Naksa Day

photo:Reuters

I think the Nakba day and Naksa day protests could have more significance than we attribute to them. While they are not accomplishing much on the ground - at this point - in terms of tangible results like returning land lost to Israeli occupation, they are demonstrating that Palestinians, like other Arabs, are no longer willing to wait for their corrupt and powerless leaders to fix their problems. They are taking things into their own hands through nonviolent (mostly) resistance, which at this point is mainly symbolic, but in the longer run has the potential to have real potency. Picture thousands or millions of Palestinian refugees simply refusing to accept the borders imposed by Israel and walking across the border en masse. Could Israel shoot them all down? The power of numbers can be compelling. While Palestinian activism isn't there yet, I think the so-called "Arab Spring" has the power to demonstrate this possibility. It seems to have shaken the leadership of both the Israelis and Palestinians out of their stupor to begin to at least think about re-starting the moribund peace process.

At any rate, I have compiled some interesting tweets by bloggers, activists, and photographers into a storify narrative - it shows the inside view of the day's events from a few of those who were there. Enjoy!

Israel demolishes Bedouin village - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Israel demolishes Bedouin village - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Unrecognized Bedouin Village, Negev, Israel by Paulhrob (flickr)

Al Jazeera reports:

Israeli authorities have demolished the homes of about 300 Bedouins in a village in the southern Negev desert.

Al-Arakib, which had about 40 homes, is one of 45 Bedouin villages not recognised by Israeli authorities.

Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld confirmed the early-morning operation, saying the homes had been "illegally built" and were destroyed in line with a court ruling issued 11 years ago which was never implemented.


Noach said Israeli authorities had first given residents of al-Arakib a notice to evacaute on June 15, but that no action had followed, so the residents began to doubt that the demolition would occur.
But this morning, Israeli police arrived and forced residents to leave their homes within minutes, Noach said.

According to the Negev Co-existence Forum, around half of the 155,000 Bedouins in the Negev - all of whom are Israeli citizens - live in villages that are unrecognised by the government, without municipal services like water and electricity.

Bedouins comprise 25 per cent of the northern Negev's population, but live on only 2 per cent of its land. Nevertheless, this sort of demolition has been occurring with increasing regularity in recent years. Bedouin, who have lived on their land in the Negev since before the establishment of Israel in 1948, are said to be "squatters" who are "endangering state lands" and must be removed, by force if necessary. Their settlements have never been incorporated into any state planning and therefore have been left out of infrastructure and development planning.


According to a 2009 report by the Israeli Health Ministry, Bedouin children suffer more from growth disorders, nutritional deficiencies, and underweight conditions that could cause serious damage. In the first and second grades some 13% of Bedouin children suffer from growth delays, while 17% are underweight.
Over half (56%) of Bedouin infants at the age of six-months-old suffer from anemia, and about a tenth of them have zinc deficiencies. At the average age of 18-months-old 27% of Bedouin children suffer from anemia, while 11.5% lack zinc, 5% lack Vitamin A and 3% have Vitamin E deficiencies. In comparison, various studies conducted in Israel showed that only 10% of Jewish infants suffered from anemia.


Small wonder that the Bedouin are said to be "radicalizing," or at least, becoming much less friendly to the state of Israel. Many sympathize with the growing Islamic Movement in Israel, which preaches non-violent self-reliance and autonomy from Israel. Can the Bedouin be blamed for not playing nice when the rules of the game are stacked against them?

Israel Supreme Court: Open 'apartheid' road to Palestinians

Update from an earlier post, where I commented on the "separate but unequal" regime emerging between Palestinians and Israeli settlers on the West Bank. Now, the Christian Science Monitor reports:

Israeli Supreme Court: Open 'apartheid' road to Palestinians: "Israel's Supreme Court ordered a segregated West Bank highway to be opened for Palestinian use. But rights groups say 10 more 'apartheid' roads should be opened too.

In the first ruling of its kind, Israel's Supreme Court ordered the Israeli army on Thursday to allow Palestinians to travel on a West Bank road they had been banned from using.

"The Supreme Court never made a decision before relating to a particular place where Palestinians are banned from driving on a road just for being Palestinians," said Nirit Moskovich of the Association for Human Rights Israel (ACRI), the group filing the case on behalf of 22 Palestinian villages south of Hebron. ACRI is disappointed, however, that the Supreme Court did not seize the opportunity to make a ruling on segregated roads in general, she added.

Update: Settlements Illegal?

Update: today's Washington Post features an article discussing the ambiguity over America's official policy toward Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Although a 1979 State Department legal opinion states that the settlements are "inconsistent" with international law, citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, US presidents have not referred to settlements as "illegal'" preferring instead terms such as "illegitimate" or "unhelpful." The last administration went even further, coming close to officially recognizing some settlements close to the green line as demographic "realities on the ground" that would be annexed to Israel as part of a final peace agreement.


I find it interesting that US officials will not comment on this 1979 legal opinion to say whether or not it is still official US policy. Today, Palestinians are in a weak position, politically, diplomatically, and militarily. Their main strength is international law - it is strongly on their side. Is the United States going to stand on the side of international law? Or, will it sacrifice international law for the interests of its ally, Israel?

The photo says it all

This photo, taken outside Jerusalem, is emblematic of the growing gap between Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The straight, paved, wide road can only be used by Israeli settlers (often called a "bypass" road) while the narrow, winding road is used by Palestinians.


It is easy to see why commerce and transportation are made much harder by this sort of separation. This is the sort of regime that emerged during the "salad years" of the Oslo Accords. Supposedly, the interim treaty was supposed to make life better for both Israelis and Palestinians, but instead, Palestinians found that their land was still confiscated for settlements and bypass roads, their agricultural and industrial goods still barred from export, and the economy still stagnating. In fact, Israel's settler population grew by 40% and housing units in the West Bank increased by 52% between 1993 and 2000. Not surprisingly, Israelis found that their security did not improve.

Today, success in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism depends on good relations with Middle Eastern countries, who desperately want and need progress on Arab - Israeli peace. But how can we press for peace when the future Palestinian state is slowly eroding in the face of determined settlement activity? Both Israeli and American interests in the region rest on the answer to this question.

Picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/david55king/1293158394/

Famous Last Words: Watch This Mom!

While my kids jump themselves silly on the trampoline (thank the heavens and stars for trampolines!!!) I can take a break and get my internet fix. It seems the buzz about Chas Freeman's withdrawal won't stop. The Washington Post published an editorial discrediting what is often called the “Israel Lobby” by painting it as a shadowy cabal of power-hungry leaders conspiring behind closed doors. However, Daniel Pipes himself reputedly crowed about the success of pro-Israeli elements, especially AIPAC's Steve Rosen, to start the momentum against Freeman.

What I see is a powerful lobby and its friends who can easily be seen as bearing much of the responsibility for Freeman's choice to withdraw. The paradox is that in getting what they want, the ouster of an unfriendly nominee for office, the pro-Israeli folks may have ended up giving support to those who argue that the “Israel Lobby” is indeed too powerful.

Update: Obama's Choice for Intelligence Post Withdraws

Obama's choice for chair of the National Intelligence Council withdrew today, raising questions about the Obama Administration's ability to stand up to what is called the “Israel Lobby.” Chas Freeman, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former Defense Department official under Reagan, and President of the Middle East Policy Council, was well regarded in intelligence and military circles. But he reputedly was insufficiently friendly to Israel and was guilty of making remarks that were regarded as critical of our ally and supportive of Palestinians and ending the occupation.

The National Intelligence Council is given the task of producing National Intelligence Estimates, the consensus estimates of the 16 US intelligence agencies. It was a hastily-produced NIE in 2002 that convinced Congress and many others that Iraq had WMD, especially nuclear weapons (or was close to producing them). Freeman's straight talking style reassured many, including Dan Froomkin, that an intelligence debacle like the one that occurred in 2002 and 2003 would not occur again. He has been described as a gadfly, speaking truth to power, and a “one man destroyer of groupthink,” exactly the kind of person you would want in this sort of position.

This brings up the question of how close to Israel should the United States be? Isn't a little tough love between friends warranted every now and then? Friends of Israel seem not to think so. It appears that both barrels were unleashed against Freeman, starting with rumors in the blogosphere, and growing into accusations that he was on the payroll of Saudi Arabia and had coddled China. It appears to have been too much for the new Obama Administration, prompting a sharply-worded statement by Freeman that accuses the Lobby of derailing his candidacy in order to obtain "control of the policy process."

Although I didn't have high hopes of a revolution coming from the Obama Administration in the realm of Middle East policy, I had hoped for sparks of change. This development sows the seeds of doubt that those sparks will ever light up.

Obama and Israel: A Match Made in Heaven???

Why not start out my new blog with a controversial topic...


Pundits have spun controversy over the topic of Obama's relationship with the state of Israel. How close could he possibly be to Israel if he has a (gasp) Palestinian friend - Rashid Khalidi? The campain rumors abounded about his potential leanings - in favor of Palestinians, quite unheard of among the heavy-hitters of either party. To win the presidency, they said, he would have to win over friends of Israel. And that he did, quite handily, speaking at last summer's AIPAC conference, the grandest of all granddaddys of pro-Israel gatherings. He put to rest many doubts about his closeness to Israel with his "friend of Israel" pronouncements and pro-Israel campaign staffers.

Now that he is safely in office, his administration is staffed with reliable friends of Israel, such as the notable Hillary Clinton, former senator from New York. The occasional outliers are roundly criticized for their opinions, but are certainly not extremists by any stretch of the imagination. The conventional wisdom around Washington seems to be that Obama's administration will continue to be a close friend of Israel, since no one can undo that, but that there may be a bit more pressure on Israel to be more flexible in its peace relations.

One interesting example came out of Hillary Clinton's recent trip to the Middle East. She was quoted as saying very delicately that demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem "do not help the peace process" and violate the spirit of the road map. This came after US officials lodged four official complaints with Israel over its settlement and home demolition activities, especially in East Jeruslalem, which is considered occupied territory in the international community but was annexed by Israel after its capture in 1967.

It seems that not only is the American administration turning up the heat, but so are the Israelis - on the ground. According to a Peace Now Settlement Watch report, the government of Israel is planning to build 73,000 or more new housing units in the West Bank. Some almost nine thousand have already been built. If true, this would double the size of a number of settlements, such as two largest Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumi. Such a move would jeopardize the possibility of creating a Palestinian state on that land, thereby undermining decades of American and international diplomacy.

Of course, complicating matters is the recent election of what will likely turn out to be a right-wing government in February's general elections. Likud party leader Binyamin Netanyahu will be the likely Prime Minister, who supports continued settlement building in East Jerusalem and West Bank, territories occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. He is currently trying to put together a cabinet and coalition that is likely to include ultra-nationalist Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. Lieberman campaigned on the issue of requiring a loyalty oath for Israel's 1.5 million Arab citizens and once suggested Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak could "go to hell" because he will not visit Israel.


So, my crystal ball says to watch for a few hints of a tougher stance towards Israel. However, don't hold your breath waiting for a revolution.