Education Under Occupation

Yesterday I highlighted an Israeli court ruling that allowed the army continued use of non-academic criteria to grant permits to Palestinian Master and Doctorate students awarded a place at an Israeli university. However, it did state that any student rejected could appeal the decision. The case was brought by Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement along with six Israeli universities.

The case was brought following the refusal to allow Sawsan Salameh, a Palestinian woman from the West Bank, from taking up her place to study for a PhD in Theoretical Chemistry. (Gisha petitioned, the army relented and Salameh began her studies, albeit with heavy restrictions on her military permit). It should not take this level of intervention for a student to continue with their education.

Salameh is now studying in Jerusalem, but only after extensive intervention.

When the case was brought in 2006 the army had blocked all Palestinian students from the OPTs from studying inside Israel. The Education and Culture Ministers opposed the Defence Ministry’s decision, as did Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein who expressed concern at “the absence of an exceptional framework for dealing with requests for entry to Israel for educational purposes…in any case a sweeping ban on entry is liable to harm prospects of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation.”

At the hearing, as reported in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post, the army put forward the criteria for investigating applications made by Palestinians accepted into Israeli universities. Interestingly one of the seven points states that “Preference will be given to applicants to programs focusing on regional cooperation or developing coexistence and regional peace.” Surely, as Elyakim Rubinstein pointed out, the policy may in fact harm the development of coexistence. This was echoed by Gisha’s director, Sari Bashi, when she spoke about Salameh’s case in 2006, “Allowing Palestinians to get an education in Israel is in our long-term benefit. It will foster better relations between the two sides.”

However, it is the criteria’s final point that renders the whole legal process a complete farce, “The army, at its own discretion, may refuse to consider an applicant even if the student meets the above criteria.” Why bother with the criteria in the first place?

Salameh’s story was originally picked up by numerous news outlets such as the BBC, ABC Australia and the New York Times. However, this ruling received barely any coverage, but is just as important. The blanket ban on Palestinian students studying in Israel may be lifted in name, but its spirit lives on in the army’s criteria. Who is it for an army to decide a student’s right to education if that student has satisfied all the stringent security checks that come with all permits? The criterion is an occupation of a person’s right to an education.

Bookmark with:

Is Israeli politics showing signs of consistency?

How many pre-election promisies will they fulfil?

Two draft laws have been tabled by Avigdor Liebermans’s Yisrael Beiteinu party. The first outlaws any commemoration of the Nakba. The second is an amendment to the Citizenship Law, stating that people who refuse to state their willingness to serve in the army or perform alternative service will not be entitled to Israeli citizenship and that an oath of allegiance must be pledged. Both drafts were staples of the party’s election campaign. Both have their supporters, as the party’s 15 seats in the Knesset attest to, and both have their critics, as press coverage illustrates.

I said yesterday that Netanyahu’s decision to expand settlements and not construct new ones, as outlined in his campaign, showed a remarkable level of consistency for someone not often considered a man of his word, “In Israeli politics consistency is thin on the ground.” Not Anymore? Are election pledges now turning into policy?

The two laws are still only at the draft stage. They still need Cabinet approval (they’ve only been backed by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation) and they still need to be put before a Knesset vote. Luckily the freedom of expression and freedom of association have not been violated just yet.

I admit that it’s only been two months since this government took office, but their statement of intent at such an early stage could be a worrying sign of things to come. In this vein here is a list of the coalition government’s major campaign pledges to see what we can look forward to over the next five years (or until the next corruption scandal).

- To end Hamas’s rule over the Gaza Strip.
- A two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, but their future state must be militarised and have limited powers.
- Boosting the Palestinian economy; moving talks away from territory
- Opposes any withdrawal from the Golan Heights or division of Jerusalem.
- Land where Palestinians in Israel reside should be swapped for settlement land in the West Bank.
- Palestinians in Israel to pledge allegiance and undertake a form of national service.
- Banning Nakba day commemorations
- Generous welfare payments, particularly for yeshiva students

One of Yisrael Beiteinu’s main pledges – instituting civil marriage – was dropped as part of the coalition agreement. Instead, a government taskforce is to be set up within 60 days of the government’s formation “to discuss ways to solve the problem of some 300,000 people who cannot marry via the official rabbinate.”

The list is not full of hope. However, it is what the Israeli public wanted. Unfortunately it is also the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who must live with the decision too. Inconsistency is what all Palestinians and their supporters must hope for.

Bookmark with:

Netanyahu: Settlement History Repeating?

So it’s not ‘Relocation, Relocation, Relocation’, but ‘Expansion, Expansion, Expansion’. We shouldn’t be surprised by Netanyahu’s response to Obama’s call for a halt to settlement construction. During the election campaign Ha’aretz quoted Bibi as saying to Middle East envoy Tony Blair, “I have no intention of building new settlements in the West Bank, but like all the governments there have been until now, I will have to meet the needs of natural growth in the population. I will not be able to choke the settlements.”

342,000 settlers by the end of his first 5 years?

Fulfilling as many pre-election promises as early as possible is a policy popular amongst many new leaders. However, unlike most leaders Netanyahu comes with Prime Ministerial baggage having held office between 1996 and 1999. Using this as a guide, one may be able to deduce what he may or may not do this time round. There may be some new ‘players’ on the scene, no settlements in Gaza and an almost total withdrawal from southern Lebanon, but much of what he contended with between ’96 and ’99 still remains today.

At the start of his first-term Bibi was reluctant to continue with settlement construction, choosing to focus on a withdrawal from Hebron instead. The Labour government before him had frozen settlement construction and expansion in all areas, except in the Jordan River valley and around Jerusalem. To appease the restless settlers Bibi visited the settlement of Ariel on 27th November 1996, “And why shouldn’t settlements develop here? Is somebody stopping the development of the Arab communities nearby? Am I preventing that? Am I choking them? Am I telling them don’t build houses, don’t build schools?”

He continued this appeasement and statement of intent during an interview with MSNBC on 15th December 1996. In response to the question, “Why did you decide on expanding the settlements? Don’t you think you made that decision too quickly?” he said, “We did not decide on expropriating land or on construction of new settlements.” No, he just expanded them instead.

He defended his expansion policy in an interview with CNN on 27th September 1998, “Does this Interim Agreement prevent Israel from establishing new settlements?” Bibi: “We’re just building as part of natural growth. We’re not building new settlements, but we’re allowing the natural increase of the population in these communities…Now, understand that at the same time, the Arab communities also expand. People get married. They have children…I would never dream of telling the Arabs, “You can’t get married; you can’t have children.”

(Coincidentally on 24th May 2009, when referring to the settlers, he said, “There is no way that we are going to tell people not to have children or to force young people to move away from their families.”)

Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) report on settlement expansion in 1998 confirmed that construction reached levels not seen since 1992 when there was a large influx of CIS immigrants. During ’98 the construction of 4,000 units began, up from 1,630 the previous year.

So, Bibi’s settlement record during his first term: settler population increases to 180,000 (increase of 20%); construction of 20,000 dwelling units; 14,000 units sold.

Bibi, not often considered a man of his word, focused on expansion rather than construction during his first-term. On this issue he was consistent before and during his tenure. In Israeli politics consistency is thin on the ground. However, his consistency still led to a 20% increase in the settler population and this is a disturbing fact.

He has begun his current term using the same language, some of it word for word. He may well be focusing on the expansion of existing settlements as opposed to the construction of new ones. By using the word ‘expansion’ Bibi is attempting to lure us into a false sense of security, implying that the increase in settler population will be lower than if new settlements were built. However, by applying the figure of 20% from his previous term to his current one, then the number of settlers would reach approximately 342,000 (The increase in settlers in Gaza between 1996 and 1999 only comprised 0.04% of the 20%; CBS). The settlements are already a major obstacle to peace and to a Palestinian state. Allowing them to increase does not increase the likelihood of either.

Bookmark with:

Mahmoud Abbas Wakes Up

Abbas is less popular than Haniyeh

With his popularity declining Mahmoud Abbas has decided to make a pointless public statement, rejecting a secret PLO proposal that would extend his term as President and that of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

What was the PLO thinking when they engineered this proposal? On Thursday Abbas’s own party, Fatah, refused to join the interim government, along with the PPP. The PFLP already denounced the move at the PLO conference in Syria and Hamas are excluded, not that they would want to join anyway.

Abbas may have preempted a decision he knew would not have gone in his favour. Based on his lack of popularity and the gulf developing between many Palestinian parties, it is highly likely that the PLO’s proposal would have been rejected anyway.

With his statement Abbas has ensured that he is ‘seen’ to have Palestinian unity and interests as his top priority. I do not doubt that they are. Indeed, in the same speech he said, “Gaza has been waiting for five months, where 120,000 are homeless while the funds are available for the construction, what kind of conscience would make us wait for one moment more?” I applaud this kind of statement as the current humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, as I pointed out the other day.

However, I view his decision more as a reactive one, rather than one driven by true meaning and belief. A recent study by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research confirmed he is less popular than Ismail Haniyeh, when three months prior he held a 10% lead. The PFLP signaled their opposition to his proposed formation of an interim government at the PLO conference in Syria. Demonstrators in Ramallah tore down posters bearing his picture leading to the Muqata compound. The PPP and Fatah refused to join or endorse the interim government when it was sworn in this week. Reconciliation talks with Hamas in Cairo ended with no further ground made, not even an agreement as to the distribution of international aid.

All these events have occurred in a single month; a public relations nightmare. Abbas is attempting to stem the tide against him. He has seven months until elections in January 2010. Whether his attempts are too late will be decided at the polls. I would say Fatah will be massacred at the polls if his attempts fail, but even they seem to be distancing themselves from the President. Many argue that Hamas are responsible for the divide between Palestinians, but could it not be argued that Abbas is responsible for making it worse?

Bookmark with:

Peace with Syria. Is Bibi serious?

Bibi touched down at Ben Gurion from Washington talking of peace, making an off the cuff comment in the process, “I said I am willing to open peace talks with the Palestinians – by the way with the Syrians as well – of course without preconditions.” Spot it? Is this Netanyahu grandstanding? Is he trying to take attention away from his non-committal over a Palestinian state? Or is he actually serious?

If he’s simply trying to draw attention away from a Palestinian state then it worked, temporarily:

Reuters – Netanyahu says Israel ready for talks with Syria
Xinhua – Israel ready for peace talks with Syria without preconditions
ABC – Israel PM offers olive branch to Syria
(Headlines on 21st May 2009)

Is it grandstanding or is he serious?

Grandstanding, serious or both?

It’s quite possible for it to be both based on his alleged history of negotiating with Syria. We’re more than used to him making bold claims and doing very little to back them up or sometimes the complete opposite. Yet in 1998 Netanyahu was actually willing to make serious concessions to Syria despite basing his whole career around antiterrorism. (Netanyahu is one of many who believe that Syria have and do sponsor terrorist organizations).

In 2001 the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth published a photograph of the ‘Treaty of peace between Israel and Syria’, which was carried by Ronald Lauder from Netanyahu to Assad and dated Aug. 29, 1998. The document shows the concessions that Bibi was prepared to make, some of which go far beyond the previous offerings from Rabin and Peres, both of whom Netanyahu had publicly criticized on the issue.

Article 2: Israel will withdraw from the Syrian lands taken in 1967, in accordance
with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which establish the right of
all states to secure and recognized borders and the “land for peace”
formula, to a commonly agreed border based on the international line of
1923.

Netanyahu has rejected this article on a number of occasions: Firstly in response to it being published and secondly in response to Bill Clinton’s memoirs in which the former President says, “Peres wanted me to sign a security treaty with Israel if it gave up the Golan, an idea that was suggested to me later by Netanyahu and would be advanced again by [Ehud] Barak. I had told them I was willing to do it.”

It's not '98

However, his concessions have been confirmed by many others: One of Barak’s Syria negotiators confirmed that Netanyahu was prepared to withdraw to the waters of the Sea of Galilee (June 4th 1967 border). This is reconfirmed in Dennis Ross’s memoirs in 2004. In 2008 Netanyahu’s military attaché Ze’ev Livne confirmed that Netanyahu “was willing to make prodigious concessions in order to seal a peace deal, but it was unsuccessful and was unrealized.” Ehud Olemert’s office, again in 2008, “In order to refresh Mr. Netanyahu’s memory, he was the one [who] sent then-Syrian President Hafez Assad an American businessman [Ronald Lauder] to relinquish the Golan Heights in Israel’s name, before any negotiations had begun.”

So, despite his rejections, there is significant evidence to support Bibi’s concessions. These were made without any public statement on the issue. So what is his tactic this time around?

He has already used the word ‘precondition’ when talking of peace with the Palestinians, yet he attached a precondition that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Precondition in the Syrian context refers to negotiations from square one in addition to Syria’s recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The 1998 proposal is off the table.

N.B I would like to cite Daniel Pipes, whose reporting and updating on the issue of Netanyahu’s Syria negotiations helped with this post.

Bookmark with:

Mahmoud Abbas’s Unconstitutional Government

The interim government is sworn in (Palestine Info)

Mahmoud Abbas swam against the Palestinian tide of political opinion and yesterday swore in a new government with Dr. Salaam Fayyad as Prime Minister.

The government has been boycotted by both Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas’s own party, and the Palestinian People Party (PPP). Both Hamas and Fatah’s legislator, Ashraf Jom’a, have declared the new government unconstitutional. “This government is illegal and we will not recognise it” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum, adding, “[Abbas is] deliberately sabotaging the Palestinian dialogue.”

The two sides adjourned their fifth round of reconciliation talks in Cairo on Monday with nothing new agreed. International donors pledged $4.5 billion in March for the reconstruction of Gaza, yet most will only channel the funds through the Palestinian Authority. An agreement is vital.

Additionally, Hamas consider Abbas to not even be the valid President. When his term ended in January he chose to extend it for another year to align Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Hamas says the move is unconstitutional and claim the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council be appointed for a period not exceeding 60 days, time for fresh elections to be arranged.

The new interim government has created further division, not just between Hamas and Fatah, but also within Fatah and between other Palestinian parties such as the PPP and PFLP.

However, the real issue that all sides to need to agree on is the people of Gaza who require the pledged aid now, not after next year’s elections. The political elite need to agree on its distribution now and settle their other qualms later. Using your own people’s plight and suffering as a bargaining chip in negotiations is not a step towards unity.

Bookmark with:

Netanyahu surprises us all

Smiles in public. Scowls in private.

Actually, he doesn’t. It went exactly as planned. Obama, fresh from endorsing a Palestinian state, presses Bibi to back it too: Obama says, “freeze settlement construction in the West Bank”, Bibi says “Ok, but I just have to honour previous commitments.” Obama says, “It’s time to get back to the Roadmap”, Bibi says, “Build a bypass via Iran then we’ll talk.”

This is what we were expecting, unless Bibi got sick midway through his flight over and then had a dramatic change of heart, reneged on all his recent non-committals and said ‘yes’ to everything Obama had to say.

Should we be surprised that another tender has been put out for more settlement construction in the West Bank? No. Bibi confirmed he was pressing ahead with previous government policy on this issue. (Blaming a previous government for something you really want to do is a stroke of genius). So, realistically, what were we expecting?

Hope was attributed to the fact that this was a meeting between a new President and a new Prime Minister, but lest we forget that Bibi has been circling the PM’s chair for nearly a decade, waiting for his next crack. Former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, “[Netanyahu is] one of the most obnoxious individuals you’re going to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth.” At least now you know that his silence on issues means that he won’t bother lying about them.

Meanwhile Mahmoud Abbas is due in Washington at the end of the month knowing he is less popular than Ismail Haniyeh; knowing that his attempts to form an interim government failed; knowing he is not recognized by all Palestinians as the ‘real’ President; knowing the Palestinians are more divided than ever before; knowing that Fatah may suffer further election misery next year unless something drastic happens.

The meeting in Washington could seal Abbas’s fate. His regime was essentially propped up by Bush’s administration following the dismissal of the Hamas led government. However, Obama’s attempt to address Congress on the issue of Federal aid for Gaza is a sign that he places greater emphasis on Palestinian unity than cold-shouldering Hamas. Hilary Clinton has also said something to this effect too.

Abbas is too unpopular amongst his own people, as recent demonstrations in Ramallah have proven. This only strengthens Netanyahu’s position, providing him with the time to stall on the issue of Palestinian independence. For the sake of unity and for the sake of a homeland Abbas should either change tact or stand aside.

Bookmark with:

Gaza: Out of the Ruins

BBC Panorama

The BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen travels through a devastated Gaza to ask where the recent Operation Cast Lead now leaves the future of the region.

With feelings running high on all sides, Bowen follows extraordinary personal stories across the frontline, and pieces together rival claims about war crimes and the targeting of civilians.

And he asks whether the 22-day offensive has really weakened the Hamas movement, or if the violence has simply sowed the seeds of further bloodshed.

Gaza: Out of the Ruins – Part 2
Gaza: Out of the Ruins – Part 3

Bookmark with:

Peres takes his mop to Jordan

Israeli President Shimon Peres continued his spring cleaning tour with an appearance at the Dead Sea in Jordan. The aim of the tour is to either clean up prior to Netanyahu’s arrival in a particular destination or to mop up after one of his visits. This was the latter.

Netanyahu continues to peddle his ‘Triple-Track’ solution for peace whilst refusing to be drawn on any firm committal to an independent Palestinian state. Peres is Mr. Damage Limitation at the moment.

The President met with King Abdullah of Jordan, who has recently been country-hopping in an attempt to drum up some interest in the peace process ahead of President Obama’s meetings with both Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. He endorsed the Road Map, which outlines a two-state solution, as well as saying that parts of the Saudi backed peace proposal of 2002 were, “a great idea.”

Israel has never officially responded to the 2002 plan. It has always maintained that the right of return for Palestinians should not be part of any peace negotiation. Accepting the right of return would, as most Israeli politicians agree, effectively spell the end of Israel. Outright refusal of the plan would exasperate the US, hence no answer.

Palestinian negotiators on the other hand have flatly refused to budge on the issue of the right of return. It is what provides hope to so many Palestinian refugees who have waited for the moment for over 60 years.

The PLO originally called for a return to Palestine. This has since been downgraded to the West Bank and Gaza, but with the condition that those Palestinians forced to flee from their homes inside Israel be allowed to return home. UN Resolution 194, Article 11:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestinian Refugees and through him, with the appreciate organizations and agencies of the United Nations.

194 forms the basis for one of the conditions of the 2002 plan, “[a] just solution for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194.” However, there have been recent murmurs that this be amended as a right of return to the new Palestinian state that would be created, rather than Palestinian land that is now Israel.

It is difficult to see this being agreed to on the Palestinian side, especially from Hamas, who have not approved the plan and who want a Palestinian state created on the land of Greater Palestine (as of 1917), under Islamic rule.

Hope should not be attached to Peres’s comments. It is what those in power on both sides decide to do that matters. Additionally, the United States also needs to drop its approach that if Israel and the Palestinians want peace then they should instigate the process in favor of forcing the issue.

Bookmark with:

And Netanyahu said…

A Palestinian state: will he or won't he?

Ok, so Bibi hasn’t said anything to the effect that there’ll be an independent Palestinian state, but he could. And this should make us all hopeful? Granted, it’s probably better than him saying that there won’t be a Palestinian state. Bibi will probably play for some time and eventually come round to the idea. Obviously there’ll be pre-conditions. A few more caveats than were in the Roadmap (which he endorses) when it was outlined in 2002.

Accepting Israel not just as a country, but as a Jewish state has crept on to the table now. A firm agreement over Iran will also be in there. This is in addition to the original conditions such as an end to Palestinian terrorism. Yet it is the fate of the settlements that look like the first major problem when everyone does sit down for the (Insert location here) summit/accords/conference (delete as applicable).

Bibi has already stated that he will not build any new settlements in the West Bank. At present he is simply honouring the commitments of previous governments. He also knows that by agreeing to a withdrawal from the West Bank he will lose the support of Yisrael Beitanyu, his biggest partner. The coalition will collapse and elections will be held yet again. Bye Bye Bibi. (A discussion on the future of the Israeli electoral system would be great, but not right now).

With the Palestinians divided, Netanyahu, despite his looming meeting with Obama, knows he has some time to play with before he is invited to give any kind of verbal committal; ‘triple track’ sounded good at AIPAC, but doesn’t really address any major issues regarding statehood.

“The Arabs say ‘two states,’ [and] I don’t see a reason why Netanyahu would not say that at the end of an accord… there will be two peoples living side by side in peace and mutual respect,” Ehud Barak said the other day, almost sounding like a political commentator. Clearly coalition party-line is still one of non-committal.

Bookmark with: