Amira Hass / Life among the ruins in Gaza
- Details
- Written by Amira Hass Amira Hass
- Published: 15 May 2009 15 May 2009
- Hits: 3873 3873
GAZA - Wadi Gaza is an agricultural region southeast of Gaza City. The ruins of Hussein al Aaidy's family home are immediately apparent. The houses (and several other heaps of ruins) are scattered among budding hills, lazing goats and fields that have been plowed but not sown. Up until nine years ago, these houses were surrounded by orchards and other fruit trees. Until the Israel Defense Forces bulldozers uprooted everything in order to safeguard the Israelis driving to the settlement of Netzarim.
The thousands of heaps of ruins in the Strip have now become part of the landscape. What attracts attention is when one pile of ruins or another disappears. The Gaza Public Works Bureau has already solicited bids for clearing away the ruins of several public buildings and several mosques. Building contractors have begun to evacuate the rubble, and tents have been set up on the site in order to serve the public and for prayers.
But these are the exceptions. There is no point in clearing away the ruins of the 4,000 buildings and homes that have been totally destroyed, so long as Israel does not permit building materials to be brought into the Strip.
The Gazan Ministry of Public Works also warns citizens not to clear away ruins through private initiative: It's too dangerous. At least 50,000 people, members of 8,000 families whose homes have been destroyed, know that the temporary solution they have found is liable to become a long-term one.
"And that's not a solution," says Al Aaidy, whose family is now dispersed among several houses, far from the plot of land they bought years ago and cultivated with a great deal of love. His mother, Kamela, 80, refused to leave her land.
The expulsion from Be'er Sheva in 1948 was enough for her. Now she lives by herself in what used to be the family goat pen (the goats fled or were killed: One hen survived and is still alive and pecking in the soil of the goat pen). She stores some of her possessions in a rusty bus that they dragged to the site a long time ago. She heats up tea on a bonfire.
"You can see the ruins of the house, you can't see the ruins in our soul," says Hussein al Aaidy, a man in his 50s. He was a Fatah activist, a prisoner in Israel from the 1970s who was freed during the prisoner exchange deal in 1985. After his release, he worked at several jobs, so as to be able to build a house for his family.
The Al Aaidys thought that the ground invasion of Israel's Gaza campaign would be like the previous ones: that the shelling and the shooting would be outside the house, and that they would be safe inside it. His brothers' families, who live nearby in buildings with ceilings of asbestos and tin, joined him on Saturday, January 3, 2009, on the eve of the ground attack and when the bombing intensified.
"All of us, 30 people, were in one inner room, on the second floor," said Kamela this past Sunday. "I was lying on a mattress, I wrapped my head in a mandil [a head kerchief] and a thick scarf. Because of the cold."
At about 8 P.M., something pierced the air and the three stories of the concrete house: A shell? A missile from a helicopter or a drone? They didn't know. Dust, fragments of concrete and shouting filled the room in which they were crowded. Kamela al Aaidy would later discover that her head kerchief was soaked with blood.
She had been wounded by shrapnel in her head; today, she still gets dizzy when she gets up and walks. They ran from the partially demolished house to one of the buildings in the yard - in the hope that the forces that were shelling would see them and understand that they were civilians. Six people were injured by shrapnel: Kamela, her sister-in-law and four children. They contacted friends and relatives to call for medical assistance. They discovered that the IDF was not allowing rescue teams access to them.
Haaretz accompanied the efforts of Physicians for Human Rights to have them rescued, and reported daily and in real time about the situation: They were almost without food, without medicine, little water, cold, shelling and firing all around. But only on Friday, January 9, almost seven days after they had been wounded - after exhausting negotiations on the part of PHR and phone conversations conducted by Hussein al Aaidy himself with soldiers or officers in the Coordination and Liaison Authority for the Gaza Strip - was the first evacuation allowed: four of the wounded and four escorts.
Healthy carried the wounded
They walked for about 1.5 kilometers, the healthy ones carrying the seriously injured on stretchers: The wounds of the children Ragheda and Nur, who were injured by shrapnel all over their bodies, were beginning to become infected; they began to lose consciousness. Before their evacuation, Hussein had cut into Ragheda's flesh with a knife - two of his brothers held her as she screamed and cried - and sterilized the wound with salt water. The grandmother, Kamela, shakes her head as she tells us this, as though she wanted to chase away the memory.
The next day, Saturday morning, a week after they were shelled, the healthy ones and the two wounded women also left. They understood that it was dangerous to remain in the area, as "every moment we expected another shell to fall on us, to be wounded again, perhaps killed," explains Hussein, almost apologizing for "abandoning" the house. Their departure was preceded by negotiations over the phone conducted by Al Aaidy, who speaks Hebrew, with an officer or soldier in the liaison office.
"They wanted us to take a six-kilometer detour: I refused," he recalls. "They demanded that we go south, to the area of Netzarim. I refused. In the end, they agreed to let us go north, near the Karni Crossing. But there were conditions: That each of us would be a meter away from the next person. That we wouldn't stop. That we wouldn't put down the children, whom we adults were carrying on our backs. That we wouldn't put down my mother, whom two of us carried together. They told me: If we can't count the 22 people who left the house, anyone who sees you from a helicopter or a tank, will fire at you."
One of the conditions was that they would carry a white flag, and that scared them most of all. "I was in all the wars and none of them was so difficult. In none of them did they kill people waving white flags, as they did this time," explained Kamela. "And when we marched, I was already in despair, I wanted them to put me down. Leave me on the road and I'll die, I told my sons."
The exhausted convoy marched for about 700 meters, according to Hussein al Aaidy's estimate, until they encountered a group of tanks. One soldier got out of the tank, aimed his rifle at the convoy and ordered them to stop. "That was lucky, that way we could rest a little, we put down the children and Mother," recalls Al Aaidy with a little smile. The soldiers ordered him to approach. "There was a dog with the soldiers. They cocked their weapons. As though they wanted to scare us. I told the soldier: We're leaving by prior arrangement, contact your commanders. And the soldier answered me: 'I won't contact anyone.' We waited like that for 20 minutes. The way a person waits for death." The three kilometers until they reached the ambulances took about an hour and a half to two hours - they no longer remember precisely.
And since then they can't find a place for themselves, says Al Aaidy. When the attack stopped, they were astonished to discover that the IDF had blown up their house.
"From the school where we hid during the attack we wandered to relatives, from those relatives to other relatives, from them we dispersed among rented apartments. The children switched schools, they can't concentrate on their studies and don't show any interest, all their books and games and notebooks were buried, everyone is jittery, they quarrel, the children don't want to be here, on the land next to the demolished house, they wake up at night from nightmares, shouting. And our case is relatively mild: There are no dead, as in other families." Al Aaidy shows me an electronic board he found among the ruins, apparently from a missile that landed on the house.
"If all this science is designed to destroy, then maybe it would be better to go back to the Jahaliya," he muses, referring to the pre-Islamic age of ignorance.
The IDF Spokesman responds: "From the moment of the attack, direct contact was established between the affected residents and the army, and an attempt was made to evacuate them from the Gaza Strip, so they could receive medical care in Israel.
"The residents were evacuated at the first opportunity at which they would not have been exposed to mortal danger from the fighting that was taking place in the area. In order to provide additional information about the attack, we would need precise location coordinates. As we were not provided with that information, we are unable to clarify the matter."
The Palestinian Summer Celebration 2009: Come to Palestine!
- Details
- Written by George S. Rishmawi, Siraj, Center For Holy Land Studies George S. Rishmawi, Siraj, Center For Holy Land Studies
- Published: 13 May 2009 13 May 2009
- Hits: 4264 4264
The Palestinian Summer Celebration 2009
14 June 2009 - 16 August 2009
June 14th - July 12th 2009 (first month)
July 13th - August 16th 2009 (second month)
Dead line for registration for the first Section of the Summer
Celebration is the first week of June and the first week of July for the
second section
Come to Palestine,
Study Arabic and History at Bethlehem University
Live with a local Palestinian Family
Volunteer some of your time with a local community organization
Live and take part of Palestinian daily life, learn how to cock
Palestinian meals, learn how to dance Palestinian folk dance (Dabkeh)
Travel all over Palestine
Weekly speakers about various issues
Weekly documentaries about various issues
The Palestinian Summer Celebration 2009
14 June 2009 - 16 August 2009
June 14th - July 12th 2009 (first month)
July 13th - August 16th 2009 (second month)
Come and celebrate Palestine! The Palestinian Summer Celebration is a
unique annual program that gives people from all over the world the
chance to encounter the life, culture, and politics of Palestine. Learn
Arabic and study Palestinian history at Bethlehem University, spend time
with local families and volunteer with a community organization.
For more information:
http://www.sirajcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content
<http://www.sirajcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16
&Itemid=1> &task=view&id=16&Itemid=1
George S. Rishmawi
Coordinator,
Siraj, Center For Holy Land Studies
Beit Sahour, Schoold Street
P.O.Box 48
Palestine
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Website: <http://www.sirajcenter.org/> http://www.sirajcenter.org
Tel: +972 2 274 8590
Fax: +972 2 274 8774
Mobile: 0599 180 872
USA number: 1 989 607 9480
Concern over burns on Afghans caught in battle
- Details
- Written by RAHIM FAIEZ, AP foreign on BBC News RAHIM FAIEZ, AP foreign on BBC News
- Published: 10 May 2009 10 May 2009
- Hits: 3693 3693
Associated Press Writers= KABUL (AP) Afghanistan's leading human rights organization said Sunday it was investigating the possibility that white phosphorus was used in a U.S.-Taliban battle that killed scores of Afghans. The U.S. military rejected speculation it had used the weapon but left open the possibility Taliban militants did.
White phosphorus can be employed legitimately in battle, but rights groups say its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitutes a war crime.
Afghan doctors are concerned over what they are calling "unusual" burns on Afghans wounded in last Monday's battle in Farah province, which President Hamid Karzai has said may have killed 125 to 130 civilians.
Allegations that white phosphorus or another chemical may have been used threatens to deepen the controversy over what Afghan officials say could be the worst case of civilian deaths since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban regime. The incident in Farah drew the condemnation of Karzai who called for an end to airstrikes.
Nader Nadery, a commissioner for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, said officials were concerned white phosphorus may have been used, but he said more investigation was needed.
"Our teams have met with patients," Nadery told The Associated Press. "They are investigating the cause of the injuries and the use of white phosphorus."
White phosphorus is a spontaneously flammable material that can cause painful chemical burns. It is used to mark targets, create smoke screens or as a weapon, and can be delivered by shells, flares or hand grenades, according to GlobalSecurity.org.
Human rights groups denounce its use for the severe burns it causes, though it is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory.
The U.S. military used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Israel's military used it in January against Hamas targets in Gaza.
Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the U.S. did not use white phosphorus as a weapon in last week's battle. The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky, he said.
Julian noted that military officials believe that Taliban militants have used white phosphorus at least four times in Afghanistan in the past two years. "I don't know if they (militants) had it out there or not, but it's not out of the question," he said.
A spokesman for the Taliban could not be reached for comment Sunday.
The U.S. military on Saturday said that Afghan doctors in Farah told American officials that the injuries seen in wounded Afghans from two villages in the province's Bala Baluk district could have resulted from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks.
Dr. Mohammad Aref Jalali, the head of the burn unit at the Herat Regional Hospital in western Afghanistan who has treated five patients wounded in the battle, described the burns as "unusual."
"I think it's the result of a chemical used in a bomb, but I'm not sure what kind of chemical. But if it was a result of a burning house — from petrol or gas cylinders — that kind of burn would look different," he said.
Gul Ahmad Ayubi, the deputy head of Farah's health department, said the province's main hospital had received 14 patients after the battle, all with burn wounds.
"There has been other airstrikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I'm not sure what kind of bomb it was," he said.
U.N. human rights investigators have also seen "extensive" burn wounds on victims and have raised questions about how the injuries were caused, said a U.N. official who asked not to be identified talking about internal deliberations. The U.N. has reached no conclusions about whether any chemical weapons may have been used, the official said.
Afghan officials say up to 147 people may have died in the battle in Farah, though the U.S. says that number is exaggerated.
The U.S. on Saturday blamed Taliban militants for causing the deaths by using villagers as human shields in the hopes they would be killed. A preliminary U.S. report did not say how many people died in the battle.
The investigation into the Farah battle coincides with an appeal by Human Rights Watch for NATO forces to release results of an investigation into a March 14 incident in which an 8-year-old Afghan girl was burned by white phosphorus munitions in Kapisa province.
The New York-based group said Saturday white phosphorus "causes horrendous burns and should not be used in civilian areas."
One Voice: Manufacturing Consent for Israeli Apartheid
- Details
- Written by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada
- Published: 09 May 2009 09 May 2009
- Hits: 2676 2676
How do Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation and siege see their world, especially after Israel's massacre of more than 1,400 people, mostly civilians, in the occupied Gaza Strip three months ago?
Two recent surveys shed light on this question, although one -- published on 22 April by the pro-Israel organization One Voice -- appears intended to influence international opinion in a direction more amenable to Israel, rather than to record faithfully the views of Palestinians or Israelis ("OV Poll: Popular Mandate for Negotiated Two State Solution," accessed 30 April 2009). The other -- a more credible survey -- was published in March by the Oslo-based Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies and funded by the Norwegian government ("Surveying Palestinian opinions March 2009," accessed 30 April 2009).
The One Voice survey (of 500 Israelis and 600 Palestinians conducted from November to February) received considerable media attention. The group's press release unabashedly spun the results to claim popular legitimacy for the two-state solution and to discredit alternatives: "The results indicate that 74 [percent] of Palestinians and 78 [percent] of Israelis are willing to accept a two state solution (an option rated on a range from 'tolerable' to 'essential'), while 59 [percent] of Palestinians and 66 [percent] of Israelis find a single bi-national state 'unacceptable.'"
The press release failed to note that 53 percent of Palestinians polled were also willing to embrace or tolerate "one joint state" (as opposed to a federated "bi-national" state) in which "Israelis and Palestinians are equal citizens." Curiously, Israelis were not asked about this option. The high-level of potential support for a single democratic state (confirmed by Fafo as we shall see) is remarkable given the incessant drumbeat of peace process industry propaganda that there is no solution but the two-state solution. One Voice asserts that a "very conscious effort was made in this poll to cover as wide a range of potential solutions as possible." But except for the initial question about the type of state, all the other questions assume, and are primarily relevant to, a two-state solution.
Colin Irwin, of the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool, who authored the One Voice poll, has written that his techniques were used to help politicians shape political agreements in Northern Ireland and the Balkans. The method consists of using polls to "explore" opinions on each side of a divide and find areas where there is consensus and on which an agreement could be built. Such an approach might have some relevance among two equal communities, but the way he has applied it here merely legitimizes and obscures the radically unequal power relations between Israelis and Palestinians rather than providing a way to transcend them.
It is only through a stretched interpretation that One Voice manages to find a consensus around a "two-state solution" -- which looks suspiciously like long-standing Israeli proposals for a Palestinian bantustan. The treatment of refugees is a good example of this questionable approach. The poll finds that 87 percent of Palestinians under occupation consider the "right of return AND compensation" for refugees to be "essential" to a final agreement, but notes that this option was "rejected by 77 [percent] of Israelis as unacceptable." Therefore, the Palestinian preference is pushed off the table in favor of a proposal where Israel "recognizes the suffering of refugees," and all but a handful can return only to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thus, Israeli bigotry against non-Jewish Palestinian refugees is accorded the status of a "preference" that must not only be respected, but trumps the Palestinians' universally recognized legal rights.
This special privilege is often granted to Israelis but not to others. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees assisted hundreds of thousands of refugees to return to their original homes, many in areas dominated by hostile majority communities. It did not matter if those majorities did not want to see refugees from another group return; rather it was the refugee's individual right -- a universal human right -- that trumped appeals to ethno-national purity.
The One Voice survey does confirm that the minimal consensus needed to sustain a two-state solution, were it practicable, is absent. While 78 percent of Palestinian respondents considered a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories to the June 1967 line "essential," 60 percent of Israelis consider that "unacceptable." Predictably, the proposed "compromise" is that Israel withdraws partially. Once again 60 percent of Israelis are allowed to outvote 78 percent of Palestinians in order to maintain Israeli control of land occupied, colonized and annexed in violation of international law.
Thus, One Voice's analysis treats universal rights and international law as having less weight than Israeli prejudices and legitimizes the "facts on the ground" established through criminal behavior in open violation of UN resolutions and the International Court of Justice. It subjects these rights to a popular referendum in which the abusers exercise a permanent veto over the claims of their victims.
One Voice bills itself as "an international mainstream grassroots movement" commanding the support of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis. In fact, One Voice has support from no Palestinian grassroots organizations. It is a slick marketing outfit funded, according to its website, by "Israeli, Palestinian and other" sources. Much of its money comes from "major foundations" such as the Ford Foundation, IBM, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. One Voice also boasts of receiving money from "businessmen" including Yasser Abbas, the son of Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who has been plagued by allegations of corruption.
Among One Voice board members are State Department Special Advisor Dennis Ross, former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Efraim Sneh, and former Israeli military ruler of the occupied West Bank General Danny Rothschild, in addition to many American Zionists, some Hollywood celebrities and a few token Palestinians. In October 2007, One Voice canceled a planned "peace concert" in Jericho after the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) called on Palestinians to withhold their support. At the time, PACBI asserted that the concert was "being organized to promote a 'peace' agreement that is devoid of the minimal requirements of justice," and was nothing more than a "public relations charade."
One Voice's modus operandi is to recruit college students to sign a "Commitments Platform" pledging support for a two-state solution, but as PACBI pointed out, the statement is "without any commitment to international parameters -- assumes equal responsibility of 'both sides' for the 'conflict,' and suspiciously fails to call for Israel's full compliance with its obligations under international law through ending its illegal military occupation, its denial of Palestinian refugee rights (particularly the right of return), and its system of racial discrimination against its own Palestinian citizens." It is based on these signatures that One Voice claims to represent the "grassroots." Oddly, the platform has recently been removed from the official One Voice website.
There is a laudable intent to Irwin's polling approach. It attempts to identify ideas that could appeal to Israelis and Palestinians. Ultimately any new order must be able to gain consent. But the choice to exclude justice, law and rights from shaping an agreement is not a neutral one; it is in effect an affirmative choice to include, legitimize and endorse the permanence of injustice and inequality. But that is what One Voice's agenda has been all along.
Two-state solution loses support as Western strategy fails
The Fafo survey of more than 1,800 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and almost 1,500 in the West Bank offers some real insights into the state of Palestinian public opinion in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (international funders never sponsor surveys of all Palestinians, which would include those inside Israel as well as those in the Diaspora).
Fafo found that just 35 percent of Palestinians still support a two-state solution. One third preferred an Islamic state throughout Palestine, and 20 percent wanted "one state with equal rights for all," in Palestine/Israel.
Palestinians did not even agree with the common claim that the two-state solution is clearly the more "pragmatic" and "achievable" one. In the West Bank, 64 percent thought the two-state solution was "very" or "somewhat" realistic, as against 55 percent for a single democratic state. In Gaza, 80 percent considered a single democratic state to be "very" or "somewhat" realistic as against 71 percent for a two-state state solution. This is a moment when no vision carries a consensus among Palestinians, underscoring the urgent need for an inclusive debate about all possible democratic outcomes.
The American effort, started by the Bush Administration with European and Arab accomplices, and continued by US President Barack Obama, to impose an Israeli-friendly Palestinian leadership has failed. The Fafo survey indicates that Hamas emerged from Israel's attack on Gaza with enhanced support and legitimacy.
Palestinian Authority leaders in Ramallah and their Arab, Israeli and Western allies, did all they could to portray the Israeli attack on Gaza as the result of "recklessness" and provocation by Hamas and other resistance factions. This narrative has taken hold among a minority: 19 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip viewed Hamas as having "great" responsibility for the attack on Gaza (this rose to 40 percent among Fatah supporters). Overall, 51 percent agreed that Hamas had no responsibility at all for the attack (48 percent in the West Bank, 58 percent in Gaza). Just over half of those polled agreed with the statement "All Palestinian factions must stop firing rockets at Israel."
All the financial, diplomatic and armed support given by the West to Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader whose term as Palestinian Authority president expired in January, has done little to shore up his standing among Palestinians. Only 44 percent of respondents overall (41 percent in the West Bank) considered him the "legitimate" president of the Palestinians, while 56 percent did not.
Near universal dissatisfaction with the Western-backed Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is reflected in the finding that 87 percent of respondents agreed that it was time for Fatah to change its leadership. Unsurprisingly, 93 percent of Hamas supporters wanted change, but so did 78 percent of Fatah supporters.
Palestinians expressed very low confidence in institutions (by far the most trusted were UNRWA -- the UN agency for Palestine refugees -- and the satellite channel Al-Jazeera). But a plurality in the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- 32 percent overall -- considered Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's Western-boycotted Hamas-led government in Gaza to be the legitimate Palestinian government. Only a quarter overall (31 percent in Gaza, 22 percent in the West Bank) thought the Ramallah-based "emergency" government headed by Abbas's appointed and US-backed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was the legitimate one.
Hamas leaders performed well during and after Israel's attack on Gaza. Haniyeh had an overall positive rating of 58 percent while Abbas's was only 41 percent. But among Palestinians who said they would vote in an election, 41 percent would support Fatah against 31 percent for Hamas. If that was out of step with the rest of the survey, there is a clear trend: support for Fatah was down sharply from a year earlier and Hamas doubled its support in the West Bank from 16 to 29 percent, according to Fafo.
There were some issues on which there was a strong consensus. Ninety-three percent of respondents wanted to see a "national unity government" formed, and the vast majority (85 percent) rejected maintaining the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "independent regions" if efforts to form one foundered.
Palestinians still overwhelmingly support a negotiated settlement, but the "peace process" and its sponsors have lost all credibility. Just one percent thought the US had a "great deal" of concern for the Palestinian cause, and 77 percent thought it had none at all. The "Quartet," the self-appointed ad hoc grouping of US, EU, UN and Russian representatives that monopolizes peace efforts earns the trust of just 13 percent of Palestinians.
Post-Gaza, Palestinians hold jaundiced views of all Western countries and the Arab states aligned with them. Iran and Turkey, which took strong public stands in solidarity with Palestinians, have seen support surge.
If the Fafo poll confirms that the Western-backed effort to destroy Hamas, impose quisling leaders, and blockade and punish Palestinians until they submit to Israel's demands has failed, a useful conclusion from the One Voice survey is that given a free choice, Israelis reject all solutions requiring them to give up their monopoly on power and to respect Palestinian rights and international law.
The right response to such findings is to support the growing international solidarity campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions to force Israel to abandon its illegal, supremacist and colonial practices, and to build a vision of a democratic future for all the people in the country.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006).
Thousands flee Pakistan fighting
- Details
- Written by BBC News BBC News
- Published: 08 May 2009 08 May 2009
- Hits: 4029 4029
Thousands flee Pakistan fighting
A Pakistani offensive against militants in the Swat Valley has displaced some 200,000 people and 300,000 are on the move or about to flee, the UN says.
As jets and helicopters pounded targets in the valley, the UN said it was threatening to become one of the world's biggest displacement crises.
The army says its "full-scale" assault had killed more than 170 militants in 24 hours, with the loss of 10 troops.
It accused the Taleban of trying to stop civilians leaving the area.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told the BBC the purpose of the offensive was to "cleanse the area from insurgency and defeat militancy".
"We tried negotiation, we tried reconciliation, we offered the olive branch but we can't allow the writ of the government to be challenged," he said, speaking to Radio 4's PM programme.
Despite now abandoned attempts to secure a peace deal in and around Swat, the area - close to the border with Afghanistan - has long been riven by tensions.
Some 550,000 people had already been displaced before the current crisis, said UNHCR spokesman Ron Redmond.
Militants 'entrenched'
Those displaced over recent days have been forced to flee with very little preparation, aid workers say, with families often separated, and doctors in displaced camps report widespread psychological trauma.
Many are fleeing Mingora, the main town in Swat Valley, which was home to several hundred thousand people before the latest fighting began.
Locals say that most of the current fighting is centred on the Kabal and Charbagh areas of Swat, as well as Mingora itself, and fighting is reported in Buner and Lower Dir.
Militant strongholds were hit from the air on Friday as troops conducted operations on the ground.
Pakistani military spokesman Gen Athar Abbas announced the new casualty figures, which could not be verified independently.
Troops had killed 143 rebels in Swat, 25 in Lower Dir and six in Buner, he said, losing seven soldiers in Swat and three in Lower Dir.
"The army is now engaged in a full-scale operation to eliminate miscreants," he told reporters.
"They are on the run and trying to block the exodus of civilians from the area."
Earlier, he told the BBC the military's objective was to eliminate some 4-5,000 militants from the Swat Valley and neighbouring districts of Dir and Buner.
He warned it would be a "drawn-out affair" because militants in Swat had "entrenched themselves".
They were, he added, "making best use of the terrain, which is ideal country for any guerrilla warfare".
The government is confident it has public support for its military campaign but this could easily be eroded if civilian casualties mount, the BBC's Mark Dummett reports from Islamabad.
Threat of hunger
The Pakistani military says it is trying to help displaced civilians by establishing camps where they can seek shelter.
But reports suggest many thousands of civilians under threat from the fighting are unwilling or unable to move.
Roads have been blocked or reportedly mined by the rebels.
The Pakistani military has also imposed an indefinite curfew over swathes of the region.
A local journalist in Mingora told the BBC that electricity and water had been shut down and markets had been closed since Thursday. There was, the journalist said, a real threat of food shortages in the coming days.
While the army accuses the Taleban of holding the people left in the Swat Valley hostage, people who have escaped blame both sides for the conflict and the dire position of the civilians caught between them, our correspondent notes.
The government signed a peace agreement with the Swat Taleban in February, allowing Sharia law to be locally imposed.
But in the face of territorial advances by emboldened Taleban forces, the strategy came under increasing fire from Washington, a key ally.
The US insists the militants pose a direct threat to its security, and has demanded they be confronted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/8039767.stm
Published: 2009/05/08 15:15:14 GMT
© BBC MMIX