Madison-Rafah Journal

Ron Brynaert, Raw Story, Nov 27, 2006

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli "domination" over Palestinians "atrocious" during an interview Monday on ABC's Good Morning America, RAW STORY has learned.

Appearing on the morning talk show to promote his new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter dismissed criticism by some Democrats that his book comes down too harshly on America's key ally in the Middle East.

Robin Roberts told Carter that "many people find surprising that you come down a little hard on Israel, and that there have been some key Democrats who have distanced themselves a little bit from your view on Israel."

"In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said 'it is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based suppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,'" Roberts said. "What is your response to that?"

(Read on …)

According to Ali Abunimah, author of the recently released book One Country, the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has proven to be the least pragmatic and workable of all options. In his book Abunimah proposes an alternative solution: one state shared by two peoples. During a 17 November 2006 Palestine Center briefing he explains how he reached that conclusion, and the geographic, economic and security reasons why a one-state solution is best for both peoples. He also discusses the experiences and lessons to be learned from South Africa, and concludes that to achieve peace in the region a unifying vision and justice for the Palestinians is needed.

“For the Record” No. 267 (28 November 2006)

The Palestine Center
Washington, DC
17 November 2006

(Read on …)

JOHN DUGARD, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov 29, 2006

Former President Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," is igniting controversy for its allegation that Israel practices a form of apartheid.

As a South African and former anti-apartheid advocate who visits the Palestinian territories regularly to assess the human rights situation for the U.N. Human Rights Council, the comparison to South African apartheid is of special interest to me.

On the face of it, the two regimes are very different. Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial discrimination that the white minority in South Africa employed to maintain power over the black majority. It was characterized by the denial of political rights to blacks, the fragmentation of the country into white areas and black areas (called Bantustans) and by the imposition on blacks of restrictive measures designed to achieve white superiority, racial separation and white security.

The "pass system," which sought to prevent the free movement of blacks and to restrict their entry to the cities, was rigorously enforced. Blacks were forcibly "relocated," and they were denied access to most public amenities and to many forms of employment. The system was enforced by a brutal security apparatus in which torture played a significant role.

(Read on …)

In tens of thousands of homes in the West Bank live others, who may have not ended up in the hospital, but who every day accumulate harsh impressions of the nature and behavior of almost the only Israelis whom they encounter - the soldiers at the checkpoints.

Amira Hass, Haaretz, 29 Nov 2006 (Read on …)

Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:15:25 +0200
From: "Gila Svirsky"
Subject: Ceasefire and the Gaza Campaign

Friends,

Yes, the ceasefire is a good thing. Let’s hope that it will be maintained and then expanded into full-fledged negotiations for peace.

The ceasefire, however, does nothing to relieve the ongoing, terrible siege of Gaza.

The siege began some six months ago in response to the election of Hamas. In an effort to cut off the financial resources of the Hamas government – to avoid funding terrorism, as it is usually termed - the international community isolated Palestine by placing an embargo on trade and banking and by severely reducing international aid. Israel tightened the noose by further constraining travel within Palestine, curtailing almost all entry to and exit from the Gaza Strip, and withholding the taxes that it collects for the Palestinian authority.

The result has been chaos, violence, and poverty, and these have fueled each other. The Israeli army rained shells down upon the Gazans, while Palestinian militants increased the barrage of Qassam missiles into nearby Israeli towns. In the last four months alone, some 400 Gazans were killed by Israeli firepower, two Israelis were killed by Palestinian firepower, and children on both sides are now traumatized for the rest of their lives.

So while a ceasefire is a blessing, the siege remains in force, withering the Gazan economy: 80% of Gazans now live in poverty on less than $2 a day. In a shocking reversal of “economic growth”, the World Bank predicts a drop of 27% in this year's gross domestic product: "a one year contraction of economic activity equivalent to a deep depression" See www.WHO.int.

(Read on …)

A Joint Statement by Israel's Leading Human Rights Organizations

16 November, 2006

Nine Israeli human rights organizations issued an unprecedented joint call to the international community to ensure human rights in the Gaza Strip. The statement comes in light of the dire humanitarian situation there:

· Some 80% of the population is extremely poor, living on less than $2 a day. A majority of the population is dependant on food aid from international donors.

· In the past four months, the Israeli military has killed over 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Over half of those killed were unarmed civilians who did not participate in the fighting. Among the dead, 61 were children.

· About 70% of Gaza’s potential workforce is out of work or without pay.

· On 28 June, Israel bombed Gaza's only independent power station, which produced 43% of the electricity needed by the residents in Gaza. Since then, most of the population has electricity between 6 and 8 hours each day, with disastrous consequences on water supply, sewage treatment, food storage, hospital functioning and public health.

(Read on …)

Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz, November 27, 2006

The Military Advocate General, Brigadier General Avihai Mandelblit, has instructed military police investigators to open a probe into the question of whether Israel Defense Force soldiers bear criminal responsibility in the shooting of a 24-year-old American citizen and leftist activist in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2003.

The investigation was opened almost two years after Brian Avery, of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), petitioned the High Court of Justice for a criminal probe in his case, and after both Mandelblit and his predecessor, Major General (res.) Menachem Finkelstein, refused to order such a probe, arguing that the military investigation after the incident should suffice.

Avery, from New Mexico, came to Jenin as part of his work with the ISM in April 2003. He extended humanitarian aid to local residents, among other things, assisting doctors treating the residents. On Saturday April 5, Avery and his flatmate, Jan Tobias Carlson, heard shooting. When the shooting stopped, the two called other activists and went to find out if anyone had been injured. According to testimony by ISM members present at the scene, Avery was standing under a streetlight and wearing a red vest with the words "doctor" on it in English and Hebrew on front and back. Four eye-witnesses said an IDF armored personnel carrier (APC) and a tank came into the street, and Avery and his companions raised their hands to show they were unarmed. The witnesses said the APC and the tank continued to approach Avery and when they were a few dozen meters away, the APC opened fire and shot about 30 bullets. Avery was hit in the face, his cheek was torn, and his eye-socket, mouth and jaw bones were smashed.

The IDF probe stated there was no proof the shooting had been by IDF soldiers.

In the petition, Avery's attorney, Michael Sfard, said an operational investigation by the IDF was "not a reliable tool," adding that "in a number of cases soldiers have been cleared, while the military police investigation revealed incriminating evidence and resulted in harsh indictments."

(Read on …)