February 6 1998 - VOL 4 No. 33
New Ideas (Temporarily out of stock)
by: Rose-Marie Barbeau
This 'Eid al-Fitr passed without any joy on the political front. Prior to the feast, which marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat returned from his January 22 one-on-one meeting with US president Bill Clinton empty-handed, reportedly having threatened to resign as head of the PA if the US could effect no change in Israel's current policies.
The drama of the Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera, which blew up just as Netanyahu and Arafat arrived, undercut the importance of the meetings in the eyes of many and, some speculate, in the view of the embattled American president. “President Clinton was confused and activity in the US was at a standstill when we were in Washington,” reported Arafat spokesperson Nabil Abu Rdeineh.
Whatever the reason, there was clearly no real pressure applied to prime minister Netanyahu, who sounded confident as he emerged from his first Oval Office meeting. Instead, it appears that the Americans attempted to sell a small-scale, phased redeployment to the Palestinians, which would be clearly linked to Israeli demands from the PA which it says are obligations due under the Oslo agreements. Arafat is reported to have told Clinton, when the president pressured him to take what was on offer, that “I am not and never will be a traitor. You cannot force me to become one “ I would rather resign.”
Over the January 30-31 weekend, US secretary of state Madeleine Albright came out to the Middle East to meet with the two leaders in an effort to get through this latest impasse. But, while Albright talked tough publicly at her press conference on February 1 after the meetings, it was clear that little tough talking had been done with the Israelis. In fact, Palestinian sources said that the “new ideas” which Albright was supposed to be bringing were in fact even less acceptable and farther from the Oslo requirements than the Israeli proposals. Albright said, however, that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have promised to study the American ideas and are prepared to discuss them.
The United States appears now to have accepted without demur Netanyahu's shopping list of demands for action by the Palestinians. In addition, the US is apparently set to ignore Israel's unilateral actions, such as continued settlement expansion, continued blocking of the air and sea ports and non-implementation of the safe passage route, release of political prisoners, and other Oslo II obligations. Instead, there is now American-Israeli consensus on a limited redeployment “ Albright suggested that 10 percent of the remaining West Bank land now designated Area “C” be transferred to Area “B” status, and 10 percent of Area “B” land be transferred to Area “A”. Under the terms of Oslo II, redeployment from all remaining West Bank lands, except for settlements and specified military locations, is to have been completed within 18 months of the inauguration of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which was elected in January 1996, and should leave all the West Bank, save the exempted zones, as Area “A”, under Palestinian jurisdiction.
Because Albright said she would prefer that the Palestinians not respond immediately to this proposal, further discussions are scheduled in Washington. The Palestinians have agreed to dispatch an envoy to Washington on February 8 or 9, together with an Israeli representative, for a resumption of the debate on these “new ideas”. A fully-detailed proposal from the US administration is to be ready within one month. It is fairly certain that this proposal will include doubling the Israeli offer of a second-phase redeployment to between 20 and 24 percent of the West Bank, this “big” redeployment to be divided into two sub-phases. The third and final redeployment called for under the terms of Oslo would be dropped; instead, the parties would move immediately to final status negotiations in mid-1998.
In the meantime, pressure on the Palestinian Authority can be expected to continue, from both Israel and the United States. Now, the Israelis are demanding the Palestine National Council be convened in order to annul the Palestinian National Charter (see pg. 8) and -- despite recent clear indications of intensive security cooperation “ continuing to emphasize that the Palestinians must do more to “fight terrorism”. The Americans are once again casting a long shadow over Iraq, and Israel has deployed Patriot missiles in the Negev desert. An envoy from PA president Yasser Arafat was dispatched last week to Iraq, carrying undisclosed messages from Arafat to the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein. The popular feeling in the Palestinian street is solidarity with the Iraqi people as they face what looks suspiciously like US bully-boy tactics; as opposed to the 1991 Gulf war, however, Palestinian public opinion is not so far distant from that of other Arab countries.
On the home front, the Palestinian leadership is facing troubles as well, with the Minister of Labor resigning citing disapproval of the PA's performance (pg. 12);the PLO executive committee meeting to declare its disapproval of any alteration of the Palestinian charter; tensions continuing on a daily basis in Hebron; and clashes erupting in the Bethlehem area over the death of a local youth in Israeli custody.
The Peace Makers: On the Job in the West Bank's Hot Spot
by Joharah Baker
Hebron has been host to a number of international groups and organizations hoping to improve the potentially explosive situation in the city. One of these groups is the Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT), which has had a presence in Hebron since June 1995.
The group, which originally was formed in the United States has now started to branch out into Canada and Europe. The CPT is a project initiated by the Mennonite Church of Brethren and the Quakers although they also receive support from other Christian sects such as Catholics and Methodists. Basically, the CPT accepts and supports anyone who is a firm believer in the principle of non-violence. They are funded both by churches and by individuals who believe in their cause. Their mission is simple: “We go to various places in the world to assist and support those who have guns pointed at them,” says Pierre Shantz, a member of CPT who has been in Hebron for the past four months. “We try to be a voice for justice for those who are under oppression and do not have the opportunity to express themselves.”
The team came to Hebron at the invitation of Hebron mayor Mustafa' Abdel Nabi al-Natsheh, who expressed his concern over the situation in his city and welcomed any available help from abroad. Shantz explains that the CPT views Hebron as a place where conflict is concentrated and intense due to the Jewish settler presence in the heart of the city. The team outlined a previous project which it implemented in Haiti, where the CPT remained for one year. Their presence was one of international observation and intervention during the period of transition from a military government. According to the team, al-Natsheh felt this was the type of assistance Hebron needed.
The CPT's mission is a hands-on project. Their work is not carried out behind computers, but on the streets. Unlike more institutionalized organizations such as TIPH (Temporary International Presence in Hebron), the CPT is not accountable to any official agreements such as the Hebron Protocol. They are free to do what they feel is right in order to further their mission. And they do quite a bit. Unlike other groups which come to a war-torn region to merely observe, members of this group insist on intervening.
And there are many incidents which call for this. For example, if a soldier is beating Palestinian youth and one of the CPT members witnesses it, he or she will intervene in order to put a stop to the violence. Usually this involves trying to talk to the soldiers who are assaulting the Palestinian and trying to persuade him to stop his violent aggression. Other times, they take pictures and observe the soldiers' behavior at checkpoints. If the soldiers are harassing Palestinians and the team is unable to end the violence, they resort to calling the Israeli police, which often solves the problem.
“Most soldiers patrolling in Hebron get bored. These 18- to 20-year-olds are trained for combat in Lebanon, face to face with an armed enemy,” says Shantz. Many feel resentment towards being stationed in such a tense situation. They say, “We do not want to babysit settlers.” In Hebron, they find themselves up against unarmed Palestinian civilians and they often abuse this power. When confronted with CPT members, some soldiers respond positively towards them, and some don't. “Some won't even return our hellos. In a few instances they get very hostile, especially if we are carrying cameras. They threaten us with arrest, and try to make us stop taking pictures. Sometimes they even push us around.”
However, the Christian Peacemakers come into conflict the most with Hebron's settlers, long known for their extremism and violence. CPT members are often verbally and physically assaulted by settlers. In one experience, recalls Pierre, Israeli soldiers were beating up Palestinians. While some Peacemakers were trying to intervene, a group of settlers came up to them and started pushing them around demanding that the CPT leave since, the settlers claimed it was “their street.” When the Peacemakers refused to leave, the settlers began verbally threatening them. One promised to bash their faces while another said he wanted to punch them because they were anti-Semites since they were helping the Palestinians. When one member of the CPT asked the settler his name, he got a very militant response: “My name is Hate and I hate you.”
One of the worst experiences of a CPT member was directly following the assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in November 199556. A group of settlers were harassing Palestinian schoolgirls as they left their school, calling out obscene names and taunting them. One Peacemaker tried to stop the harassment and ended up being beaten and spit on by the settlers. “They become very hostile when we try to intervene.”
Oftentimes the Israeli soldiers stand idle when the situation with the settlers gets out of hand. If the Christian Peacemakers fail to halt the assaults, they often resort to the help of TIPH.
“Because we are Christians and we stand by Palestinians they call us anti- Semites.” The CPT have even been accused of smuggling in weapons for the Palestinians from abroad. However, the CPT has made it very clear that they do not support terrorism in any form, be it Jewish or Palestinian. Although the situation calls for support for the Palestinians since they are the people under oppression, the CPT are people of principle. They would stand against violence against Jews in Hebron also. If the situation arose in which an Israeli was being attacked by a Palestinian, the Peacemakers would not hesitate to intervene on his behalf.
All members of the CPT work on a volunteer basis. Some are full-time volunteers who work on a project overseas for eight to nine months and stay at home for the remaining three to four months. Others are what are called “reservists”, who maintain jobs at home and spend an average of three to four weeks a year on projects abroad.
Nevertheless, their job as Peacemakers is never-ending even when they are home. “A major part of our work is educating people,” says Shantz. “Some people are very shocked when they hear of our experience in other countries. Personal stories always have a greater effect on people than statistics . When we describe house demolitions people can visualize the suffering because they can relate to it.”
However, most often they are received with a mixed reaction: people listen and sympathize but don't want to get involved. One of CPT's main goals is to change the mentality of North Americans, so they will become more active in helping, beginning with minor demonstrations or even writing letters to local congressmen. This is especially significant since the CPT's priority is to work in places where their governments are involved, trying to counter the violence which their government funds.
The Christian Peacemaker Team was originally established in the United States and later branched to Canada where they recently opened a small office. They also have a growing constituency in Europe. So far, they have a very active constituency of a few thousand.
Within Israel, they have support from a number of peace groups, and friends who support and even visit them. They are currently working with various peace groups to try and “twin” Palestinian families with American families to try to stop home demolitions. Of course their strongest support is from the Palestinian community. Nonetheless, their main goal is to make a difference in the lives of those under oppression. “When we feel we are not effective, we will leave,”says Shantz. But until now, there are enough people who will tell you they are.
Death of a Prisoner: What Really Happened?
by Muna Hamzeh-Muhaisen
Nidal Abu Srour, 18, from 'Aida Refugee Camp, died in mysterious circumstances on January 29, while being held at the Russian Compound (Moscobiyya) interrogation center in Jerusalem. He is the fifth Palestinian to die while in detention at Moscobiyya and the 48th Palestinian to die in Israeli prisons since the start of the intifada.
Abu Srour was arrested on January 6, shortly after leaving al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem, where he had gone to pray. Prison authorities at Moscobiyya admitted to his family that they were holding Abu Srour but did not give any reasons for his detention. Some days later, the family was informed that a court hearing had been held for their son and that the court had assigned attorney Izat Abu Ghoush to defend him.
On January 16, attorney Abu Ghoush telephoned Abu Srour's family to inform them that their son was at Hadassah Hospital. Abu Ghoush had received a call from officials at Moscobiyya informing him that Abu Srour had suffered “minor injuries” after “he slipped in the bathroom”. Later that evening, Abu Srour's brother, Ghaleb, received a call from the Israeli police at Moscobiyya. “They wanted me to go in and give an affidavit, and they informed me that my brother had been transferred to Hadassah Hospital.”
Abu Srour's brother went to Hadassah on the morning of January 17, but the policeman guarding the intensive care room where he brother was being treated would not allow him to see Nidal. Later that day, Abu Srour's brother and uncle went to the hospital and were permitted to visit. “We found him unconscious, with his head covered in bandages, his neck covered with a collar and his entire body covered with cold water compresses,” says Dr. 'Abdul Fatah Abu Srour, the victim's uncle. “The doctor on duty told me that the oxygen had been cut off from my nephew for seven minutes and that his brain was not responding. She added that the police claim that he tried to hang himself.”
Abu Srour was pronounced dead on January 29, the first day of 'Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday marking the end of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting. According to the autopsy report, there were no visible signs of violence but the autopsy clearly showed a case of brain death resulting from oxygen deprivation for a minimum period of ten days. The report further showed a week-long intestinal failure and no signs of attempted suicide by hanging. The autopsy, which last for four hours, was performed on January 30 at the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute in Israel, in the presence of Dr. Jalal Jabiri, a representative of the Palestinian Ministry of Justice and Abu Srour's family.
Disclaiming any responsibility for his death, the Israeliauthorities announced that Abu Srour was a “car thief” who “hanged himself in his cell”. Abu Srour's family, who maintain that their son died in detention, is challenging this claim. Palestinian human rights groups are holding Israel responsible for Abu Srour's death, with the Mandela Institute, a prisoners' rights group based in Ramallah, demanding that a neutral and independent committee be formed to investigate Abu Srour's death.
Meanwhile, there remains much speculation in Bethlehem about the reason why Abu Srour was detained in the first place. Many believe that it was perhaps Abu Srour's name which cost him his life. Abu Srour is the cousin of Maher Abu Srour who killed an Israeli intelligence officer known as “Captain Afif” in a Jerusalem apartment in 1993, after pretending to be a collaborator with the Israeli authorities. Captain Afif, who worked at the Bethlehem military government headquarters, agreed to meet with Abu Srour at a Jerusalem apartment when Abu Srour informed him that he was bringing along other Palestinians interested in collaborating with Israel.
Maher Abu Srour was on Israel's most wanted list after Captain Afif's death, and the Israelis were intent on catching him. Months later, he was spotted on a bus in West Jerusalem, as he was reportedly about to carry out a suicide bombing. Abu Srour kidnapped an Israeli woman driving by in her car and forced her to drive it to Bethlehem. An Israeli military helicopter chased the car and as it approached the intersection near the Gilo settlement, just before the Bethlehem checkpoint, a missile was fired at the car from the helicopter. The bodies of both Abu Srour and the Israeli woman were burned beyond recognition.
Many Palestinians believe that the Israelis have not forgotten the Maher Abu Srour story and therefore, they speculate that Nidal Abu Srour may have been tortured to death because of his relation to Maher. Whatever the case, everyone in Bethlehem agrees that the Abu Srour family has been extremely unlucky in recent years, with several young men in the family either getting shot to death or dying from accidents or natural causes.
Nidal's brother drowned at Solomon's Pools in 1996 at the age of 19. His body did not surface for three days and the Palestinian authorities had to tear a section of the historic pool in order to let the water out before the body finally surfaced. Other family victims include Ishaq Abu Srour, a cousin who was shot dead by Israeli soldiers during a demonstration at Bethlehem University in 1987. Another cousin who also died by Israeli gunfire was Muhammed Abu Srour, killed during confrontations with Israeli soldiers near Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem during the September 1996 clashes. Another cousin was fatally electrocuted by a faulty water heater in 1994, while Maher Abu Srour's brother, a schoolteacher, died of a heart attack in 1993.
Meanwhile, violent confrontations erupted between Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers stationed at Rachel's Tomb “ adjacent to the cemetery where Abu Srour was buried “ at the northern entrance to Bethlehem following his funeral on January 31. Eyewitnesses maintain that there was a heavy presence of armed Israeli soldiers near the cemetery, and after the funeral was over, the soldiers started firing live and rubber-coated metal bullets as well as tear gas at the funeral procession. Palestinians responded by throwing stones and empty bottles at the soldiers. Several people were injured, including two Palestinian policemen.
The clashes have since continued, with Israeli military authorities threatening to respond more violently if the confrontations don't stop. Meanwhile, dozens of Palestinians were injured on February 1, including one person who was hit by a live bullet. Several others were injured by rubber-coated metal bullets, while others suffered from tear gas inhalation.
More injuries were also reported on February 2, with dozens of cases of tear gas inhalation at the Dar Jasser School for Girls. Several girls were taken to hospital after fainting from tear gas inhalation. Located in the center of the clashes, the school is a favorite target of Israeli soldiers, who fired tear gas at the school during confrontations. February 2 was the first day back in school after a five-day holiday to celebrate 'Eid al-Fitr.