Saturday, January 22, 2005

Seizure in absentia

January 21 2005


Israel-Palestine conflict: Seizure 'in absentia'

pv vivekanand

THIS WEEK'S Israeli seizure of large tracts of Palestinian-owned land near occupied Jerusalem is a clear indicator of the shape of things to come under Ariel Sharon's unilateral plans regardless of whatever else is going on in terms of efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

Consolidating Israel's illegal presence in the West Bank while withdrawing from the troublesome Gaza Strip is one of Sharon's objectives. It is served partly by the "separation wall" that he is building along the West Bank by fencing in the illegal Jewish settlements and huge chunks of adjoining Palestinian land.

The seizure of the land pulls the rug from under the feet of Israel's explanation to the international community that it needs the wall to check Palestinian infiltrators into Israel. For all technical and practical purposes, the seizure of the land is part and parcel of Sharon's strategy, and that was indeed true of all his predecessors.

(According to Palestinian historian and scholar Edward Atiyah, the exodus from Palestine in 1948 "was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

"But it was also, and in many parts of the country, largely due to a policy of deliberate terrorism and eviction followed by the Jewish commanders in the areas they occupied, and reaching its peak of brutality in the massacre of Deir Yassin," he notes.

"There were two good reasons why the Jews should follow such a policy,'" according to Atiyah. "First, the problem of harbouring within the Jewish state a large and disaffected Arab population had always troubled them. They wanted an exclusively Jewish state, and the presence of such a population that could never be assimilated, that would always resent its inferior position under Jewish rule and stretch a hand across so many frontiers to its Arab cousins in the surrounding countries, would not only detract from the Jewishness of Israel, but also constitute a danger to its existence.

"Secondly, the Israelis wanted to open the doors of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration. Obviously, the fewer Arabs there were in the country the more room there would be for Jewish immigrants. If the Arabs could be driven out of the land in the course of the fighting, the Jews would have their homes, their lands, whole villages and towns, without even having to purchase them. And this is exactly what happened.")

Walled out

The plots that the Israeli army seized this week were separated from their owners by the wall in the Bethlehem and Beit Jalla areas south of Jerusalem. The portion of the wall in these areas was completed in August last year, and since then their owners have not had access to the land.

Effectively, the lands belong to those who live in adjoining areas that do not fall inside Israel's definition of "greater Jerusalem." Most of them do not have Israeli "permission" to enter "greater Jerusalem."

Sharon has sprung a five-decade-old "law" that "permits" Israel to seize lands that belong to "absentees" -- technically meaning that the landowner is not present in Palestine to claim and utilise the land. Israel applied the so-called law primarily to Palestinians who fled or were driven out during the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation in Palestine. Under that law, at least 20,000 Palestinian homes in the largely Jewish West Jerusalem were seized by Israel in the 1950s.

Refusing entry

Since then, the "law" was applied to individual cases wherever possible. One of the tenets of the "law" says the owner has to be away for a period longer than seven years before the land or property could be seized. But even that was never followed, with the occupation authorities moving in against whatever they could lay their hands on. Another move to support this policy was to refuse entry back to the West Bank to Palestinians who have stayed more than two years outside their land. That denial ensured that they would be barred from Palestine for life and thus the door was open for seizure of their property under the "absentee law."

Sharon has defended the latest move by insisting that the "Custodian of Absentee Property" has the authority to "transfer, sell or lease" land in Arab East Jerusalem belonging to "absentee owners."

Never mind that the owners of the lands seized this week were not absent from the West Bank. Never mind that the lands were cultivated by their Palestinian owners until August when the wall deprived them of access to their property. They could see their land through gaps in the wall, but are unable to get there.

There are many legal arguments against Israel's seizure of the lands, but none is likely to stand up in an Israeli court. The Palestinians have no recourse to approach an international court since Israel, backed by the US, has refused to accept that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

Of course, an international court uninfluenced by the US could handle the case and issue a ruling, but then the question that comes up is: Who will or can pressure Israel into respecting that ruling?

Sharon and his predecessors refrained from applying the "absentee law" to lands in the outskirts of their self-styled "greater Jerusalem" if only because it would have triggered a massive protest.

That Sharon has found it fit now to exercise the "absentee law" shows that he is ready for a "showdown" with the Palestinians. Obviously, he believes the situation in Palestine is opportune for Israel to move swiftly towards its strategic and territorial goals.

No doubt, Sharon would find some way to apply the essence of the "absentee law" to the rest of the West Bank and seek to "legitimise" his plans for annexing the grabbed land into Israel.

In the bargain, he is creating insurmountable obstacles in the way to a peace agreement. Obviously, a peace accord with the Palestinians is not in Sharon's cards since he should be perfectly aware that every centimetre of land taken from the Palestinians would place prospects for peace farther and farther since those who lose the land would not accept that loss as part of the price for peace; and this would make the mission of the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), all the more difficult and complex.

Perhaps that is what Sharon wants. After all, by own admission (through his adviser), Sharon's goal is to freeze any peace negotiations with the Palestinians deep in formaldehyde. What better way to do that by creating ground realities that negate all prospects for a just and dignified peace accord based on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people?

Saturday, January 08, 2005

What next in Palestine..

January 8 2005


Palestine: Not a question of who, but what next

pv vivekanand

IT IS not as much as who will win the Palestinian presidential election as whether the new elected leader would be able to achieve peace based on the people's legitimate rights and put an end to their more than half a century of sufferings. It is the question that is haunting the Palestinian people.

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who assumed the mantle of chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) following the death of Yasser Arafat in November, is seen to have been assured of poll victory.

He played the role of a perfect politician in the run-up to the election by assuring those who advocate armed struggle that he would protect them from Israeli attacks and pledging that he would not budge on the rights of the Palestinians while negotiating peace with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Sharon has not commented on Abu Mazen's declarations, perhaps because he thought it was only expected of a presidential candidate. The Sharon camp seems to believe that they could successfully negotiate with Abu Mazen without budging from their hard-line rejection of some of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.

At the same time, they did not stop their military crackdown on Palestinian resistance. Israeli incursions into the Gaza Strip have exacted a heavy death toll and massive destruction in the final days before the election as if to underline its scorched earth policy against Palestinian resistance.

On New Year Day, Ibtihal Abu Thaher, 10, was killed in the Jabalyia Refugee Camp and her 11-year-old brother injured when an Israeli tank shell hit them as they played outside their home. At least 30 homes and shops were demolished by Israeli forces on Jan.2

On Jan.4, eight people were killed by tank shells. They included six children from the same family. The Israeli military claimed that soldiers were firing at armed men, but witnesses and doctors said the casualties were mostly children playing in an open field.

The Israeli justified the attacks saying Palestinians fired rockets at Jewish settlements. Al Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Islamic Jihad, and Hamas' Izzeddin Al Qassam Brigades claimed the attacks, some of which caused no casualties. Some 12 Israeli soldiers were injured on Jan.5.

Hero's welcome

Some attacks came even as Abu Mazen was campaigning in the Gaza Strip, where he was given a hero's welcome despite the decision by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to boycott the election.

Hamas has said the decision was "irreversible" and that it would not enter a candidate in the race. It asserted it would not endorse any other candidate; nor would its supporters vote on election day.

Abu Mazen has said he would use persuasion with the group to work out a ceasefire with Israel.

"We will not use force with Hamas but we will use the way of persuasion and negotiation," he said.

"We consider that fighting among Palestinians is a red line that must not be crossed."

In public, Israeli leaders say that they had no "preferred candidate" but the way they have gone ahead in "helping" arrange the election indicates that they favour Abu Mazen.

However, during the campaigning, Abu Mazen made clear he would make no compromises over his people's rights.

Abu Mazen made several firm points:

* On Jan.1, in a speech marking the occasion of Fateh's 40th anniversary, he said he was committed to following Yasser Arafat's path. "Occupation would eventually end," he said. "We will not forget our brothers behind Israeli bars and we will not forget the wanted Palestinians who are heroes fighting for freedom. We will not forget the refugees..." he said.

* The right of Palestinian refugees to return home or exercise the option of receiving compensation for their properties lost in 1948 is supreme to any agreement with Israel.

* The release of the more than 7,000 Palestinian prisoners is key to any peace agreement. Without their freedom, there would be no deal.

* The prisoners should be allowed to vote. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) has filed an application with Israel for the purposes (It is unlikely to be granted, reports indicated).

* The state of Palestine that would be created after negotiations with Israel will include the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and its capital will be Arab East Jerusalem.

* The PNA will protect those waging armed resistance from Israeli attacks.

"When we see them, when we meet them, and when they welcome us, we owe them," he said. "This debt always is to protect them from assassination, to protect them from killing, and all these things they are subject to by the Israelis."

* However, the firing of rockets towards Israeli settlements and towns are counter-productive since they lead to heavy Israeli retaliation resulting in the death of Palestinian children.

"Firing these rockets is of no use. These rockets only hurt our people and lead to (Israeli) aggressions and I am making no apologies for what I said," he said in reference to his condemnation of the attacks.

"When we speak of the rule of law, we mean that we refuse security chaos and we should not allow conditions to be exploited and give Israelis any excuse to continue their aggressions," he said

The main hardline factions described his remarks "as a stab in the back of the resistance."

However, in general terms, Abu Mazen seems to have pleased many prospective voters.

Israeli views

Again, how the Israelis viewed his statements is subject to debate.

However, they should have been worried by the welcome Abu Mazen received at a gathering attended by hundreds of people and dozens of Aqsa Martyrs Brigades activists. He was treated as a hero by the Brigades, who hoisted him on their shoulders,

in a show of support that sparked criticism from the US, which called the incident "worrying."

During a Jan.4 speech in Al Bireh in the West Bank, Abu Mazen called Israel the "Zionist enemy." Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert lashed back saying such comments were "unacceptable and unforgivable."

Israel has allowed Abu Mazen to campaign in Arab East Jerusalem where residents would be allowed to vote in five post offices as they did in 1996. The Israeli permission to allow him to visit the occupied city is deemed to be a concession, given that the occupation force never allowed Arafat to enter the city.

Mustafa Barghouti, who is second in line behind Abu Mazen in the race, was arrested and interrogated for three hours by Israeli police in occupied Jerusalem because they said he did not have permission to be campaigning in the city.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has announced that it would support his candidacy because the group agreed with him on a national democratic programme.

Despite the frenzy of elections, most Palestinians are sceptical whether Sharon, the hawkish Israeli prime minister, would budge from his denial of their legitimate rights.

They seem to think -- along with many in the Arab World -- that Sharon's "enthusiasm" would disappear when confronted with the reality that neither Abu Mazen nor any other Palestinian leader would make a compromise over the rights of the Palestinian people.

In the meantime, Sharon has rearranged his coalition government ahead of his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip later this year.

Sharon, who has called 2005 a "year of opportunity" for resolving the Palestinian problem, has made a deal with Shimon Peres, leader of the opposition Labour party. The Labour is to join Sharon's Likud-led government, replacing other coalition partners.

Peres, who is in favour of accepting some of the rights of the Palestinian people, supports the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and proposed resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians.

As veteran journalist Ian Black observes: "By joining Ariel Sharon's Likud-led coalition as deputy prime minister, Peres is showing that the majority of Israelis back the plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, remove its settlers and restart negotiations with the Palestinians.

"Peres's move illustrates the fact that four bloody years of armed intifada have destroyed the Israeli left but underlined the need to end the conflict. Arafat's death and replacement by the pragmatic Mahmoud Abbas is one reason things could improve -- not because Abbas will bend on the tough issues of borders, settlements and Jerusalem, but because he is likely to curb violence, embrace reform and win international backing to force Israel to accept a fair deal. Another reason is Sharon's conversion to the idea that Palestinians need their own state -- though exactly what it should consist of remains, crucially, to be agreed."

Stone wall

However, Sharon's Gaza plan is suspect. He is seen aiming at consolidating Israel's grip on the West Bank while abandoning Gaza, which has proved to be the most ungovernable occupied territory. By expanding Israeli presence in the West Bank, Sharon is seen as seeking to cut down the size of a future Palestinian state.

Confronted with that agenda, which includes a no-compromise stand over the vital issues of the right of the refugees and return of Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, Abu Mazen or any other Palestinian leader elected on Jan.9 would be running into a stone wall.

At the same time, the election itself would add international legitimacy to the elected president's status as the leader of his people, something that Sharon would find hard to reject or brush aside.

Add to the equation, US President George Bush's declaration that he would spend his "political capital" that he seems to have gained by the re-election to find an end to the Palestinian problem.

If Bush were to use a way out of the inevitable Israeli-engineered pressure on him against endorsing the Palestinian rights in their truest form, then he does have the option of involving the European Union, the UN and Russia and pushing ahead the Quartet-backed roadmap for peace.

Sharon has said he endorses the roadmap for peace, but subject to 14 amendments disguised as "reservations."

These include:

* Calm will be a condition for the start and continuation of the process. The Palestinians must end "violence," dismantle security organisations and form new organisations to combat "violence." In the first phase, and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will dismantle resistance groups and their infrastructure and collect all illegal weapons.

* Full compliance will be a condition for progress between phases of the plan and for progress within the phases. The first condition for progress will be the full cessation of "violence."

* A new, different PNA leadership must emerge through reform before the second phase. This demand would be met on June 9. New elections must be held to the Palestinian Legislative Council.

* The monitoring mechanism will be under US management.

* The nature of the provisional Palestinian state will be determined at Israeli-Palestinian talks. The provisional state will be fully demilitarised with no military forces. Israel will control all entry and exit, as well as air space.

* The state must make declarations on Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and on the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to what is now the state of Israel.

* The end of the process will lead to the end of all claims as well as the end of the conflict.

* A settlement will be reached through agreement and direct negotiations in accordance with the vision outlined by Bush in a speech on June 24, 2003. (In that speech, Bush said: "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence. And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbours, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East).

* Issues that will not be discussed include Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except a freeze on settlement expansion and illegal outposts, the status of the PNA and its institutions in occupied Jerusalem, and issues that will be part of a final peace agreement.

* The removal of references to a Saudi peace plan and an Arab initiative adopted in Beirut in 2003.

* The reform process will be promoted in the PNA -- a transitional Palestinian constitution will be drafted, a Palestinian legal infrastructure will be built, international efforts to rehabilitate the Palestinian economy will continue, and transfer of tax revenues will continue.

* The redeployment of Israeli forces to positions they held in September 2000 before the Palestinian uprising began will depend on absolute quiet and future circumstances.

* Subject to "security" conditions, Israel will work to restore Palestinian life to normal, promote the economy, cultivate commercial ties and assist humanitarian agencies.

* Arab countries will assist the process by condemning "violence." No link will be established between the Palestinian track and other peace tracks.

As is obvious, these "reservations" are "loaded" since most of them are vaguely outlined, obviously with a view to allowing interpretations in Israel's own way.

And that is where the catch is.

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Israel over a Chinese barrel

January 2 2005

Israel over a Chinese barrel

pv vivekanand
AN intense tug-of-war pitting three sides -- China, Israel and the US -- is being waged behind the scenes over Israel's sales of arms and related services to the Chinese.

It was always known that Israel's military links with China were a source of concern for the US, particularly that the Israelis always used technical loopholes in bilateral agreements to justify their arms deals with the Chinese. The main American concern stems from a fear that the Chinese would acquire Israeli-supplied weapons systems that could challenge American-supplied equipment deployed by Taiwan.

In expert opinion, the periodic tension between Israel and Washington about arms sales "are nothing to what might happen if American soldiers were killed by Israeli weapons" in a war between China and Taiwan.

In the latest spat, Israel is holding back, at American insistence, Israel-built Harpy unmanned aerial attack (UAV) vehicles sent back by China for overhaul and upgrade.

China is furious and Beijing's posture in the equation is clear. It has told Israel in clear terms that it would no longer tolerate any behaviour that does not acknowledge that China is a world power and that the Jewish state should not renege on signed contracts. Beijing has also ruled out accepting monetary compensation for the held-back vehicles as Israel did in 2000 in a deal involving the proposed sale of Phalcon surveillance aircraft. Israel called off the deal under American pressure and China collected $350 million in indemnity for the Israeli default on the deal.

"The Chinese government suspected Israel in 2000 -- and again now -- of being disingenuous in claiming its hands are held by Washington," says the Israeli intelligence web site debka.com. "They see Israeli undertaking to supply the advanced technology to China, on the one hand, and, on the other, playing ball with the Americans to withhold it in default of a written contact."

Israel sold more than 40 Harpy UAVs to China in the late 90s and the vehicles were returned to Israel for an upgrade in 2004 because Beijing wanted it to be technologically equal to similar Israeli-made drones in Taiwan's possession. Taiwan bought the UAVs recently.

Chinese Deputy Prime Minister Tang Jiaxuan was in Israel in late December on a secret visit to demand the return of the UAVs after upgrade. He told the Israelis in unambiguous terms that China wants back the overhauled and upgraded Harpy attack vehicles as soon as possible and there could be no compromise over the deal. Tang told the Israelis that it is not a Chinese problem if they were facing pressure from the Americans.

He stated that as far as Beijing was concerned, the vehicles are Chinese property, having been bought and paid for by the Chinese government and holding them back amounted to illegal seizure and Israel would face serious reprisals if it did not honour the service contract. This could mean a set-back to Chinese-Israeli diplomatic relations and could prejudice to the interests of Israeli firms operating in China. Two-way trade is estimated at around $2 billion and Israel is harbouring ambitions to turn China as one of its key trading partners.

In Washington, the crisis over the Harpys has gone up through the ranks and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself is dealing with the file, and the problem is soon expected to raise its head in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"For Israel, the implications are grave indeed," says the debka.com report. "The entire complex of US-Israel defence ties is now up for review in the light of Israel's compliance with or defiance of Washington's demand to withhold the Chinese UAVs. Putting the case before the Senate committee invites a review of US appropriations to Israel, including military aid, in the full realisation that delayed transfers would cause Israel severe financial damage. President George W. Bush thus signals that he would not be averse to a Senate committee reprimand of Israel and posts a hands-off sign to Israel's Capitol Hill lobbyists."

Apparently, the Harpy UAVs, which have an endurance of seven hours and a range of 550 kilometres, are central to Chinese military planning. China has been using them for several functions, including electronic warfare, airborne early warning (AEW) and ground attack roles, as well as reconnaissance and communications relay.

The Harpy UAVs are capable of patrolling the skies over a battle field or an enemy target and seeking out hostile radar by comparing its signal with the hostile emitters stored away in its computer system. Once it is verified, the drone attacks. Even if the targeted radar is switched off, they can abort the attack and hover in the area until it is reactivated and then return to the attack.

The vehicles are said to be a key element of an AEW electronic system that the Chinese have been building since the early 90s to match the US Global Hawk.

The Chinese are particularly angry because it sees the crisis over the UAVs as the direct result of Washington's "determination to deprive China of this vital system as part and parcel of its overall scheme to impair the airborne intelligence system the Chinese are building."

Without the vehicles, the Chinese programme to build what Beijing sees as the key in its military stand involving Taiwan would be set back by several years.

According to debka.com, it was Taiwan, which recently purchased the same type of drones from Israel, which informed the US that China had sent back the vehicles for overhaul and upgrade after Beijing found that the vehicles sold to Taipei were more advanced than the ones it received.

US officials say that Israel never asked permission or notified the administration about the UAV sale to China, but Israeli officials say that there was no need for such permission of notification because no American-developed technology is employed in the Harpy.

US-China conflict

The US has a long-running conflict with China and had several confrontations over its arms programmes, including the suspected transfer of advanced computer technology to China's military and accusations that China stole American nuclear secrets.

Caught between the US drive to maintain a ceiling on China's military powers and the Chinese determination to acquire advanced technology and weapons in preparation for any eventuality in the dispute with Taiwan, Israel proposed to send back the UAVs without upgrade.

However, China then threatened to take action against the operations of Israeli firms not only in mainland China but also in Hong Kong, and that warning was reaffirmed by Tang late last month.

"The tangle Israel has spun here is hard to explain -- even by the ambition to boost its defence exports," says debka.com. "Because the Chinese were supplied first, their model is less advanced than the up-to-date version sold Taiwan and other recent clients. Beijing demanded an upgrade after discovering its drone lacked the more advanced instruments incorporated in the newer version for identifying target signals not only from its library but visually -- which enables the unmanned craft to strike targets after their radar is switched off. China demanded that its Harpy drones be brought level with the UARs supplied Taiwan."

"The United States, for its part, will not hear of the drones returning to China, overhauled or not," says debka.com. "Now, Washington is watching to see how Israel picks its way out of the impasse, while at the same time preparing a bludgeon to bring down on its head. Israeli officials are frantically casting about for a way out of one of the most acute and damaging crises ever encountered by the Jewish state."

Israeli defence ministry official Amos Yaron briefed a parliamentary panel on the Harpy crisis last week, but, citing national security, he refused to provide details of the China deal. But he said he hoped the crisis would be resolved by March 2005.

More significantly and as a reflection of Israel's confidence that it would get away with anything while dealing with the US, Yaron told the Knesset committee that Washington had no business to interfere in Israeli affairs.

As a result, it was reported by sources in Washington, the Pentagon has placed a temporary lid on meetings between top defence officials from the two sides.

The last American comment on the crisis came from a Pentagon spokesman in the third week of December confirming that the US had indeed raised concerns about arms sales to China with Israel but had not demanded the resignation of any Israeli official over reported transfers of sensitive weapons or technology to Beijing.

That came in implicit response to a report by an Israeli television channel that Washington had demanded the dismissal of Yaron over the Harply deal.

According to the Pentagon, differences between the United States and Israel were "based on policy not personalities."

However, the department confirmed that it had raised longstanding US concerns about the sale and transfer of weapons systems or certain technologies to China.

However, there is no easy solution to the problem. For once, China has adopted a tough and uncompromising position that would have serious repercussions on Israel's trade and export ambitions. The US is equally adamant that Israel, which receives $3 billion in American military aid -- not to mention billions of dollars in other forms of assistance -- every year, should not be party to selling equipment to China that could challenge American interests in the dispute over Taiwan that is key to the US strategy in Asia.