Israel's "foreign policy of deception"

Details

Written by Rod Such Rod Such

Published: 25 January 2013 25 January 2013

Israel’s "foreign policy of deception" documented in new book

Rod Such The Electronic Intifada 16 January 2013

Avi Raz’s The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath of the June 1967 War is a meticulous examination of the two-year period that followed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights.

It is notable for a number of reasons: its documentation of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that occurred during and after the war and its exposure of a policy of deliberate lying to conceal Israel’s real aims in the newly occupied territories. And perhaps most importantly, its virtually unassailable argument that Israeli policymakers never intended to relinquish the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which it promptly annexed, and contemplated annexing Gaza.

Also notable are the disclosure that Israeli officials acknowledged that the annexation of East Jerusalem and the construction of settlements in the West Bank violated international law, and Raz’s depiction of the US government’s steady supply of arms and political support to Israel during this period.

Raz is a former Israeli journalist turned historian who is now a member of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University in England. The title of the book derives from an infamous quote by Levi Eshkol, Israel’s prime minister during that time, who referred to the West Bank and Gaza as the “dowry” Israel won in the 1967 War: “The trouble is that the dowry is followed by a bride [the Palestinians] whom we don’t want,” Eshkol said.

As Raz shows, Israel wasted little time in attempting to get rid of as many “brides” as it could without provoking an international furor. As early as the third day of the war, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan told Lt. Gen. Yitzhak Rabin “that the aim was to empty the West Bank of its inhabitants.”

More than 200,000 Palestinians fled or were forced to flee their homes and villages in the West Bank, even though none participated in the 1967 War. Some twenty West Bank villages were destroyed, either partially or completely. The main purpose of the village destruction, Raz notes, “was to obliterate the Green Line,” the unofficial border created by the 1949 armistice agreements.

The Israeli military “encouraged” Palestinians to flee eastward toward the East Bank of the Jordan River. Raz documents that thousands of Palestinians who attempted to return to their homes after the fighting ended were labeled “infiltrators.” Hundreds were killed when they tried to return, including women and children, some of whom were buried in mass graves.

Read more: Israel's "foreign policy of deception"

Israel Arrests Human Rights Activist

Details

Written by Maureen Clare Murphy Maureen Clare Murphy

Published: 25 January 2013 25 January 2013

Israel arrests Stop the Wall youth coordinator in latest attack on Palestinian human rights defenders

Submitted by Maureen Clare Murphy on Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:36

Israeli forces arrested activist and human rights defender Hassan Karajah during a nighttime raid on his home in the occupied West Bank village of Saffa, near Ramallah, yesterday morning.

According to Stop the Wall, Israeli forces damaged property and attempted to humiliate Karajah’s family:

Armed soldiers of the IOF [Israeli occupation forces] stormed the home of Hassan Karajeh at 2:30am, and, gathering the family together in one room, separated the men and women from each other. The soldiers started to search the family members and ordered them to strip naked for a strip search, however the men and women refused and defied this order.

Muhannad Karajeh, Hassan’s brother and a lawyer, reported that special units of the Israeli army stormed the house and carried out an extensive search, in the process breaking furniture, scattering the contents of the house, and taking three personal computers, three mobile phones, and five bags of private documents belonging to the family.

Muhannad Karajeh further described how the Israeli soldiers attacked his brother Hassan, handcuffed and blindfolded him, and, arresting him, took him to an undisclosed location and refused to tell the family where.

The aftermath of Israel’s raid on the Karajah family home. (Stop the Wall)

The Palestinian human rights and prisoner advocacy group Addameer has also published a profile of Karajah with a detailed description of the raid and arrest, and states that Karajah is currently being held at Jalameh interrogation center. The group also stated on its Facebook page today that an Israeli military court has ordered Karajah’s detention for another 12 days of interrogation, and that Karajah was “beaten shortly after his arrest when he was first detained at a checkpoint.”

Read more: Israel Arrests Human Rights Activist

UNOCHA: Protection of Civilians Weekly Report | 16 - 22 January 2013

Details

Written by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Published: 25 January 2013 25 January 2013

On 23 January, a Palestinian woman was killed and a boy died of wounds he sustained a few days earlier, both by live ammunition fired by Israeli forces in the West Bank. During the reporting period, Israeli forces injure 67 Palestinians in the West Bank and four others in the Gaza Strip. Also in the West Bank, settlers damage more than 280 plants belonging to Palestinians. Israeli authorities demolish over 100 Palestinian-owned structures, displacing around 180 Palestinians. In Gaza, three workers died in tunnel collapse.

What Israel's Election Means--And Doesn't Mean

Details

Written by Yousef Munayyer Yousef Munayyer

Published: 24 January 2013 24 January 2013

What Israel’s Election Outcome Means—And Doesn’t Mean

by Yousef Munayyer  | January 23, 2013 4:15 PM EST

The ballots have been cast and counted and the Israeli election is now over. Post-election reporting and analysis have been rife with speculation and misinformation. Here is what the outcome of this election actually means and doesn’t mean:

It does not mean Israeli voters have rebuked Netanyahu’s policies toward the Palestinians. Many have characterized this outcome as a setback for Netanyahu. In a sense they are right in that his party has fewer seats, but his policies toward Palestinians and Palestinian territory remain largely unchallenged. It is important to keep in mind that the new star of Israeli politics, Yair Lapid, whose party garnered about 19 seats to become the second largest party, did not run on a platform that distanced him from Netanyahu’s policies on Palestinians. Rather, his campaign was focused primarily on two issues: redistribution of social responsibility—particularly as it relates to exemptions for religious communities—and redistribution of wealth through programs for middle-class Israelis. It was a platform that largely resonated with the significant outpouring of protestors in 2011 demanding economic reforms. Of course, those protests were far more about the price of cottage cheese than anything relating to Palestinians, the occupation or colonization. Likewise, the rise of Lapid just reinforces the reality that popular mobilization in Israel in opposition to Netanyahu is only coalescing around economic issues and not in opposition to his policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Lapid and Netanyahu know that Yesh Atid’s mandate isn’t one of peace, and thus, while Lapid’s seats offer him some leverage in coalition negotiations, it won’t be in areas that ultimately matter for peacemaking.

It does not mean there is a half-half split between Right and Left. This is perhaps the most common misconception I’ve seen in post-election commentary and analysis. There are some who lament the rightward trend in Israeli politics who would like to see things this way; the reality is it just isn’t the case. Americans, familiar with what a former professor of mine used to refer to as our “system of donkeys and elephants,” are particularly susceptible to this misconception. Israeli politics, however, involves far more actors, cleavages and ethno-religious interests. Anyone using the right-left spectrum should be able to define what this spectrum is. Few actually do.

The half-half divide is more appropriately described as a split between Netanyahu’s natural allies and his political opposition. This should not be conflated with an ideological divide or even a policy divide, particularly as it relates to the occupation. Further, the “left” bloc that some have referred to includes non-Zionist Arab parties, which picked up about 9-12 seats. These parties have never, in the history of the Israeli political system, been included in a governing coalition. While their presence places some limits on the largest party’s (in this case Netanyahu’s) ability to shape a coalition, including them in an ideological voting bloc with Zionist parties displays a fundamental misunderstanding of their politics and their place in a hostile Zionist political system. Just like in 2009, when Netanyahu’s was the second largest party, it is still he and only he who is in a realistic position to

Read more: What Israel's Election Means--And Doesn't Mean