Rice Warns Tehran

 US will not hesitate to defend Israel, Rice warns Tehran

· Vow comes on second day of ballistic missile tests
· Leaders threaten to shut vital oil route if attacked

The US vowed to defend Israel and its other allies in the Gulf, as Iran carried out its second ballistic missile test in two days yesterday.

As the situation worsened in the Gulf, the French oil company Total said it would pull out of a large-scale investment in an Iranian gas field – a serious blow to Tehran, which is keen to exploit its gas reserves, and a victory for the Bush administration, which has been seeking to isolate the Iranian government.

A spokeswoman for the company said it was too risky to invest in Iran at present.

Oil prices resumed climbing yesterday as Opec said it would not be able to replace any shortfalls if Iran were attacked and took its crude supplies off the market.

The second volley of missiles was launched by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a politicised militia parallel to the regular army. The Pentagon, whose surveillance satellites and other technology track such launches, yesterday confirmed the second batch of missile tests, which were carried out at night.

Israel responded to the tests with a show of strength of its own, putting on display at the country’s international Ben-Gurion airport its new spy and early warning plane, which can reach Iran. Israel also hinted that it would not hesitate to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

According to official Iranian reports, the weapons tested included long-range Shahab-3 missiles, capable of reaching Israel and US bases in the region. The reports said the missiles had undisclosed special features. But the Pentagon insisted they were only short-range ones.

The Revolutionary Guard commander, Ali Jafari, referring to the second tests, was quoted as saying: “The manoeuvre brings power to the Islamic republic of Iran and is a lesson for its enemies.”

Iran has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for Gulf oil exports, if it is attacked. Iran’s state media said exercises yesterday involved divers and speedboats, as well as the launch of a high-speed torpedo called Hout. The missile tests and sea operations were an explicit response to Israeli manoeuvres last month, in which war planes were reported to be rehearsing air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, made it clear yesterday that the US would step in if Israel were attacked.

“We take very, very strongly our obligation to help our allies defend themselves and no one should be confused about that,” Rice said during a visit to Georgia.

The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, speaking at a Labour party meeting, said the country had not balked before “when its vital security interests” were at stake, an apparent allusion to its 1981 air strike that destroyed Iraq’s nuclear plant. But he softened his remarks, noting that “the reactions of enemies … need to be taken into consideration as well”.

If Israel did attack Iran, Tehran could create upheaval in the Middle East, with its ally Hizbullah creating trouble on Israel’s northern border and Iranian proteges in Iraq and Afghanistan also going on the offensive against US troops.

The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, visited Israel earlier this month for talks with Israeli commanders, and warned publicly on his return to Washington that an Israeli attack would destabilise the region.

Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, has said Mullen’s remarks were a clear sign that Israel does not have a “green light” from Washington to launch an attack.

The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, is due to visit Tehran this month to discuss incentives offered by the UN security council’s permanent members and Germany in exchange for Iran’s suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Iran’s response has not been published, but public statements by Iranian officials have been mostly negative.

Iran’s oil minister, Gholamhossein Nozari, shrugged off Total’s withdrawal, saying the country did not need foreign investment. “We will proceed with development with or without them,” he said.

US will not hesitate to defend Israel, Rice warns Tehran

This article appeared in the Guardian on Friday July 11 2008 on p19 of the International section. It was last updated at 00:14 on July 11 2008.

Cartoon

Steve Bell on Bush bombing Iran

Islamic threat???

 

Saying ‘Islamic threat’ over and over doesn’t make it real

Years of peddled fear and demonisation have left vulnerable minorities more isolated and the world fixated by a myth

Pick up any newspaper today in Britain or elsewhere in Europe, switch on the TV or tune in to any radio station, and you’re very likely to get the impression that “our societies” – if not western civilisation in its entirety – face an imminent Islamic threat, on a par with the old dangers of fascism. Since the terrorist bombings of New York, Madrid and London, the “fundamentalist peril” has become part of the air we breathe. It has become a rhetorical crutch for everyone from rightwing bigots to opportunistic politicians and repenting “former extremists”, each with their own agenda.

Today we live amid an explosion of discourse and imagery around Islam and Muslims. Sparked by al-Qaida’s lunatic atrocities, it has since fed on the politics of fear and suspicion. The victims have included objectivity, balance, and the ability to judge issues calmly and rationally. Flawed material is endlessly reproduced and recycled, so it is little wonder that the public’s understanding of Islam and the complex political problems of the Muslim world are limited at best.

Years of peddled fear and demonisation have had severe consequences: a widening of ignorance and bigotry, deepening mistrust between individuals and communities, and the resurrection of the pernicious language of racism and fanaticism – as journalist Peter Oborne illustrated in his Channel 4 Dispatches documentary earlier this week.

It is probably no exaggeration to say that Islam is now the religion closest to Europe and remotest from it. Islam is no longer an alien, distant religion. It is now woven into the very fabric of European society. Muslims are the largest of the continent’s minorities. Yet their physical proximity does not appear to have made them more familiar or better understood. If anything, to most European eyes they seem stranger, more distant, more ambiguous than ever.

The much hyped Islamic threat is one of the greatest lies of our time. The “Muslim world” – though no such bloc really exists – is politically fragmented and economically impoverished. It is reeling under the weight of crises and a long colonial legacy. Militarily, it is of scant significance. It is laughable that we should be discussing the Islamic threat when in the past seven years alone two Muslim countries have come under direct military occupation, ending hopes that the world had firmly closed this chapter of history decades ago.

I suspect many military experts must struggle to keep a straight face every time the subject of the “Islamic threat” is broached. They know that strategic threats are not founded on mere anxieties, imagination and illusions, but on concrete military and political facts. This is not to play down the seriousness of the dangers presented by al-Qaida and other violent groups. But these constitute a security problem to be dealt with through the intelligence and security services. Whatever its braggadocio, al-Qaida does not amount to a strategic military threat, let alone a menace to “western civilisation”.

The security risks posed by al-Qaida, moreover, face Muslims and non-Muslims alike. After all, al-Qaida has perpetrated more atrocities in Muslim countries than western capitals. Attacks in Casablanca, Bali, Riyadh, Algiers, Tunisia, Istanbul and Iraq have outnumbered those in New York, Madrid and London.

In the fog of the so-called war on terror, al-Qaida, terrorism, extremism and Islamism – the list of -isms goes on – have been employed as potent weapons in a range of battles. They have been deployed to demonise vulnerable minorities – their community groups and their leaders, mosques and faith schools. They have been adopted to eat away at civil liberties. And they have been exploited to target mainstream Islamist political parties. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development party; the Muslim Brotherhood – the largest opposition in the Egyptian parliament; and Anwar Ibrahim’s People’s Justice party in Malaysia, are among the movements cast in one terrifying category labelled “Islamism”, alongside al-Qaida. The huge differences are wilfully ignored to justify this strategy of unrelenting confrontation. The consequences have been devastating for social stability and community coexistence, as well as for relations between the “Muslim world” and the “west” – something which, ironically, has been recognised by President Bush recently.

Political expediency and scaremongering has seen the propagation of the idea of a grave Islamist threat to the status of orthodoxy. But however easy it might be to surrender to this fiction, it remains just that: a myth fabricated by a few, exploited by a few, and consumed by many. No matter how widely circulated, or endlessly regurgitated, a myth remains a myth.

· Soumaya Ghannoushi will join John Esposito, Alastair Crooke, Martin Bright and Robert Leiken to debate “The Islamic threat: myth or reality?” at IslamExpo in London tomorrow. The expo runs from today until Monday at Olympia in Kensington
islamexpo.com

Bentacourt

Ingrid Betancourt: ‘Six days ago I was chained to a tree. Now I’m just trying to understand how to live’

Ingrid Betancourt

On forgiveness: ‘The only thing I’ve settled in my mind is that I want to forgive and forgiveness comes with forgetting.’ Photograph: Jacky Naegelen/Reuters

For the past seven days Ingrid Betancourt has engaged in an extraordinary frenzy of tarmac reunions, presidential meetings and public addresses sparking an international outpouring of emotion, while readjusting to the oddities of sleeping in a bed and smelling perfume after six years held in jungle captivity by Colombian rebels.

But yesterday she admitted post-release euphoria was beginning to give way to exhaustion. “I know that it’s like the roaring of the waves, I know it’s coming and it’s getting closer, I know that it’s time for me to just stop. I don’t want to be submerged by depression.”

Betancourt, France’s new Joan of Arc – and possibly Colombia’s future president – was speaking in her first major newspaper interview since her release.

Since landing in Paris to a rapturous reception last week, she has rushed between plush Paris hotels and parliament and senate buildings, all the time clutching the makeshift rosary that she made from string while chained up in jungle captivity. Her pallid skin and long, thin hair, and reported scars on her skin from chains are hard-to-erase signs of her six years in captivity. She will not cut her hair until all of the hundreds of hostages still held by the Farc rebels are free.

Although she has so far refused to be drawn on the extent of the physical and psychological “torture and humiliation” she endured, she said yesterday that one day she would outline the truth of what she experienced at the hands of the guerrillas. “I know that I have to give testimony about all the things I lived,” she told the Guardian. “But I need time. It’s not easy to talk about things that are probably still hurting. Probably it will hurt all my life … I hope it won’t. The only thing I’ve settled in my mind is that I want to forgive, and forgiveness comes with forgetting.”

She said she must first forget “in order to find peace” and then “bring back the memories”, hopefully “filtered” and less painful.

She has said her captors treated her with exceptional malice, because the Marxist guerrillas saw her as coming from an established political family and because of their own treatment in Colombian jails. She said her treatment had shown that every human being had an “animal” inside them.

She learned how “in any situation like the ones I experienced, perhaps any of us could do those kind of cruel things. For me it was like understanding what I couldn’t understand before, how for example the Nazis, how [things like that] could have happened.”

Betancourt, overcome with exhaustion yesterday, was helped into her interview by her daughter Melanie, stepson Sebastien and her sister Astrid, who said Betancourt would now retreat with her children to “fill in the jigsaw puzzle of six missing years”.

The Colombian former presidential candidate, who has joint French nationality after marrying a French diplomat, will stay in France for the time being and would not say when she would return to Colombia, for security reasons. When she was kidnapped in 2002, she had been campaigning for the presidency against the drug-trafficking and corruption that underpins one of the most violent societies in the world.

She had received regular death threats and her teenage children had had to be sent abroad.

Now, even in France, her security is high. She has said she is taking time to adapt to beds, to hot water that “hurts”, and particularly to the smell of perfume in France.

Once in the shower in a smart hotel, her son accidentally turned off the bathroom light. In the darkness she felt the Farc had returned to get her. During the interview, she burst into tears when talking of her return.

In the jungle she was often under foliage, unable to see the sky for days, or forced to march for up to 15-mile stretches, covering around 200 miles a year. She made five escape attempts during captivity, the first lasting only a few hours after realising she did not know how to cope in the jungle.

When she was caught after her last attempt she was chained by the neck and forced to stand up for three days.

After that she was chained for 24 hours a day – the only woman with other prisoners, male soldiers from the Colombian army, who often had not seen women for years.

She described how she would set herself activities to stay sane, such as telling stories, teaching the others French, sewing, recycling objects, or writing. “The important thing was to fill the day with activities that could be repeated like in a schedule: to give yourself stability in a world of no stability, that was the key,” she said.

She has told that obtaining a needle and thread or any small object with which to amuse herself was near impossible due to the guards’ treatment of her as an enemy. Other hostages would pass her things. Her key possession was a Bible: at one stage, her group was given books, including Harry Potter. She tried to limit writing in notebooks since they were heavy to carry with her kit on marches. At one stage, she burned four notebooks, knowing she was too weak to carry them.

She was irritated by having to succumb to the barter system of the jungle, using cigarettes as an exchange. She had to ask guards for every small item, from toilet paper to sanitary towels.

She rarely had anything new to read, but at the beginning of her ordeal, she was given a piece of cabbage wrapped in a scrap of newspaper. Eager for something to look at, she unfurled the paper to see a coffin and realised it was coverage of the funeral of her father, who had died a week after she was kidnapped. She has described feeling suicidal and wracked with guilt over his death.

She had an old radio which was a lifeline for the messages her mother regularly broadcast and for keeping up with news. She has said the biggest event was the war in Iraq, and described crying with emotion when she heard her friend Dominique de Villepin address the UN as French foreign minister, cautioning against the war. She also clung to any news on the BBC of the journalist Alan Johnston held in Gaza.

“I followed all his ordeal, every day. I remember the BBC transmitting messages to give him hope. I listened to his press conference and when I heard his words, I was thinking this guy has gone through what I’ve gone through. He knows perfectly what I’m feeling.”

She said she learned a lot from her fellow hostages, including the three Americans who arrived at her group after a few months in captivity. “It was very difficult for them. Only one spoke the language. They had gone through very hard conditions.”

The Stockholm syndrome of identifying with captors is far from Betancourt’s experience.

Those who know her in Paris say she maintained a startling clarity.

As we spoke she took a call from a Paris politician to organise a pro-Colombia peace rally on July 20 which she hopes can be replicated around the world. She said her faith had been crucial, and showed how she wove an intricate crucifix from guerrilla supplies. “They need this string to weave belts for their guns. I used it to weave a rosary.”

Her son and daughter, now 19 and 22, will today accompany her to the Catholic pilgrimage site of Lourdes for a private retreat. “I’m landing like a parachute in the lives of others. They have their own lives, their daily activities and I don’t have anything. Six days ago I was chained to a tree. Now I’m free and I’m just trying to understand how I’m going to live from now on,” she said, in tears.

She has insisted she believes no ransom was paid for her. Yesterday she described the operation to free her as “100% Colombian” but that the Americans had been informed the operation was going to take place.

“There was some kind of technical, useful tools that were shared with the Colombians,” she said. Asked if the Israelis had helped, she said she did not know: “It’s possible.”

On Monday, Bastille day, she will receive the legion of honour from Nicolas Sarkozy. She has described how in the jungle, she tried to wear red, white and blue on July 14, how she taught fellow prisoners the Marseillaise, and also gave French lessons.

“I haven’t left Colombia … My spirit is in Colombia. I’ll be back very soon,” she said. She was focused on getting across a message to the world “that we need to stick together and fight for the ones that are still in the jungle”.

She has not commented on an interview given by her Colombian husband to a Colombian newspaper describing his hurt at the coldness of their reunion on the tarmac in Bogota, and how he thought she might have been influenced by reports he had strayed while she was away. He is not in Paris.

Betancourt denied that the French national outpouring of delight over her return to the country where she spent her youth had handed Nicolas Sarkozy a huge media coup. “It’s not a political gift,” she said. “We’re humans. Why always turn human attitude into political behaviours? I hate that.

“I was so happy to be there. Touching him was touching France and all the French people. Love is the key.

Interview: Ingrid Betancourt

This article appeared in the Guardian on Friday July 11 2008 on p1 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 11:54 on July 11 2008.

18 year old shot by Israeli’s

Second Palestinian teenager shot by Israeli army within hours

· 18-year-old boy brain dead after being shot in head
· Incident occurred just hours after funeral of 10-year-old

Israel’s army shot an 18-year-old Palestinian in the head in the West Bank town of Ni’ilin, just hours after the village buried a 10-year-old who had also been shot in the head by a soldier.

Eyewitnesses said the 18-year-old, Ahmed Yousef Amirah, was shot at close range when a military jeep drove past and an officer fired three rubber bullets at him from within the vehicle.

It is the third incident this month in which Israel’s military appears to have deliberately targeted a resident of Ni’ilin, where protests against Israel’s West Bank barrier and violent clashes occur almost daily.

Amirah was shot around 7.30pm, around four hours after 10-year-old Ahmed Moussa was buried in the village cemetery next to his parent’s house.

Fighting erupted soon after the funeral when teenage boys used sling shots to fire stones at border police who had blocked one of two entrances to Ni’ilin during the burial.

The battle between the youths and the border police raged for several hours, wounding three border policemen as well as Amirah, who is in a hospital in Ramallah and is not expected to survive. Doctors have declared him brain dead.

At the beginning of the funeral procession, which made its way through the village after Moussa’s body had been brought back from Ramallah where it was sent for an autopsy, Israeli military forces fired tear gas at the convoy, intensifying the anger in Ni’ilin.

Ni’ilin’s residents said Amirah was not participating in the fighting but standing outside a house watching from a distance.

But a spokesman for Israel’s border police said it was unclear who shot Amirah.

However, the border police will not investigate. “It’s not our responsibility to investigate things like that,” the spokesman said.

“The violence of the people there, it’s their responsibility. They have to know that if they are going to be there, it’s not good for them and it’s not good for us,” he said.

But Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, said the use of excessive force against protesters was a breach of international law and the military’s own policies.

“In this situation, even so-called less lethal crowd control weapons such as rubber bullets and tear gas have strict limitations on their use. Rubber bullets can be lethal when fired from less than 40 metres away,” said B’Tselem’s communications director, Sarit Michaeli.

The military’s excessive use of force in the village was exposed last week when B’Tselem published a video showing a soldier shooting, at close range, the foot of a Palestinian man, who was blindfolded and cuffed.

Security forces loyal to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, detained around 15 Hamas sympathisers in Nablus today, including four lecturers at al Najah university. One prisoner, Raed Nairat, an assistant professor of political science, was beaten so heavily that he was taken to hospital, according to friends.

“The mukhabarat [intelligence services] appear to have hit him repeatedly. They transferred him to a hospital under a false name so his family would not be alerted, but a friend recognised him. We think they will take him back to prison. He is very sick,” a Nablus resident told the Guardian.

The latest arrests bring to almost 200 the number of Hamas supporters arrested in the last few days in Nablus. Others were detained in other West Bank towns and villages in the biggest clampdown by Abbas’s Fatah movement on Hamas for a year.

The arrests coincide with the publication this week of reports by al-Haq, an independent Palestinian monitoring group, and Human Rights Watch, accusing Fatah and Hamas of routinely torturing detainees from the other side.

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Thursday July 31 2008. It was last updated at 15:10 on July 31 2008.

Ben White commentary

The Palestinian torturers

Human rights abuses by Palestinian security forces should be exposed, even if they provide Israel with a public relations coup

Two reports released this week are throwing the spotlight on Palestinians who are detained without charge and tortured by the Hamas and Fatah forces. Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights group, has detailed how more than 1,000 have been arrested in the last year, with “an estimated 20%-30% of the detainees” having suffered torture “including severe beatings and being tied up in painful positions”.

Human Rights Watch is today releasing a similarly-focused report which concludes that “the use of torture is dramatically up”. Al-Haq accuses both Hamas’s Executive Force, and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)’s Preventive Security Force of widespread maltreatment of detainees.

A report like al-Haq’s must be welcomed for its attention to detail and courage in documenting unjustifiable abuses of power – all the more so since these kinds of findings can easily be manipulated or ignored for political reasons.

This catalogue of human rights abuses will no doubt be eagerly seized upon by Israel apologists – as has happened in the past – by exactly what it proves is unclear: that Israel doesn’t have a monopoly on the use of arbitrary detention and torture?

As it happens, a week ago an al-Haq fieldworker was detained by Israeli forces at the Huwara checkpoint. The organisation’s report describes how one of the soldiers claimed the man’s arrest was connected to “the nature of his work as someone monitoring and documenting the actions of the Israeli military”. Al-Haq notes that this is part of a wider trend of “arbitrary arrests and detention of human rights defenders in the OPT, as well as those monitoring or documenting Israeli human rights violations in any way” (including the father of the girl who filmed the shooting of a blindfolded prisoner).

However, reporting abuses by Hamas and Fatah can also make some western pro-Palestinian groups feel uncomfortable. Al-Haq’s findings and recommendations could well be sidelined, or merely noted in passing, out of fear of providing ammunition to Israel’s propagandists, or perhaps out of a misplaced sense of prioritising the publicising of the occupation’s injustices.

Neither can the PA’s western donors say much by way of serious reprimand – and not just because detention and torture in the Middle East is a bit too close to the bone. The international community did nothing when Arafat’s men were arresting hundreds of Islamic movement activists and clerics in the mid-1990s. This crackdown, often accompanied by human rights abuses and torture, was directly linked to the anti-Fatah violence that accompanied the Hamas military seizure of control in Gaza in 2007:

“For Hamas members, the gutted prison bloc in the back of the Gaza City headquarters of the Palestinian Authority’s Preventive Security Service was their Abu Ghraib. It was here that the seeds of the rivalry with Fatah were planted a decade ago.”

Moreover, after Hamas’s success at the ballot box in 2006, the US began intense planning and cooperation with elements of Fatah to prepare for a military confrontation, so much so, that in the aftermath of the fighting in June 2007, “many Western officials and analysts” considered Hamas’s offensive as a “pre-emptive strike”.

Israel is also complicit in the PA’s campaign of fear. Over the past few weeks, Nablus has been the focus of IDF raids targeting everything from charities and mosques to schools and a TV station, as well as sweeps by the PA. The fact that arrests by Israeli occupation forces and Abbas’ police are occuring in tandem, unsurprisingly leads some to see “Fatah’s relationship with the Israelis as one of collusion more than competition”. Independent MP Mustafa Barghouti concludes that Israel is “trying to turn the PA into a security sub-agent like the Vichy government (in occupied France).”

Human rights abuses by Palestinian security forces are nothing new (as this recent report by the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group makes clear) – though now it’s Hamas personnel responsible, as well as the PNA. As it happens, seriously tackling these abuses would also make a vital contribution to the Palestinian struggle. But this is not an issue for political point scoring; it is a question of basic dignities and justice. Fighting against torture and detention without charge cannot come second to any other agenda.

See also

Khled Diab: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/31/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

Rory Mc Carthy interactive links and special report on ‘The wall’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2008/jul/07/israelandthepalestinians

Part steel, part concrete and wholly controversial

FAQ: The West Bank barrier

Palestinians walk through a door in a section of the barrier between Jerusalem and the West Bank

Palestinians walk through a door in a section of the barrier between Jerusalem and the West Bank. Photograph: Muhammed Muheisen/AP

What is the barrier?

It is a vast steel and concrete construction runing the length of the occupied West Bank. It is Israel’s largest engineering project and its estimated total cost stretches to $4bn (£2bn). Now slightly over half-finished, it will run at least 450 miles when complete. For part of its route the barrier runs along the Green Line, the 1949 armistice line between Israel and the Arab armies regarded as marking the boundary between Israel and the West Bank, which Israel captured and occupied, along with East Jerusalem, in the 1967 six-day war. When finished, the barrier will be twice the length of the Green Line and unilaterally puts about 9.5% of the West Bank on the “Israeli” side.

Why was it built?

In June 2002 Israel approved the idea of a barrier “to decrease infiltrations by terrorists from the Judea and Samaria areas for the purpose of attacks in Israel”, using the Biblical terms for the occupied West Bank. It said the barrier was “a security means” and added: “Its construction does not reflect a political border or any other border.” But critics say it does have a political purpose: to include within it many Jewish settlements in the West Bank with the intention of making them part of Israel in any future peace deal.

A UN report last July noted that the barrier encircled 69 settlements, comprising 83% of all settlers, and physically connected them to Israel even though all were illegal under international law. In late 2005, Tzipi Livni, then Israel’s justice minister (now foreign minister), said: “The fence will have implications for the future border. This is not the reason for its establishment, but it could have political implications.”

What was the international court of justice ruling?

On July 9 2004, an advisory, non-binding, opinion of the court said in a majority decision that the route of the barrier was illegal where it crossed into occupied Palestinian territory, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and should be demolished, with reparations paid to those who suffered damage. Israel could not argue it was an act of self-defence or necessity, the court said.

But the court also said it only considered parts of the barrier in Palestinian territory and made no judgment on parts in Israel itself. It acknowledged Israel’s right to defend its population. Israel’s supreme court has since rejected the ICJ ruling and continues to argue the barrier is important for security.

Why is it called a barrier not a wall?

For most of its length the barrier is a 50 metre-wide stretch with barbed wire, patrol roads, intruder-tracking dirt roads and an electronic fence. However in built-up areas, including Jerusalem, and near Ramallah, Bethlehem and Qalqilya, the barrier is a tall concrete wall with watchtowers. Palestinians commonly describe the barrier as “the wall” and some call it an “apartheid wall”, arguing that where it crosses into the West Bank it is designed to separate Jewish settlers from Palestinians.

Has it helped Israel’s security?

The number of Israeli soldiers and civilians killed has fallen from 426 in 2002, at the height of the second intifada, to 199 in 2003, 109 in 2004, 50 in 2005, 24 in 2006 and 13 last year. Some Palestinian militant commanders have said the barrier makes it more difficult to send bombers into Israel. Yet it does not stop all attacks. Two major attacks in Jerusalem in the past four months – the bulldozer attack last week that killed three people and a shooting at a seminary in March that killed eight – were carried out by Palestinians from East Jerusalem, on the “Israeli” side.

What has the cost been to the Palestinians?

About 10,000 Palestinians now live in a closed military area between the barrier and the Green Line, physically separated from the rest of the West Bank. That number will rise to 60,000 if the gate-and-permit regime is extended when the barrier is completed. Most need “permanent resident” permits to continue living in their homes and often have difficulty getting to schools or medical centres on the “Palestinian” side of the barrier.

Palestinian side: Jayyus

A month ago Mazooz Qadumi sent off the latest batch of applications from the residents of Jayyus for permission to gain access to their farmland in this fertile corner of the occupied West Bank. Delivered this morning was the reply from the Israeli military: two pages of names and scribbled comments.

Once again the message is bleak. This time, of the 32 people who asked for permission, only four received permits and those are only temporary, lasting as little as three months and effective only between dawn and dusk.

“I have to tell all these people they’ve been refused and there’s nothing I can do about it. I just tell people not to give up and to try again,” said Qadumi, who works at the Jayyus municipality. “And in the end if they cannot get to their land, their crops will die.”

The permit regime is now an integral part of life in Jayyus. In July 2003 the Israeli authorities completed this stretch of their “security fence”, which sliced through the heart of Jayyus, cutting off the village from its farmland and greenhouses. Where once Jayyus was a village of 13,000 dunams (1,300 hectares or 3,200 acres), it immediately placed 8,600 dunams, including the village’s six groundwater wells, beyond the barrier, accessible only to the few with permits and then only through two gate – which each open for an hour three times a day. The village farmland beyond includes 12,000 olive trees and 25,000 fruit trees.

Israel insists the barrier is purely for security. “Obviously the barrier can create some difficulties for those who live there, whether Jews or Arabs, but we have to see human life as the number one priority and since it saves human life we find this important,” said Arye Mekel, spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry. He added that the authorities were trying to reduce the instances where it disturbed people as much as possible.

One of those being disturbed by the barrier is Lutfiyah Khalid, a single woman in her late 40s. Although she has held a permit in the past, she has been refused three times, all on the grounds of “security” – no further details are ever given. Others are refused because the Israeli military deems they have “no connection to the land” or because it denies they have any farmland to the west of the barrier – again no details are given. There are 3,500 people in the village: only around 170 have permits.

“I really can’t explain what they’re trying to achieve by doing this,” she said. “It is occupation in the true sense of the word and of course it also affects us economically – we were living from this land once.”

Her family owns 30 dunams of land on the western side of the barrier, planted with olive trees, guava and with large greenhouses for tomatoes and cucumbers. Khalid is one of five sisters and brothers but from her family only two have permits to reach the land: her mother, who at the age of 70 is too frail to work, and one brother. Already the family has had to sell one of its greenhouses, at a loss of several thousand pounds, because they couldn’t maintain the crops. “It’s a policy of confiscating our land and pushing us to migrate away,” she said. “But the harder they make it, the more we will stay.”

“It’s a psychological war,” added Qadumi.

The path of the barrier also allows room for the expansion of Zufin, a Jewish settlement established in 1989 on the traditional land of Jayyus. The jurisdictional area of Zufin is already 10 times larger than its current built-up area. Israeli human rights groups, including B’Tselem and Bimkom, have argued that the “primary consideration” for the path of the barrier around Jayyus was not security but to leave room for settlement expansion.

After a long legal battle, Israel’s high court has ordered a revision to the route of the barrier, but it is thought likely that 6,000 dunams of Jayyus’s land will remain on the “Israeli” side and that Zufin will indeed be allowed to grow into that land. It is a pattern being repeated along the length of the barrier and, using laws dating back to the British mandate, Israeli authorities claim the right to confiscate land that goes uncultivated for more than three years. Palestinians fear if they cannot reach their land they will lose it forever.

Often it is the bureaucracy of the occupation that is most challenging. It takes six documents for a permit: a copy of an Israeli-issued identity card; a copy of the previous permit; a document certifying inheritance of the land; court-approved proof from the municipality that the land has not been sold; a map of the land; and a valid Tabu or Ikhraj Qayd, the original land ownership document dating back to Ottoman or Jordanian times. It is not always enough.

Shareef Omar, 65, has around 190 dunams of land west of the barrier. He has a three-month permit, which runs out in July and it may not be renewed – for several months last year his permit applications were rejected. None of his three sons have permits, nor does his grandson. Omar inherited the land from his father but because of differences between Jordanian and Israeli styles of registering names it is likely that it will be impossible to satisfy the Israeli military that the land should eventually pass through his sons to his oldest grandson. It is an increasingly common problem.

“What happens to this farm then?” asked Omar. “This question really makes me worry about the future. After all this time they keep finding new ways to deprive us of our permits,” he said.

“If Jayyus loses more than 70% of its land this means you ask the Jayyus people to emigrate and get out of the village because you can’t continue,” Omar said. “If we lose this land and these farms how can we resist? How can we survive? How can we go on? And they talk about peace?”

dead prez lyrics

“Tell me what you gon do to get free, we need more than MC’s
We need Hueys, and revolutionaries”
“I want to be free to live, able to have what I need to live
Bring the power back to the street, where the people live
We sick of workin for crumbs and fillin up the prisons
Dyin over money and relyin on religion for help
We do for self like ants in a colony
Organise the wealth into a socialist economy”

Afghan olympic athlete disappears

Afghan Olympic athlete does a runner from Italy

By Peter Popham in Rome
Friday, 11 July 2008

 

Mahbooba Ahadgar was never going to win any medals in Beijing – her best times in the 800m and 1,500m events were so slow it was likely she would have finished a minute or more behind the winners. As an Olympic Solidarity scholar, her role was to bring the lustre of women’s athletic prowess to her war-torn country, and prove that the Olympic ideal can shine brightly even in Kabul.

 

Instead it looks as if Ms Ahadgar is not going to be present at all. Afghanistan’s only woman contender in the Olympics has done a runner. She disappeared from the town of Formia, south of Rome, where she had been training with other Olympic Solidarity hopefuls for the previous month. According to Nick Davies, press spokesman for the world athletics governing body IAAF, the group was due to return to a training camp in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 7 July – but Ms Ahadgar disappeared. “There were all sorts of lurid rumours about her being kidnapped,” said Mr Davies. “But now it emerges that she took her passport, stamped with a visa valid for the Schengen countries, and belongings with her. Clearly she’s taken a decision.”

Ms Ahadgar herself brought the uncertainty to an end when she phoned her family in a poor quarter of Kabul to tell them that she was on her way to claim political asylum in Norway.

For the young runner brought up under Taliban rule, it was the end of an excruciating experience in the international spotlight. Under the Taliban, practically all sports and pastimes other than football were banned. Women were confined to the home full-time: their only experience of the city’s football stadium was when those accused of adultery or prostitution were brought to the penalty spot before the crowds of men, forced to the ground and then flogged, stoned to death or shot.

Since the flight of the Taliban in December 2001 the city has regained much of its cosmopolitan flavour, but for Ms Ahadgar’s poor, working class family – her father is a carpenter and she has eight siblings – the transformation of their daughter into an Olympic poster girl was a challenge.

She chose to train in a headscarf and tracksuit to avoid being criticised for immodesty, and timed her runs for the evening when most Kabulis are at home watching their favourite soap opera. But when foreign journalists came calling at the family home to interview her, neighbours phoned the police and reported that she was receiving men as a prostitute. Her father was briefly thrown in jail until the confusion was cleared up.

When she spoke to the press, it was clear that Olympic Solidarity had coached her well. “I’m the model for my country, being a woman in a typical Muslim nation,” she said in a recent interview. “I’m very proud to say that I will be participating in the Olympic Games. By virtue of these opportunities, many women from my country are participating in many sports, and this will help to develop a better managed country.”

Her mother, Moha Jan, added: “We are really scared about the security situation in our country and of the people who have negative views about my family. But these problems cannot stop us from supporting our daughter.”

But there was always a lively possibility that she would seize the opportunity presented by her Schengen visa to escape from the grinding poverty of Afghanistan for good. There are plenty of precedents. Many Ethiopian runners have failed to return home after being picked to compete for their poverty-stricken country. Some of them ended up running for Britain. To try to dissuade Ms Ahadgar from vanishing, the head of the Afghan Olympic Federation reportedly threatened to throw her family in jail if she did not return to Afghanistan. Now she has called his bluff.

Four years ago in Athens, Afghani women competed in the Olympics for the first time ever when Robina Muqimyar ran the 100m and Friba Rezihi competed in judo. This year, however, unless Mahbooba Ahadgar has an extraordinary change of heart, her fundamentalist countrymen will have no reason to curse her name; while the outside world will have one less cause to hope that Afghanistan is finally on the move.

Jesse v Barack

Black power struggle: ‘I want to cut his nuts out’

Jesse Jackson’s outburst against Barack Obama has laid bare the jealousy felt by a generation of civil rights leaders towards the man who would be President. Leonard Doyle reports

Friday, 11 July 2008

 

In the black community it’s known as trash-talking.

 

Ever since he loped on to the political stage in Chicago nearly 20 years ago, Barack Obama has had to contend with the jealousy of prominent black politicians. The Reverend Jesse Jackson seethed with resentment at the effortless way the younger man snatched the spotlight away from an earlier generation of black leaders whose roots lay in the civil rights movement.

In the gritty world of Chicago’s south side, the mixed-race Mr Obama soon found himself being called “a mercenary for white elites” by some of his political rivals. As recently as last year, Mr Jackson complained in public that Mr Obama was “acting like he’s white” for failing to make a stink when six black schoolboys were put on murder charges in Jena, Louisiana, after a melée with white pupils.

Now Mr Jackson has been caught speaking crudely about Mr Obama into a microphone, which he apparently thought was not live. It was just the latest in a long line of public slap-downs by the man who still views himself as America’s pre-eminent black leader. For almost eight years the firebrand pastor turned politician has been trying to put Mr Obama in his place, while (usually) saying nice things about him in public.

Before a television interview this week, Mr Jackson complained sotto voce to a visibly astonished Fox News anchorman that Mr Obama was “talking down to black people”, particularly black men, when he had complained in speeches that they were not behaving responsibly as fathers. He went on to express a desire to do something so crude to Mr Obama’s anatomy that most American newspapers have decided not to print it. Even Fox News decided to wait three days before airing the offensive words (he wanted to “cut his [Barack Obama's] nuts out”) allowing Mr Jackson plenty of time to apologise profusely for something most viewers knew nothing about.

 

“I don’t want harm nor hurt to come to this campaign,” Mr Jackson gushed after Fox News said they would be airing the recording of his comments, which he called “hurtful and wrong”, on Wednesday night.

Mr Jackson, who ran for the White House in 1984 and in 1988, supports Mr Obama’s White House bid – at least in public. But every now and then the tensions between the two men burst into the open. The former pastor sees himself as a crusader for the hidden, impoverished America and standard bearer for Martin Luther King. He cradled the civil rights leader in his arms after he was shot by an assassin and appeared on television still wearing a shirt stained with Mr King’s blood.

Barack Obama himself acknowledges that it was Mr Jackson who inspired him to believe that a black man could win the White House, after he saw him speak in a debate at New York’s Columbia University in 1984. But while he admired the older man’s showmanship, he also realised that to win the confidence of Middle America, a successful black candidate would have to appear, and speak in a way that transcends race and the angry politics of the ghetto.

Instead of pushing himself to the head of civil rights marches, Mr Obama chose to operate behind the scenes as a community organiser, trying to get poor black people to unite and become powerful in demanding changes in their lives. Mr Obama’s political mentor was Chicago’s first black mayor, Harold Washington, rather than Jesse Jackson, who at the time was strutting on the national stage.

Mr Jackson’s first run for the Democratic nomination ended in failure, but it was the most successful campaign by a black candidate until that time. He has a gift for oratory and a wicked turn of phrase, such as “Our time has come”, “If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, then you can achieve it”.

But Mr Jackson caused howls of outrage when he described New York City as “Hymietown” in 1984. Again, he thought he was speaking privately to a black journalist, but his anti-Semitic remarks were splashed across the newspapers costing him valuable support among Jewish voters who were instinctively sympathetic to his cause of lifting up impoverished black communities.

The rivalry is understandable since Mr Obama and Mr Jackson are both products of America’s most racially divided city, from which both emerged as champions of the poor to seek the highest office in the land.

There are overlapping family ties as well. Mr Obama’s marriage in 1992 brought the families close. Michelle Obama was at high school with Mr Jackson’s oldest child, Santita, and they were close friends. Santita sang at the Obamas’ wedding and was godmother to their oldest daughter, Malia. Mrs Obama was a frequent visitor to Mr Jackson’s Chicago home and as soon Mr Obama began dating her, he got to meet Jesse Jackson Jnr, who would also attend their wedding.

The self-regarding former pastor has a habit of rubbing Barack Obama up the wrong way. Spying Mr Obama’s youngest daughter, Sasha, at an event, he lifted her up and put her on a pedestal to pose for pictures. Then when the cameras had stopped flashing, Mr Jackson walked away, leaving the three-year-old girl teetering on a tall block of concrete.

Eight years ago when Mr Obama was a little-known state senator in Illinois, he decided to mount an audacious challenge against Bobby Rush, a four-term US senator and former Black Panther. He immediately ran into some formidable opposition in the shape of Jesse Jackson and the former president Bill Clinton, who took steps to put the young upstart in his place. Mr Clinton overrode his own policy of staying out of Democratic primaries and backed Mr Rush, who trounced Mr Obama by more than two to one.

There were other times when Jesse Jackson tried to body block the Mr Obama’s rise. Back in 1995, he even tried to arrange for his son to get the state senate seat that became Mr Obama’s stepping stone to national fame. Mr Jackson’s son, rejected the plan and ran successfully ran for Congress instead.

The younger Jackson, who is 42, is now a close friend to Mr Obama, 46, and is a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign. It is not the first time that congressman Jesse Jackson Jnr has found himself rebuking his father. After the Fox News episode, he said: “I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama,” adding that the remarks were “divisive and demeaning … Reverend Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. [But] I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

When the Chicago congressman’s father wrote a newspaper column questioning Mr Obama’s commitment to the needs of black voters, he penned a response in The Chicago Sun-Times under the headline “You’re wrong on Obama, Dad”.

Mr Obama has graciously accepted Mr Jackson’s apology and the controversy seems destined to blow over. More than that, it could even help Mr Obama win back support he lost from white working-class voters in the primary contest with Hillary Clinton. And criticism from Jesse Jackson seems most unlikely to undercut Mr Obama’s strong support among black voters, while the very public row with the maverick of racially tinged, left-wing urban politics can only reinforce Mr Obama’s message to Middle America that he is a totally new kind of black politician.