This fall, I began my first lecture on Eurocentrism by asking my students, How Eurocentric is your day? I explained what I wanted to hear from them. Can they get through a typical day without running into ideas, institutions, values, technologies and products that originated outside the West – in China, India, the Islamicate or Africa?

The question befuddled my students. I proceeded to pepper them with questions about the things they do during a typical day, from the time they wake up.

Unbeknownst, my students discover that they wake up in ‘pajamas,’ trousers of Indian origin with an Urdu-Persian name. Out of bed, they shower with soap and shampoo, whose origins go back to the Middle East and India. Their tooth brush with bristles was invented in China in the fifteenth century. At some point after waking up, my students use toilet paper and tissue, also Chinese inventions of great antiquity.

Do the lives of my students rise to Eurocentric purity once they step out of the toilet and enter into the more serious business of going about their lives? Not quite.

I walk my student through her breakfast. Most likely, this consists of cereals, coffee and orange juice, with sugar added to the bargain. None originated in Europe. Cereals were first cultivated in the Fertile Crescent some ten thousand years BCE. Coffee, orange and sugar still carry – in their etymology – telltale signs of their origins, going back to the Arabs, Ethiopians and Indians. Try to imagine your life without these stimulants and sources of calories.

How far could my students go without the alphabet, numbers and paper? Yet, the alphabet came to Europe courtesy of the ancient Phoenicians. As their name suggests, the Arabic numerals were brought to Europe by the Arabs, who, in turn, had obtained it from the Indians. Paper came from China, also brought to Europe by the Muslims.

Obstinately, my students’ day refuses to get off to a dignified Eurocentric start.

In her prayer, my Christian student turns to a God who – in his human form – walked the earth in Palestine and spoke Aramaic, a close cousin of Arabic. When her thoughts turn to afterlife, my student thinks of the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, concepts borrowed from the ancient Egyptians and Persians. ‘Paradise’ entered into English, via Greek, from the ancient Avestan pairidaeza.

 Of medieval origin, the college was inspired and, most likely, modeled after the madrasa or Islamic college, first set up by a Seljuk vizier in eleventh century Baghdad. In a nod to this connection, professors at universities still hold a ‘chair,’ a practice that goes back to the madrasa, where the teacher alone sat in a chair while his students sat around him on rugs.

When she finishes college and prepares to receive her baccalaureate at the graduation ceremony, our student might do well to acknowledge another forgotten connection to the madrasa. This diploma harks back to the ijaza – Arabic for license – given to students who graduated from madrasas in the Islamicate.

Our student runs into fields of study – algebra, trigonometry, astronomy, chemistry, medicine and philosophy – that were introduced, via Latin, to Western Europe from the Islamicate. She also encounters a variety of scientific terms – algorithm, alkali, borax, amalgam, alembic, amber, calibrate, azimuth and nadir – which have Arabic roots.

If my students play chess over the weekend and threaten the King with ‘check mate,’ that phrase is adapted from Farsi – Shah maat – for ‘the King is helpless, defeated.’

When she uses coins, paper currency or writes a check, she is using forms of money first used outside Europe. Gold bars were first used as coins in Egypt in the fourth millennium BCE. With astonishment, Marco Polo records the use of paper currency in China, and describes how the paper used as currency was made from the bark of mulberry trees.

At college, my student will learn about modernity, ostensibly the source and foundation of the power and the riches of Western nations. Her professors in sociology will claim that laws based on reasoning, the abolition of priesthood, the scientific method, and secularism – hallmarks of modernity – are entirely of Western origin.  Are they?

During the eighteenth century, many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers were keenly aware that Chinese had preceded them in their emphasis on reasoning by some two millennia. By the end of this century, however, a more muscular, more confident Europe chose to erase their debt to China from its collective memory.

Similarly, Islam, in the seventh century, made a more radical break from priesthood than the Reformation in Europe. In the eleventh century, an Arab scientist, Alhazen – his Latinized name – devised numerous experiments to test his theories in optics, but, more importantly, theorized cogently about the scientific method in his writings. Roger Bacon, the putative ‘founder’ of the scientific method, had read Alhazen in a Latin translation.

When our student reads the sonnets of Shakespeare and Spenser, she is little aware that the tradition of courtly love they celebrate comes via Provencal and the troubadours (derived from taraba, Arabic for ‘to sing’) from Arab traditions of love, music and poetry. When our male student gets down on one knee while proposing to his fair lady, he might do well to remember this.

On a clear night, with a telescope on her dormitory rooftop, our student can watch stars, many of which still carry Arabic names. This might be a fitting closure to a day in the life of our student, who, more likely than not, remains Eurocentric in her understanding of world history, little aware of the multifarious bonds that connect her life to different parts of the ‘Orient.’

M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics, Northeastern University, Boston. He is the author of Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism (Palgrave Macmillan: 2009). You may contact him at alqalam02760@yahoo.com .

http://us.macmillan.com/israeliexceptionalism (check out this book!)

WRITTEN BY Saed Bannoura – IMEMC News   
Despite the outcry raised by Palestinian and international human rights organizations, the Israeli military announced this weekend it plans to go ahead with 55 home demolitions in Nablus — a city deep inside the West Bank which is supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

The homes in question are located in the Sawiya district in the city of Nablus, in the northern West Bank, an area with few Israeli settlements — although Israeli settlers have announced plans to expand the settlements located there. 

“The Israeli decision constitutes a serious turning point in the development of Israeli attacks on Palestinian human rights,” said the Center for Human Rights and Democracy in a statement released on Friday.  The group said that it is concerned that these 55 demolitions will set a precedent for further demolitions in areas that are supposed to be under Palestinian control. 

Israeli forces have recently stepped up the rate of home demolitions, mainly in the East Jerusalem area, with the stated aim of creating "facts on the ground" that will be difficult to turn back if peace negotiations begin between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 

Israeli home demolitions of Palestinian homes have been condemned on multiple occasions by the United Nations, as such demolitions are grave violations of international law.  Home demolitions nearly always accompany Israeli construction and expansion of settlement colonies on the areas where the demolitions take place. (end)

The following is a letter sent by a Palestinian to an Israeli activist and forwarded on.

Dearest friends

Reading Al-Jazeera and another Arab website, the people of As-Sawiyah have been shocked to learn of the ruling by the Israeli High Court that 50 homes in As-Sawiyah and Yutma (another village nearby) are fated for demolition by the Israeli authorities.

It must be noted that the Israeli authorities have issued the people living in these homes a warning to stop building and refrain from any additions to the existing structures. The Israeli Civil Administration has directed these people to take up legal procedures in order to obtain permission to protect their homes. I know such procedures have been undertaken since my own sister is one such case. If the Israeli government will go ahead and implement this decision, this will mean despair for these poor families and create a real crisis.

On behalf of all these families I'm turning to you as Israeli friends and legal NGOs, peace activiest, UN, international agencies which offer human rights & legal services, Embassies, Consults also and peace activists to make efforts to spare us such a catastrophe. We invite you to visit tent support which is set up in the our village Assaweyah
My best wishes, 
Abed Khalil

The Nile Water… When would water go after gas to the Zionist state?

What is taking place regarding the Nile’s water is not a simple matter… Without exaggeration… It is as important as war itself…

Lieberman, the foreign minister of the wrathful Zionist entity, is taking a tour around African countries that are connected with the Nile… and before time elapses, and before those who are in charge of us take the initiative to beg peace from Zionists, they have to thoroughly read what is taking place. 

All Arab nationalist forces have to read what is taking place… Because it only concerns the resistance… It is the starting point for controlling the entire region and its resources… It is a water war… We know the historic motto of the “state of the Jews”… From the Nile to the Euphrates… or from the Euphrates the Nile…  Egypt’s great river as said in the Bible… The motto means water… water… And today it means gas and oil too.

Water is a basic necessity after the political and the military for the survival of the “state of the Jews”… which is not hidden from anybody… Zionists want water even if they have to steal it as they stole Arab land… And the Jordan River, the Litany River, Wadi Araba and the West Bank water is their business too, as well as interfering with Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian water matters, which is well known by all. 

Shall Zionism be able to fulfill the geographic dream of establishing a state from the Nile to the Euphrates? But they did not give up their will to achieve the “results of its establishments” even without establishing it… That is controlling the region and its resources, markets and decisions. And if they achieve it they shall control the Nile water and that of the Euphrates too… The Nile is nearer, that is why they want to control its waters. 

The obstacles and prohibitions are not the Egyptian government… Sadat promised it to them. 

The prohibitions and obstacles are due to the stance of the Egyptian people, and objections of some active states and the states of its sources. 

The Egyptian popular stance, which could be handled by the Government tied with the Camp David Agreement, which forms an extension of the Sadat Government since his famous visit to the Zionist entity. 

As for the opposition Africa countries, it is a matter that the Zionist entity shall handle, and for this reason Lieberman’s visit took place in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda.  

Before commenting on the subject it we should give the reader some information:

The countries that have relations with the Nile River are: Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, The Sudan, Eretria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Congo and Egypt the estuary state, that is the end of the river pouring into the Mediterranean sea, after irrigating the Nile Delta and giving it life. The Nile is 6,700 kms long and its arteries measure 3,700 kms, and there are more than ten dams constructed on it and its arteries.

Its volume is more than 84 million cubic meters/year, out of which Egypt’s share is 55 billion, and to know the significance of these figures we have to know that what Egypt takes is 83% of its requirements for irrigation… which forms 80% of its total requirements (which is fulfilled from underground water sources). 

That is what is left for Egypt without sharing it with Zionists, which means that it is not enough for Egypt’s requirements, that is called “The Gift of the Nile”. Egyptian experts figures that Egypt shall suffer a shortage of water by 2017 due to great increase in the population, and the change in environmental conditions, and a possible increase of the upper Nile population consumption.  

Egypt has agreements and accords with the Nile basin countries, which gives Egypt the lion’s share of its waters, and as the 1929 agreements Egypt has a veto right on all future projects that are planned for the upper Nile.

But as for our region it is important to know the following:

·      The Zionist individual who occupies our land consumes 15 times more water than the Arab individual. The ratio differs among Arab citizens between one part of the Arab homeland and another).

·       The Zionist entity is in bad need of the Nile water, and its president Peres suggested to build a pipe from Egypt and the occupation Zionist entity instead of the far away Turkish water, Hertzl too spoke about the matter in 1903 that is, long before stealing Palestine…!

·       The Nile doesn’t simply form a water source, but it forms a means of pressure and extortion that it uses to pressurize Egypt as the Nile forms its most vital element of national security. (More than Sami Shehab’s famous cell during the last Gaza war, which the Egyptian regime claims to be the leader of Hezbollah)! President Al-Bashir said in 1994 that the Zionist entity focuses on the Nile to practice its influence on Egypt. I mention this for the sake of documentation, and we all know what the enemy wants whether they say it or not.

·       The Nile River is the nearest water source to the Zionist enemy, it is only a few dozen kilometers from the Gaza Strip, now the Nile water is 40 kms away from Rafah, that is almost on its border.

·       Anwar As-Sadat promised Zionists in his speech in 1979 in Haifa to give them the Nile water, and said it is presented as a MONUMENT TO THE PEACE RECORD contributed by the Egyptian people in the name of millions of Moslems, and shall be like Zamzam water (which is from a well at the Kaaba compound) For believers!!! As-Sadat spoke about the peace canal that he wants to build under the Suez canal to transfer the Nile water to the Sinai and the Negev desert in the south of occupied Palestine. And he sent a letter to Begin who was the Zionist state’s Prime Minister at the time, promising to have it reach Jerusalem… Begin replied saying, “If the Nile water means that we have to give up Jerusalem, we don’t want it.”)… More than one Zionist source commented about the presence of the Bilharzias in the Nile water, As-Sadat replied, “they want it with or without Bilharzias!!!”

The enemy experts presented studies and maps for the project, among whom Dr. Alisha Kelly, suggested to give the water to Arabs on the way (Gaza) so as to be a justification to be accepted by the Arab people. (That would be a generous sacrifice by the Zionist occupiers!!!)

All international and Arab observers and experts unanimously agreed that Lieberman’s visit targets Egypt and its relation with upper Nile states, as well as the Nile waters itself, and the enemy press confessed accordingly. Nobody rejected this clear message except for the ministers of the Egyptian government and its spokesmen, who believe in the good intentions of the enemy, especially Lieberman’s who threatened to bombard the High Dam during his first week in Netanyahu’s government. 

Ambassador Ms. Muna Omar, deputy minister of Foreign Affairs for African affairs, said: “Egypt has no fears from this visit, because it has no relation in jeopardizing Egypt’s share in the Nile waters, and it doesn’t include the establishment of any projects or dams on the Nile in these states”. (Poor one, she doesn’t have the time to read newspapers!!!!) 

Muhammad Nasr El-Dine Allam, The Egyptian Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation, declared that Lieberman’s visit has no effect on his country’s relations with Nile basin states!!! 

Khaled Othman, former ambassador in Zimbabwe, said: “Any state has the full right to move around in any region in the world”. (Simple for athletic purposes!!!)  

I don’t know if those people are fit for the responsibilities that are laid on their shoulders, and whether defending the enemy is a must for their employment responsibilities. 

We return to the visit…

The Zionist minister’s visit was limited to the African states that the Nile runs through and its sources flow from. This is not just a coincidence!!!

Zionist affairs expert in Al-Ahram research center, Dr. Omar Jad said, “Lieberman aims at instigating the Nile basin states against Egypt.” (We wonder whether the Camp David people read what their experts write?!) 

We read in the Zionist press, Haaretz and others the following:

1) Lieberman was accompanied by economists in the field of arms industry and trade, aviation, ships, energy, communications and agriculture.

2) Lieberman discussed water matters and agriculture with these states.

3) In Ethiopia he discussed, as per Haaretz, possible Zionist assistance, because Ethiopia overlooks navigation routes, and has influence on Somalia because of the influence of Al-Qaida there, and has importance towards Iranian activities in Africa, and it looks towards permitting Zionist military men working there!

The French daily, Le Figaro, wrote under the title: “Lieberman’s visit to Africa threatens Egypt”. The paper uncovered “Israeli” plans to reach the Nile waters after the temptations that it previously gave to African states to redistribute the river’s waters. 

As is well known, the Zionist enemy doesn’t base its policies on its friendship with Arab rulers, its agreements with them or their sincerity to them. Examples are numerous, there are possibilities that the list is subject to permanent changes, and the possibilities of the coming of the rejectionists of the Zionist presence may occur at any time, as thus the enemy works on strategic basis to ensure its continuity, even if this would threaten the security of these rulers. 

The enemy knows that the Nile water is a matter of life and death for Egypt throughout the ages:

The government of Muhammad Ali Pasha in the nineteenth century, put an emergency plan for military interference against any state that could form a threat for the flow of the Nile waters. 

Even As-Sadat, as we know, who promised Zionists a share of the Nile water, ordered the military to lay down and emergency plan in 1979 when Ethiopia declared its intention of building a dam to irrigate 90 thousand fadans on the Blue Nile basin, and threatened to destroy this dam.

We shall have a quick review through media of the states Lieberman toured regarding the declared stances of these states.

·       Kenya’s Prime Minster said that Egypt makes good use of the Nile for irrigation and agriculture, and it is a shame that Kenya would not do as Egypt does, and his country should make use of all available water sources to increase its production. (What the Kenyan Prime Minister said should be thoroughly read and analyzed by Egyptian officials).

·       “The Daily Nation”, a Kenyan newspaper wrote: “Lieberman signed with the Kenyan president a water sources management agreement for irrigation and construction between Kenya and ‘Israel’, and added that Kenya is in bad need of water projects that shall be supported by ‘Israel’. (So water with Kenya is a part of his visit).

·       Paul Kemanzi a writer in the Kenyan paper said: “It is a shame that help should come from a desert country such as Egypt that uses the Nile waters the source of which is lake Victoria, which falls between Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.” (It is a shame that Arab rulers would not read about this shame this Kenyan journalist like his Prime Minister wrote and talked about…!!!)

·       The Ghanaian daily “Statesman” wrote that Lieberman stressed during his tour on ‘Israel’s strengthening relations with African countries especially the Nile basin states, which is a meaningful matter related to Tel Aviv’s to have a role in the Nile basin. (The Nile water again, you the rulers of Egypt).

·       The Ethiopian “Jima Times” said: “’Israel’ can help African states to make use of the Nile waters against giving it a share of it, which shall affect Egypt’s share”. (The Nile again and again… you…)

Those in power in the states visited by Lieberman and their press express the situation of the Camp David government).

I shall not talk about the distribution of the Nile waters between Egypt and other Nile basin states. 

But I shall concentrate on the reaching of the Nile water’s to the Zionist enemy, which is the government complying with the Camp David agreement, which it is trying to hide! 

While the enemy state is trying fulfill its strategy, to take the water from the source, the summit Arab rulers pant running to advertise in the enemy’s press, ads in Hebrew to try to convince Zionists to accept the Arab summit’s view… even if they suffer thirst…

There are two sides to this case, laying siege over Egypt and the Sudan, the Nile waters, and laying siege over Egypt to dwarf its role and put pressure on it, and to receive a share of the Nile as per As-Sadat’s promise. 

Egypt’s accords with the Nile basin states gives it the Lion’s share of its waters, the enemy instigates these states against Egypt; as Egypt will succumb and give it the water it had always had an eye on, because Egypt’s accords with these states give it the right to deal conclusively, and prevent them from constructing projects without its permission, when it was able to do so, and not when its rulers weakened it, and when the basin’s state got their independence, and if Egypt refused to give the enemy the water, “Israel” shall stir the African states to put pressure on it, and deprive it of old privileges reached in accords… the result shall be Egypt’s thirst. 

Thus it is either the peace canal and the Nile water to the Zionist enemy, or a strong “Israel”  financially and technologically shall instigate these states, and even if Egypt gives the Nile water to the Zionist enemy and Egypt will get thirsty, that matter shall remain an eternal sword that “Israel” owns, it shall raise whenever Egypt slows down in giving the water, this is how the Camp David “leaders” defend Lieberman’s good intentions, this same Lieberman who threatened to bombard the High Dam, and about his visits the intention of which is to close the Nile water to flow into the dam, after retreating from his threat to bombard it. 

If the Zionist enemy takes the water after taking the gas from Egypt, then what use is the Arab “peace initiative”? 

As for the Sudan, which reflects on Egypt, I give the following text, even though it is not directly connected to the subject.  

“In an official speech that the Zionist minister of security, Avi Dichter, he gave in Tel Aviv on the 30^th of October 2008, he stressed on the nicety of laying siege over Egypt by the Africans. He added: “When Israel specified its policy and strategy in relation to the Arab World it started a future exploration, and its dimensions and assessment that exceed the present and future scope. “Israel” targets the Sudan, because it forms a strategic depth for Egypt, thus we have to work to weaken the Sudan, because this is a must to support and strengthen the national Israeli security”.

———————————————————————–

About the author:

Ali Hattar: Political analyst and poet. Engineer by profession.

Lives in Amman – Jordan.

مياه النيل.. متى يتحقق وعد السادات وتذهب المياه بعد الغاز إلى دولة اليهود؟

بقلم: علي حتر

الترجمة إلى الإنجليزية: أديب قعوار

مياه النيل.. متى يتحقق وعد السادات وتذهب المياه بعد الغاز إلى دولة اليهود؟

إنه إعلان الحرب الجديدة   

علي حتر

نشر في السبيل على حلقتين

1- ما يحدث الآن في مسألة مياه النيل ليس بسيطا.. إنه في أهمية الحرب نفسها.. بدون اي مبالغة..

ليبرمان وزير خارجية الكيان الصهيوني الغاصب، يقوم بجولة في الدول الإفريقية ذات العلاقة مع نهر النيل.. وقبل فوات الأوان، وبدلا من أن يلتهي قيمونا بمبادرة استجداء السلام من الصهاينة، عليهم أن يقرؤوا جيدا ما يحدث..

وعلى القوى الوطنية العربية جميعها أن تقرأ ما يحدث.. لأن ذلك لا يعني المقاومة وحدها.. إنها بداية السيطرة على كل المنطقة ومواردها.. إنها حرب المياه..

نحن نعرف الشعار التاريخي لدولة اليهود، من النيل إلى الفرات.. أو من الفرات إلى النيل.. نهر مصر الكبير كما يوصف في التوراة.. والشعار يعني المياه والمياه.. وفي هذه الأيام يعني الغاز والبترول أيضا

والمياه هي المكمل الأساسي بعد الأمن السياسي والعسكري لبقاء وديمومة دولة اليهود.. ولا يخفى ذلك على أحد.. والصهاينة يريدون الماء حتى لو سرقوها كما سرقوا الأرض من العرب.. ونهر الأردن والليطاني ووادي عربة ومياه الضفة والتدخل في الشأن المائي الأردني واللبناني والسوري معروف للجميع..

هم لا يستطيعون تحقيق الحلم الجغرافي لإنشاء دولة بين النيل والفرات.. ولكنهم لم يتخلوا عن تحقيق "نتائج إنشائها" حتى بدون إنشائها.. اي السيطرة على المنطقة ومواردها وأسواقها وقراراتها، ولو أنشؤوها لحصلوا على مياه النيل ومياه الفرات.. والنيل أقرب.. ولهذا يريدون أن يحصلوا على مياهه..

موانع ومعيقات حصولهم على مياه النيل ليست الحكومة المصرية.. فالسادات وعدهم بها..

لكن الموانع والمعيقات هي الموقف الشعبي المصري واعتراضات بعض الدول المشاطئة ودول المنبع..

الموقف الشعبي المصري تتكفل به الحكومة المتحالفة بمعاهدة كامب ديفيد، والتي تشكل امتدادا لحكومة السادات الواعد بالمياه منذ زيارته المشهورة إلى الكيان الصهيوني..

أما موقف الدول الإفريقية المعترضة.. فمسألة يتولاها الكيان الصهيوني.. ولهذا كانت زيارة ليبرمان لكينيا والحبشة وأوغندا.. 

قبل التعليق على المسألة لا بد من تقديم بعض المعلومات للقارئ:

الدول التي لها علاقة بنهر النيل هي: إثيوبيا وأوغندا كينيا والسودان وأرتيريا وتنزانيا ورواندا وزائير وبرواندي والكونغو، ومصر دولة المصب، أي نهاية النهر الذي يصب في البحر البيض المتوسط، بعد أن يروي الدلتا المصرية التي يعطيها الحياة والخصوبة. ويبلغ طول نهر النيل 6700 كم وطول فروعه 3700 كم، وتقع على النهر أكثر من عشرة سدود على طول مساره وفروعه.

تجري في النيل كميات كبيرة من المياه تزيد عن 84 مليار م³/سنة، تأخذ منها مصر 55 مليار، ولمعرفة دلالة الأرقام، فإن ما تأخذه مصر يكفي لري 83% من حاجتها للزراعة.. ويشكل حوالي 80% من حاجتها الكلية (التي تستكمل من بعض المياه الجوفية السطحية والعميقة)

أي أن ما يبقى لمصر حتى دون تقاسم المياه مع الصهاينة لا يكفي حاجة مصر التي تسمى "هبة النيل"، بل إن الخبراء المصريين يتوقعون أن تعاني مصر من عجز في المياه عام 2017 بسبب معدل الزيادة الكبير في السكان.. وتغير الظروف المناخية.. وربما زيادة استهلاك دول أعالي النيل.

لمصر معاهدات واتفاقيات مع الدول الواقعة على النيل، تعطي مصر حصة الأسد، كما تعطيها بعض الاتفاقيات (1929) حق رفض المشاريع في أعالي النهر.. 

أما بالنسبة لمنطقتنا فمن المهم أن نعرف ما يلي:

-        الفرد الصهيوني المغتصب لأرضنا يستهلك من المياه من 3مرات إلى 15 مرة ما يستهلكه الفرد العربي. (النسبة تختلف لأن استهلاك المواطن العربي مختلف من مكان إلى آخر)

-        إسرائيل في حاجة ماسة لمياه النيل، وقد اقترح بيريز مد أنبوب من مصر إلى الكيان الغاصب، بدلا من مياه تركيا البعيدة.. كما إن هرتزل تحدث في ذلك قبل إنشاء الكيان الغاصب عام 1903..!  

-        لا يشكل النيل لإسرائيل مصدرا مائيا فقط، بل يشكل وسيلة ضغط وابتزاز تستخدمها للضغط على مصر نظرا لأن النيل يشكل أهم عنصر في الأمن القومي.. (أكثر من خلية سامي شهاب المشهورة خلال حرب غزة)..! الرئيس البشير قال عام 1994 إن إسرائيل تضع عينها على النيل لتمارس النفوذ على مصر.. أذكر ذلك للتوثيق، ونحن جميعا نعرف ما تريد إسرائيل سواء قال أم لم يقل أحد ذلك..

-        يعتبر النيل أقرب المصادر المائية للعدو الصهيوني فهو يبتعد عن قطاع غزة بضع عشرات من الكيلومترات فقط.. مياه النيل حاليا تبعد 40كم فقط عن رفح، اي على الحدود مع غزة..

-        أنور السادات وعد اليهود عام 1979 في خطابه في حيفا، بوصول مياه النيل إلى النقب، وبإعطائهم مياه النيل كما قال إنها ستكون نصب السلام المقدم كمساهمة من الشعب المصري باسم ملايين المسلمين، MONUMENT TO THE PEACE RECORD، وقال إنها ستكون مياه زمزم للمؤمنين!! وتحدث عن قناة السلام التي يريد بناءها تحت قناة السويس لنقل تلك المياه إلى سيناء والنقب.. وأرسل رسالة إلى بيغن الذي كان رئيس وزراء الكيان العدو، وعد فيها بتوصيل المياه إلى القدس.. (أما بيغن فرد عليه بالقول: إذا كانت مياه النيل تتطلب منا أي تنازل في القدس فلا نريدها).. كما علق أكثر من مصدر صهيوني على مسألة وجود البلهارتسيا في مياه النيل، وقال السادات إنهم يريدونها ببلهارتسيا أو بدون!!

-        قدم المسؤولون والمختصون الصهاينة دراسات وخرائط للمشروع، ومنهم د. أليشا كالي، الذي اقترح ضمن المشروع تقديم المياه للعرب على الطريق (غزة) حتى تكون حجة مقبولة عند الشعب العربي.

2- لقد اجمع كل المراقبين والخبراء الدوليون والعرب، على أن زيارة ليبرمان تستهدف مصر وعلاقاتها بدول أعالي النيل، وتستهدف مياه النيل نفسها.. واعترف حتى إعلام العدو بذلك، ولم يرفض هذه المسألة الواضحة إلا وزراء الحكومة المصرية والناطقون باسمها، الذين يؤمنون بحسن نوايا العدو، وخصوصا نوايا ليبرمان الذي هدد بتدمير السد العالي في الأسبوع الأول لدخوله وزارة نتنباهو..

نستعرض مواقف بعض المسؤولين الرسميين في حكومة مصر:

السفيرة منى عمر مساعدة وزير الخارجية للشئون الأفريقية، قالت: "إن مصر ليس لديها أية تخوفات من هذه الزيارة لأنها لا تتعلق باللعب على حصة مصر فى مياه النيل،.. وليس مدرجاً بها إقامة مشروعات أو سدود على مجر النيل فى هذه الدول" (مسكينة، ليس لديهل وقت لقراءة الصحف..)

أكد "محمد نصر الدين علام" وزير الموارد المائية والري المصري، أن الزيارة التي يقوم بها ليبرمان، غير مؤثرة على العلاقات المصرية مع دول حوض النيل".

خالد عثمان سفير مصر السابق في زيمبابوى قال "إن أي دولة لها الحرية الكاملة في التحرك داخل أي منطقه في العالم".. (مجرد تحرك للرياضة فقط!!)

أنا لا أعرف هل هؤلاء هم فعلا بمستوى المسؤوليات التي يتولونها.. وهل دفاعهم عن العدو شرط من شروط التوظيف؟

نعود إلى الزيارة.

زيارة الوزير الصهيوني إلى إفريقيا تقتصر على دول أعالي النيل.. التي يجري فيها وينبع منها النيل.. وهذه ليست مصادفة..

الخبير بالشؤون الإسرائيلية بمركز دراسات الأهرام د.عمر جاد، قال: "ليبرمان يسعى إلى تحريض دول حوض النيل على مصر". (ألا يقرأ شخوص كامب ديفيد ما يكتبه خبراؤهم؟؟)

في الإعلام الصهيوني، (هاآرتس وغيرها)، نجد ما يلي:

1- رافق ليبرمان، اقتصاديون  إسرائيليون في مجال صناعة السلاح وتجارته، وصناعة الطيران والسفن والطاقة والاتصالات والزراعة.

2- ناقش ليبرمان مسائل المياه، مع هذه الدول، وعقد عدة اتفاقات في مجال المياه والزراعة..

3- في أثيوبيا ناقش، حسب هاآرتس، ناقش المساعدات الصهيونية الممكنة.. لأن إثيوبيا تطل على المعابر المائية ولها تأثير على الصومال بسبب نمو القاعدة هناك، ولها أهمية تجاه نشاطات إيران في إفريقيا.. وهي ترغب بالسماح للعسكريين الصهاينة بالعمل من هناك؟؟

صحيفة لوفيجارو الفرنسية وتحت عنوان "زيارة ليبرمان لإفريقيا تهدد مصر"، كشفت عن وجود خطط إسرائيلية للوصول إلى مياه نهر النيل بعد الإغراءات التي تقدمت بها إسرائيل في وقت سابق إلى الدول الإفريقية لإعادة توزيع مياه النهر.

العدو الصهيوني كما نعرف، لا يبني سياساته على صداقاته مع الحكام العرب، أو معاهداته معهم أو حتى إخلاصهم له، والشواهد على ذلك كثيرة، بل يبنيها على احتمالات تغييرهم القائمة دائما، وعلى احتمالات مجيء الرافضين للوجود الصهيوني في أية لحظة، ولهذا يعمل بشكل استراتيجي لضمان أمنه وديمومته.. حتى لو كان ذلك بعرض أمن هؤلاء الحكام للخطر.

والعدو يعرف أن مياه النيل مسألة تشكل حياة أو موت بالنسبة لمصر على مدى العصور:

حكومة محمد على باشا فى القرن التاسع عشر، وضعت خطة طوارئ للتدخل عسكريا ضد أية دولة يمكن أن تشكل أى خطر على تدفق مياه النيل،

حتى السادات الذي وعد الصهاينة بحصة من مياه النيل، دعا العسكريين لوضع خطة طوارئ عام 1979 عندما أعلنت أثيوبيا عن نواياها بإقامة سد لرى 90 ألف فدان فى حوض النيل الأزرق، وهدد بتدمير هذا السد..!

وسوف نمر مرورا سريعا على إعلام الدول التي زارها ليبرمان، وما كتبت خلال الزيارة وعلى بعض المواقف المعلنة للمسؤولين في هذه الدول.

- رئيس وزراء كينيا قال إن مصر تستفيد جيدا من النيل فى أغراض الرى والزراعة، ومن العار ألا تستطيع كينيا أن تفعل مثل مصر، ويرى أن بلاده يجب عليها الاستفادة من كل المصادر الممكنة للمياه لزيادة إنتاجها. (كلام على الرسميين المصريين قراءته وتحليله)

- قالت صحيفة "دايلى نايشن" الكينية، إن ليبرمان وقع مع الرئيس الكينى على اتفاقية لإدارة مصادر المياه والرى والبناء بين كينيا وإسرائيل، وقالت: إن كينيا في أمس الحاجة إلى مشروعات المياه فى التى ستدعمها إسرائيل.  (إذن المياه مع كينيا جزء من الزيارة) 

- بول كيمانزى الكاتب فى الصحيفة الكينية قال: "إنه من العار أن تأتى معونات لكينيا من دولة صحراوية مثل مصر التى تستخدم فى رى الصحراء، مياه النيل التى تتدفق من بحيرة فيكتوريا، التى تقع عليها كينيا وأوغندا وتنزانيا". (ومن العار ألا يقرأ المسؤولون العرب عن هذا العار الذي ذكره الصحفي مثل ما ذكره رئيس وزراء كينيا..!)

- صحيفة" ذي ستيتس مان" الغانية قالت إن ليبرمان يركز فى جولته الأفريقية على تدعيم علاقات إسرائيل مع الدول الأفريقية وخاصة دول حوض النيل، وهو أمر ذو مغزى يتعلق بمحاولات تل أبيب أن يكون لها دور فى دول الحوض. (ماء النيل مرة أخرى يا حكام مصر)

- صحيفة "جيما تايمز" الأثيوبية، قالت: "إسرائيل يمكن أن تساعد الدول الأفريقية على الاستفادة من مياه النيل مقابل إعطاء إسرائيل نسبة من مياه النيل وهذا سيؤثر على نسبة مصر من المياه".  (النيل مرة اخرى.. يا..)

مسؤولو الدول التي زارها ليبرمان وصحفها أكثر تعبيرا عن الوضع من مسؤولي الحكومة المتعاقدة في كامب ديفيد.

لن أتكلم في مسألة توزيع المياه بين مصر ودول حوض النيل الأخرى..

لكنني سأركز على مسألة وصول مياه النيل إلى العدو الصهيوني.. وهو ما يحاول المسؤولون في الحكومة الملتزمة بمعاهدة كامب ديفيد أن تخفيه..

وفي حين تعمل إسرائيل على تحقيق استراتيجياتها، وأخذ المياه من المنبع، يلهث أهل القمة العرب بوضع الإعلانات في الصحف الإسرائيلية لعلهم يقبلون تنازلات القمة.. حتى وإن عطشوا.. 

في المسألة جانبان: محاصرة إسرائيل لمصر والسودان، ومياه النيل.. ومحاصرة مصر لتقزيم دورها والضغط عليها.. ومن أجل نيل حصة من النيل كما وعد السادات..

معاهدات مصر مع دول النيل، تعطي مصر حصة الأسد.. وإسرائيل تحرض هذه الدول على مصر.. حتى تخضع مصر وتعطيها الماء.. لأن اتفاقات مصر مع هذه الدول تعطي مصر حق التصرف.. وتمنعهم من إقامة المشاريع دون موافقتها.. يوم كانت قادرة.. وليس يوم أضعفها حكامها.. وليس بعد أن استقل هؤلاء.. فإذا رفضت مصر تقديم الماء لإسرائيل.. فسوف تحرك إسرائيل دول إفريقيا للضغط عليها بحرمان مصر من استحقاقت الاتفاقيات القديمة.. والنتيجة ستكون: عطش مصر..

إذن إما قناة السلام ومياه النيل لإسرائيل.. أو تتحرك إسرائيل القوية ماليا وفنيا لتحريض هذه الدول.. وحتى إذا قدمت مصر الماء النيلي لإسرائيل وعطش شعب مصر، سيبقى الموضوع سيفا ابديا تملكه إسرائيل، وتشهره كلما تباطأت مصر بتقديم الماء.. وخلال ذلك ينام المسؤولون في حكومة كامب ديفيد ويدافعون عن حسن نوايا ليبرمان.. الذي هدد رسميا بضرب السد العالي.. وعن زيارته.. التي راح ليغلق المياه فيها عن السد العالي بعد أن تراجع عن ضربه..

وإذا أخذت إسرائيل الماء بعد أخذها للغاز من مصر.. فما الذي تجديه مبادرة السلام العربية..

أما بالنسبة للسودان، وينعكس ذلك على مصر، فإنني أورد هذا النص، ولو كان غير مرتبط بشكل مباشرة بالموضوع.

"في محاضرة رسمية لوزير الأمن لإسرائيلي أفي ديختر 30/10/2008 في تل أبيب أكد على ضرورة حصار مصر من أفريقيا. وقال " إسرائيل حين بلورت محددات سياستها وإستراتيجيتها حيال العالم العربي انطلقت من عملية استجلاء واستشراق للمستقبل وأبعاده وتقييمات تتجاوز المدى الحالي أو المنظور. وإن إسرائيل تستهدف السودان لأن السودان يشكل عمقا إستراتيجيا لمصر، ولذلك كان لابد أن نعمل على إضعاف السودان لأن هذا ضرورة من ضرورات دعم وتعظيم الأمن القومي الإسرائيلي". 

 —————————————————————————————

المؤلف: علي حتر, كاتب ومحلل سياسي وشاعر

يقيم في عمان – الأردن

The following official governmental statistics, up to December 2008, show the disastrous conditions prevalent in Iraq since the American invasion and occupation of that country. 

1.      One million widowed Iraqi women (according to Iraqi Ministry of Women Affairs). 

2.      Four million orphaned Iraqi children (according to estimates by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning). 

3.      Two and a half million (2,500,000) Iraqis killed (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health and Forensic Medicine). 

4.      800,000 Iraqis have disappeared in secret holding places connected with the different ruling parties (according to registered complaints at the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior). 

5.      340,000 Iraqi prisoners, detained without charge, in U.S. army prisons, the prisons of the Iraqi government, and the prisons in the Kurdistan District (according to Iraqi, Arab, international and UN human rights organizations and agencies).  US occupying forces admit officially that the number of Iraqi detainees in their prisons is about 120,000. 

6.      Four and a half million (4,500,000) Iraqis are refugees outside Iraq (according to statistics of those seeking passports (category C) from the General Directorate of Passports. 

7.      Two and a half million (2,500,000) Iraqis are refugees inside Iraq (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Refugees). 

8.      76,000 registered Iraqi cases of AIDS; this number did not exceed 114 cases before the invasion and occupation of Iraq (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health). 

9.      Frightening spread of the use of addictive drugs imported from Iran, among youth (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the Center for Combating Drugs and Addictions).  I have written a series of well-researched articles about the various methods used to smuggle drugs, some of which are highly toxic, and how they are collected in different storage places in the southern districts, under the total control of some of the parties and the militias participating in the government, and how the profits from these drugs are used to buy (pay off) government officials, in order to gain their support and silence, and to finance their election campaigns. 

10.  Three out of every four marriages end up in divorce since the invasion and occupation of Iraq (according to Iraqi Ministry of Health). 

11.  More than 40% of the Iraqi people are under the poverty line (according to the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights).  I believe, however, that the actual percentage is much higher, and surpasses 55%. 

12.  Decline in the level and quality of basic and tertiary education, according to statements made by officials in UNESCO, which led this organization to refuse to recognize university degrees issued by Iraqi tertiary institutions (universities and colleges).

13.  Tens of thousands of forged university degrees are granted to high government officials, high ranking officers, directors generals, and senior officials of political parties (according to statements and statistics from the Iraqi Honesty and Transparency Commission). 

14.  There exist about 550 political bodies and party coalitions (according to the Iraqi Independent Public Elections Commission), and, as of today, there is no law regulating this large number of political bodies. 

15.  There exist about 11,400 civil society organizations (according to the Iraqi ministries of the Interior, Justice and Social Welfare).  These organizations have public and secret objectives, and it is not clear what these are, and how they are financed. 

16.  There are 126 security companies controlled by foreign secret service agencies, and registered at the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior.  The declared objective of these companies is to protect foreign embassies, foreign diplomats, and visiting VIPs.  However, their hidden objectives are unknown.  In this case, what is the value of having today one million persons under arms in Iraq, distributed among the Ministries of Defense, the Interior, the various governmental security agencies, in addition to the security agencies of the various ruling parties. 

17.  There are 43 officially registered armed militias connected to parties. 

18.  There are 220 newspapers and media publications financed by foreign secret service agencies (according to Iraqi Journalist Union).  The specific objectives of these publications is to do brainwashing of Iraqis, to remove their thinking about the various projects aiming at fragmenting Iraq into sectarian, regional, and ethnic mini-states, and to destroy their national identity. 

19.  There are 45 TV channels financed by foreign secret service agencies (according to statements by the Management of Nilesat and Arabsat satellite service providers). 

20.  There are 67 radio stations financed by foreign secret service agencies (according to statements by the Iraqi Information Commission). 

21.  There are 4 networks of digital communications, the estimated value of each is 12 billion dollars, financed in favor of party leaders.  Among which are the following companies:

·         Kork Company owned exclusively by Mas’aoud Barazani (the President of the Kurdistan District);

·         Assia Company owned exclusively by Jalal Talbani (the President of Iraq);

·         Zein Company (Kuwaiti), 50% is owned by Ahmad Jalabi and the Islamic Da’wah Party;

·         Atheer Company owned exclusively by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. 

22.  There are more than 11,400 official and unofficial party headquarters.  These could be the offices of fake contracting company, or an NGO, or a political group.  However, these headquarters in reality are public premises for the Iraqi government that were taken over from their legitimate owners after they were eliminated, or forced to vacate and seek refuge somewhere else.  All are paid for from the Iraqi national budget. 

This is only the tip of the iceberg of what’s happening in “their new democratic Iraq”, since the American invasion and occupation of the country. 

The article appeared originally in www.kanaanonline.org, no. 1973, on 30.7.2009.

Sabah al-Baghdadi is an independent Iraqi journalist and researcher; he may be reached at sabahalbaghdadi@maktoob.com.

Translated and adapted by Dr. Khalil Nakhleh:

Dr. Khalil Nakhleh is an independent Palestinian researcher and development consultant; he may be reached at abusama@palnet.com.

Head of Israel's Mossad Meir Dagan leant on a small staff in the company of his top aides as they waited in the room that opens into the Defence Ministry office of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for permission to enter. This scene used to repeat itself every Thursday at noon, but recently the meetings between Netanyahu and Dagan have intensified, with them now meeting as often as three times a week, the Israeli media reports. One reason for their hectic schedule is that Dagan is in charge of coordinating Israeli policy on the Iranian nuclear issue, and is required to present evaluations of Israeli responses to the Iranian nuclear programme. Yet the increase in the number of meetings also reflects how seriously Israel is taking Iran's nuclear endeavours, a fact that was expressed in Netanyahu's recent speech at Bar-Ilan University, where he said that the Iranian nuclear threat was currently the top threat facing Israel.

Despite the apparent satisfaction among Israeli intellectuals and media professionals over the protests that have followed the presidential elections in Iran, Israeli decision-makers have warned of their possible consequences, and Israeli strategists agree that the election of Mir-Hussein Mousavi as Iran's president would have formed an even more serious threat for Israel than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rule. Mousavi's rise, they argue, would lead to toppling the mounting international pressure currently placed on Iran to stop its nuclear programme. Israel's second largest paper Maariv has reported top Defence Ministry officials as saying that it would be difficult for Israel to justify attacking Iranian nuclear facilities if Mousavi became Iran's president, even though Israel's decision-makers concur that Mousavi wouldn't differ from Ahmadinejad with regard to continued interest in the Iranian nuclear programme.

To a great extent, what's worrying Israel about the Iranian nuclear programme is the fear that the Israeli public has of it. Many Israelis tie their continued residency in Israel to developments in the Iranian nuclear programme, and the angry response of Netanyahu's government to a public opinion survey published by Israeli papers late last month is understandable — about a quarter of Israelis say they will leave the country if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear arms. This survey tore down the myths upon which Zionism is based and which stress the spiritual, historical, and religious ties between the Jews and this land. Now many in Israel are raising difficult questions over these myths, and a quarter of them say they'll abandon the country if a neighbouring state develops nuclear arms.

As Israeli public opinion polls suggest, the number of those wanting to flee Israel would increase if Iran actually did develop nuclear arms. And these poll outcomes also confirm the fears expressed by former Israeli defence minister General Ephraim Sneh, who said two years ago that Israel would fall apart on its own accord if Iran developed nuclear arms because most of the Jews would simply leave Israel. These polls also explain why Israel considers any neighbouring Arab or Islamic state developing nuclear arms to form an existential threat.

Of course there are also other reasons why Israelis are terrified of the possibility of Iran or any other Islamic or Arab country in the region developing nuclear arms. Decision- makers in Tel Aviv are trying to keep silent over these reasons so as not to increase motivation for joining the nuclear arms race. Yet according to comments Israeli security experts made before the Knesset's foreign affairs and security committee, there is a list of reasons for the concern Israel is trying to hide over the possibility of Iran or any Arab country in the region developing nuclear capacities, even if they are considered moderate countries. These reasons include the following:

Firstly, should an Arab or Islamic state in geographic proximity to Israel develop nuclear capacities, that would greatly decrease Israel's ability to strike at the Palestinian resistance. Israel would then have to take into consideration the possibility of a confrontation in which the use of nuclear arms are a threat. These fears were expressed in a report submitted by Israeli military intelligence to the government a year ago. Netanyahu, for example, held that Israel wouldn't have been so bold in its last war on the Gaza Strip and conducted such wide-scale operations of killing and destruction if the Arabs had possessed nuclear arms. As such, decision- makers in Israel hold that the development of Arab or Iranian nuclear arms would allow the Palestinian resistance a greater margin of flexibility and an effective strategic reach. This would in turn increase the threat to Israeli security while Tel Aviv would remain incapable of firmly responding.

Secondly, Israeli strategist Shalom Gutman holds that Iran and the Arabs developing nuclear arms would undermine Israel's role in the region which, he argues, benefits the West. Israel has always claimed that the West and especially the United States are not doing it any favour by supporting it with arms, for it plays the role of the region's "police force" that disciplines "outlaws". This role was recognised by former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who several years ago told the American CNN network that "you Americans are not doing us a favour by offering us aid, for Israel plays the role of a permanent American jet carrier in the Middle Eastern region." It is certain that if Iran or the Arabs developed nuclear arms, Israel would lose this role, for the arms of the "police" would become outdated and wouldn't frighten anyone anymore, at which point Israel would need the West rather than the other way around. Former defence minister Shaul Mofaz warns that the Arabs' success in developing nuclear arms would allow them to develop relations with the West on different bases than those currently governing Western-Arab relations.

Thirdly, Arab development of nuclear arms would make Israel's traditional arsenal lose its value in future military confrontations. It would also harm many of the Israeli security institutions whose accomplishments have become legendary, in particular Mossad, which is currently charged with undermining Arab attempts to develop nuclear arms. This mission is based on Menachem Begin's principle established following the 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor by which Israel is obliged to prevent "enemy states" from developing nuclear arms by any means, including attacking facilities that are suspected of being part of future plans to develop nuclear arms.

Additionally, Israel would be economically strained by the need to allocate a large budget for building shelters and facilities to deal with the outcomes of a war in which nuclear arms are used. Despite the exorbitant cost of building such shelters, the Israeli government would be forced to do so in order to reassure residents and convince them to stay. It knows how terrified the public is of Arabs and Muslims developing nuclear arms and that their doing so might result in a mass exodus from Israel.

And finally, much of Israel's elite hold that the development of nuclear arms would put an end for good to the most important pillar of the Zionist project, that being Jewish immigration to Palestine. If a large percentage of Jews living in Palestine want to leave, it is almost certain that Jewish immigration to Palestine will end.

All of this reveals how fragile the Zionist entity is despite its military and technical superiority and its victory over the Arab armies. None of these achievements prevent Israel from sensing that it could return to square one at any moment. Changing the nature of the conflict is largely dependent on the ability of the Arabs to develop nuclear arms. Even those who believe in reaching a political settlement with Israel must also realise that without a significant change in the strategic power balance, Israel won't ever be convinced to change its current positions on a settlement to the conflict.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/953/re7.htm

What is most interesting about Lieberman’s first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office is his view of Russia.  Lieberman, Haaretz points out, granted his first major interview not to an Israeli newspaper, but to Alexander Rosensaft, the Israel correspondent of one of the oldest Russian dailies, Moskovskiy Komosolets.  Courting favour with the Slavic world power? 

Russian immigrants are a dominant part of Israeli society.  And Russia, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, is ranked number six in “Countries with Largest Jewish Populations.”* Countries ranked 2—5 (US, France, Canada, UK) are already reliable friends of Israel.  On the other hand, Russia has in recent years demonstrated an independent character in its foreign relations.   

Lieberman is looking for another ally.  In his interview, he stated “Russia has a special influence in the Muslim world, and I consider it a strategic partner that should play a key role in the Middle East.  I have argued for some time that Israel has insufficient appreciation for the ‘Kremlin factor’; I intend to mend this gap.”

Another openly brazen admission to manipulating others for the sake of Israel.  When coupled with another assertion made by Lieberman, though, we begin to see what he means by “key role.”  Lieberman proclaimed that Afghanistan and Pakistan are now considered jointly as the greatest strategic threat to Israel.  Iran has been downgraded to second place threat, and Iraq falls in third place.  Afghanistan and Pakistan “form a contiguous area of radicalism ruled in the spirit of Bin Laden,” says Lieberman, and “are a threat not only to Israel, but to the global order as a whole.”  

Now take a good look at the regional map below.  And think of President Obama's recently announced Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) Strategy (27/03/09)—two countries, one challenge, Al Qaida, more American troops, bringing Russia on board—and Lieberman’s cheerful offer of Israel’s role of bringing the US and Russia closer.  With the US already having rendered Iraq ineffectual and vulnerable, the envisaged key role of Russia—big, big Russia—would be to assist in crushing Afghanistan and Pakistan as well . . . in order to maintain “global order,” of course. 

The Iranian borders would then offer not obstacles, but exploitables.  Iraqi, Afghani and Pakistani borders would be under the watchful eye of US/Israel and their would-be partner-Russia.  That leaves just Turkey and Turkmenistan.  Despite a few public tiffs, Turkey and Israel maintain a working relationship and military cooperation.  And as troubled Turkmenistan is of little threat to anyone but itself, this new state of political power would enable Israel to more realistically envisage overwhelming its formerly declared arch nemesis.  Once Israel and its partners were able to break Iran, they could, they presume, cut off the lifeblood to Hezbollah in Lebanon, thus killing two birds with one proverbial stone. 

Is it over-reaching to imagine such map-sweeping military operations? Consider the size of Hamas.  Look at the map again just to keep perspective fresh—right, Hamas is not even on the map.  What was Lieberman’s proposal (13/01/09) for quieting this thorn in his side? 

“We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II.  Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary.” 

What, then, was the secret to US success?  After having already killed over a million Japanese 1941—1945, the US was able to set aside its plans for a ground invasion and occupation of Japan because the Japanese surrendered.  They relented because the US carried out atomic bomb attacks on the cities of Hiroshima (killing 140,000 Japanese) and three days later on Nagasaki (killing 80,000 more Japanese).  Quicker and cheaper than an occupation, says the businessman.  Lieberman apparently appreciates the logic.  A chilling thought, considering that for all its finger-pointing accusations, Israel is the Middle Eastern power that has maintained nuclear weapons and has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use “disproportionate force.” 

But Russia is no one’s fool.  With a long, difficult history stretching back nearly 500 years, the Russians have proven their ability to endure.  They haven’t succeeded by catering to someone else’s interests.  By way of example, Russia may have recently purchased surveillance drones from Israel, but it is also still considering selling a strategic air-defence system to Iran, despite Israel’s clear objections to the deal.  Said one Israeli official on the Russian rejection of conditions, “the Russians don't make promises of this kind.”  The Russians will, however, stand their ground.   

Even as the UN Durban Review Conference on Racism drew criticism from some (primarily from the Israeli camp), Russia accepted the position of vice-chair of the Preparatory Committee working on the declaration and the conference’s agenda. Russia maintained its high profile participation, regardless of the boycotting actions taken by others.  As Andrei Podoplekin, political scientist at the leading Russian school Pomor State University, said, “This is a way for Russia to show that it can be an independent player. By agreeing to participate and serve as a moderator at an event boycotted by others, it proved that it could act independently, most importantly from the Western states.”  

Where does Lebanon fit into all this?  As always, there is a political and military tug-of-war.  Four months ago, for instance, Moscow gave 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Lebanon, free of charge, as assistance in building the Lebanon Army.  The New York Times was quick to characterise the gesture as a “slap to the United States.”  Not to be outdone then, the US has announced (14/04/09) that it “will provide the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with twelve Raven unmanned aircraft in the coming months.”  This comes with a training course, “funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), [and] is one part of the comprehensive, robust U.S. military assistance program to Lebanon. 

It must be remembered, though, that the Obama administration has confirmed that the world financial crisis would not jeopardise its promise of $30 billion in military aid alone to Israel over the next 10 years.  In 2007 the US had announced that it would continue military aid to Egypt at $13 billion from 2009 to 2018, and would increase military aid to Israel by 25% — $ 30 billion from 2009 to 2018.  US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, who signed the memorandum of understanding governing the aid package, stated the aid would 

“allow Israel to plan its defense expenditures in a way that's rational, in a way that takes into account its own appreciation of its situation in this region.  So we look at this region and understand that a secure and strong Israel is in the interest of the US.”

As the Jerusalem Post paraphrases, this means that “there were no strings attached to the aid – no special annexes – and that it was not dependent on Israeli policy. Burns underlined that the aid was coming at a time when Iran ‘is resurgent,’ and was both seeking nuclear weapons and expanding its conventional power in the region. He said Iran and Syria were funding and arming terrorist organizations fomenting violence in every part of the Middle East, be it Hamas, Hizbullah or Shi'ite groups in Iraq.”  Perhaps Burns, back in August 2007, didn’t think Afghanistan would hold out as long as it has, or that Pakistan would be a nice addition to the target list.  

On 22 April 2009, Foreign Minister Lieberman cemented another “strategic

partner”: Egypt.  Despite tensions due to Lieberman’s past offensive statements regarding Egypt, diplomatic relations seem to be improving between the formerly warring countries.  Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman met with PM Netanyahu, President Peres and FM Lieberman.  According to Israeli media, Lieberman “repeatedly stressed his appreciation of Egypt as a strategic partner.”  

Meanwhile, relations between Egypt—Palestine and Egypt—Lebanon have been strained.  Perhaps that is what a “strategic partner” is for: reinforcement of Israel’s game plan.  Perhaps that is what Lieberman has in mind as he courts such a partnership with Russia.  Stack up the friends on one side, the enemies on the other.  But in the end, you don’t get a gang war.  When you add billions of dollars worth of weaponry, you get world war.   

The irony is, though, that amid all the massive global players in this drama, the sticking point for Israel is that it has never been able to defeat Lebanon.  Israel has tried and tried to pound Lebanon into submission and has failed, no matter how many strategic partners it stacks up.  Look at the map again.  You need a magnifying glass to see the two of them.  Yet the world seems intent on setting their agendas by what transpires there.  A bit ridiculous, really.    

Russia is not apt to fall for Lieberman’s lure.  Again, Russia is no one’s fool.  It has been less than a year since Russia resolutely quashed an aggression by Georgia—backed by US-Israel—to overtake South Ossetia.   Israel may now be anxious to have Russia as a partner; however, it is highly unlikely that Russia will find itself needing Israel as a partner.  And Russia does stand its ground. 

Like Russia, Lebanon, for all its faults, knows how to stand its ground as well.  Every Lebanese child knows the politics of being Lebanese.  Every adult has lived through the wars and the global chicanery.  Who else but Lebanon could manage to defeat Israel and then still rake in $1 billion total post-2006 conflict assistance and $410 million post-2006 in military aid from America, Israel’s favourite ally?  The Lebanese might just be more clever than Lieberman is counting on.   

Lebanon will not be intimidated.  Syria will not be schmoozed.  Russia cannot be reduced to what Lieberman has dubbed the ”Kremlin Factor,”  as though he fancies himself a Jason Bourne.  Lieberman stated that he intends to mend the gap between the Knesset and the Kremlin.  But a gap is mended at both ends.  In half a century, Russia has weathered wars far worse than those plotted by Lieberman.  If Russia decides to adjust its alliances, it will do so not at the behest of tiny Tel Aviv, but when and if it chooses, on its own Russian terms.   

By Brenda Heard

Founder Friends of Lebanon

www.friendsoflebanon.org

 *please note that it is Israel’s own insistence on distinguishing people by their faith, Jewish or otherwise, that necessitates the topic.  FOL prefers to view people as individuals—not as representatives of a particular religion. 

Thanks to Miguel for forwarding this incredible map.

Even though this map of L’archipel de Palestine orientale (‘The Archipelago of Eastern Palestine’) is set in the same area and uses a similar theme, the cartographer behind it refutes any allegation that it is meant to reflect the same Biblical dry = good, wet = bad analogy. “The map is not about ‘drowning’ or ‘flooding’ the Israeli population, nor dividing territories along ethnic lines, even less a suggestion of how to resolve the conflict,” gasps Julien Bousac, the Frenchman who created this map.

A small excerpt of the map (focusing on the Greater Jerusalem area) was published a bit earlier on this blog, but the map in its entirety (sent in by Mr Bousac but also earlier by Baptiste Hautdidier) merits a separate entry, not only because “without a legend, it […] gives ground to various misinterpretations, due to the high sensitivity of the subject,” as Mr Boussac relates – but also because it just looks so nice. And strange, of course.

“Maybe posting the full map would help to take it for what it is, i.e. an illustration of the West Bank’s ongoing fragmentation based on the (originally temporary) A/B/C zoning which came out of the Oslo process, still valid until now. To make things clear, areas ‘under water’ strictly reflect C zones, plus the East Jerusalem area, i.e. areas that have officially remained under full Israeli control and occupation following the Agreements. These include all Israeli settlements and outposts as well as Palestinian populated areas.”

Mr Boussac took advantage of the resulting archipelago effect “to use typical tourist maps codes (mainly icons) to sharpen the contrast between the fantasies raised by seemingly paradise-like islands and the Palestinian Territories grim reality.” The map does have a strong vacationy vibe to it – but whether that is because of the archipelago-shaped subject matter, or due to the cheerful colour scheme is a matter for debate.

Those colours, incidentally, denote urban areas (orange), nature reserves (shaded), zones of partial autonomy (dark green) and of total autonomy (light green). Totally fanciful are of course the dotted lines symbolising shipping links, the palm trees signifying protected beachland, and the purple symbols representing various aspects of seaside pleasure. The blue icon, labelled Zone sous surveillance (‘Zone under surveillance’) has some bearing on reality, as the locations of the warships match those of permanent Israeli checkpoints.

Some of the paradisiacally named islands include Ile au Miel (Honey Island), Ile aux Oliviers (Isle of the Olive Trees), Ile Sainte (Holy Island) and Ile aux Moutons (Sheep Island), although the naming of Ile sous le Mur (Island beneath the Wall) constitutes a relapse into the grimness of the area’s reality.

SOURCE: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/270-palestines-island-paradise-now-with-a-word-from-its-creator/

(إضغط لتكبير الخارطة)

A job for the UN or Hezbollah? Franklin Lamb

Northwest of Ghajar Village, South Lebanon  

"We, as Lebanese, are here to confirm that we cling to freeing every grain of our soil. We will not abandon the great national cause, which is the continuation of the liberation of our land. The resistance looks forward to hoisting the flags of victory again over the Kfarshuba hills, Shebaa Farms, Ghajar and Abbasieh where 80 percent of the land is still occupied"

Sheik Nabil Qwork, Hezbollah leader addressing villagers at Abbasieh Village, 10/2008

Under pressure from the lame duck Bush Administration to withdraw from territory that the Lebanese Resistance (moukawamah Lubnaniyah) did not liberate during its May 2000 rout of the Israel army and its surrogate SLA militia, Israel to date remains unwilling to budge.  One reason is that it claims the Bush Administration reneged on secret pledges to bomb Iran.

As the blind eyes turned by five consecutive US administrations to Israel's 22 year brutal occupation of South Lebanon (1978-2000) make plain, Israel remaining on Lebanese territory normally would not be of much concern to Washington even as it is learning that its own hard-line policy in the region did not succeed.

The reason for the sudden worry about Israel clinging to Lebanese land, such as Ghajar Village and Shebaa Farms, is the fast approaching-and arguably second most important-election for the Middle East (the first being the result of the 11/4/08 US vote) the May 2009 Lebanese election.  The Bush Administration is widely thought here to believe that the 2009 election may be the last chance for the US to save Lebanon from Iranian suzerainty.

If Israel leaves Ghajar which it occupied in violation of UNSC Resolution 1701 on its way out of Lebanon, with Hezbollah hot on its heels, following the July 2006 war, (and Shebaa Farms which it occupied in 1967) the Bush Administration feels its March 14 Lebanese allies stand to benefit electorally.

Both the US and Israel are trying to prevent Hezbollah from determining Lebanese policy at Cabinet meetings and gaining the allegiance of a majority of the 128 Deputies following the May 2009 election.  The Obama victory helps Hezbollah in the coming Lebanese election because, despite groveling and  genuflecting to the Israel lobby as all  US presidential candidates have historically done, Obama takes a broader view of the Middle East and is perceived in the region as willing to 'do business and conduct dialogue" with Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Iran and Afghanistan.

Sundry, 'Nasrallah-Obama! Yes We Can!'  (Nam, Nahnou Nastatia!  in Arabic) placards have been observed recently in Beirut and around the Middle East.

For these reasons the nearly moribund Bush administration is taking no chances.  Charges persist, including those made this week by pro-Hezbollah Marada Movement leader Suleiman Franjieh that Welch Club-Saudi cash (in amounts up to $ 900 per vote according to some electoral organizers where the average monthly income is $75 per family) is being offered in the Tripoli/Akkar/Beirut area where Saad Hariri is deemed by many as not having properly filled his father's leadership shoes. Cash offers for votes are reported even in areas where a Hezbollah sweep is unlikely.  Hariri opponent, Franjieh added that "If Saudi Arabia continues to pump money into the forthcoming elections, this would lead Iran and others to contribute money!"  Needy and clever Lebanese voters may not complain much as some desperate citizens calculate how to sell their vote more than once to offset Lebanon's rising inflation.

The blizzard of cash prompted Hezbollah's popular leader in South Lebanon, Sheikh Nabil Qwork  to comment sarcastically that "it would have been more useful if the cash had been sent to help rebuild Lebanon instead of an attempt to buy the election". 

Does Hezbollah buy votes?

One can't be absolutely sure of practically anything in Lebanon these days but not according to residents in the Hezbollah Haret Hreik neighborhood between Shatila and Burj Barajneh Palestinian Refugee Camps.

"That would be so funny! I wish they did!" the scintillating late teen chador clad cashier at the neighborhood Halifee sandwich restaurant commented to this observer.  "Hezbollah is more likely to ask voters for a charity donation at the voting place than to pay people to vote.  I want you to know that Hezbollah supporters have the highest voting rate in Lebanon because they are motivated to do their 'national duty'.  I want to vote and I hope that the Parliament will immediately lower the voting age from 21 years to 18 years as Sayeed Hassan Nassrallah proposed during his Martyr's Day speech last week."

According to an election analyst at Beirut's, Notre Dame University – Louaize, founded by the Maronite Order of the Holy Virgin Mary, Parliament will likely agree.  Voting analysts calculate that dropping the voting age three years should give Hezbollah a majority of the approximately 250,000 newly available votes since young people in Lebanon tend to favor Hassan Nassrallah much as young Americans favored Obama

Fattening the base with US Pork?

It must have been pure coincidence last week (11/12/08) that U.S. Ambassador Michele Sisson, and USAID/Lebanon Mission Director Denise Herbal, announced that the U.S. embassy has launched a  six million dollar humanitarian assistance program "to help 21 villages adjacent to the northern Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared who were affected by the war"."  (Nahr al-Bared is the camp near Tripoli/Akkar  that was destroyed during  12 weeks of fighting between salafist Fateh al-Islam and the Lebanese Army during the summer of 2007 and where serious reconstruction is yet to begin partly because donors pledges have not been honored).

The Embassy did not explain to some Lebanese who were astonished by this widely perceived interference and electoral ploy how these 21 villages, at least two from which this observer witnessed, snipers firing down into the sealed Palestinian Camp, during the May of 2007 siege, were themselves affected—since most of the villages were far removed from any fighting. Also unexplained is the coincidence that the 21 selected villages just happen to be those where US allied candidates are facing possible defeat at the polls.

The new US Ambassador did note that "A revolving fund will be established for micro-finance loans to boost income generation (read: quick cash payouts) and job creation as well as job-market-oriented vocational training for youth, women and the unemployed."

A Reporters' question:  "What about Nahr al Bared, they lost everything and desperately need help?" was ignored.

Inquires to the Embassy were answered as is oft stated; "The Government of the United States of America respects the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, does not interfere in its internal affairs, and will accept the results of the coming election".

A Hamas organizer from Jenin, Palestine, currently being hunted and laying low in Lebanon, quipped: "Don't hold your breath. That's what they said in 2006 before Hamas won our election"

A brotherly swap: Lebanese territory for Georgian?

The election is causing some tension between the US and its March 14 allies for the reason that many Lebanese want  Ghajar and Shebaa Farms returned, and since the Embassy has not delivered on its whispers to force Israel to withdraw so the March 14 team could claim credit, their leader Saad Hariri may be negotiating with the Russians not only for help with getting Shebba Farms back before the voting, but also, to the consternation of the Bush Administration and Israel, asking Russia to deliver heavy weapons to Lebanon.

Following a meeting last week between Hariri and Russian leaders, Hariri was quoted by the Vremia Novosti newspaper as saying, "Lebanon needs heavy weapons such as tanks and artillery. American military aid only consists of light arms".

Further upsetting the US administration is speculation that Hariri will obtain Lebanon's recognition of the breakaway Georgian districts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in exchange for Russia picking up the American dropped ball regarding forcing Israel to return Lebanese territory. According to one staffer on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the White House is wondering what went on during the Nasrallah-Hariri (Hezbollah-Future Movement) meeting last month that Hariri may be reinventing himself (!) as a pro Resistance Lebanese patriot.

Where does the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory end? 

Lebanese voters are aware that Hezbollah may add the expected Israel withdrawal of Ghajar to its chain of claimed victories over Israel, and then ratchet up for complete Israeli withdrawal from Shebaa Farms and, as some insist, other border areas claimed by Lebanon.

When Israeli troops leave Ghajar and Shebaa Farms, will Lebanon and Hezbollah acknowledge that, contrary to the premature, Clinton administration orchestrated UN imprimatur of June 27, 2000 (the hastily and hostilely drafted UNSCR 1310), declaring that 1978 UN Resolution 425 (which demanded 22 years earlier that Israel immediately withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory has been fully complied with) and withdraw from along and under the 'blue line'?

The Bush Administration hope is that  if  Israel withdraws from the north side of Ghajar and a long predicted  UN deal can be done regarding the 14 Shebaa Farms, the now emptying White House could claim some success with its Middle East 'peace processes' before handing over the keys. Furthermore, its local Lebanese allies would have an argument why the Lebanese Resistance no longer needs arms to force the return of Lebanese territory.

However, many Lebanese along the southern Lebanese 'border' insist there is more to Israel's ongoing occupation of Lebanese territory than the village of Ghajar, and Shebaa Farms.

Hezbollah: "Excuse us please but the 'Blue Line' is not the Border!"

As recently as last week, but not for the first time, Hezbollah has reminded the international community that the U.N.-Demarcated Blue Line is "not a border line" between Lebanon and Israel.

Hezbollah's international relations official Nawaf Mousawi explained to visiting journalists and Parliamentarians that the Blue Line is only a "line setting withdrawal limits by the Israeli army from south Lebanon in the year 2000".

He added that the "Zionist terrorist organizations moved the border line from what was established in 1920 to a new line in 1923 which stripped Lebanon of seven villages and 20 farms. We should be attentive to attempts to consider the Blue Line a border line, which cuts from Lebanon millions of square meters from its national soil."

Hasan Nasrallah, has also asserted that Lebanon's territorial integrity includes not only the disputed Shebaa Farms but also the disputed Seven Villages.  Not good news for Tel Aviv or the Bush Administration.

Mousawi continued: "You can go back to the French Foreign Ministry's documents in the city of Nant, where you will find a memorandum the Zionist movement sent to the peace conference held in San Remo in 1919. In it, the Zionist movement wanted the Al-Awwali River, north of Sidon, to be the border of Israel, something which makes the entire south part of the State of Israel."

Mousawi, often succinct in his fact filled dialogues, did not name the seven villages but those living along the blue line who were expelled from them, recite:  Tarbikha, Abil al-Qamh, Hunin, al-Malikiyya, al-Nabi Yusha, Qadas and Saliha.  In addition, the villages of Abbasieh and Nkhaile have been encroached upon by Israel and must be returned they insist. 

UN cartographers who spent part of 2007 studying French/English maps relating to the Lebanese/Palestine boundary pointed out that those who know best exactly what Lebanese territory Israel still occupies are those Lebanese citizens whose families have lived along the historic Lebanon/Palestine/Syria frontier for generations and who have witnessed Zionist projects dating back nearly half a century before, according to one spry 80 something villager, "the Zionist colonial enterprise was grafted onto our land".

A brief survey of that opinion, as well as a review of cartography records from the colonial mandatory period (1920-48) which led directly to the establishment of modern Lebanon as well as to the NAKBA, is revealing.

It also aids in understanding the mindset of Hezbollah in servicing its population base, and fulfilling what the Party refers to as its 'religious and moral duty to resist Zionist occupation".  As AUB Professor Timur Goksel, a 30 year observer of the boundary between Lebanon and occupied Palestine, nearly a quarter century as spokesmen for UNIFIL, told a visiting American delegation from the Council for the National Interest (cnionline.org) last week, "sorting out Lebanon's southern border could take ten years and that assumes cooperation from all the parties". 

Colonialism and the Seven Shia Villages

The Seven Villages lie just south of the present Lebanon-Israel 'border' and remain a sensitive issue for Hezbollah since they were originally populated by Shia whose farms were inside the French mandate of Greater Lebanon after World War I. However, in 1924 their property was transferred to Palestine by the pro-Zionist British, at the urging of the Rothschild's after the initial demarcation of the international border.

The Seven Villages comprising, at the time 25 farms were originally declared part of Lebanon by the French and English mandatory powers in 1920 but were shifted south out of Lebanon by the Treaty of Al Quds in 1924 based on faulty border measurements, Zionist pressure and misunderstandings between French and English diplomats and cartographers.  The residents were forced off their property and only in 1994, following 30 years of litigation were they finally given Lebanese nationality. To this day their deeds and land records are in government offices in Tyre and Sidon-but their villages and more than 25 farms are locked inside Israel.

Recovering the Seven Shia Villages has never high on the list of Christian and Sunni Lebanese demands of Israel over the years and the Seven Villages were ignored as part of the stillborn US orchestrated 1983 May 17th Agreement. The villagers argue that this neglect of their lands does not diminish Lebanon's legal case to regain them or the validity of the Lebanese Resistance raising the issue.

Some may argue that it is not politically expedient before the election for Lebanon to raise the issue but that view may change following the next election assuming a new Parliamentary majority.

The genesis of the Seven Villages issue is found in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 wherein England (Sykes) and France (Picot) prepared a secret plan to carve up greater Syria and create a new State, Lebanon with ancient Palestine to the South. The territory south of the Sykes-Picot line would be governed by Britain and truncated Syria and the new state of Lebanon by the French.

The Seven Villages were lost to Lebanon at the end of World War I, when the British and French each established their exclusive Occupied Enemy Territorial Administrations (OETA) area, which kept the Seven Villages inside Lebanon, only to be shifted south into Palestine when the British, in the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, caved to Zionist pressure. Britain, not only did not shy away from the Zionist momentum ignited by the 1917 Balfour Agreement including Lebanon's lower Litani river and in headwaters of the Hasbani, at the Versailles Peace conference two years later,  it nearly achieved for the Zionists a border for 'Palestine" that would run as far north as South Saida to Mount Hermon.

The French representative on the Border Unit, one Colonel N. Paulet,   received instructions from the French Governor Gouraud in Beirut to retain the Shia populated villages in the area inside Lebanon on the grounds that they were a natural part of the new country.  Gouraud's resistance to British intensions was not out of love for the Shia.

Indeed, the French, were far warmer to the expansionist ambitions of their Christian subjects, at the expense of Muslims, and were uninclined  to insist on keeping the Seven 'kufer' Shia villages.  Rather, Gouraud's reasoning appears to have been based on a recognition that the geographical division between Shia- and Sunni-populated areas corresponded closely to the delineation of the border.

The fate of the Seven Villages was sealed on April 24 1924 when villages and farms located north of the Palestine OETA line were formally moved at British insistence from the jurisdiction of Greater Lebanon to Palestine – a total Lebanese land loss of more than 2,729 hectares.

The fact that Hezbollah has kept the pressure on Israel to withdraw from Ghajar and Shebaa Farms will likely reward it at the polls, although there are more than a dozen other Israeli border violation issues that Hezbollah may decide to address including some 25 farms, seven villages and any number of  'moving the goal posts' issues.

During its 22 year occupation, Israel frequently took ground in the Galilee panhandle because for much of its route Lebanon has the topographical advantage particularly in the 1980s, the Israeli military was watched and sometimes recorded by villagers.  They report seeing Israeli soldiers pushing the border fence north and deeper into Lebanon in various areas, creating annexed areas that granted the Israelis the high ground overlooking the terrain to the north and west.   Villagers claim that some of these areas have not been returned to their pre-occupation positions.

Future border rectifications?

Additionally, if some of the Lebanese farmers along the Khiam plain south of Marjayoun have their way, Hezbollah may also try to  force Israel to return more than  an estimated 3,000 truckloads of the areas rich and fertile soil that during its occupation, its engineer corps hauled south to create expanded farms at Kiryat Shemona, Matulla and adjacent areas.

This observer has noticed that some foreign visitors or 'experts' writing from posh Zionist funded 'tink thanks' in Northwest Washington, DC claim that Hezbollah is radical and makes extreme and unrealistic demands concerning the return of Lebanese territory.

Researchers tramping the South of Lebanon come to learn that it's the people of the South who used to travel uninhibited between Palestine and Lebanon and whose families have lived in the area for hundreds of years who are counting the days until their southern neighbors are liberated. Views they express make Hezbollah appear meek and mild.

Whatever Lebanon's future government decides to do about regaining this countries land, it may wish to consider the results of an admittedly unscientific survey conducted recently of former owners of farms in the Seven Villages as well as Abbasieh and Nkhaile villages in South Lebanon.  Villages like Maron al Ras from which today visitors can clearly view Saliha, one of the Seven Villages where during April of 1948, 70 people were rounded up, forced into the center of the village and machine gunned by Israeli troops, their bodies dumped inside the mosque and the building demolished.

Next move:  the UN or Hezbollah?

The United Nations may want to work with increased vim to resolve the myriad extant border issues in South Lebanon, alongside the current unity Government of Lebanon, rather than face the escalating wrath from villagers along the 1916, 1918, 1920, 1923, 1924, 1949, 2000, 2006 frontier. The same goes for Israel, the US and the other members of the Quartet. 

On the table at Maron al Ras:

*The return of  the Kifa Shoula hills, adjacent to Shebaa Farms annexed in 1967

* Handing over all maps of landmines and cluster bombs, the latter of which has caused more than 300 Lebanese and international casualties since the August 14, 2006 cessation of hostilities;

* Ending all violations of airspace and territorial waters;

* Written acknowledgement of Lebanon's right to control its water resources including the Hasbani and Wazzani rivers;

* Demarcation of the Lebanese/Palestine border back to the original 1923 line and replace the 2000 'blue line'

* Restoration of the Seven Lebanese villages

* The return of all Palestinian Refugees residing in Lebanon who want to exercise their UNSCR 194 guaranteed Right of Return, (approximately 400,000) and  fair and adequate compensation for those who do not choose to return;

* Indictment and prosecution before International Courts of all those who committed crimes against humanity and who crossed the southern Lebanon border by land, air or Lebanese territorial waters to do so;

* The payment by Israel of Third Reich era reparations, compensation, and damages for the destruction of Lebanon and for the families of the Massacred for Israeli crimes conducted by its aggressions in 1948, 1949, 1967, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1984. 1985, 1993, 1994, 1996 and 2006;

* An international tribunal to try Israeli officials for organizing and abetting the September 16-18 Massacre at the Sabra-Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp.  The payment by Israel of compensation for those killed and injured as a result of the Massacre and the destruction of property. 

Franklin Lamb earned his Doctorate from the London School of Economic in International Law and Economics. He is a board member of HOKOK: the International Coalition against Impunity, which is preparing a case before the International Court of Justice with respect to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law during the 2006 War.  He can be reached at fplamb@sabrashatila.org . 

Franklin P. Lamb, PhD

Director, Americans Concerned for

Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut

Acting Chair, the Sabra-Shatila Memorial Scholarship Program Laptop Initiative

Shatila Palestinian Refugee Camp

Beirut Mobile: +961-70-164-648

fplamb@SabraShatila.org

FOR YOUR INFORMATION PLEASE:

The Price We Pay: A Quarter Century of Israel's use of American Weapons against Lebanon (1978-2006) is available at Amazon.com.uk or Lebanese Bookstores The Revised and Arabic Edition was released on 8/12/08. The Farsi and French Editions are expected this Fall.

And in the USA, the title is available at www.LebaneseBooks.com , and currently enjoys Free Standard Shipping.

This is important not only in the narrow sense of the legal status of American troops in Iraq, but also for wider issues related to relations between major Western powers and weaker Arab countries. In many respects, this is a moment of historical clarification and adjustment in the wake of over a century in which Western powers moved their armies around the Arab world at will, making and breaking Arab countries and political leaderships in the Arab world and Iran.

The wider issue at stake beyond American soldiers in Iraq is the effective end of the colonial era mentality that put Western troops and officials above the law, and kept indigenous Arab and Iranian national interests subservient to the greater colonial dictates of powers like England, France and, today, the United States.

The agreement being hammered out has generated some fresh concern and open opposition from various Iraqi groups, including Muqtada al-Sadr's religious-nationalists, some of the Shiites in the ruling coalition, and even some Sunni groups who are generally seen to be keen on maintaining an American presence to protect them.

The complexity of sealing the agreement reflects these wider historical issues, but also the changing nature of the soldiering profession. The American armed forces now subcontract many noncombat duties to commercial companies, such as transport, food supplies, security for officials or other kinds of logistics. The current draft of the agreement says that private American security companies and other such contractors would be subject to the Iraqi legal system in criminal cases, a major Iraqi demand that the Americans seem to have accepted as inevitable.

On the other hand, American soldiers themselves would continue to be immune from the provisions of Iraqi justice, except in cases of serious or premeditated felonies committed when they were not on duty. The Iraqi government wants full legal jurisdiction over American troops, but the US resists this. A compromise is likely to be worked out.

Other tricky issues include the right of Iraqis to search imported American supplies, whether the Iraqi government would have the right to extend the American military presence in the country beyond 2011, and whether the US would have the right to form a committee to review suspected crimes of soldiers in order to determine if they should be tried in Iraqi courts.

These technicalities capture the bigger picture very nicely, and the Iraqis negotiating this matter should be encouraged to stand their ground and work out an agreement that sets a precedent for others in the Middle East or even around the world. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 with a view to launching a new political order in the Middle East in which indigenous democracies worked closely with the US and other allies to promote stability and security – worthy goals in the abstract, indeed, but flawed because of the inappropriate Anglo-American decision to achieve them through war.

Ironically, as the US prepares to start withdrawing from Iraq, it will leave behind a political and legal agreement with the Iraqi government that establishes new limits on the ability of American and other Western troops to move around the region at will and with total impunity.

How the legal jurisdiction issue is resolved in Iraq may help determine whether Western armies have total impunity to do anything they wish, cause tremendous and perhaps lasting damage throughout the Middle East, and then leave without any lasting consequences for them. In the colonial days, this was the case. Soldiers must not be above the law, but the politicians who sent them on their aggressive mission must also be held accountable somehow to decent standards of both law and morality.

Today, we need to find out if the colonial period has ended or not. If the US and Iraqi governments work out an agreement that allows American troops, subcontractors and modern mercenaries to remain above the law of the land in Iraq, we will all suffer for years to come. Americans and perhaps other Western powers will continue to undertake outrageous military adventures that leave the Middle East in much worse shape than it was before they attacked, including in such sectors as ethnic and sectarian strife, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, refugee flows, general security and economic stress.

Impunity is a bad idea, for children, petty criminals and corporate thieves as well as for countries and their armies.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=96975

Rami Khouri is published twice weekly by The Daily Star.

Source: Institute for Palestine Studies

Above: A map showing the area of Silwan threatened with demolition and settlement expansion, including an indicator of the area in which settlements already exist. As highlighted on the map, Silwan as well as the adjacent villages of Tur and Ras Al Amud will be on the western side of the Wall, as Jerusalem is being isolated from the rest of the West Bank, in the Occupation’s continued plans to control the city. With most of Jerusalem outside the Walled-in areas, it is expected that the Apartheid Wall and therefore the isolation and ghettoization of Jerusalem, will act as a springboard for increasing land confiscation, settlement expansion and expulsion in the area.

"Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past." (George Orwell, 1984)

Historically, Jerusalem began as a small village where the Palestinian village of Silwan sits today. Currently, Silwan has a population of over 45,000 Palestinians. Underneath their homes and ragged streets lie the remnants of 5000 years of glorious nations who lived there.

Silwan is located in East Jerusalem, which was occupied by Israel in 1967. Since then, behind the Zionist claim of reconnecting with the ancient heritage of the Jews, the truth is, archeology has become a weapon of dispossession of Palestinians. Archaeological excavations are being carried out as part of a concerted campaign to expel them from their ancestral home and history.

In an unprecedented act, the state of Israel has handed over the responsibility of the archaeological site to ELAD – an Israeli religious settlers' gang whose proclaimed purpose is the takeover of Silwan. The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) financed by ELAD's $10 million yearly budget is excavating under the houses of Silwan’s residents, without informing them about it and ignoring their property rights. In fact, ELAD has used a variety of means to evict East Jerusalem Palestinians from their homes and replace them with Jewish settlers.

Silwan is one of the Jerusalem neighborhoods most threatened with Judaization as a result of continuous settler attacks and occupation of its houses. Just last year in Silwan, in March 2004, settlers occupied two buildings that together are comprised of 12 flats. These can be added to the houses and lands in Silwan already taken over by settlers during previous years, a large part of which are located in Wadi Hilwa, which overlooks Bustan and is adjacent to the Old City. The settlements in Silwan – caravans and occupied houses – are located in the middle of the neighborhood, and are as well located very near to one another, making clear their function of ultimately turning the entire neighborhood into a settlement.

In April 2005, the Occupation Forces and its municipality in Jerusalem declared its plan to demolish some 122 houses in both the areas of Bustan and Wadi Hilwa. Demolishing these houses is part of the Occupation's plan to "evacuate" and expropriate all lands surrounding the Old City, in the closest hills and mountains surrounding the Old City that include Tur, Silwan and Abu Tur, along with other areas. The planned settlements are to also include car parks, recreational and commercial areas. Source: stopthewall.org

Today, all the green areas in the densely populated neighborhood of Silwan have been transformed into archaeological sites, which have then been fenced and posted with armed guards. Some of these 'archaeological sites' have been transformed to homes for the Jewish settlers.

ELAD has made it clear that they want the land without the people and their history. In fact, Elda is now trying to hide the history as reported here:

Dozens of skeletons from the early Islamic period were discovered during excavations near the Temple Mount, on a site slated for construction by a right-wing Jewish organization. Contrary to regulations, the skeletons were removed, and were not reported to the Ministry of Religious Services. The Israel Antiquities Authority termed the incident ‘a serious mishap’."

The IAA's Dr. Doron Ben Ami is directing the excavations at the Givati parking lot in Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood, across from the entrance to the Dung Gate. ELAD, an association devoted to Judaizing East Jerusalem, is funding the dig at the site, where it plans to build an events hall with underground parking. The IAA is excavating there even though ELAD never filed building plans with the planning authorities.

In recent weeks, workers excavating at a depth of two to three meters reached a layer from the 8th or 9th century A.D., some 200 years after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem. They discovered several dozen skeletons, skulls and bone fragments, thought to date from the early Islamic period. An IAA source said there were ‘dozens of crates’ containing bone fragments that were removed, which suggests at least 100 skeletons were found.

IAA regulations require that any graves discovered be reported immediately to the Religious Services Ministry and to Atra Kadisha, an ultra-Orthodox organization dedicated to preserving ancient Jewish gravesites. For some reason this discovery was not reported, and the skeletal remains were carted away before ministry officials arrived to inspect the site. The ministry learned of the discovery only two weeks later, following inquiries by Haaretz.

Nor have the Muslim religious authorities been notified, even though the skeletons are thought to belong to a Muslim community.

An archaeologist who worked at the IAA expressed surprise at the manhandling of skeletons discovered less than a hundred meters from Al Aqsa mosque. "The moment a digger comes across bones, he must stop immediately and inform his supervisors," he said, adding that IAA director Shuka Dorfman has threatened to fire anyone who fails to report the discovery of bones.

The IAA refused to explain the ‘serious mishap’, but said Dorfman ‘accepts responsibility’ for it.

Another archaeologist familiar with excavations in Jerusalem lamented the lost opportunity to learn more about the city's past: "This was not a regular cemetery, since then they would also have found many tombstones. It may have been a private burial site, perhaps a mass grave following an epidemic or war, but in any case it is a very important discovery that could shed light on life in Jerusalem in that period. It's a scandal they destroyed it." Source: Haaretz.

It is not surprising that none of the Zionist archaeologists findings will be highlighted for the public if any proof of the Muslim rule comes to light. They are looking only for Jewish ruins as if Muslims (and others) were never there.

Although ELAD denies their intention of driving out Silwan's Palestinians, they still do not deny that they have a Zionist dream to reveal only a Jewish ancient city beneath the ground and create a Jewish neighborhood above the ground.

History is pulsing through Jerusalem, reeling off the names of history's giants, nations and religions associated with the city – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So what gives the right for Zionists to claim it as Jewish only land for any reason other than their racist ideology?

Amihai Mazar, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said the site has already revealed important details of Jerusalem's history. He mentioned the discovery of massive Canaanite fortifications 3,700 years old and of thousands of fish bones indicating the diet favored in this landlocked city on the desert's edge.

In spite of that, ELAD runs a visitors ' center which offers a highly one-sided, Zionist version of the history of Silwan. At the entrance, visitors to the site receive a propaganda pamphlet embodying a distorted historical narrative in a relentless process of turning Silwan into an area that seems to have a history that is Jewish alone, and will return to that state. At the same time, they are dispossessing many of the Palestinian residents to do just that .

A grass-roots protest in the neighborhood, including an appeal to the Israel Supreme Court, has met with violent suppression by the police, including the harassment and repeated arrests of the signatories to the appeal. On March 17, 2008, the Court issued a restraining order against ELAD and temporarily halted further extension of the digging.

In Silwan, sadly, archaeology -and the Israel Antiquities Authority – are being openly exploited for purely Zionist purposes that include the removal of innocent civilians from their homes.

In recent weeks, university professors and lecturers from all over the world have been signing a petition aiming at stopping using archaeology against the residents of Silwan. The petition calls to stop ELAD from exploiting archaeology for their Zionist dreams. It is still possible to sign the petition. You can find it here:
http://www.alt-arch.org/signpetition.html

On Wednesday, the 18th of June, 2008 at 11 a.m., there will be a hearing in the Supreme Court in Jerusalem regarding the archaeological excavations under the houses of the Silwan. If you can make it, your presence is important!

References:

- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/988803.html
- http://counterpunch.org/bronner04112008.html
- http://imeu.net/news/article008427.shtml
- http://stopthewall.org/photos/947.shtml
- http://www.alt-arch.org/index.html

[Via: Sabbah's Blog]

Similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, just back from a meeting with George W. Bush in Washington, sounded almost euphoric when he spoke of an “American-Israeli consensus on the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program by whatever means necessary.”

Needless to say, an Israeli or American-Israeli attack on Iran would be a blatant and unprovoked aggression on a sovereign nation.  It would also plunge the world into an unpredictable phase of violence and turbulence, with deep and far-reaching ramifications.

Iran, although hostile to Israel because of the latter’s Nazi-like occupation of Palestine and oppression of the Palestinian people, has never attacked Israel.

True, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad often makes stupid and irresponsible rhetorical remarks about wiping Israel off the map, thus giving the Zionist regime ample hasbara ammunition to incite and blackmail the West into boycotting and isolating the Iranian republic. However, Ahmadinejad himself and other Iranian officials have made it abundantly clear that Iran is not against Jews or Judaism, but rather against Zionism, an inherently racist and manifestly criminal ideology based on mass murder and ethnic cleansing.

This seems a plausible explanation because if Ahmadinejad were truly hostile to Jews or Judaism, let alone if he harbored genocidal designs against the Jewish people, as the Zionist propaganda machine keeps telling us, he would start with tens of thousands of Iranian Jewish citizens who enjoy religious and civil freedoms and are represented in the Iranian parliament.

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister said  “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” This is exactly the maxim being adopted by Zionist leaders who are spreading lies, disinformation and half-truths about Iran in order to get the madman in Washington D.C. and his gang of neocons and war criminals to attack another Muslim country on Israel’s behalf.

Unlike most Arab states in the region, Iran is a dignified country that respects itself and values its independence.  It adamantly refuses to be at America’s beck and call and rejects the western rationale that the Nazi holocaust against Jews during WWII justifies the dispossession and destruction of the Palestinian people at the hands of Zionist Jews.

Iran, despite all the disinformation to the contrary, is not really against peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. However, Iran, mainly because of moral considerations, can’t accept the perpetuation of Palestinian suffering and dispossession through the creation of a deformed and truncated Palestinian “state” on less than 20% of the Palestinian homeland while allowing the apartheid Israeli regime to keep the rest of the spoils of theft. In other words, Iran says that ethnic cleansing must never be allowed to triumph.

Well, isn’t that compatible with the views of most men and women of honesty and conscience all over the globe?

Nonetheless, the main Israeli motive behind its hostility to Iran stems from Israeli worries that a technologically advanced and militarily strong Iran might pose a credible challenge to Israel’s strategic supremacy in the region.

Israel is believed to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads, ready with delivery systems, in addition to a huge arsenal of state-of-the-art of American weapons of death. Israel also tightly controls American politics, policies, political parties and media, especially the so-called agenda-setters.

Indeed, one exaggerates very little by saying that the United States of America is subservient to Israel and that American politicians, including members of Congress and the Senate as well as presidential candidates are more answerable to the Jewish lobby, especially AIPAC, than they are to their own American constituents.

The recent speech by the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during AIPAC’s convention last week is very telling. It proves once again that the international Zionist cartel, of which AIPAC constitutes the American chapter, tightly controls the American political discourse and that any American politician who dares speak his or her mind about Israel’s slow-motion genocide of Palestinians or more recently about America’s relations with the Muslim world, will be committing political suicide.

So, how can an essentially third world country like Iran possibly pose a real threat to nuclear Israel that is backed by the only superpower in the world, its guardian-ally, the United States?

Besides, Iran has a natural right to harness nuclear technology, even for military purposes. Indeed, if Israel had the right to possess and stockpile hundreds of nuclear warheads, that are being trained at Muslim cities such as Cairo, Istanbul, Tehran and Damascus and probably Mecca and Medina as well, why on earth would Muslim states such as Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia not have such a right?

After all, are Jewish nuclear bombs kosher? Are they altruistic? Are they innocuous?

I am not and will never be a fan of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction. And I think the invention of these ugly tools of mass extinction represented the lowest point in human morality if only because these weapons are capable of annihilating the human race.

Having said that, however, I believe that a situation where certain states are allowed to possess the nuclear technology (and nuclear weapons) while others are not, is inherently unjust and unacceptable.

This situation allows criminal states like Israel to coerce and bully other states and other peoples and even blackmail the entire world. It allows Israel to bomb Tunis, Baghdad, Syria and threaten to bomb the Egyptian Aswan Dam and then tell the helpless victims “hit me back if you dare.”

Hence, Israel must bring itself to understand that this situation where Israel keeps bullying hundreds of millions of Muslims by brandishing her nuclear bombs in their faces and telling them “hit me back if you dare” is intolerable and unacceptable, to say the least.

Muslims around the world are watching helplessly the despicable treatment Israel is meting out to the Palestinians.  And in their hearts and minds they realize that if they don’t acquire military strength, or at least enough of it to deter Israel’s genocidal whims, their turn will eventually come because Israel’s ambitions go far beyond Gaza and the West Bank.

Don’t tell me I am exaggerating. A state that dropped 3 million cluster bomblets on Lebanon two years ago is capable of carrying out the unthinkable, especially in light of the fact that the main capitals of Europe and North America are more or less Israeli-occupied territories.

This is a message that not only Iran ought to understand and internalize. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and even Turkey must also get busy.

In a jungle where strength respects strength, one has to be a tiger, a fox or a venomous cunning snake in order to survive.

It is somewhat funny and sad how a piece of paper can define who you are or to what you are entitled or not. As a holder of a German “residency permit” I am able to enter Jerusalem, the city I was born in and where I attended school and spent most of my growing years, but as a Palestinian I am not allowed there any more. The last time I was in Palestine, I was allowed into Jerusalem only because of this “residency permit”. So, a Palestinian who was born and grew up in Jerusalem is only able to enter the city through the residency stamp of a country that lies on another continent. Foreigners from the four corners of the world are allowed into Jerusalem, provided they are not Palestinian nationals and residents of Palestine.

This reminds me of the destiny of my community: the Sawahreh community. The town of East Sawahreh lies about 4 km to the south east of Jerusalem. Before 1967 the Sawahreh community lived in areas that extended from the Mukabber Mountain in Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, an area of 72,000 dunums, of which less than 10% have remained today due to continuous land confiscation for settlements, for the so-called security purposes and finally for the apartheid wall. For centuries, the residents of Sawahreh have centered their life around the holy city and have identified themselves with it. After 1967 the Israeli occupation divided this one community into three: East Sawahreh, Sheikh Sa'd and West Sawahreh (Al Mukabber). While West Sawahreh remained under the administration of the Israeli Jerusalem municipality and its population of 8,000 was granted Jerusalem ID cards, East Sawahreh with its 8,500 residents and Sheikh Sa’d with its 3,000 residents were made part of the West Bank and the majority of the population there holds West Bank ID cards. In addition to that there are a number of natural basins east of the Container barrier.

The residents of Sawahreh have a special connection to the land on which they live and from which they live. They didn’t leave their lands and defended them during the Nakba of 1948. For two years they lived in caves and endured a life of hardship and remained steadfast on their lands. But ironically, the lands they protected generation after generation were taken away from them after the signing of the peace agreement between the PLO and Israel. The residents of Sawahreh lost their lands to the “promises of peace” of the Israeli state. With this “peace” came further land confiscation, various temporary and permanent check points, more settlements and illegal settlers and the apartheid wall.

The three small towns East Sawahreh, Abu Dees and Ezariyyeh lie on the outskirts of Jerusalem and have together a population of around 70,000 people. Pupils attended school in Jerusalem, men and women worked in the city, women did their shopping there while others sold their vegetables and herbs in the old city. These three towns lost most of their lands for the nearby illegal settlements and in 2004 nearly 1,000 dunums were confiscated so as to start with the construction of a 60 m wide and 6 to 8 metre high wall around Jerusalem. This wall aims at confining the Palestinians to small islands, isolated and cut off from the rest of the Palestinian landscape and preventing the natural growth of Palestinian communities and causing their slow suffocation. It is an excuse to confiscate more Palestinian land and to include the main Israeli settlement blocks and other scattered settlements within the wall surrounding Jerusalem. Running all the way from Ezariyyeh through Abu Dees, East Sawahreh to reach Shkeikh Sa’d, the apartheid wall is destroying the livelihood of the people there and distorting their daily life. Today the holy city is under strict closure since the construction of the apartheid wall and is separated from its Palestinian surrounding. The only way in and out is a number of gates, the so-called “Ma’aber” or terminals, which are huge, border-crossing-like check points, where only Jerusalem ID-holders or West Bankers with permits are allowed to cross, aiming at humiliating the Palestinian population and robbing it of its land and freedom. In addition, Palestinians holders of Jerusalem ID who live outside the wall have either had their Jerusalem ID revoked or are threatened by it and losing their right to the city.

Further division of the Sawahreh community came with the wall, leaving East Sawhreh and Sheikh Sa’d outside and West Sawahreh inside the wall. This caused the separation of a one and single community and the consequent fragmentation and division of whole families. Father cut off from son, brother from brother, and sister from brother. Whole families are being disconnected and scattered on either side of the wall causing the collapse of the natural social net by this unnatural physical barrier. Many examples exist of families divided into two, where part of the children are staying with the mother on one side of the wall while the other part is staying with the father on the other side of the wall. Isolated they live and are held prisoners in their own homes and towns, for the road to Jerusalem has been blocked by the 8 meter high wall and the meadows that used to spread to the dead sea and were always the pride of the Sawahreh community are now being eaten by settlements at a rapid pace. To reach Ramallah and the northern West Bank one would have to take long bypasses and to reach Bethlehem and southern West Bank one has to take the dangerous and curvy bypass of Wadi Il-Nar, a home to many traffic accidents.

The wall has violated the basic human rights of this community and affects their everyday life. Pupils and students face hardships in reaching their educational institutions and have to pass several check points before reaching their destination. They have to witness the daily humiliation of their parents, relatives or neighbors by armed soldiers who decide whether one is allowed in or not. They often try avoiding this humiliation by choosing the dangerous way of searching for unguarded passages or openings in the fences or between houses. Many were forced to change schools because they weren’t allowed in Jerusalem anymore, with some being forced to enroll in school in cities as far away as Bethlehem. Mothers and elderly face hardships reaching health centers, since the closest hospitals Al Maqasid and Al Mutala’ “Augusta Victoria” are out of reach now. These two hospitals served the Palestinian population of Jerusalem and the whole region around it for decades, and now the majority of these people have lost their access to a nearby hospital and are forced to either go all the way to Bethlehem, Ramallah or Jericho to get medical treatment. In certain cases, such as heart attacks, an immediate treatment can be life saving.

Historically, the Sawahreh community has always been a rural community whose lifestyle has revolved around agriculture and farming. “45% of them make their living from agriculture, especially in lands full of wells (they are called “earth flowers”), and caves in which livestock live. 35% of Sawahreh community is self-sufficient with meat and milk of their cattle, vegetables, and wheat.”[1]

Throughout the years, the Israeli occupation confiscated most of the lands that belonged to this community. This has led to a sharp decrease in work in the agriculture field and the consequent shift into cheap labour. The isolation caused by the wall, the continuous closure of the Palestinian Territories combined with the restrictions on free movement of people and goods have contributed to the deteriorating economical situation with an estimated unemployment rate of 65% within the East Sawahreh community.

But under this apartheid occupation not only the living suffer but the dead do as well. The only cemetery serving the community in East Sawahreh and Skeikh Sa’d lies on the other side of the wall. For decades now, the residents have had their cemetery in West Sawahreh, which is out of reach now. To be able to reach the cemetery behind the wall, the mourners need to organize their entry with the Israeli military and sometimes only the relatives and sometimes only people above 40 or 45 are allowed in as well. Often those accompanying the funeral head to Jerusalem and the old city after that and spend the day there. The apartheid wall not only separated the living from each other but the living from their dead as well. Once a deceased is buried, it would be difficult for family members to visit the grave whenever they wish. Most probably they would have to wait for the next funeral to be able to visit the graves of their forefathers and beloved ones.

2007 an Israeli military order was issued allowing the confiscation of further 1,128 dunums of Sawahreh and Abu Dees land for the construction of the road No. 80, a 13 km long and 7 metres wide road, as part of the E1 plan (eastern belt plan). This plan aims in the first place at destroying any possibility of realizing a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, through the isolation of Jerusalem from its Palestinian surrounding and cutting its ties with the West Bank thus dividing it into two parts. Land confiscated for the realization of this plan will hinder the natural growth of Palestinian communities and enclose the various illegal settlements in that area within the Jerusalem Metropolitan plan. With an estimated seized land of 25,000 dunums, this road is to run all the way from the Khan Alahmar hills to end in East Sawahreh and will link Jerusalem's eastern settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Kedar with Kfar Atzion.

Its either they confiscate your land or they confiscate your birthright in Jerusalem. The residents of Sawahreh face both problems. Holders of Jerusalem IDs are confronted with the “Absentee law” if they live outside the wall, and are thus forced to leave the lands inherited from their fathers and settle in over-crowded rooms in Jerusalem so as not to lose their right to live in the holy city. Holders of West Bank IDs face another type of problem. They aren’t allowed in Jerusalem anymore, leading to the loss of their jobs and their livelihood. Many had shops and businesses in what lies on the other side of the wall now and were forced to give up these shops and businesses. The various Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination against Palestinians in Jerusalem and the surrounding area violate the basic rights of Palestinians including the right of free movement, the right to work, to study, to have access to health facilities, and aim at emptying the region of its original population. Closure, siege, check points, crossing gates, land confiscation and the apartheid wall constitute a violation of Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 12 of the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights and Article 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

“The International Court of Justice asked Israel to stop work on the Separation Wall in the Palestinian occupied territories including East Jerusalem and the area around it, to destroy all the bits that are already built and to delete all the laws and decisions which the Israeli government had made in creating it” (Hague decisions paragraph 133, 152 and 153 – Advisory Opinion of the ICJ, 9th July 2004)[2].

Sources:

www.ccdprj.ps

www.arij.org

www.camdenabudis.net

Map courtesy www.passia.org