Palestine, the last of the Liberation movements has a special place in the hearts and minds of the countries that were liberated in the 20th century.

The newly liberated countries, India being one of them, voted against the partition of historic Palestine and in 1967, Arthur Lall the Indian representative at the UN called for Israel’s withdrawal from ALL occupied territory. Although India has normalized its relations with Israel since then, the sentiment of wanting to see Palestine liberated from the Occupation is still there.

A comparison with the Indian freedom struggle is inevitable, although each struggle has its own unique characteristics. One of the themes in the Palestinian struggle which has been explored is the prospect of a non violent struggle against the Occupation (See Mustafa Barghouti’s ‘Strategies for Non Violence’ in Palestine Chronicle).It must be pointed out that the African National Congress’s armed struggle in South Africa made it possible for the international community’s Boycott and Divestment Movement to succeed, but only in conjunction with the armed struggle.

The rotten structure of the Afrikaner government collapsed quickly. Likewise the prospect of an armed struggle of sorts exists in Palestine with the rise of Hamas, even though they came to power in a fair and free election in 2006.

Armed struggle for Liberation from the Occupier is considered legitimate in International Law. However, an additional feature of the Palestinian struggle is not only the negotiating peace process (however fraudulent) between Fatah and Israel, but as well the presence of such non violent peace groups such as Gush Shalom, whose main spokesman is Uri Avenery, member of the Israeli Knesset and strong advocate for Israeli-Palestinian détente and the Palestinian National Initiative headed by Mustafa Barghouti.

There are also many smaller peace groups and well known human rights organizations such as B’Tselem.

Given this network of peace activists and organizations, what are the chances of a non violent struggle attaining the goal of ending the Occupation without a concommittant armed struggle (however limited) in Palestine? The answer it would seem is very little, as the record to date has demonstrated. What are the likely reasons?

Although the non violent message of Jesus of Nazareth is pervasive, at least in certain sections of Palestinian society, the Israeli ethos is not in tune with non violence. The 19th century Zionist goal of establishing a Greater Israel in the region, was an agenda which in addition to other methods was accompanied by war and violence, an agenda followed by the state of Israel to this day.

Hence, the Palestinian people have known only war and violence and since 1948 the specific violence of the Israeli Occupation. The fact that they have survived is a tribute to their courage, fortitude and endurance. The question any reasonable person must ask is: how much longer can this go on? Is it fair, is it just to expect Palestinians to continue to bear the blows of the Occupation? How much longer can the people continue to offer the other cheek, while they are being massacred, their homes and farms destroyed and their lands taken over by a continuous process of Israeli expansion?

Recently, while in Tehran, political leader of Hamas, Khalid Mishal hinted that Palestinians may have to have recourse to certain methods, if the siege of Gaza does not end. The success of the peace groups, though real and admirable in its own right, has been limited. At best they have mitigated marginally some of the Occupier’s violence, which continues unabated both in the West Bank and Gaza. One can argue that they provide a minimal (if even that!) space, a buffer against a complete genocide.

The question here is: beyond that will they provide a structure for the growth of a wide and deep and ongoing non violent resistance to the Occupation? In the opinion of this writer the answer is no. What are some of the reasons? First and foremost, the absence of a non violent ethos in the Israeli mindset. Secondly, the absence of the evolution by early twentieth century of a genuine liberal democratic tradition as in Britain, which the Indian freedom fighters could hold them to.

Thirdly,the absence of a strong middle class which was never allowed to develop in Palestine. Israel’s long term goal was to make the Palestinians disappear and the Israeli economy was propped up by immense quantities of financial support coming from the United States and international Jewish donors.

Fourthly, the conditions of World War II which made it impossible for Britain to hold on to its Indian empire. Israel, on the other hand, is militarily strong and supported by the world’s super power, which has no intention of declining, even though its power has been diminished. Fifthly, the indigenous tradition in India of non violence.

A flourishing Indian economy was central to the British colonial enterprise of profiteering. Consequently, it was mainly from the co opted emerging middle class that a majority of the leaders of the Indian National Congress arose. They were British educated either in Britain or in the British educational system in India.

Their national cohesion and unity were only buttressed by their education. This is not to say that there was no national unity prior to this process. The First Indian War of Independence was in 1857, described by the British colonials as a Mutiny. And earlier still, prior to Britain and even the Muslim rulers of India there was a pervasive unifying sentiment provided by the indigenous religions, chiefly Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Islam plays a similar role in Palestine.

Since the rise of the middle class in Palestine was relatively weak the economy became subject to foreign donors and the political leadership, even from the time of Yasser Arafat’s PLO, was ripe for corruption.

This would eventually lead to the split in the National Movement between the largely corrupt secular Fatah and the incorrupt Hamas, which became the symbol of Resistance. Presently, thanks to Western opposition they are isolated and the blockade and subsequent siege of Gaza represent the West’s determination to keep Palestine subjugated.

Lastly, the non violent struggle in India was directly owing to the presence of a charismatic leader who would, by example, set a high standard of dedication and selflessness and lead mass civil disobedience movements.

The theory and practice of non violent struggle were crystallised in Gandhi’s life and work. Should such a leader(s) exist in Palestine they have not yet made their presence felt. The absence of such leaders is intimately related to the nature of the adversary. In correspondence with Martin Buber, the Jewish theologian, Gandhi asked him why the Jews did not use non violence against Hitler.

Buber answered that it would not have worked with Hitler.The nature of the adversary in this case the Israeli Occupation determines to a great extent the strategies that are available to the National struggle.Israel’s leadership is by and large militaristic and oriented to the violent resolution of problems. The civilian structure is an ethnocracy not a liberal democratic one. Israel does not have a Constitution that guarantees equal rights to all citizens regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnicity.

Hence, its legal system is a hodge podge of basic laws that have no constitutional backing. The non Jewish population is discriminated against by Law.

The partnership of Israel since its inception in 1948 with the world’s superpower, the United States is still ongoing. A change of Presidency, may open up small windows of opportunity for peaceful negotiations other than the fraudulent Oslo style talks.

That is yet to be seen.

Does this mean that Non Violent strategies are forever impossible or that they are to be eschewed permanently? Not at all. They can work in various ways when combined with low intensity armed struggle and in tandem with the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. They strengthen and firm up the body politic. Above all, they provide the sustenance for the proper functioning of state and civil society when the Liberation struggle has reached a successful end.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians continue their struggle in a variety of ways. In Sanskrit there is a word to describe the Palestinians: Ajay, meaning the Undefeated.

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva taught Political Philosophy at University Zopinionz

Article published with permission from alarabonline.info

I love Adam Sandler. From Billy Madison to Happy Gilmore to the Chanukah Song, the predecessor of the Superbad generation has effortlessly conquered the domain of slapstick comedy and inappropriate jokes. But damn you Scuba Steve! If you’re going to propagate misinformation about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, do it quietly—or at least in your non-comedic life.

You Don’t Mess With the Zohan, Sandler’s new flick, takes Hollywood chicanery and stereotypes that denigrate Arabs to an unprecedented level—surpassing hit flicks like the Kingdom, the Siege, and every Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chuck Norris movie that came before it. I group Zohan with other shamelessly racist action movies because a film should at least be minutely funny to be categorized as a comedy. For the Sandler diehards and hilarity-loving skeptics, I should clearly state: using race and prejudices to engender laughter is not the problem. Mel Brooks and the creators of South Park exploit stereotypes far beyond anything Sandler has ever done, but unlike Zohan, I don’t think insidious propaganda and underlying racism drive their comedy. After all, if this hebetudinous clunker was just comedy, Sandler and company wouldn’t have, as the New York Times reported, sought out Arab actors to give the movie “legitimacy.” Their search was successful and a few token Arabs showed their presence to innocuously inform the public that it is okay to vilify the crazy towel-headed terrorists once again.

What makes this movie even worse than many of the unfavorable movies made post-9/11 is Zohan’s disarming presentation; it is a comedic approach to understanding the inner workings of the substandard Arab people. Like the job stealing Mexicans, the liquor store robbing Blacks, and the HIV infested gays, negative stereotypes in Zohan strip down the Arab people to RPG wielding animals that senselessly thirst for Jewish blood.

From the start of the film, Sandler’s character, Zohan, is positioned as the altruistic hero—an Israeli Mossad agent who reluctantly kills Palestinian “terrorists,” while forgoing his real dream: to cut hair in the US for Paul Mitchell. Zohan is “brave,” “lovable,” and “funny,” and even his stereotypical chauvinism is eaten up by women (and men) throughout the movie—including his eventual Palestinian love interest, Dalia.

Compounded with played out, corny penis gags, the Israeli narrative is interwoven into the fabric of the film, including propagandistic reminiscences by Zohan’s father who recalls the oft-repeated myth of being surrounded “on all sides” by powerful enemies during the Six Day War—a war in which Israel preemptively struck and dominated those “enemies.” In line with Israeli and Western intelligence, Israel won the war in six days (and five hours, as Zohan’s father dutifully reminds us)—so much for existential threats and heroic narratives. Other historical revisions include a reference in a verbal battle between a Palestinian and Israeli shop owner, in which the Palestinian proclaimed, “Give it up, like you gave up the Gaza Strip!” This biting taunt, while not as blatant as the common stereotype, infers that Israel “gave up” the Gaza Strip and further insinuates that Israel had claim to it. The “humorous” jeer glosses over the glaring reality: Israel still occupies Gaza’s borders, airspace, imports and exports, and has economically strangulated and suffocated 1.4 million Palestinians in the world’s largest open-air prison.

But rewriting history (and regurgitating jokes from 1996) is hardly the movie’s worst crime. The portrayal of Palestinians as ugly, dirty, incompetent, stupid, goat loving terrorists was jammed down the viewer’s throat more times than Zohan’s lame hummus jokes. It becomes obvious to the audience why these good looking, suave, kindhearted Israelis have to kill these evil Palestinian “terrorists”—because they hate Jews more than they hate soap. The most egregious grievance by a Palestinian “terrorist” throughout the film was the stealing of a pet goat. Israel has killed more than 4,000 Palestinians since the start of the second intifada, including nearly a 1000 children, yet the main gripe of these rabid “terrorists” is a stereotypical love for hillside animals. This “inoffensive” scenario is the equivalent of a scene in a Hollywood “comedy” made by a Palestinian filmmaker stereotypically portraying Jews as pissed off about being sent to Auschwitz because they found out that Hitler was going to make them pay for the train ride.

A particular scene in Zohan went beyond comprehension: Sandler’s casting agency rounded up a handful of children to play Palestinians throwing rocks at Zohan. What does Zohan do in response to the actions of these soon-to-be terrorists? He gleefully catches the stones and turns them into the equivalent of a balloon animal. One is supposed to toss aside any arising sensitivities and overlook the many instances Israeli snipers and soldiers have shot Palestinian children in the head or taken their eyes out with rubber bullets because of these rocks Zohan takes with a smile. The posturing of the noble and affable Mossad agent is a slick attempt to humanize Israel and make the Mossad (an outfit that has engaged in countless operations of state terrorism) look like the valiant GI Joe force in the Middle East combating jihadi thugs in the name of good. But Sandler’s character is not only a hero, he’s also a humanitarian. There are multiple scenes where Zohan informs the audience that Israelis do their best to minimize the loss of innocent Palestinian life, when an examination of the conflict by Israeli human rights organizations exposes quite the opposite.

Other stereotypes saturate the movie. The Palestinian salon that Zohan gets a job at is described as a dump, Palestinians constantly cheer for the “terrorists,” a crowd of Palestinians applaud the death of “heroic” Zohan (which he faked), and the “terrorists” are so stupid and illiterate that they purchase Neosporin instead of liquid nitrogen to make their bomb to kill Zohan. There is no distinction made between Hezbollah, Hamas, jihadists, and terrorist sexcapading sheiks. Furthermore, the film conveniently illustrates how Israelis in the US, as “fellow” natives of the Middle East, suffer the same discrimination and tribulations as Arabs in a post-911 world. Oddly, Israelis are passed off as “brown” and “other” like the Arabs in the film, yet Zohan’s parents look like European Ashkenazi Jews. Moreover, while Israelis are shown as native hummus loving Middle Easterners, Zohan’s family is portrayed distinctively differently from the backwards Arabs. Zohan’s parents are sweet, comforting, reasonable and accepting from beginning to end, not rigid like their Arab counterparts. Even when Zohan finally captures Dalia’s heart, his parents show up in America and warmly embrace their relationship without question—while Dalia and others resist the notion of a courtship between the two and tells Zohan that her family would never accept him. Ah, if only all Arabs could just get to know Israelis and see how kind, generous, and amorous they all are, the sooner we could all sit in a circle singing Kumbaya over s’mores and unfunny Zohan hummus jokes.

The worst dialogue throughout this 102 minute laughless action flick is made by Dalia (played by Emmanuelle Chriqui), Zohan’s eventual Palestinian love interest. She serves at the omnipotent propagandist—blaming the troubles of the conflict on “extremists” and “hate” on both sides. She endlessly and vaguely laments about how much “hate” there is “over there,” and describes to Zohan that things are “different here.” As any knowledgeable American knows, Palestinians and Israelis love each other here in the US; they frequently have bake sales together; they form sit-ins for blind coexistence on college campuses; and have Palestinian/Israeli karaoke nights where they sing their favorite Beatles tunes like Give Peace a Chance. What Sandler, and co-writers Judd Apatow and Robert Smigel, fail to understand is that before there was Hamas, Yasser Arafat, Fatah, the PLO, or any resistance movement, there was the dispossession of the Palestinian people, whereby 780,000 indigenous Palestinians were displaced from their homeland by Jewish gangs and terror groups. Flash forward 60 years and the Palestinian people are living in squalor in demolished towns and refugee camps enduring a 40 year occupation that strangulates their economy and diminishes any semblance of normalcy or a proper life. What we are to believe by watching this film is that if everyone would just stop “hating” (which Israelis are depicted as clearly willing to do, while Palestinians resist it vehemently) Israelis and Palestinians could effortlessly live together in harmony. But “hate” has little to do with a conflict rooted in a people’s desire for basic human rights and an end to oppression.

In the end, everything ends up happy and joyful: Zohan gets the girl, he saves the block from a conniving mall developer, and the “terrorists” stop terrorizing. But the jovial ending left a sour taste in my mouth. As nearly a dozen “nameless” Palestinians were killed by innocent and heroic Israeli soldiers last week and another report of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza went unnoticed in the US press, people were laughing all over the country at how stupid, feeble, violent and backwards Arabs are. A diehard Sandler fan proclaimed: “He's making it for 13 year old boys. It's Critic Proof.” That’s what scares me most of all.

Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets For Palestine, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com. Remi can be contacted at remroum@gmail.com.

Israel's ruling elite now has a major aspiration: to join the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a member country. For the sake of the Israelis and of their neighbors, this aspiration should be thwarted by an international campaign of all supporters of peace; and, in fact, by supporters of the free market as well.

The Paris-based OECD, according to its own website, "brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world." Established in 1961, the OECD has 30 member countries, including most European states, the US, Canada and Japan, but not Russia, Brazil or India -- at least not yet. With a huge budget of 342 million Euro it is one of the most prestigious clubs of nations. Indeed, membership is predominantly a matter of prestige, since unlike the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, the OECD does not dispense grants or make loans. But prestige means investors' trust, and investors' trust means money. Big money.

Israel's economic elite is intent on achieving the international recognition and prestige that accompanies OECD membership. As demonstrated by the Israeli Ministry of Finance's special website to promote their membership to the OECD, with details on dozens of working groups, committees, boards and centers, all participating in the national effort to achieve the desired membership. Among other things, the government website claims that "Israel shares the same attachment to the basic values of open market economy and democratic pluralism," as expected from an OECD member country.

Israel's commitment to democracy is, of course, fairly limited. The deficiencies are well-known -- ranging from lack of separation between State and Religion (banning inter-confessional marriage, for example) to the extensive use of "administrative detention," i.e. jailing persons for months and years without any charge or trial. On the other hand, several other countries with a highly dubious human rights record, like the US and Turkey, are already OECD members; so the organization itself seems not to take its stated commitment to democracy all too seriously. Focusing on democracy and human rights issues in this context -- important as they are -- might be playing the wrong card.

A better question for the OECD should be whether Israel can be classified as a free market economy. The answer is: clearly not. If the OECD takes Israel in as a member country, it would prove its commitment to free market economy to be nothing but a joke.

The misconception is anchored in an optical fallacy that seeks to separate "smaller Israel" from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. If we could imagine "smaller Israel" as an economic unit, one could perhaps claim it was a free economy. However, there is no "smaller Israel," just as there is no economic unit called "smaller Israel."

With Israel at 60, the memories of its first 19 years as "smaller Israel" (1948-1967) are a remote past, fading even in the minds of the small group of elderly Israelis who grew up in it. The overwhelming majority of Israelis, and Palestinians for this matter too, never knew an occupation-free Israel. It is impossible, both practically and theoretically, to consider Israel without the occupied territories, simply because there is no such Israel. And this is not just a political, psychological or historical fact: it is a clear, tangible economic fact. The economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is part and parcel of the Israeli economy. An attempt to view Israel's economy separately from that of the occupied territories is futile and unserious, not to say ludicrous.

This was an obvious statement 20 years ago, during Israel's direct occupation of the territories. At that time, the Palestinian market was swallowed by the Israeli economy. Palestinians worked in Israel, paid taxes in Israel, and the entire economy of the West Bank and Gaza were (mis)governed by Israel -- through the army and various other Israeli organs.

The establishment of a "Palestinian Authority" (PA) by the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s has created an illusion as if the Palestinians practically have "their own state," or at least run "their own economy." Indeed, Palestinians now pay taxes to the PA, which has its own budget, etc. However, this alleged independence -- especially in an economic sense -- is all but an illusion, as any observer, let alone any serious expert, would be compelled to admit. In fact, Palestinians cannot move a single sack of rice from one place to another without permission from Israel, the "free economy" champion.

The Palestinian territories have no central bank, nor their own currency or monetary sovereignty: they are dependent on the Israeli shekel. Nor do they have declared and internationally recognized borders nor geographic contiguity, a precondition for defining an economic unit. The Palestinian-controlled enclaves are encircled, divided and separated by Israeli roadblocks and by Israeli-controlled areas, like roads closed to Palestinian traffic, Israeli settlements, army facilities etc. Only Israel can decide whether a Palestinian laborer, businessman or entrepreneur may move from one point to another -- within his allegedly independent economic unit. The same holds for goods of any kind. Moving a sack of rice from "Palestinian" Hebron to "Palestinian" Bethlehem, both cities located in the West Bank, is dependent on Israeli permissions -- for the owner, for the driver, for the truck and for the product. If this goes together with a "commitment to free economy," then Zimbabwe and North Korea can join OECD just as much.

Israel governs the Palestinian economy not only from within, but also from without. The "Palestinian economy" -- in fact a small (five percent) sub-sector of the Israeli economy -- is physically and economically encircled by Israel. According to the 1994 Paris Protocol, Israel has a say on the import of any goods into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israel alone decides what can be moved (be it wheat, oil, or advanced medical equipment), as well as how much of it, and where from. Given its control on all access gates to the territories (sea, land and air), Israel can physically stop any import; the Palestinians have no effective economic control whatsoever. All this holds for Palestinian export as well. In addition, Israel also sets the taxation (customs, etc.) on goods imported by the Palestinians, so that even the Palestinians' fiscal policy is in Israel's hands. Israel is also the one who effectively levies those customs on Palestinian imports, officially "on behalf of the Palestinians." This means that the tax money goes to the PA -- that is, if and when Israel chooses to keep its obligation to transfer it.

Last week, for example, Israel delayed the monthly transfer of Palestinian tax money (some $75 million) -- this time as a "punishment" for the appointed PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's letter to the OECD, requesting it not to accept Israel as a member. Even this measure alone, which caused tens of thousands of Palestinian employees not to get their wages on time, should be enough to disqualify Israel from an OECD-membership. At any rate, it is an excellent demonstration of Israel's deep-rooted contempt to free economy (based on keeping signed agreements) and to democratic values (especially freedom of expression).

All this has far-reaching implications for Israel's supposedly "free" and "open" economy. In complete contradiction to the very basics of free economy, Israel holds the Palestinians as a captive market. Since the Palestinians cannot import freely, Israel forces them to buy Israeli goods. From fruit and vegetables to plumbing equipment and cement, the Palestinians serve as a dumping market for Israeli goods (often second-class), thus ensuring that Israeli producers have captive consumers, just like in the days of 19th century colonialism. Israel's economy would have looked totally different if an Israeli dairy giant, or any other Israeli business, did not have seven million Israeli customers, as well as a captive market of 3.5 million Palestinians.

The OECD would therefore make a mockery of its own principles if it allows Israel to join. However, the real issue is not the OECD, but the people of Israel/Palestine. If Israel is allowed to join the OECD, it would be a precious reward for the very elite that runs the political, military and economic occupation of the Palestinian territories: their 19th century-stile colonialist practices would get the stamp of 21st century "free market economy." If, on the other hand, the OECD turns Israel down, it would be a clear signal that occupation and colonialism cannot go hand-in-hand with free market and with international prestige; and that if Israel wants to join the prestigious club of nations, it should end the occupation first. Therefore everyone committed to peace in the Middle East -- from law experts and economists to private citizens and non-governmental organizations -- should put pressure on the OECD to keep Israel out until it ends the occupation.

Dr. Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and grew up in Israel. He has a BA in Computer Science, an MA in Comparative Literature, and his PhD is in Jewish Studies. He is a university teacher in Israel. He also works as a literary translator (from German, English and Dutch).

What is the UK government and International Community doing as Israeli military targets and destroys Muslim charitable institutions in Hebron?

On 5th June, 2008 whilst attending Conference in Bil’in on Nonviolence, I Was invited by friends, who are members of Christian Peacemakers’ team based in Hebron, to go with them to see what is happening in Hebron.

On arrival in Hebron we met with the Administrator of the Hebron Orphanages. He explained that the Israeli army is threatening to close 14 schools and orphanages In the Hebron district. Eight of these schools and orphanages belong to the Islamic Charitable Society, while the remaining six belong to the Muslim Youth Society.(On 26th February the Israeli army forces handed over military orders of closures and confiscations of two bakeries, administrative buildings, a warehouse, three schools and two orphanages. All of these owned by the ICS.)

He took us to see a newly built school owned by ICS , (cost of one million) which was due to be opened in August, but is now closed. The Israeli Military has welded the gates of the school closed and the reason given, as for all these closures are, ‘security’. Beside the school we visited a large warehouse and met the caretaker. He explained that in March the Israeli Military arrived at 3 a.m., and left at 9 a.m., they tied him up and proceeded to pack and removed all the food and clothing in the Warehouse and destroy the interior of the buildings, smashing everything in sight. The contents of the warehouse were for the orphans and the poor and the premises run by Islamic Charitable Society. We then visited a burn’t out bakery (there was another destroyed Bakery but time did not permit a visit). Again the Israeli military destroyed the entire interior, burning completely the huge baking oven. This bakery cooked over 3,000 loaves of bread, and were subsidized by charity, to feed the orphans and poor. The jobs created by these Islamic Charitable projects, are gone and in the short time not able to be replaced. We also visited a Boys’ and Girls’ Orphanage both under military orders of closure. The ICS will challenge these closures in court, but in the meantime the Israeli military are systematically during the night, raiding and destroying the buildings. The fear now is that the Orphanages and school will be raided and destroyed. In an attempt to stop this Islamic Charitable Society have invited people, including Internationals to sleep overnight in these buildings in the hope that the presence of Internationals might deter the Israeli military nightly raids of destruction. I join 4 friends in sleeping overnight in the Girls’ Orphanage, and we were alone in this building, as the children have gone to friends for the Summer school period. Luckily the Army did not arrive, but what Will happen when there are no internationals to sleep over? And the world sleeps While this destruction takes place. Before our sleep-over we met local Muslims and were hosted to a beautiful meal and great kindness and gratitude for our presence.

The outside world, for the most part, is unaware of this Israeli Government’s Policy of demonization, wilful destruction, of the Muslim Institutions, one by one, in an Attempt to destroy the spirit and resilience of the Muslim Communities, not only in Hebron but throughout the illegally occupied Palestinian terrorities. It was for me horrific to witness, the Israeli Government, (and the USA/UK Governments’ War on terrorism), come to be played out on the streets of Hebron, against Orphan children. (If the schools and orphanages continue to be closed down, and the military continue to destroy completely these institutions, then 7000 children will be without school and 4,500 children will be without homes). The excuse given is that these Islamic Institutions are a front for ‘hamas’ but the Islamic Charitable Society was established in l962, and all their financial dealings and accounting are completely open.

The money for the school and orphanages comes from local investments (they have their own businesses) from donors abroad and from Arab and Western countries (Prince Charles, through a UK Trust has donated towards these orphanages).

I was shocked and horrified to see the destruction of these Islamic Institutions. The threats of the Israeli Army (and Government) against Orphans must be loudly Resisted by all of us concerned for a violent free and peaceful world for Muslim Children, indeed all our children. This behaviour is immoral, unethical and illegal and the Israeli Government should be held accountable, by the International Community, for its abuse of the rights of the children to safety and education. As occupiers of this country they have legal obligations to protect the occupied, especially women and children.

The United Kingdom has many questions to answer here too. Tony Blair is based In East Jerusalem, (a few hours from Hebron, so he is well aware of this systematic Wilful destruction of Islamic charitable institutions) and his brief is to help Palestinian economic reconstruction. How ironic whilst he is suppose to be helping businesses etc., the Israeli military are in the dead of night, spreading terror and destruction of the Islamic communities. What is Mr. Blair and the UK governments doing about this?

One of the things that struck me during my visit to the illegally occupied terrorities Was the courage, friendliness and resilience of the Palestinian people. But I was also conscious of the fact that so many of them are traumatized by what is happening, and in bewilderment that the outside world, is silent and inactive in face of their tremendous suffering, and blatant dispossession and persecution. The World must act against this ongoing destruction by Israel of the Palestinian people and their institutions, and by Israeli racist and apartheid policies, in the villages and cities of occupied Palestine, including the siege of Gaza.

All Occupations come to an end, as this one surely will, but if this occupation continues, it will begin to destroy the very soul of the Jewish people, and leave a legacy of anger and resentment within some the Arab people, especially the young, which will take generations to heal.

It behoves the Israeli (and International community) to awaken now to the urgency of Justice for the Palestinians, by ending the Siege of Gaza, the Occupation of Palestine, and moving to build justice and reconciliation, whilst there is still time to turn this around, and before more blood of Israeli/Palestinians brothers and sisters is shed.

Once again, the Israeli military lied to its citizens and the rest of the world.  In an article published June 6 on YNet, the online version of the Israeli mass daily Yedioth Ahronoth, the Israeli military claimed that it was justified in attacking an anti-wall and anti-occupation demonstration, in which an Irish Nobel Peace Laureate and the Vice President of the European Parliament participated, because demonstration participants were "rioting" and "throwing stones" at the Israeli military [1].

 

In the YNet article about the weekly non-violent demonstration against the apartheid wall and the illegal Israeli occupation in Bil'in village located near Ramallah in the Occupied West Bank, the Israeli military claimed that "about 70 Palestinians and left-wing activists took part in the protest and hurled stones at security forces, who used crowd dispersal means in response". They went on to state that the IDF "regretted the fact that 'week after week large numbers of security forces need to deal with Israeli rioters, who turned public disturbances into a regular occurrence'.

As a non-violent and peaceful participant in this demonstration, I completely dispute these claims made by the Israeli military. For the past three years Bil'in village has become a model for non-violent demonstrations against the wall and Israeli occupation. This week's demonstration took place at the end of the 3rd annual international non-violent and grass roots resistance conference held by the village. The conference which went for three days attracted well over 150 participants, the great majority from around the world. It also had the support from across the Palestinian political spectrum, including the Palestinian Authority.

At the conclusion of the conference and prior to the weekly demonstration, a friendly football (soccer) game was held about half a kilometre from the wall. The match was between teams made up of Bil'in residents, Israeli anti-occupation activists and international solidarity supporters. While the match was taking place, a few Palestinian teenagers from the village approached the wall but they did not throw stones. From the other side of the illegal apartheid fence, Israeli soldiers were stationed on a hill and they immediately began firing tear gas at the children. The football match came to a quick end as the wind carried the teargas across the field, causing some players and spectators, including an elderly Palestinian man, to collapse.

The conference participants who were at the football match regrouped under a tree. Shortly, we were joined by many of the residents of the village who at the end of Friday prayers, marched to the football field. The villagers were joined by around 30 Israeli anti-occupation activists.

More than 200 people, not 70 as the Israeli occupation forces claim, took part in the peaceful, non-violent demonstration. We marched from the football field, down the wadi (valley) to the illegal barrier. The Israeli Occupation Forces were stationed approximately 50 metres away, behind concrete barriers on the opposite side of the road, behind the illegal apartheid fence. We stood standing and clapping peacefully. As we stood there, the conference declaration, which highlighted the necessity for non-violent struggle against the illegal Israeli occupation was read out.

Participating in the non-violent, peaceful demonstration were the Vice President of the European Parliament, Luisa Morgantini and Irish Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, as well as a delegation of Italian law makers, along with delegations from France and other European countries. While there were a considerable number of young people in attendance, in reality the great majority, who were from the various international delegations, were aged between 45 and 60 years. Throughout the demonstration, we - the demonstrators - repeatedly held our hands up in the air - palms open - towards the soldiers, who could clearly see us, to show we were unarmed and peaceful. No-one from the crowd threw stones at the soldiers, no-one was armed and there was absolutely no threat to the Israeli military by our presence. However, despite this, the Israeli military opened fire, directly into the non-violent and peaceful crowd, with no warning.

Under Israeli law and under Israeli military regulations, Israeli soldiers are not allowed to fire directly at or into crowds who pose no threat to their safety. According to Israeli military regulations, a solider must only use a weapon in the event of immediate "danger to life," and when it is impossible to effectively defend one's self from the assailant other than by the use of the weapon.

In 2000, a report issued by the Israeli based Physician for Human Rights (PHR) revealed, however, that the Israeli military consistently violate Israeli law and their own regulations on a regular basis. According to PHR, the Israeli military use "live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, the soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather then solely in defense". The PHR's analysis of fatal gunshot wounds also revealed that approximately 50% of them were to the head, revealing that the Israeli military were specifically aiming at people's heads. In addition, they also noted that there were numerous head and eye injuries as a result of "rubber and rubber coated steel projectiles" [ie. rubber coated steel bullets] which revealed the "frequent misuse of these weapons, such as firing at a range of less then 40 metres at the upper part of the body". As a result, PHR noted that the events on the ground showed that the Israeli military not only violated their own regulations but it was "allowing soldiers to fire when they were not acting solely in self defense" [2]

Over the past four years, during my various stays in the Occupied West Bank, I have regularly witnessed the Israeli military open fire on and into crowds of unarmed, peaceful demonstrators. At the last Bil'in demonstration that I attended approximately four weeks ago in May, the Israeli military also opened fire directly into the peaceful, non-violent demonstration. At this demonstration, however, they were also using rubber coated steel bullets and live ammunition. Although I have been in demonstrations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories where rubber bullets and live ammunition has been fired at the crowd before, this was the first time I had ammunition fired directly towards me.

In 2004, at a peaceful, non-violent demonstration in the village of Budrus, against the apartheid wall, I was hit with a teargas canister fired by the Israeli military from a distance of around 150 metres. At the time, myself and others, were attempting to lift a young Israeli woman, who was an amputee with a prosthetic leg, into an ambulance. She was injured when she attempted to protect a group of young Palestinian girls, who the Israeli military opened fire on. The young Palestinian girls had simply been clapping and chanting slogans against the wall.

As we lifted the Israeli activist into the ambulance, I was hit in the upper thigh by a super-heated teargas canister traveling at high velocity. Despite wearing jeans, I suffered burn scars and intensive and deep bruising, which was around 30 centimetres in diameter. For more than a week after being hit by the canister my entire body was in acute pain, as it went into shock from being hit with such intensity. At the time, I was extremely grateful that I was not hit in the head by the canister.

Today, however, myself and my IWPS team mate, just avoided being hit by super-heated, high velocity teargas canisters being fired directly into the crowd at chest and head level by the Israeli military. One canister went whizzing by me like a missile and hit in the head an older European man who was about 4 metres in front of me. I saw the teargas canister hit him in the head and his hands fly to his head in order to protect himself. I later found out that the man was the Italian judge, Julio Toscano, mentioned in the Ynet article. Other non-violent demonstrators were also hit.

As people started to regroup and move back to try and aid those who were injured by the Israeli military's barrage, soldiers once again began firing into the unarmed and peaceful crowd. Again teargas canisters went whizzing by me at chest and head level. My team mate was hit in the back. Luckily she was wearing her back pack which took the intensity of the hit. The bag, made of nylon, however, was visibly damaged and melted due to the impact of the canister.

What took place in Bil'in village on June 6 was no riot. It was once again a peaceful non-violent demonstration. And once again, the Israeli military opened fire on unarmed, non-violent demonstrators, violating not only Israeli law but also the Israeli military's own operational regulations. In order to justify their brutality and illegal behaviour, the Israeli military lied to its own citizens and the rest of the world.

-Kim Bullimore is currently living the Occupied West Bank, where she is a human rights volunteer with the International Women's Peace Service (www.iwps.info). She has a blog www.livefromoccupiedpalestine.blogspot.com and is a regular writer on Palestine-Israel issues. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.