.
One of the extended family's matriarchs, Ibrahim's spritely mother Fatima Abu Speyt, 93 - who says she too was struck by the police officers though seems none the worse for the experience - is nostalgic for the old times, "the life in tents," as she puts it, when they could travel freely throughout Palestine finding pastures for their livestock. "Under the British [mandate] it was better. We had more freedom to go where we wanted." Fatima adds: "The British would arrest someone who did something wrong but they didn't attack people just sitting in their houses." But then the British, whatever else they did to dismay both Jews and Arabs during the mandate, had not been seeking to move the Bedouin; instead they acknowledged the Arab rights of land ownership established over the previous 400 hundred years after the Bedouin came, mainly from the Arabian peninsula, to Palestine. The official record of the relevant "Law Reports of Palestine" of 1923 states that "The Colonial Secretary Winston S Churchill," no less, "confirmed in the presence of the High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, that ownership of land in Beer Sheba, determined by custom law, is recognised by the British government".
But much of the Negev has long been earmarked for development for and by Jewish immigrants; more than 40 years ago the Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan summed up with clarity the "sharp transition" he envisaged: "We must turn the Bedouin into urban labourers ... It means that the Bedouin will no longer live on his land with his flocks but will become an urbanite who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children will get used to a father who wears pants, without a dagger, and who does not pick out their nits in public. They will go to school, their hair combed and parted. This will be a revolution, but it can be achieved in two generations. Not by coercion but with direction from the state. This reality that is known as the Bedouin will disappear."
Bir al Mshash is one of 37 unrecognised villages whose inhabitants Israel wants to move to specially designated towns or villages. Although some Bedouin still move to relatively nearby summer grazing pastures, they no longer live as the nomads they once were, settling instead in villages on stretches of the desert they used to visit for long periods each year.
Yet the villages do not appear on any Israeli map, nor on the ID cards the residents carry. Nor are there roadsigns to them; the only vestige of their presence on the main highways are the big yellow signs announcing: "Beware of camels by the road." The villages do not have running water; they are not linked to the electricity grid. In stark contrast even to the smallest kibbutzim there are only eight - very basic - clinics for the 37 villages. In most cases only dirt roads lead to them. And of course, because the villages are unregistered, none of the houses they live in have permits, which is why the ministry of the interior is empowered to demolish them if and when they choose.
Two Israeli High Court hearings yesterday suggest the government regards such conditions as just one more incentive for the Bedouin to move. In Sawa, another Negev village, three-year-old Ennas al Atrash is suffering from a chest cancer, has been receiving chemotherapy and needs, to support her collapsed immune system, drugs which have to be refrigerated. But Sawa is not connected to the electricity grid and her father, who ironically is himself a doctor in the Israeli health service, cannot afford more than a part share in a £900-per-month generator running for four hours each day. Two Israeli NGOs, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR-Israel) and the Association of Civil Rights (ACRI) had petitioned the court for the family to be connected to the grid; they argued that it was an abuse of Ennas's human right to health to pay the price of what was in effect a discriminatory planning policy. They also cited, in answer to the argument that the family could move to a recognised village or town, clinical evidence that the support of her close and extended family - as well as the need for relatives to look after her five siblings when her parents accompanied her on her frequent trips to hospital - was essential to her treatment. But the court, while expressing sympathy, yesterday rejected the petition. Justice Edmond Levy declared: "One cannot ignore the fact that it was the petitioners' decision to settle in an unrecognised village, knowing that as a result they would be unable to have the most basic facilities."
Another petition by several groups including PHR is against the spraying of Bedouin crops with highly toxic weedkiller by the Israel Lands Administration, which fears the Bedouin will use continuous cultivation to reinforce their land claims. The petitioners cited an opinion by Dr Elihu Richter, a Hebrew University public health expert that the practice, which was halted by an injunction in March 2004, pending a final court decision, was "an immoral act of human experimentation". But the government's lawyer strongly defended the practice in court yesterday as one of the best ways to enforce the law and prevent "anarchy" in use of the land.
For the Bedouin do not want to move. Their representatives point out that while the Israeli state comptroller estimates that the Bedouin own around 87,500 acres of the Negev they are only occupying around 60,000, and that the unregistered villages themselves occupy around 45,000 acres - around 1.3 per cent of the total area of the Negev.
Recognising their villages, they argue, and improving what PHR regards as their Third World conditions would still leave plenty of room for development of, say, Jewish agriculture.
It particularly rankles with the Abu Speyt family that many of them volunteer to serve in the Israeli army, where the Bedouin are especially valued for their tracking skills, and have often served in particularly dangerous places like the southern Gaza border. "Where the war is, there are the Bedouin," says Ahmed, who is deeply resistant to losing the sheep, goats and camels he and his brother own if they are forced into a state township. "We will only get one dunum [a quarter acre] when we need ten."
"I want to tell the government of Israel that we are part of their state, but they have rejected us." Although the Bedouin have virtually no history of Palestinian nationalism, Ibrahim adds: "Before 1948 [and Israel's establishment as a state after the war of independence] we were Palestinians. When the Israelis came they cancelled our Palestinian identity. I have Israeli ID. I drive a car with Israeli plates. I am a citizen of Israel. But I am a second-class citizen."
The Bedouin deeply fear moving to the seven existing townships, which themselves have only the most minimal of services, established by the state for them in the late Sixties - or another seven long scheduled but not yet built. When Suleiman Abu Steyt, 46, says of the prospect: "Here, I am with my brothers. There I won't know anybody. I don't care if I have to sleep in tents or on the open ground. I am not going", he is touching on something basic to the Bedouin; each village tends to be occupied by one extended family - something which not only stops disputes between families but allows women more freedom since they can go out among their own neighbours in a way they couldn't among strangers -something which in turn underlines the need for primary health care clinics in each village. Clinton Bailey, an American-born Israeli academic and leading expert on Bedouin culture, who agitated on the Bedouins' behalf in the early 1990s, thinks their final destiny will be within the townships. As recently as this year he sought to mediate with the state on behalf of villagers unable to build new homes when they got married. But his recent contacts with government officials dealing with the Bedouin have led him to believe that even Ariel Sharon, despite having been one of the harshest exponents of the Dayan doctrine, sees that carrot as well as stick is needed to effect its goals. He believes that up to $2bn of the $17bn earmarked by Mr Sharon and Shimon Peres for a huge development project to bring more Jewish housing, industry and agriculture to the Negev will be used to ease the removal of the Bedouin from the unrecognised villages. This will be done, for example, by using mediation to process land claims and provide compensation, and ensuring that the second wave of townships are not only built but properly serviced before the Bedouin have to move in. "I am more hopeful than I have been for many years," he says.
Neither his optimism - nor his view of the long-term solution - is shared by groups like PHR which have long campaigned for the villages to be recognised and for services to be provided.
If anything, PHR-Israel's Orly Almi says, "The government is using more force and issuing more demolition orders. And unless the court tells them not to the crop spraying will start again." She adds: "The bigger plan is to implant Judaism in the Negev. It can't be a coincidence that the government often plans Jewish settlements close to where unrecognised villages are." But arguing that there is easily enough room for both to co-exist, she adds: "There is no reason why Jewish communities shouldn't live along aside the Bedouin villages, with both recognised. But that seems to be impossible in Israel."
The 3,000 or so residents of Bir al Mshash are distinctly unmoved by the prospect of Israeli elections next March. The villagers, who like all their fellow Bedouin in the Negev desert are Israeli citizens, many of whom serve in the Israeli army, normally vote Labour. "I don't want to vote for any party now," says Ibrahim Abu Speyt, 48. "I want to boycott the elections."
The reason isn't hard to find. Two weeks ago, a 50-year-old problem came to a head for Bir al Mshash. Israeli police and ministry of interior officials arrived to put formal notices on 12 houses slated for demolition in what the villagers believe is the first of a multi-stage operation in which they will be moved off the land they regard as having been theirs since Ottoman times.
Violence erupted. According to the ministry of interior, warning shots were fired in response to stone throwing by children specifically called out of school for the purpose by "leaders of the tribe", and police were in fear of their lives. According to Naef Abu Speyt, 35, a member of the residents' committee, the violence started after police struck his uncle Ahmed as he tried to mediate between a force of 65 police, with helmets and riot shields, and 200 angry residents. He said 16 people were arrested and 18 people, including nine women, were injured by baton-wielding police.
Broken windows and doors taken off their frames were visible in several houses in the village. Surprisingly, given the normally deeply conservative attitudes to women among the Bedouin, Muna Abu Speyt, 19, who was in her ninth month of pregnancy at the time, was willing to display a deep bruise on her back which she said was a result of being struck by police. She started to have contractions after the incident and gave birth to her (healthy) baby in Beersheeva's Seroka hospital where she had been taken by an ambulance ordered by the police.
One of the extended family's matriarchs, Ibrahim's spritely mother Fatima Abu Speyt, 93 - who says she too was struck by the police officers though seems none the worse for the experience - is nostalgic for the old times, "the life in tents," as she puts it, when they could travel freely throughout Palestine finding pastures for their livestock. "Under the British [mandate] it was better. We had more freedom to go where we wanted." Fatima adds: "The British would arrest someone who did something wrong but they didn't attack people just sitting in their houses." But then the British, whatever else they did to dismay both Jews and Arabs during the mandate, had not been seeking to move the Bedouin; instead they acknowledged the Arab rights of land ownership established over the previous 400 hundred years after the Bedouin came, mainly from the Arabian peninsula, to Palestine. The official record of the relevant "Law Reports of Palestine" of 1923 states that "The Colonial Secretary Winston S Churchill," no less, "confirmed in the presence of the High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, that ownership of land in Beer Sheba, determined by custom law, is recognised by the British government".
But much of the Negev has long been earmarked for development for and by Jewish immigrants; more than 40 years ago the Israeli military leader and politician Moshe Dayan summed up with clarity the "sharp transition" he envisaged: "We must turn the Bedouin into urban labourers ... It means that the Bedouin will no longer live on his land with his flocks but will become an urbanite who comes home in the afternoon and puts his slippers on. His children will get used to a father who wears pants, without a dagger, and who does not pick out their nits in public. They will go to school, their hair combed and parted. This will be a revolution, but it can be achieved in two generations. Not by coercion but with direction from the state. This reality that is known as the Bedouin will disappear."
Bir al Mshash is one of 37 unrecognised villages whose inhabitants Israel wants to move to specially designated towns or villages. Although some Bedouin still move to relatively nearby summer grazing pastures, they no longer live as the nomads they once were, settling instead in villages on stretches of the desert they used to visit for long periods each year.
Yet the villages do not appear on any Israeli map, nor on the ID cards the residents carry. Nor are there roadsigns to them; the only vestige of their presence on the main highways are the big yellow signs announcing: "Beware of camels by the road." The villages do not have running water; they are not linked to the electricity grid. In stark contrast even to the smallest kibbutzim there are only eight - very basic - clinics for the 37 villages. In most cases only dirt roads lead to them. And of course, because the villages are unregistered, none of the houses they live in have permits, which is why the ministry of the interior is empowered to demolish them if and when they choose.
Two Israeli High Court hearings yesterday suggest the government regards such conditions as just one more incentive for the Bedouin to move. In Sawa, another Negev village, three-year-old Ennas al Atrash is suffering from a chest cancer, has been receiving chemotherapy and needs, to support her collapsed immune system, drugs which have to be refrigerated. But Sawa is not connected to the electricity grid and her father, who ironically is himself a doctor in the Israeli health service, cannot afford more than a part share in a £900-per-month generator running for four hours each day. Two Israeli NGOs, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR-Israel) and the Association of Civil Rights (ACRI) had petitioned the court for the family to be connected to the grid; they argued that it was an abuse of Ennas's human right to health to pay the price of what was in effect a discriminatory planning policy. They also cited, in answer to the argument that the family could move to a recognised village or town, clinical evidence that the support of her close and extended family - as well as the need for relatives to look after her five siblings when her parents accompanied her on her frequent trips to hospital - was essential to her treatment. But the court, while expressing sympathy, yesterday rejected the petition. Justice Edmond Levy declared: "One cannot ignore the fact that it was the petitioners' decision to settle in an unrecognised village, knowing that as a result they would be unable to have the most basic facilities."
Another petition by several groups including PHR is against the spraying of Bedouin crops with highly toxic weedkiller by the Israel Lands Administration, which fears the Bedouin will use continuous cultivation to reinforce their land claims. The petitioners cited an opinion by Dr Elihu Richter, a Hebrew University public health expert that the practice, which was halted by an injunction in March 2004, pending a final court decision, was "an immoral act of human experimentation". But the government's lawyer strongly defended the practice in court yesterday as one of the best ways to enforce the law and prevent "anarchy" in use of the land.
For the Bedouin do not want to move. Their representatives point out that while the Israeli state comptroller estimates that the Bedouin own around 87,500 acres of the Negev they are only occupying around 60,000, and that the unregistered villages themselves occupy around 45,000 acres - around 1.3 per cent of the total area of the Negev.
Recognising their villages, they argue, and improving what PHR regards as their Third World conditions would still leave plenty of room for development of, say, Jewish agriculture.
It particularly rankles with the Abu Speyt family that many of them volunteer to serve in the Israeli army, where the Bedouin are especially valued for their tracking skills, and have often served in particularly dangerous places like the southern Gaza border. "Where the war is, there are the Bedouin," says Ahmed, who is deeply resistant to losing the sheep, goats and camels he and his brother own if they are forced into a state township. "We will only get one dunum [a quarter acre] when we need ten."
"I want to tell the government of Israel that we are part of their state, but they have rejected us." Although the Bedouin have virtually no history of Palestinian nationalism, Ibrahim adds: "Before 1948 [and Israel's establishment as a state after the war of independence] we were Palestinians. When the Israelis came they cancelled our Palestinian identity. I have Israeli ID. I drive a car with Israeli plates. I am a citizen of Israel. But I am a second-class citizen."
The Bedouin deeply fear moving to the seven existing townships, which themselves have only the most minimal of services, established by the state for them in the late Sixties - or another seven long scheduled but not yet built. When Suleiman Abu Steyt, 46, says of the prospect: "Here, I am with my brothers. There I won't know anybody. I don't care if I have to sleep in tents or on the open ground. I am not going", he is touching on something basic to the Bedouin; each village tends to be occupied by one extended family - something which not only stops disputes between families but allows women more freedom since they can go out among their own neighbours in a way they couldn't among strangers -something which in turn underlines the need for primary health care clinics in each village. Clinton Bailey, an American-born Israeli academic and leading expert on Bedouin culture, who agitated on the Bedouins' behalf in the early 1990s, thinks their final destiny will be within the townships. As recently as this year he sought to mediate with the state on behalf of villagers unable to build new homes when they got married. But his recent contacts with government officials dealing with the Bedouin have led him to believe that even Ariel Sharon, despite having been one of the harshest exponents of the Dayan doctrine, sees that carrot as well as stick is needed to effect its goals. He believes that up to $2bn of the $17bn earmarked by Mr Sharon and Shimon Peres for a huge development project to bring more Jewish housing, industry and agriculture to the Negev will be used to ease the removal of the Bedouin from the unrecognised villages. This will be done, for example, by using mediation to process land claims and provide compensation, and ensuring that the second wave of townships are not only built but properly serviced before the Bedouin have to move in. "I am more hopeful than I have been for many years," he says.
Neither his optimism - nor his view of the long-term solution - is shared by groups like PHR which have long campaigned for the villages to be recognised and for services to be provided.
If anything, PHR-Israel's Orly Almi says, "The government is using more force and issuing more demolition orders. And unless the court tells them not to the crop spraying will start again." She adds: "The bigger plan is to implant Judaism in the Negev. It can't be a coincidence that the government often plans Jewish settlements close to where unrecognised villages are." But arguing that there is easily enough room for both to co-exist, she adds: "There is no reason why Jewish communities shouldn't live along aside the Bedouin villages, with both recognised. But that seems to be impossible in Israel."
Also in this section
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
"Blair asked Bush not to bomb al-Jazeera"
Dispatch online
A BRITISH civil servant has been charged under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a government memo that, according to a newspaper report yesterday, suggests that Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded US President George Bush not to bomb the Arab satellite station al-Jazeera.
The Daily Mirror said Bush spoke of targeting al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, when he met Blair at the White House on April 16 last year.
The US government has regularly accused al-Jazeera of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-American sentiments.
Blair's Downing Street office declined to comment stressing it never discussed leaked documents.
In Qatar, al-Jazeera said it was aware of the report, but did not wish to comment at this stage.
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing the memo to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke. Both Keogh and O'Connor are to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, Keogh was charged with an offence under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act relating to "a damaging disclosure" by a servant of the Crown of information relating to international relations or information obtained from a state other than the United Kingdom.
O'Connor was charged under section 5, which relates to receiving and disclosing illegally disclosed information.
According to the newspaper, Clarke returned the memo to Blair's office. Clarke could not immediately be contacted for comment yesterday.
In April 2003, an al-Jazeera journalist died when its Baghdad office was struck during a US bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a US State Department spokesperson said the strike was a mistake.
In November 2002, al-Jazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Al-Jazeera's office.
Peter Kilfoyle, former defence minister in Blair's government, called for the document to be made public. "I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion," he said.
"If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."
Sir Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesperson for the opposition Liberal Democrats said that the memo was worrying.
"If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control," he said.
"On this occasion, the prime minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been." - Sapa-AP
Dispatch online
A BRITISH civil servant has been charged under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a government memo that, according to a newspaper report yesterday, suggests that Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded US President George Bush not to bomb the Arab satellite station al-Jazeera.
The Daily Mirror said Bush spoke of targeting al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, when he met Blair at the White House on April 16 last year.
The US government has regularly accused al-Jazeera of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-American sentiments.
Blair's Downing Street office declined to comment stressing it never discussed leaked documents.
In Qatar, al-Jazeera said it was aware of the report, but did not wish to comment at this stage.
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing the memo to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke. Both Keogh and O'Connor are to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, Keogh was charged with an offence under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act relating to "a damaging disclosure" by a servant of the Crown of information relating to international relations or information obtained from a state other than the United Kingdom.
O'Connor was charged under section 5, which relates to receiving and disclosing illegally disclosed information.
According to the newspaper, Clarke returned the memo to Blair's office. Clarke could not immediately be contacted for comment yesterday.
In April 2003, an al-Jazeera journalist died when its Baghdad office was struck during a US bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a US State Department spokesperson said the strike was a mistake.
In November 2002, al-Jazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Al-Jazeera's office.
Peter Kilfoyle, former defence minister in Blair's government, called for the document to be made public. "I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion," he said.
"If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."
Sir Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesperson for the opposition Liberal Democrats said that the memo was worrying.
"If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control," he said.
"On this occasion, the prime minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been." - Sapa-AP
Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian
The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.
Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that the US president last year planned to attack the Arabic television station al-Jazeera, which has its headquarters in Doha, the capital of Qatar, where US and British bombers were based.
Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".
Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.
The Mirror said the memo turned up in May last year at the constituency office of the former Labour MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke. Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.
Mr Clarke said yesterday that Mr O'Connor "did the right thing" by drawing the document to his attention. Mr Clarke, an anti-war MP who lost his seat at the last election, returned the document to the government. "As well as an MP, I am a special constable," he said.
Both men were released on police bail last Thursday to appear at Bow Street magistrates court on November 29. When they were charged, newspapers reported that the memo contained a transcript of a discussion between Mr Blair and Mr Bush.
The conversation was understood to have taken place during a meeting in the US. It is believed to reveal that Mr Blair disagreed with Mr Bush about aspects of the Iraq war. There was widespread comment at the time that the British government was angry about US military tactics there, particularly in the city of Falluja.
Charges under the secrets act have to have the consent of the attorney-general. His intervention yesterday suggests that the prosecution plans to ask the judge to hold part, if not all of the trial, in camera, with the public and press excluded.
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian
The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.
Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that the US president last year planned to attack the Arabic television station al-Jazeera, which has its headquarters in Doha, the capital of Qatar, where US and British bombers were based.
Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".
Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.
The Mirror said the memo turned up in May last year at the constituency office of the former Labour MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke. Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.
Mr Clarke said yesterday that Mr O'Connor "did the right thing" by drawing the document to his attention. Mr Clarke, an anti-war MP who lost his seat at the last election, returned the document to the government. "As well as an MP, I am a special constable," he said.
Both men were released on police bail last Thursday to appear at Bow Street magistrates court on November 29. When they were charged, newspapers reported that the memo contained a transcript of a discussion between Mr Blair and Mr Bush.
The conversation was understood to have taken place during a meeting in the US. It is believed to reveal that Mr Blair disagreed with Mr Bush about aspects of the Iraq war. There was widespread comment at the time that the British government was angry about US military tactics there, particularly in the city of Falluja.
Charges under the secrets act have to have the consent of the attorney-general. His intervention yesterday suggests that the prosecution plans to ask the judge to hold part, if not all of the trial, in camera, with the public and press excluded.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Donald Macintyre: Jerusalem stories
Independent on Sunday. Published: 13 November 2005
No to Starbucks
It says something about the stubbornness of Jerusalem's coffee drinkers that Starbucks has, not for want of trying, totally failed to penetrate the city. Howard Schulz, chairman of that most global of companies, is well known for his passionately pro-Israel views. But this has cut no ice with Israelis in Jewish West Jerusalem. In the past 15 years or so - after a long, bleak period when Nescafé and a muddy concoction that constituted the Israeli version of Turkish coffee were all that was available - the city has spawned an excellent home-grown espresso bar culture. In a short stretch of Emek Refaim, the main street of the German colony, there are half a dozen first-rate cafés, each with its own distinctive character. Clients frequently spend the entire morning there working on their laptops. One, Aroma, is even open on Saturdays, when it is always packed. (My favourite in East Jerusalem is the elegant El Dorado, which gives you a chocolate with your Arabic coffee or espresso and where the orange juice is always freshly squeezed.) Who needs Starbucks?
Vicious cycle
It's odd, but petty crime still comes as a surprise here. A bicycle I bought while I was covering the Israeli disengagement from Gaza was unharmed during a week in the now destroyed settlement of Neve Dekalim, and then for a month outside a municipal building in southern Israel. I eventually brought it back to Jerusalem and, ignoring all the warnings, locked it to the railings opposite my flat, only to find the next day that the front wheel had been stolen. Before I had time to take it to the shop I bought it from, the rest of the bike had gone too. But then the city has always combined worldliness with holiness. I had only been here a week or so when the well-known Jewish lawyer Danny Seidmann told me cheerfully, if dispiritingly for a journalist, that "everyone lies in Jerusalem".
Independent on Sunday. Published: 13 November 2005
No to Starbucks
It says something about the stubbornness of Jerusalem's coffee drinkers that Starbucks has, not for want of trying, totally failed to penetrate the city. Howard Schulz, chairman of that most global of companies, is well known for his passionately pro-Israel views. But this has cut no ice with Israelis in Jewish West Jerusalem. In the past 15 years or so - after a long, bleak period when Nescafé and a muddy concoction that constituted the Israeli version of Turkish coffee were all that was available - the city has spawned an excellent home-grown espresso bar culture. In a short stretch of Emek Refaim, the main street of the German colony, there are half a dozen first-rate cafés, each with its own distinctive character. Clients frequently spend the entire morning there working on their laptops. One, Aroma, is even open on Saturdays, when it is always packed. (My favourite in East Jerusalem is the elegant El Dorado, which gives you a chocolate with your Arabic coffee or espresso and where the orange juice is always freshly squeezed.) Who needs Starbucks?
Vicious cycle
It's odd, but petty crime still comes as a surprise here. A bicycle I bought while I was covering the Israeli disengagement from Gaza was unharmed during a week in the now destroyed settlement of Neve Dekalim, and then for a month outside a municipal building in southern Israel. I eventually brought it back to Jerusalem and, ignoring all the warnings, locked it to the railings opposite my flat, only to find the next day that the front wheel had been stolen. Before I had time to take it to the shop I bought it from, the rest of the bike had gone too. But then the city has always combined worldliness with holiness. I had only been here a week or so when the well-known Jewish lawyer Danny Seidmann told me cheerfully, if dispiritingly for a journalist, that "everyone lies in Jerusalem".
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Some Israeli press cuttings on the victory of Amir Peretz
A Moroccan to Head Labor?
By: Alon Abutbul
The truth must told: Our Ashkenazi brothers in the Labor Party can't stomach the thought that a dark-skinned Moroccan, with a thick mustache to boot, could possibly lead the party.
At the moment of truth, they all folded and fell in behind the Old Man. They are trying to stop the clock. Anything but change.
It's obvious. Most people harbor a deep-rooted fear of change.
But the Labor Party is sick. It's got a chronic disease, but refuses to die. At the same time, it refuses to live. It desperately needs change.
How many people I know well will vote today for the Labor Party today! Once we sat together, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, dreaming of revolution within the party. Together, we hoped, planned, and looked for ways to turn this faltering party into a real political force, offering a real alternative to the existing government.
Together, we discussed ways to change the face of the Labor Party, ways to bring quality young people into the party and to fight our revulsion from politics and politicians.
We talked about beating apathy and despair and corruption. We wanted a real voice in the party, influence and to make our lives here in Israel better, for ourselves and for our children.
We tried to find original ways to meld the old with the new, and we all agreed it was time to rid ourselves of Shimon Peres. His time has passed; we just didn't know just who to should take his place. It's a real crisis of leadership. We'd hoped to find new blood before we, too, get old.
It's unbelievable, but the same people who came seeking real change will stand today at the voting booth to vote for a man whose honor, like his shame, are long gone. It is complete insanity.
On the other hand, I can imagine how all this happened - the process by which they changed their minds and abandoned their demands for radical change – because they've had enough of the bureaucratic politics of the Labor Party – to adopt a conservative, fearful position.
And when I ask for reasons, they mumble, "I don't want to see Amir Peretz head the party." And when I ask why not, I hear, "Amir Peretz will send the party backwards, to the days of (now-defunct Labor predecessor) Mapai."
And we are left with a paradox: The archaic Peres, well into his 80s, is perceived as modern and enlightened, while Peretz, a man in his 50s, full of life, at the height of his strength and energy, a man who represents action, a representative who is relevant and modern, in all areas – political, social and economic- and who brought new color and fresh voice to the Labor Party, is viewed as someone who will drive the party backwards. Amazing.
It's incredible how when the moment of truth arrives, all of kinds of excuses suddenly appear to explain how and why the representative from Sderot, who speaks loud and clear and with a terrific accent, will drive the party backwards. He's primitive, no?
Without question, they will say: Peretz sent Abutbul to raise the ethnic ghost (as if Abutbul must certainly not have capable of independent thought. How could he? He's primitive, no?)
But it's not true. Peretz couldn't, and wouldn't want, to bring up the ethnic issue.
My brothers: you Ashkenazim have an ethnic ghost to deal with. He jumps and disrupts, warns and threatens, every time that Peretz, or any other Sephardi comes close to a real place of influence in the party.
Maybe this time you won't be afraid of change. Don't be afraid of the black man.
From Ynet News, November 9, 2005
Peretz Vows to Achieve Peace, Security for Israel
By: Yair Ettniger, Mazal Mualem and Daniel Ben-Simon
Several hours after he was announced as the new leader of the Labor Party, Histadrut Chairman Amir Peretz on Thursday returned to his political roots to outline his political vision as the Labor candidate for premiership.
The victory is an unexpected result and a blow to the Labor old guard by Histadrut labor federation chairman Amir Peretz who was named Thursday morning the new chairman of the Labor Party, defeating the incumbent and favorite, Vice Premier Shimon Peres.
Speaking near the grave of slain prime minister Yitzhak Rabin at the Mount Hertzl cemetery in Jerusalem, Peretz stressed that reaching a peace accord with the Palestinians is at the top of his political priority list.
"We will not rest until we reach a permanent agreement (with the Palestinians) that would secure a safe future for our children and that would provide us with renewed hope to live in a region where people lead a life of cooperation and not, God forbid, where blood is shed from time to time," Peretz said.
The new Labor chairman emphasized this move is a direct continuation of Rabin's political heritage: "I came today to make a vow to Rabin, once again, that I intend to do everything I can to continue his way, I intend to do everything I can so that [Rabin's] assassin would know he failed to murder peace."
Peretz recounted his long tenure as a loyal supporter of the late prime minister: "I was by Rabin's side in the days he struggled for his place in Israeli politics, I was with him in his days of isolation, and also in the days of overwhelming support from the people of Israel when they flooded him with warmth and admiration. I was also next to him on that dreadful night when we lost Yitzhak (Rabin) in the murder that shocked Israel and sought to severe and end his life and his way."
Soon after the official results were announced, the new Labor chief quickly reiterated his intention of pulling the party out of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government, propelling the country into political disarray and advancing the likelihood of early general elections.
"We will notify the prime minister that we want to leave. We want to leave... certainly out of a desire to turn the Labor Party into an alternative that intends to take power in the next elections," he said.
"Amir will discuss with the prime minister an agreed date for an election," said Yuli Tamir, a Labor legislator and Peretz supporter.
Winner of a tightly-run race
The voting result, which came at dawn, followed a tightly-run race between the two opponents, which initially showed a slight lead for Peres.
Peretz, a fiery union leader, wants to steer the party back to its socialist roots, pull out of the coalition and force early elections. His message has resonated with Israelis disenfranchised by government cuts in social spending and the country's growing gap between rich and poor.
Shortly after 6 A.M., amid cheering from Peretz's supporters, Labor Secretary-General Eitan Cabel announced that Peretz had won with 42.35 percent of the votes, while Peres was backed by 39.96 percent of voters. In third place was Benjamin Ben Eliezer, with 16.82 percent of the vote.
Cabel was quick to rebuff claims of fraud and irregularities in the elections, which caused Peres to issue a last minute call for a halt in the count.
The release of the vote's final results was stalled by several hours as the Labor election committee, led by Cabel, headed early Thursday morning to the vote counting center in Petah Tikva after several claims of fraud in polling stations.
Peres appeals against results
In a pre-dawn press conference, Peres called on Labor's legal institutions to look into claims of severe irregularities in polling stations in Sderot and Be'er Sheva, two Peretz strongholds.
Some of the vote results "raised exceptional doubts," Peres said. "It is unreasonable that in communities where I had a majority I have now dropped to seven votes."
"I expected a better evening," Peres said.
Sitting alongside Peres, former prime minister Ehud Barak said the outcome of the primaries did not reflect the will of the party's voters.
But several hours later, the election committee announced it had rejected Peres' claims of fraud and okayed the completing of the counting of the votes in the remaining 13 polling stations from a total of 318.
Peretz did not immediately respond to the accusations, but his supporters were already claiming victory.
The Peretz camp erupted into celebrations when the Histadrut chief took the lead in the vote count early Thursday, and Israel Radio said he was headed to party headquarters to make an announcement. The uncounted districts were believed to favor Peretz, and Israeli radio stations said his victory was imminent.
Implications for government
The outcome of the vote will have wide-ranging implications for the future of Sharon's shaky governing coalition, in which Labor is the junior member.
Peres had said that he would keep Labor in the government until the next elections scheduled in November 2006.
The 82-year-old politician led Labor into the government this year to shore up support for Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The pullout divided Sharon's Likud Party, and without Labor support, the plan could not have been carried out.
From Haaretz, November 10, 2005
A Moroccan to Head Labor?
By: Alon Abutbul
The truth must told: Our Ashkenazi brothers in the Labor Party can't stomach the thought that a dark-skinned Moroccan, with a thick mustache to boot, could possibly lead the party.
At the moment of truth, they all folded and fell in behind the Old Man. They are trying to stop the clock. Anything but change.
It's obvious. Most people harbor a deep-rooted fear of change.
But the Labor Party is sick. It's got a chronic disease, but refuses to die. At the same time, it refuses to live. It desperately needs change.
How many people I know well will vote today for the Labor Party today! Once we sat together, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, dreaming of revolution within the party. Together, we hoped, planned, and looked for ways to turn this faltering party into a real political force, offering a real alternative to the existing government.
Together, we discussed ways to change the face of the Labor Party, ways to bring quality young people into the party and to fight our revulsion from politics and politicians.
We talked about beating apathy and despair and corruption. We wanted a real voice in the party, influence and to make our lives here in Israel better, for ourselves and for our children.
We tried to find original ways to meld the old with the new, and we all agreed it was time to rid ourselves of Shimon Peres. His time has passed; we just didn't know just who to should take his place. It's a real crisis of leadership. We'd hoped to find new blood before we, too, get old.
It's unbelievable, but the same people who came seeking real change will stand today at the voting booth to vote for a man whose honor, like his shame, are long gone. It is complete insanity.
On the other hand, I can imagine how all this happened - the process by which they changed their minds and abandoned their demands for radical change – because they've had enough of the bureaucratic politics of the Labor Party – to adopt a conservative, fearful position.
And when I ask for reasons, they mumble, "I don't want to see Amir Peretz head the party." And when I ask why not, I hear, "Amir Peretz will send the party backwards, to the days of (now-defunct Labor predecessor) Mapai."
And we are left with a paradox: The archaic Peres, well into his 80s, is perceived as modern and enlightened, while Peretz, a man in his 50s, full of life, at the height of his strength and energy, a man who represents action, a representative who is relevant and modern, in all areas – political, social and economic- and who brought new color and fresh voice to the Labor Party, is viewed as someone who will drive the party backwards. Amazing.
It's incredible how when the moment of truth arrives, all of kinds of excuses suddenly appear to explain how and why the representative from Sderot, who speaks loud and clear and with a terrific accent, will drive the party backwards. He's primitive, no?
Without question, they will say: Peretz sent Abutbul to raise the ethnic ghost (as if Abutbul must certainly not have capable of independent thought. How could he? He's primitive, no?)
But it's not true. Peretz couldn't, and wouldn't want, to bring up the ethnic issue.
My brothers: you Ashkenazim have an ethnic ghost to deal with. He jumps and disrupts, warns and threatens, every time that Peretz, or any other Sephardi comes close to a real place of influence in the party.
Maybe this time you won't be afraid of change. Don't be afraid of the black man.
From Ynet News, November 9, 2005
Peretz Vows to Achieve Peace, Security for Israel
By: Yair Ettniger, Mazal Mualem and Daniel Ben-Simon
Several hours after he was announced as the new leader of the Labor Party, Histadrut Chairman Amir Peretz on Thursday returned to his political roots to outline his political vision as the Labor candidate for premiership.
The victory is an unexpected result and a blow to the Labor old guard by Histadrut labor federation chairman Amir Peretz who was named Thursday morning the new chairman of the Labor Party, defeating the incumbent and favorite, Vice Premier Shimon Peres.
Speaking near the grave of slain prime minister Yitzhak Rabin at the Mount Hertzl cemetery in Jerusalem, Peretz stressed that reaching a peace accord with the Palestinians is at the top of his political priority list.
"We will not rest until we reach a permanent agreement (with the Palestinians) that would secure a safe future for our children and that would provide us with renewed hope to live in a region where people lead a life of cooperation and not, God forbid, where blood is shed from time to time," Peretz said.
The new Labor chairman emphasized this move is a direct continuation of Rabin's political heritage: "I came today to make a vow to Rabin, once again, that I intend to do everything I can to continue his way, I intend to do everything I can so that [Rabin's] assassin would know he failed to murder peace."
Peretz recounted his long tenure as a loyal supporter of the late prime minister: "I was by Rabin's side in the days he struggled for his place in Israeli politics, I was with him in his days of isolation, and also in the days of overwhelming support from the people of Israel when they flooded him with warmth and admiration. I was also next to him on that dreadful night when we lost Yitzhak (Rabin) in the murder that shocked Israel and sought to severe and end his life and his way."
Soon after the official results were announced, the new Labor chief quickly reiterated his intention of pulling the party out of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government, propelling the country into political disarray and advancing the likelihood of early general elections.
"We will notify the prime minister that we want to leave. We want to leave... certainly out of a desire to turn the Labor Party into an alternative that intends to take power in the next elections," he said.
"Amir will discuss with the prime minister an agreed date for an election," said Yuli Tamir, a Labor legislator and Peretz supporter.
Winner of a tightly-run race
The voting result, which came at dawn, followed a tightly-run race between the two opponents, which initially showed a slight lead for Peres.
Peretz, a fiery union leader, wants to steer the party back to its socialist roots, pull out of the coalition and force early elections. His message has resonated with Israelis disenfranchised by government cuts in social spending and the country's growing gap between rich and poor.
Shortly after 6 A.M., amid cheering from Peretz's supporters, Labor Secretary-General Eitan Cabel announced that Peretz had won with 42.35 percent of the votes, while Peres was backed by 39.96 percent of voters. In third place was Benjamin Ben Eliezer, with 16.82 percent of the vote.
Cabel was quick to rebuff claims of fraud and irregularities in the elections, which caused Peres to issue a last minute call for a halt in the count.
The release of the vote's final results was stalled by several hours as the Labor election committee, led by Cabel, headed early Thursday morning to the vote counting center in Petah Tikva after several claims of fraud in polling stations.
Peres appeals against results
In a pre-dawn press conference, Peres called on Labor's legal institutions to look into claims of severe irregularities in polling stations in Sderot and Be'er Sheva, two Peretz strongholds.
Some of the vote results "raised exceptional doubts," Peres said. "It is unreasonable that in communities where I had a majority I have now dropped to seven votes."
"I expected a better evening," Peres said.
Sitting alongside Peres, former prime minister Ehud Barak said the outcome of the primaries did not reflect the will of the party's voters.
But several hours later, the election committee announced it had rejected Peres' claims of fraud and okayed the completing of the counting of the votes in the remaining 13 polling stations from a total of 318.
Peretz did not immediately respond to the accusations, but his supporters were already claiming victory.
The Peretz camp erupted into celebrations when the Histadrut chief took the lead in the vote count early Thursday, and Israel Radio said he was headed to party headquarters to make an announcement. The uncounted districts were believed to favor Peretz, and Israeli radio stations said his victory was imminent.
Implications for government
The outcome of the vote will have wide-ranging implications for the future of Sharon's shaky governing coalition, in which Labor is the junior member.
Peres had said that he would keep Labor in the government until the next elections scheduled in November 2006.
The 82-year-old politician led Labor into the government this year to shore up support for Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The pullout divided Sharon's Likud Party, and without Labor support, the plan could not have been carried out.
From Haaretz, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Leaflet for counter-picket against Zionist Federation picket of Rachel Corrie cantata at the Hackney Empire
Jews Against Zionism –
Zionism Against Palestinians
Jews Against Zionism is proud to be here this evening to honour the memory of a brave young woman, murdered while defending Palestinian civilians from Israeli brutality. Rachel Corrie’s death has become a symbol of the aggression of the Israeli regime, and of the worldwide support for the rights of the Palestinian people.
There are some, however, who are trying to exploit this opportunity in order to justify Rachel’s murderers and to defame her supporters. The Zionist Federation, who are demonstrating against this concert, are brazenly attempting to portray themselves, and their Israeli sponsors, as the victims in this situation.
Since the start of the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, in September 2000, the Palestinians have suffered on a horrific scale. Over 3700 Palestinians have been killed, including 700 children. Over 30,000 have been injured. At least 5000 homes have been demolished, tens of thousands of olive trees have been uprooted, and hundreds of thousands of acres of Palestinian land stolen. In recent weeks, Israel has expropriated more land in the West Bank than it gave up in the withdrawal from Gaza, in preparation for the further expansion of illegal settlements. In these circumstances, the insistence of the Zionist Federation that Israel is the victim rather than the aggressor is an act of criminal cynicism.
Jews Against Zionism rejects the pretensions of the Zionist Federation, and the state of Israel, to speak and act in the name of all Jews. We recognise the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people as a result of the establishment of the state of Israel, which has led to their dispossession, partition and oppression. We oppose the racism and oppression of the state of Israel, and advocate a unitary, secular and democratic Palestine, the return of Palestinian refugees, and full and equal rights for Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and all other people living in the whole of Palestine.
Jews Against Zionism, info@jewsagainstzionism.org 1 November 2005
Side 2
Jews Against Zionism –
Zionism Against Jews
As anti-Zionist Jews, we recognise the enormous suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Zionist movement. We stand alongside them in their struggle for return and self-determination, and against the brutal occupation and the racist state of Israel. We work for a future Palestine in which Palestinians, Israelis and others, of any religion or none, Arabic or Hebrew speaking, will live in equality.
In addition to our principled support for the Palestinian struggle for justice, we have a further reason for our opposition to Zionism. We consider Zionism to be a movement which is racist, in its views and its practices, towards Jews as well as non-Jews.
Although Zionism purports to be a reaction to racism, particularly towards the murderous European anti-Jewish horrors of the 19th and 20th centuries, in reality it represents a capitulation to this racism. The Zionist movement argued that Jews could not fight against European racism. The only possible response was to leave Europe, and to establish an exclusive Jewish state. Many Zionists even argued that anti-Jewish racism was justified, since European Jews led abnormal lives, and could not be absorbed into European society.
There is a long and shameful history of collaboration between the Zionist movement and the most notorious antisemites, who shared the common aim of removing the Jews from Europe and transferring them to the Middle East, where they would themselves become oppressors of the Palestinian people.
Despite this record, the Zionists are now trying to brand legitimate opposition to Israel as “antisemitism”, and have even called for European states to ban anti-Zionism. Jews Against Zionism, alongside other progressive Jewish organisations, opposes this call. We assert our right to oppose Zionism, and its expression in the state of Israel, as a racist and oppressive movement, whose victims are Palestinians and Jews alike.
Jews Against Zionism –
Zionism Against Palestinians
Jews Against Zionism is proud to be here this evening to honour the memory of a brave young woman, murdered while defending Palestinian civilians from Israeli brutality. Rachel Corrie’s death has become a symbol of the aggression of the Israeli regime, and of the worldwide support for the rights of the Palestinian people.
There are some, however, who are trying to exploit this opportunity in order to justify Rachel’s murderers and to defame her supporters. The Zionist Federation, who are demonstrating against this concert, are brazenly attempting to portray themselves, and their Israeli sponsors, as the victims in this situation.
Since the start of the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation, in September 2000, the Palestinians have suffered on a horrific scale. Over 3700 Palestinians have been killed, including 700 children. Over 30,000 have been injured. At least 5000 homes have been demolished, tens of thousands of olive trees have been uprooted, and hundreds of thousands of acres of Palestinian land stolen. In recent weeks, Israel has expropriated more land in the West Bank than it gave up in the withdrawal from Gaza, in preparation for the further expansion of illegal settlements. In these circumstances, the insistence of the Zionist Federation that Israel is the victim rather than the aggressor is an act of criminal cynicism.
Jews Against Zionism rejects the pretensions of the Zionist Federation, and the state of Israel, to speak and act in the name of all Jews. We recognise the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people as a result of the establishment of the state of Israel, which has led to their dispossession, partition and oppression. We oppose the racism and oppression of the state of Israel, and advocate a unitary, secular and democratic Palestine, the return of Palestinian refugees, and full and equal rights for Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and all other people living in the whole of Palestine.
Jews Against Zionism, info@jewsagainstzionism.org 1 November 2005
Side 2
Jews Against Zionism –
Zionism Against Jews
As anti-Zionist Jews, we recognise the enormous suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Zionist movement. We stand alongside them in their struggle for return and self-determination, and against the brutal occupation and the racist state of Israel. We work for a future Palestine in which Palestinians, Israelis and others, of any religion or none, Arabic or Hebrew speaking, will live in equality.
In addition to our principled support for the Palestinian struggle for justice, we have a further reason for our opposition to Zionism. We consider Zionism to be a movement which is racist, in its views and its practices, towards Jews as well as non-Jews.
Although Zionism purports to be a reaction to racism, particularly towards the murderous European anti-Jewish horrors of the 19th and 20th centuries, in reality it represents a capitulation to this racism. The Zionist movement argued that Jews could not fight against European racism. The only possible response was to leave Europe, and to establish an exclusive Jewish state. Many Zionists even argued that anti-Jewish racism was justified, since European Jews led abnormal lives, and could not be absorbed into European society.
There is a long and shameful history of collaboration between the Zionist movement and the most notorious antisemites, who shared the common aim of removing the Jews from Europe and transferring them to the Middle East, where they would themselves become oppressors of the Palestinian people.
Despite this record, the Zionists are now trying to brand legitimate opposition to Israel as “antisemitism”, and have even called for European states to ban anti-Zionism. Jews Against Zionism, alongside other progressive Jewish organisations, opposes this call. We assert our right to oppose Zionism, and its expression in the state of Israel, as a racist and oppressive movement, whose victims are Palestinians and Jews alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
