Action Palestine

On Thursday 5th March, The University College London Students’ Union (UCLU) voted overwhelmingly to twin UCL Union with the Unions of Al-Quds and Al-Azhar Secular Universities in the West Bank and Gaza respectively with immediate effect. Furthermore, the Union voted to establish an educational exchange programme between UCL students and students from the Palestinian universities, and finally “To reiterate the UCLU Friends of Palestine society’s right to raise issues that concern the student body, criticise the GOI [Government of Israel] and its policies, as well as highlight atrocities that contravene International Humanitarian law and not be treated unlike other societies for doing such.”

In a maximum capacity lecture theatre of 325, people packed in, spilling over into the stairs, to hear the debate of various topical and constructive motions at the best attended UCLU Annual General Meeting since 2003.

Before the meeting the chances of passing the motion seemed very slim. Not only does UCL have one of the largest and most active pro-Zionist Jewish societies in the country, but also just before the meeting, a hostile amendment was received asking the Union’s students to twin with the Israeli Hebrew University in Jerusalem (and remove twinning with Al-Azhar Secular University in Gaza) also. The speaker for the hostile amendment appealed to the objectivity of sources such as ‘The Harvard Israel Review’ and ‘The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ over ‘United Nations’ organs including ‘The International Court of Justice’ in the original motion submitted and suggested the former reflected “the reality as it is today” better.

This is not to mention recent attacks on the UCLU Friends of Palestine society (FPS). The Union Media and Communications Officer as well as members of The UCLU Jewish Society had slandered the FPS for “inciting racial hatred” following a recent exhibition entitled “Jerusalem Dispossessed”. The exhibition documented “the dispossession of indigenous Palestinians from their native city, Jerusalem, amid rapid expansion of Israeli settlements, the separation wall and home demolitions”. It was provided by ICAHD: The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions’ (ICAHD) Action Advocacy Project and funded by Irish Aid, The Austrian Development Agency and The Netherlands Representative Office; of course a typical basis for breeding of “terrorism” if there ever was one.

The attack was constructed in the form of a sudden article in the Jerusalem Post entitled ‘London students slam anti-Israel exhibition’. In the article Johnny Paul, who incidentally manages to balance his position as objective “London correspondent” with being President of SOAS Israel Society, made false accusations against the UCLU FPS. Neither the UCLU JSoc, UCLU Media and Communications Officer nor J.Paul bothered to consult the society for their side of the story before publishing the piece. If they had they would have discovered that contrary to claims otherwise, the UCLU FPS had got permission for the exhibition (even though it was not required since the exhibition was not on UCL Union property), as confirmed by the Services and Events Officer of UCL Union. This has led to the Jerusalem Post being forced to accept publication of a response from ICAHD’s Angela Godfrey-Goldstein, herself a Jewish Israeli, who comments that “Any negotiation taking place while borders are aggressively being determined according to one side’s interests is an illusion. Without real freedom and respect of the other’s right to live in dignity, there is no basis for political negotiation.”

Although the meeting opened late, once it was the motion was passed swiftly. Thanks to a superb turnout from various sympathetic societies, those that have so often successfully disrupted such meetings on technicalities such as quorum counts were forced to retort to the farcical in order to desperately claw back votes. This was manifested clearly in the absurd claim that the motion aimed to present conscripted members of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) as “evil” for some anti-semitic end- the claim presumably a desperate attempt to vote-grab from potential soldiers-to-be there to oppose another motion to ban recruitment of the Officer Training Corp (part of ‘The Territorial Army’).

The President of the UCLU Friends of Palestine said that the passing of the motion “was an important and constructive step which allows UCL students to get first hand experience and knowledge of the reality on the ground in Palestine in a climate marred by fictitious propaganda” and encouraged “other universities to follow suit”. He also commented that it is important to note that this motion is not out to demonise Israelis or Jews but rather to place emphasis on the impact of Israeli occupation upon ordinary Palestinians and bring that to the attention of UCL students, and the motion should not be taken as part of a package, related to the other motions such as on banning OTC from campus- which is completely unrelated.

- To contact the UCLU Friends of Palestine email uczxfpc@ucl.ac.uk

- The motions and amendments can be viewed at:

http://www.uclunion.org/student-union/noticeboard/index.php
see ‘second ammendment to motion on palestine’, ‘Amendment to the “Emergency Motion on Occupied Palestinian Territories”’ and ‘Emergency motion to AGM On Occupied Palestine’

Often when “Israeli Apartheid” is talked about the argument that you always hear is: “There are no Jews-only park benches in Israel” which is a strange argument. There are many Jews-only things in Israel and furthermore apartheid is, according to international law, not defined according to unequal access to park benches.

In its most specific meaning, the word Apartheid (Afrikaans for separation) refers to the system of laws, policies and practices implemented by the white minority in South Africa to repress and exploit the indigenous African majority. In Israel, the word Hafrada (Hebrew for separation) is used to refer to the general policy of separation the Israeli government has adopted and implemented over the Palestinians in the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS).

In 1976, the world witnessed the signing of the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. According to this convention, Apartheid is a Crime against Humanity, and applies to all cases where policies are implemented “for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”. The convention gave examples of policies that are often used to establish and maintain this domination, all of which are used by the Israeli authorities against non-Jews and particularly against Arabs.

In 1967, Israel occupied the WB and GS, ethnically cleansing a further 250,000 Palestinians from their homes after 720,000 were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Both the WB and GS are populated by large number of Palestinians and this has placed Israel in a dilemma. This is because it wants to control the land but escape responsibility for the Palestinians, so in response it created fenced-in Bantustans in GS and the WB.

Israel has built 24 foot high and 720km long (double the length of the Green Line) concrete Wall. It is clear that the wall does not run along the Green Line, which separates Israel from the WB, but rather runs through the WB. This means the annexing Palestinian land and divides the WB into small Bantustans. Furthermore it hugely restricts the movement of Palestinians within the WB.

As well as the Wall over 300 Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks divide the WB into 420 different enclaves with no freedom of movement for Palestinians between them. Settler -only highways are off limits for Palestinians who are forced to drive with different colour number plates to distinguish them from Israeli settlers.

Palestinians in the WB are subject to a different set of laws to Israeli settlers living in the same area. The military laws that apply to Palestinians in the WB regulate every aspect of life.

Curfews are regularly placed on Palestinian areas that place all residents under de-facto house arrest. The city of Nablus, for example, was under 24-hour curfew for 5 consecutive months in 2002.

In the WB/GS, Israeli soldiers and police have killed over 4,850 Palestinians since September 2000.

Since 1967, more than 650,000 Palestinians have been detained. Currently over 10,000 Palestinians from the WB/GS are being held as political prisoners, more than 2,000 without ever being charged or facing trial. The Israeli military will regularly drive through Palestinian areas and call for all Palestinian males between 15 and 50 to leave their houses and gather in a central area where they will be detained.

Torture is used against virtually every Palestinian arrested by the Israeli military or police. Regular beatings, being tied in contorted positions, denial of food and prevention of the use of the bathroom are common experiences in Israeli prisons.

Around 18,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished since 1967. These demolitions often occur without warning where residents are forced to flee their homes with whatever belongings they can carry.

But the apartheid label should not be restricted to the post-1967 occupation. There is a more fundamental form of apartheid of which the occupation is nothing more than a manifestation.

Apartheid in historic Palestine originated, and has persisted, in the ideology of creating a state in which Jews would be separated from non-Jews in their stake in the political community. It was an apartheid mentality that nourished the desire of establishing and maintaining a state with a Jewish demographic majority and character. It is apartheid law that creates a wall of discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens of the Israeli state. It is an Apartheid mentality that prompts some Israeli Jews to view their Arabs living under Israel as a “demographic threat”.

Section 7A of the Israeli Basic Law prevents anyone running for the Israeli Knesset (parliament) if they do not recognize Israel as a Jewish state and thus bars anyone who wants to change the apartheid character of the state by parliamentary participation.

The Jewish National Fund (JNF) owns around 14% of the land in Israel, and is prohibited by its constitution from selling or leasing this land to Palestinians, around 2/3 of this land was taken from Palestinian refugees. Through its 50% representation on the council of the Israel Lands Administration (ILA), the JNF has a substantial influence over more than 93% of the land in Israel.

Some Israeli towns set criteria that prevent Arab citizens from purchasing homes or living in the town. The Israeli state regularly passes legislations that prevent Arab from reaching their lands or redefines areas as nature reserves or forests that can then be confiscated.

There are over 100,000 (9% of Palestinian citizens of Israel) Palestinian citizens of Israel living in villages that the Israeli government does not officially recognise. These villages existed prior to the establishment of Israel but were simply declared as non-existent with the adoption of the Israeli Planning and Construction Law in 1965 and do not appear on any map. Although the residents of these villages are officially Israeli citizens, they are denied basic services such as housing, water, electricity, education and health care. Furthermore the Israeli authorities regularly demolish some of these villages.

Up to 420,000 of Arabs living under Israel are internal refugees “internally displaced persons” in Israel, between 46,000 and 48,000 Arabs became displaced in 1949 within what became Israel. Over fifty years later, this group (including the children of the displaced) represents about 150,000 to 200,000 persons. If you also include the Bedouins who were ordered in 1949 to move into a close area under military rule in the Negev and now for the most part live in “unrecognized villages”, the estimate the number of displaced is 250,000-420,000.

The well-planned ethnic cleansing, in 1948, of 720,000 indigenous people was apartheid practice par excellence. It is apartheid which prevents the expelled and their descendants from returning: this apartheid denies residence to expellees from the Galilee, but grants it, not just to Israeli-born Jews, but to Jews all over the world.

Since 1948, the Israeli military and police have continually carried out massacres of Palestinians who are living under Israel, in the WB and the GS and those in neighbouring countries. For example, in 1956, Israeli police in Kufr Qassem killed 49 Palestinian citizens of Israel after a curfew was placed on the village without warning.

Another argument I often hear is “if Israel was an apartheid, Arabs in Israel would not be able to vote” which completely ignores the fact that Arabs living under Israel today are the remains of the Arab population who still live there despite all the efforts by Israel to expel them. They are merely allowed the to vote in Israeli elections because they are a minority in the Israeli political system that has their voices sidelined. The fact that Palestinians within Israel have the right to vote is nothing more than a way to hide the reality of apartheid and does not undermine the apartheid nature of the state of Israel.

The past few years have seen a significant increase of literature and analysis which has argued that Israel is apartheid state. Also figures in the anti apartheid struggle in South Africa, including figures such as Nelson Mandela, and archbishop Desmond Tutu who has repeatedly made the statement that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is analogous if not worse than South African apartheid. Even the current Israeli PM tactfully acknowledged apartheid when he said in an interview with an Israeli newspaper: “If the two-state solution collapsed we (Israel) would face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights”.

Naji Mohamed
najimohamed@actionpalestine.org

Khaled Mudala, a Palestinian student trapped in Gaza since June, landed in the UK on Tuesday after being allowed out of Gaza alongside 240 others. All movement in and out of Gaza for Gazians has been fully stopped since Gaza was declared a hostile entity in September.

We would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the campaign for lifting the travel restrictions for Palestinians. Khaled Mudala’s case has been focused on in order to highlight the restrictions on others. With your help we have been able to gain a great deal of media attention and support as well as support from key organisations and individuals. Through the support that we have gained we have been able to apply significant amounts of pressure on the Israeli government. Both the Israeli government and the Israeli Supreme Court cooperated to make the situation for the Palestinians in Gaza worse by refusing to interfere and stating that the matter was in the hands of the Israeli Army.

Several MPs supported the campaigns alongside key teaching and student organisations, such as the NUS and UCU. Also different student unions passed motions to support the campaign. After all this pressure both the Israeli Embassy and Israeli Government were forced to give several statements about Khaled’s situation. All of these statements were full of lies and false promises that Khaled would be allowed out Gaza within days hoping that these statements would diffuse the campaign. However the pressure was kept up and played a vital role in Khaled leaving Gaza a few days ago.

This is a very positive step forward – Khaled and a few others were able to leave Gaza but the situation in Gaza is still very dire. The campaign used Khaled’s name but it was always about the basic rights of Palestinians. This is also Khaled’s view as in a press conference earlier this week at special press conference in London, Khaled said, “I am very glad that I am here today but this is not a victory as whilst 140 people have been let out of Gaza there are still 1.75 million people living under siege, imprisoned, terrorised, being starved and in the canton of Gaza.”. The pressure from the campaign needs to be maintained as Palestinians are still living under a dire situation and every right of the Palestinians is being seriously violated.

The manner in which One Voice dealt with the events surrounding the cancellation of a concert planned to have taken place in Jericho on the 18th of Oct exposed the complete hypocrisy of the organisation. In reality no further proof of the hypocrisy was needed as whilst they claim to be a group working towards a better future in the region they in fact do nothing to improve the situation.

The organisers, as they often do, misled bands that were invited to the concert about their political line. The truth is that when a real grass roots movement called “Another voice” was spontaneously founded to present the voice of Palestinians One Voice attacked the movement very viciously and consistently made many false accusations. Five of the eight performers pulled out from the concert after they had been contacted by Another Voice regarding the political line of the organisation One Voice. The performers released statements confirming their cancellation stating that they had been misled by One Voice. One Voice subsequently cancelled the event claiming that “threats (had been) made against the celebrities”, but no evidence were given with these accusations. We were in fact told One Voice would provide more information regarding these alleged “threats” but we are still waiting. A senior Palestinian official dismissed the claims that threats had led to the cancellation and stated that the Palestinian presidential guard, who would have been responsible for security arrangements in Jericho, “are reliable” and that “no one has ever cancelled an event in Palestine because of the security services”.

The claims from One Voice about Another Voice once more demonstrate that as an organisation they care little for the grassroots they claim to represent and have no interest in empowering Palestinians against extremists. Instead what they have done is undermine a political opponent by making false accusations about a non-violent and grassroots organisation (Another Voice). They also implied that the group is “extremist” and made threats to their own group. One Voice founder Daniel Lubetzky has always referred to any activist or organization which believes in the one-state solution as “extremist” despite the fact that they can make a strong argument for a two-state solution not being able to achieve long term “peace”. Another Voice is an organisation who have worked and cooperated with individuals, such as those who work within Check Point Watch, and organisations who call for a two-state solution. However unlike One Voice this organisation and individuals will work with anyone who is looking and working towards a better future without using the type of tactics that One Voice use to discredit their opponents.

One Voice was first set up as an organisation in 2002 and has been active in the region ever since then. One Voice claims to “empower” the silent “moderate” majority and give a platform for people to voice their opinions and speak out. They do this by asking Palestinians and Israelis to answer a survey about “the ten most” contentious issues regarding the conflict. However this is oversimplified and misleading as if fails to address any of the key elements required for just and lasting peace. Much of the article in fact subordinates Palestinian interests to that of the Israelis by justifying the use of settlement blocs, avoiding the issue of the refugees’ right of return and avoiding the framework of international law. The language on website of Once Voice seems to be similar to that used by many Israeli propagandists, for example if fails to use the word “occupation” anywhere on the website.

Furthermore, many are disturbed by the manner in which One Voice has been gathering support for their campaign. It has been discovered that many Palestinians and Israelis have signed on without access to the 10 pillars or proper understanding of the One Voice initiative. Many individuals and organizations which have been listed as endorsers, including Bishop Atallah Hanna, have pulled out upon closer examination of what One Voice stands for. Also several alleged endorsers, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were listed without their prior knowledge or consent. Their collection of signatures has been proved controversial many times as well and this would have been demonstrated at the concert as people attending the event would have been required to sign One Voice’s mandate before entering.

Many of their high profile sponsors, both individuals and companies, are known supporters of Israel. These include companies that invest heavily in Israel such as IBM and individuals, including people such as Labor Kenesst member and former IDF General Matan Vilnai. This individual was a minister during Operation Defensive Shield and heavily supported the offensive that led to Israeli forces reoccupying all of the areas in the West Bank which had been handed to the Palestinian National Authority as part of the Oslo Accords. This move was seen by many as the ‘final nail in the coffin’ of these agreements and undermined the entire peace process.

One Palestinian economic student who studies at Berzeit University when answering claims made by One Voice that Another Voice does not want peace said that “Of course me and my fellow students want peace…out future relies on it…what would I do with degree after four years of studying if we never get peace”. He further went on to say that “One Voice has always been the Israeli voice….and never tried to speak for Palestinians”. The organisation One Voice has always claimed to represent what the people of the region want but the student above, like many others we talked to, clearly does not agree.

Naji Mohamed
najimohamed@actionpalestine.org