US Scholars’ Delegation Calls for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

Five faculty from U.S. universities who recently completed a week-long visit to Occupied Palestine and Israel are calling on academic colleagues everywhere to support the United States Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).


The professors, J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Wesleyan University; Robin D. G. Kelley, University of California Los Angeles; Bill V. Mullen, Purdue University; Nikihl Pal Singh, New York University, and Neferti Tadiar, Barnard College/Columbia University met with Palestinian scholars, university administrators, citizens, activists, and officials in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Haifa. They also visited the 5,000 person Aida Refugee Camp near Bethlehem.

The USACBI delegates report witnessing numerous violations of Palestinian civil and legal rights; daily rituals of “subordination, humiliation, and suspicion” at the hands of the Israeli security state; continued expansion of settlements into Palestinian territories in violation of the so-called “peace process;” and repeated violations of Palestinian human rights by Israeli universities.

The delegation also listened to testimony from four Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah, refugees from 1948, who in November 2008 and August 2009, were forcibly evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem in the dead of night by the Israeli military. Their houses were subsequently pillaged, taken over by settlers, and their belongings thrown out into the street.

The delegation learned through discussions with Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel that their lives are governed by a host of exceptional legal proscriptions and are subject to special scrutiny by the security services. Palestinian-Arabs who owned the vast majority of the land in pre-1948 Israel have seen that reduced to just 2.5%, even though they still comprise 20% of the Israeli population. The Israeli high court recently upheld a law denying Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel the right to live with Palestinian spouses from the West Bank, Gaza, or overseas inside the post-1948 borders of Israel.

In visits with university scholars and students, the delegation observed that Palestinian scholars and students are routinely denied academic freedom by the state of Israel.  They noted that Israel has consistently closed Palestinian universities under security pretexts and restrictions on freedom of movement mean that it is often very difficult for students to attend universities; international and Palestinian scholars living abroad are denied visas for faculty appointments in the occupied territories.  Furthermore, some 80 students from Birzeit University are held in Israeli prisons and detention centers, 10 of whom are currently being held without charge or trial. The delegation also reported that Israel thwarts Palestinian research capacities by restricting imports of equipment necessary for teaching basic science and engineering. It is all but impossible for Gaza students to attend West Bank universities, or for scholars from Ramallah, Gaza City, and East Jerusalem to meet in the same room.

A brief statement released by the delegation urges their academic colleagues to support USACBI and concludes: “We believe that the perpetuation of the international travesty of colonial occupation in a post-colonial world must be brought to an end.  For it ultimately threatens the rights, dignity and security of everyone who believes in self-determination, equal justice and human rights.”

The USACBI campaign is inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and supports non-violent punitive measures against Israel until it abides by UN and international law. USACBI specifically calls for an end to the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling of the existing Apartheid Wall; Israel’s recognition of the fundamental rights of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and respect, protection and promotion of the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

The campaign opposing ties between U.S. and Israeli universities that have generally been complicit, directly or indirectly, with upholding or defending Israeli occupation and state oppression and boycotting cultural institutions that whitewash Israel’s violations of human rights and international law.  USACBI began in 2009 and currently has the support of nearly 600 American university professors, 200 cultural workers,  and 44 organizations and associations.

The USACBI delegation will be speaking publicly about its visit to Palestine at academic forums throughout 2012.  Individual members of the delegation are available for interviews with media representatives.  They may be contacted at:

J. Kehaulani Kauanui: KauanuiUSACBI@hotmail.com

Robin D.G. Kelley:  rdk21@mac.com

Bill V. Mullen:  bvmullen@purdue.edu

Nikhil Pal Singh: npsny@yahoo.com

Neferti Tadiar:  nxtadiar@gmail.com

Bios

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui is an Associate Professor of American Studies and Anthropology.  She earned her PhD in History of Consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2000.  Kauanui’s first book is Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Duke University Press, 2008).  Kauanui is the producer and host of a public affairs radio program, “Indigenous Politics: From Native New England and Beyond,” produced in the studios of WESU, Middletown, CT, and syndicated on nine Pacifica-affiliate stations – airing across ten U.S.-states. Kauanui is a co-founder of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association and currently serves as an elected council member.

Robin D. G. Kelley
 is the Gary B. Nash Professor of American History at UCLA.  His books include the prize-winning, Thelonious Monk: The Life and Times of an American Original (Free Press, 2009); Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression (University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Race Rebels: Culture Politics and the Black Working Class (The Free Press, 1994); Yo’ Mama’s DisFunktional!: Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America (Beacon Press, 1997); Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor’s Last Century, written collaboratively with Dana Frank and Howard Zinn (Beacon 2001); and Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination (Beacon Press, 2002).   He also edited (with Earl Lewis), To Make Our World Anew: A History of African Americans (Oxford University Press, 2000), a Choice Outstanding Academic Title and a History Book Club Selection.  His next book, Africa Speaks, America Answers: Modern Jazz in Revolutionary Times (Harvard University Press) will be released in February.

Bill V. Mullen
 is Professor of English and American Studies at Purdue.  He is the author of Popular Fronts: Chicago and African American Cultural Politics, 1935-1945 and AfroOrientalism.  He is co-editor with Fred Ho of Afro-Asia: Revolutionary Political and Cultural Connections Between African Americans and Asian Americans.  He is a co-founder of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University and a former Fulbright Scholar at Wuhan University in the People’s Republic of China.  He is currently at work on a political biography of W.E.B. Du Bois, titled UnAmerican: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Century of World Revolution.

Nikhil Pal Singh is Associate Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and History and former Director of the Graduate Program in American Studies at New York University. Singh is the author of Black Is a Country: Race and the Unfinished Struggle for Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2004), named the best book in civil rights history by the Organization of American Historians, and recipient of several other awards.  He has published on topics ranging from liberalism and empire, to the pivotal place of race in US security discourse.  The University of California Press recently published Climin’ Jacob’s Ladder: The Black Freedom Movement Writings of Jack O’Dell, a collection of the writings of the legendary African American civil rights activist. Singh is currently finishing a new book, Exceptional Empire: Race and War in US Globalism, forthcoming from Harvard University Press.

Neferti Tadiar 
is Professor and Chair of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College. She is the author of Things Fall Away: Philippine Historical Experience and the Makings of Globalization (Duke University, 2009) and Fantasy-Production: Sexual Economies and Other Philippine Consequences for the New World Order (Hong Kong University Press/ Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2004). Among her recent publications are “If Not Mere Metaphor…Sexual Economies Revisited,” in “Sexual and Economic Justice, “ Special Issue of The Scholar and the Feminist Online, Issue 7.3 (Summer 2009) and “Empire,” in “Collective History: Thirty Years of Social Text,” a special issue of Social Text 100, Vol. 27, no. 3 (Fall 2009). She is currently working on a book-project (with Jonathan L. Beller) entitled Present Senses: Aesthetics, Affect, Asia in the Global, and beginning a new research project entitled Remaindered Life Between Empires : Becoming Human in a Time of War. She is currently co-editor of the journal Social Text.

http://www.usacbi.org/2012/01/us-scholars-delegation-calls-for-academic-and-cultural-boycott-of-israel/

An Open Letter to LGBTIQ Communities and Allies on the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

sign petition here

We are a diverse group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer and trans activists, academics, artists, and cultural workers from the United States who participated in a solidarity tour in the West Bank of Palestine and Israel from January 7-13, 2012.

What we witnessed was devastating and created a sense of urgency around doing our part to end this occupation and share our experience across a broad cross-section of the LGBTIQ community. We saw with our own eyes the walls—literally and metaphorically—separating villages, families and land. From this, we gained a profound appreciation for how deeply embedded and far reaching this occupation is through every aspect of Palestinian daily life.

So too, we gained new insights into how Israeli civil society is profoundly affected by the dehumanizing effects of Israeli state policy toward Palestinians in Israel and in the West Bank. We were moved by the immense struggle being waged by some Israelis in resistance to state policies that dehumanize and deny the human rights of Palestinians.

We ended our trip in solidarity with Palestinian and Israeli people struggling to end the occupation of Palestine, and working for Palestinian independence and self-sovereignty.

Among the things we saw were:

  • the 760 km (470 mi) separation wall (jidar) partitioning and imprisoning the Palestinian people;
  • how the wall’s placement works to confiscate large swaths of Palestinian land, splits villages and families in two, impedes Palestinians from working their agricultural land, and in many cases does not advance the ostensible security interests of Israel;
  • a segregated road system (one set of roads for cars with Israeli plates, and another much inferior one for cars with Palestinian plates) throughout the West Bank, constructed by the Israeli state and enforced by the Israeli army; these roads ease Israeli travel to and from illegal settlements in the West Bank and severely impede Palestinian travel between villages, to agricultural land, and throughout a territory which is and has been their homeland;
  • a system of permits (identification cards) that limits the travel of Palestinian people and functionally imprisons them, separating them from family, health care, jobs and other necessities;
  • militarized checkpoints with barbed wire and soldiers armed with automatic rifles and the humiliation and harassment the Palestinian people experience daily in order to travel from one place to another;
  • the reconfiguration of maps to render invisible Palestinian villages/homelands;
  • harmful living conditions created and enforced by Israeli law and policy such as limited access to water and electricity in many Palestinian homes;
  • violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, and the ongoing growth of illegal settlements facilitated by the Israeli military;
  • homelessness as a result of the razing of Palestinian homes by the Israeli state;
  • home invasions, tear gas attacks, “skunk water” attacks, and the arrest of Palestinian children by the Israeli military as part of ongoing harassment designed to force Palestinian villagers to give up their land;

While travel restrictions prevented us from directly witnessing the state of things in the Gaza Strip, we believe the blockade of the Gaza Strip has produced a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportion.

Our time together in Palestine has led us to understand that we have a responsibility to share with our US based LGBTIQ communities what we saw and heard so that we can do more together to end this occupation. In that spirit, we offer the following summary points in solidarity with the Palestinian people:

  1. The liberation of the Palestinian people from the project of Israeli occupation is the foremost goal of the Palestinian people and we fully support this aim. We also understand that liberation from this form of colonization and apartheid goes hand in hand with the liberation of queer Palestinians from the project of global heterosexism.
  2. We call out and reject the state of Israel’s practice of pinkwashing, that is, a well-funded, cynical publicity campaign marketing a purportedly gay-friendly Israel to an international audience so as to distract attention from the devastating human rights abuses it commits on a daily basis against the Palestinian people. Key to Israel’s pinkwashing campaign is the manipulative and false labeling of Israeli culture as gay-friendly and Palestinian culture as homophobic. It is our view that comparisons of this sort are both inaccurate – homophobia and transphobia are to be found throughout Palestinian and Israeli society – and that this is beside the point: Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine cannot be somehow justified or excused by its purportedly tolerant treatment of some sectors of its own population. We stand in solidarity with Palestinian queer organizations like Al Qaws and Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (PQBDS) whose work continues to impact queer Palestinians and all Palestinians. (http://www.alqaws.org,http://www.pqbds.com/)
  3. We urge LGBTIQ individuals and communities to resist replicating the practice of pinkwashing that insists on elevating the sexual freedom of Palestinian people over their economic, environmental, social, and psychological freedom. Like the Palestinian activists we met, we view heterosexism and sexism as colonial projects and, therefore, see both as interrelated and interconnected regimes that must end.
  4. We stand in solidarity with queer Palestinian activists who are working to end the occupation, and also with Israeli activists, both queer and others, who are resisting the occupation that is being maintained and extended in their name.
  5. We name the complicity of the United States in this human rights catastrophe and call on our government to end its participation in an unjust regime that places it and us on the wrong side of peace and justice.
  6. We support efforts on the part of Palestinians to achieve full self-determination, such as building an international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement which calls for the fulfillment of three fundamental demands: (http://www.bdsmovement.net/call)
    • The end of the Occupation and the dismantling of the Wall (jidar).
    • The right of return for displaced Palestinians.
    • The recognition and restoration of the equal rights of citizenship for Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent.
  7. We call upon all of our academic and activist colleagues in the US and elsewhere to join us by supporting all Palestinian efforts that center these three demands and by working to end US financial support, at $8.2 million daily, for the Israeli state and its occupation.

British museum refuses call to boycott Ahava lab

By JONNY PAUL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT01/20/2012 00:48

Anti-Israel artists and academics push for end to scientific research cooperation.

LONDON – One of the UK’s most popular science museums has refused to succumb to a call by anti-Israel activists to sever its working relationship with an Israeli company.

On Tuesday a group of anti- Israel artists and academicscondemned the Natural History Museum in West London for its research collaboration with Ahava/Dead Sea Laboratories because it is located in “an illegal settlement in the Palestinian West Bank” and “it extracts, processes and exports Palestinian resources to generate profits that fund an illegal settlement.”

RELATED:
UK museum attacked over links to Dead Sea firm 
Israeli student in UK wins battle over bias claims 

Film makers Ken Loach and Mike Leigh joined other activists calling for the museum to terminate its research with the Israeli company. The call was in the letter page of Tuesday’s Independent. The newspaper gave the letter prominence, placing it in bold and at the top of the page and even had an accompanying article.

On Thursday, Prof. Ian Owens, the museum’s director of science, said that the museum will not heed to any boycott calls and that it is dedicated to expanding and sharing knowledge. Academic freedom is an important principle in pursuing this goal, he said.

“In this respect we are in broad alignment with the wider UKacademic community. We work within the legal and policy boundaries established by politicians and policy makers, and would not participate in any academic or educational boycotts that could restrict academic freedom,” he said.

The activists said that Israel’s “settlement project” has been found by the International Court of Justice to be a breach ofinternational law and that organizations which “aid and abet” this process may well themselves be found to be in violation.

“We find it almost inconceivable that a national institution of the status of the Natural History Museum should have put itself in this position,” the signatories said.

Other signatories included Liberal Democrat peer and activist Jenny Tonge, who during the second intifada said that she might herself consider becoming a suicide bomber and has claimed that the pro- Israel lobby has a financial grip on the world and her party. A host of anti-Israel academics, who are prominent in the boycott call of Israeli academia, are also among the 21 signatories.

The museum’s project involves 11 partners, including Imperial College London and King’s College, and goes through a European Union funded project called NanoRetox.

It is a four year collaboration with a budget of 300,000 euros. However the collaboration began in 2008 and will be completed at the end of 2012.

The Museum is lead partner in the project, which is working to identify the potential risks posed by engineered nanomaterial to the environment and human health.

Owens said that this is an area of scientific interest because, although nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of modern life, there are concerns about its potential for harming humans and the environment.

“To carry out this work we have assembled a team of experts from across the EU and the US whose combined expertise can address the toxicity of nanoparticles in a systematic way,” Owens said.

The director of science said that Ahava/Dead SeaLaboratories have proven to be an expert in this area and approved as a partner by the European Commission.

“When our research leaders were putting together the NanoReTox project they were missing expertise in specific nanoparticle techniques and analysis. Ahava DSL, who are based in Israel and have activities in the Occupied Territories, were found to offer this expertise through the EC research partner-finding scheme.

“As with our other collaborators on this project, the EC approved Ahava DSL as a partner when the contract was issued to the Natural History Museum. NanoRetox is funded by the EC within the Seventh Framework Program (FP7),” he said.

Owens said that two other UK-based organizations are also involved with Ahava DSL in two other FP7 projects.

 

bron

The BDS campaign has convinced Jacques Rancière to cancel his trip to Israel

BDS France Press Release:

Wednesday, January 18 2012

The political philosopher and leading intellectual Jacques Rancière, emeritus professor at the University of Paris 8, was recently invited to give a public lecture at the University of Tel Aviv. Upon learning of this invitation, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) immediately asked Rancière to cancel his lecture.

Jacques Rancière is “opposed to collective sanctions against all the citizens and scholars of a state.” So are we. PACBI, like the Collectif Palestine Paris 8, AURDIP, and the BDS France campaign (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israeli apartheid), has no objection to dialogue among intellectuels of all countries, including Israel. What we cannot accept is the complicity of the University of Tel Aviv, and of all the other Israeli universities, with the segregationist policies of the Israeli state, and indeed with its policy of military occupation. For this reason we firmly reject the exploitation by such an institution of the prestige of an intellectual of Rancière’s stature.

BDS France is delighted that Jacques Rancière has heeded our call and has cancelled his trip to Israel. This is the first victory of the year for the cultural and academic BDS campaign in France, that we hope to be followed by many others. Rancière thus joins the long list of intellectuals committed to justice and human rights, a list including Eduardo Galeano, Arundhati Roy, Andre Brink, Naomi Klein, Augusto Boal, Vincenzo Consolo, Henning Mankell, John Berger, and Judith Butler. With them, we repeat our opposition to all collaboration with Israeli cultural institutions and universities, as long as this country fails to respect the rights of Palestinians: the right to their land, the right of return of refugees, and the right to equal treatment.

La Campagne BDS France

http://www.bdsfrance.org/

L’AURDIP

http://www.aurdip.fr

Le Collectif Palestine Paris 8

http://www.cup-france.com/

(i) PACBI Open Letter to Professor Jacques Rancière

http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1793

 

Natural History Museum attacked over links to ‘illegal’ Israeli company

The Natural History Museum is today accused by a coalition of prominent academics and cultural figures of helping to break international law by leading a research project which involves an Israeli cosmetics company based in an “illegal” settlement in the occupied West Bank.

In a letter to The Independent, leading scientists and the film directors Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, condemn the London museum – which is the fourth most visited in Britain – for its research collaboration with Ahava – Dead Sea Laboratories (DSL), which sells beauty products based on minerals extracted from the Dead Sea.

The museum, which has a substantial academic research team, is co-ordinating NANORETOX, a European Union-funded project looking at any risks to human health and the environment posed by so-called nanoparticles – microscopic engineered materials which scientists are developing for multiple uses from cancer treatment to double glazing.

Ahava-DSL, which is one of a dozen institutions and companies involved in the project including two University of London colleges, has its registered headquarters listed in Israel but most of its activities are carried out in Mitzpe Shalem, a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Dead Sea in the West Bank.

Settlements in the Occupied Territories have been declared illegal under international law by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. But despite international condemnation, the Israeli government insists that a large number of the settlements, including more than 120 on the West Bank, are not illegal.

In their letter, the 21 signatories, who include the eminent biologist Sir Patrick Bateson, president of the Zoological Society of London, and leading intellectual Sir Jonathan Miller, claim that the Natural History Museum’s connection with Ahava-DSL means that it is “co-ordinating an activity that breaks international law”.

They said: “[Ahava-DSL] extracts, processes and exports Palestinian resources to generate profits that fund an illegal settlement. Israel’s settlement project  has been held… to break international law. Organisations which aid and abet this process may well themselves be found to be in violation.

“We find it almost inconceivable that a national institution of the status of the Natural History Museum should have put itself in this position. We call on the museum to take immediate steps to terminate its involvement in [the project] and to establish safeguards that protect against any comparable entanglement.”

The NANORETOX project began in December 2008 and is due to conclude at the end of this year, although campaigners say the involvement of Ahava-DSL has only now come to their attention. The company, which has conducted extensive research on nanoparticles for its products, was appointed to the project to supply materials and carry out toxicity tests.

The Natural History Museum yesterday defended its role in the research, saying that Ahava-DSL was chosen from a listed of scientific partners approved by the European Commission and suggested that any decision to boycott the project could be a challenge to “academic freedom”.

In a statement, Professor Ian Owens, the musuem’s director of science, said: “We work within the legal and policy boundaries established by politicians and policy makers, and would not participate in any academic or educational boycotts that could restrict academic freedom.”

Ahava-DSL, which has been the subject of a boycott campaign targeting its shops in Europe and America, did not respond to requests for a comment. The company has previously said that the Dead Sea mud and materials used in its products are excavated from Israeli land outside the occupied territories and that Mitzpe Shalem is not an illegal settlement.

bron

Israeli drones on the European market

bron disarmtheconflict

Drones are the must-have of the century for the modern military. As unmanned system they can fly a long time without a pilot who gets tired, they do not put pilots at risk and –very important in times of budget cuts – they are low-cost. What makes them so popular is that they fit in what is called asymmetric warfare, warfare of big states against small groups of militants. This the dominant warfare today. And there is one country with long experience with it: Israel.

Therefore it is no wonder that Israel is a major developer of drones, only second to the US. UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are a key export of Israel’s arms industry, most prominently Aeronautics Defense Systems, Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries. UAVs are used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and targeting missions. A growing number of models have begun carrying missiles. Israeli drones are used and improved with battlefield experience since 1982.

The use of drones in the 2009 Gaza war is well documented in the Human Rights Watch Report Precisely Wrong

European countries are very eager to profit from Israeli technology. Joint-ventures between have advantages for both parties: for Israeli firms they provide access to EU markets (revenues), for European companies they enable technology transfers. That Israeli military know-how is gained at a high cost in terms of peace and human rights seems no objection for Europe.

The UK is developing several surveillance drones, most notably the Watchkeeper, jointly produced by Elbit and Thales UK. The first ten are built in Israel after which production is transferred to the UK. Although Watchkeeper was expected to enter service in 2010 it is repeatedly delayed further into 2012. the Watchkeeper is a surveillance drone but may be armed in the future.  The UK is already using the US-made armed Reaper drone in Afghanistan.
The UK also has Israeli Hermes 450 surveillance drones in production for use in Afghanistan. Production takes place in Leicester with U-TacS, a company jointly owned by Elbit systems and Thales UK.

Germany ordered a small fleet of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Heron 1 spy drones for use in Afghanistan. German soldiers received practical training for the Heron 1 in Israel. Heron is also used by Canadian, French, Australian and Spanish forces in Afghanistan. Israelis are barred by Afghanistan, so IAI ceded maintenance services to its German partner Rheinmetall Defense.
The deaths of a German citizen in Waziristan by an American drone strike in 2010 confronted Germany painfully with the consequenses of drone warfare. Targeted assassinations have been developed as a tactic by Israel. The first high-profile use of drones in killing was the assassination of Hizballah Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi in 1992 when an IAI Scout was used to identify the target and lead the attack.

France bought the IAI Hunter in 1997 and the Heron 1 based Harfang in 2001, the latter developed by European defence company EADS and IAI. The French state and EADS invested 380 million euro for the French heron-version but already the system is outdated and needs replacement. This replacement is the topic of fierce debate between the French government and members of the Senat, maily focussing on the price and capabilities of different systems.  Competition is between those that want to buy American Reaper drones and those that want to support the development of a European drones industry by buying adapted Heron TP drones built by Dassault and IAI. EADS appears to be losing out because of failing cooperation between EADS and IAI.

In a letter to newspaper Le Monde four French senators claim that not only is the American drone less expensive but also that one of the disadvantages of the Heron is that it cannot be armed. This is however contradicted by many sources. . Precision weapons that could be adapted for armed drones include the Lahat missile, designed by IAI subsidiary MBT, and Rafael’s Spike, which is produced in Europe by EuroSpike, a joint venture of German Diehl, and Rheinmetall with Rafael.

Fortunately, financial and military questions are not the only issues in the French UAV debate. The French BDS movement has raised the ethical question of buying Israeli weapons

Violinist suspended for Israel Proms protest takes claim to tribunal

One of four musicians suspended by the London Philharmonic Orchestrais taking a claim for discrimination on the grounds of belief to an employment tribunal.

Sarah Streatfeild, who has played violin with the LPO for 25 years, was suspended for six months without pay last September after she signed a joint letter to the Independent calling on the Proms to cancel a concert by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.

The letter said: “The IPO has a deep involvement with the Israeli state – not least its self-proclaimed ‘partnership’ with the Israeli Defence Forces. This is the same state and army that impedes in every way it can the development of Palestinian culture, including the prevention of Palestinian musicians from travelling abroad to perform.”

Sue Sutherley, a cellist, and the violinists Tom Eisner and Nancy Elan were also suspended for signing it.

Tim Walker, the LPO’s chief executive, and Martin Hohmann, its chairman, said at the time that the musicians had identified themselves as members of the LPO.

“The orchestra would never restrict the right of its players to express themselves freely, however such expression has to be independent of the LPO itself,” they said.

“The company has no wish to end the careers of four talented musicians but … for the LPO, music and politics do not mix.”

In her claim, Streatfeild says her humanist beliefs compelled her to make a stand but thought the letter was intended for the BBC management and not a public forum. She added the letters “LPO” for identification purposes only.

She is seeking a formal apology for the damage caused to her reputation, and an order that she has been discriminated on grounds of her beliefs as well as compensation for the injury to her feelings, loss of earnings and reputation.

The Proms concert by the Israel Philharmonic went ahead two days after the letter was published, but was disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters so noisily that the BBC took its live broadcast off the air.

Avi Shoshani, the Israel Philharmonic secretary general, said this month that the orchestra might never come back to the UK. He told the Times: “Why should I put my musicians in such an unpleasant situation? We want to make people happy – that’s what music is all about – and if people behave in such an uncivilised way why should we be part of it?”

Two days after the protests, the violinist received an email from the LPO which said she was being suspended with immediate and indefinite effect. Her suspension was later set at six months.

Sutherley is now back at the LPO, while Eisner has played with an orchestra in Denmark. However, Streatfeild is not thought to have worked since September. After the musicians were suspended from the LPO, a group of artists, filmmakers and writers including Sam West, Mike Leigh and Mark Wallinger wrote to the Telegraph to protest against the decision, saying “A healthy civil society is founded on the ability of all to express non-violent and non-prejudiced opinions, freely and openly, without fear of financial or professional retribution.”

A Facebook group, End suspension of the LPO4, was set up in September, while in December Norman Lebrecht, the pro-Israel writer and broadcaster, called on the LPO to “temper justice with compassion” and reinstate the musicians before Christmas. Lebrecht had originally blogged about the letter, describing the names of the musicians protesting as a “list of shame”.

Shazia Khan of Bindman’s Solicitors, for Streatfeild, said: “Making a stand about the invitation to the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was a question of conscience for my client. Mrs Streatfeild is devastated that her career and livelihood was stopped by the LPO and in such an abrupt and public manner immediately after she expressed her beliefs. Notwithstanding this she is disappointed she has had to issue legal proceedings and invites the LPO to engage with her in an attempt to resolve the dispute outside the court arena.”

The LPO said it had no further comment.

bron

2011 – Summary of the Cultural Boycott of Israel for Musicians

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) -The year 2011 was a year full of many successes in the campaign for the cultural boycott of Israel. This summary will focus on the cultural boycott with emphasis on musical artists and groups.

The fall of South African apartheid was preceded by many musical artists who joined to create a movement. That movement became known popularly as “I’m not gonna play Sun City.” Israel has not yet seen its Sun City moment fully, but as you’ll see, significant rumblings are beginning.

January, 2011: Jon Bon Jovi was asked not play in Israel. Thus far, boycott efforts have been successful. The singer had announced on Larry King Live he would perform in Israel. After boycott efforts to ask him to refrain, no concert ever happened. [1]
French pop star Vanessa Paradis refuses to perform in Israel.[2] Her partner, American film icon Johnny Depp also cancels his visit to Israel.

February, 2011: Roger Waters (founder of Pink Floyd) comes out in strong support of the cultural boycott when he writes “Artists were right to refuse to play in South Africa’s Sun City resort until apartheid fell and whites and blacks enjoyed equal rights. And we are right to refuse to play in Israel until the day comes — and it surely will come — when The Wall of occupation falls and Palestinians live alongside Israelis in the peace, freedom, justice and dignity that they all deserve.” [3]
German bass-baritone Thomas Quasthoff, scheduled to sing five classical concerts in Israel, withdraws shortly beforehand. He’d been asked to cancel his concerts by BRICUP, Boycott from Within and others. He said his withdrawal was on grounds of illness.
Pete Seeger unequivocally supports the cultural boycott, stating “I misunderstood the leaders of the Arava Institute because I didn’t realize to what degree the Jewish National Fund was supporting Arava. Now that I know more, I support the BDS movement as much as I can.” [4]

May, 2011: August Burns Red refrained from playing at Tel Aviv’s Barby. Just over one week prior to their gig sources said “they have no plans to reschedule, they cancelled because they do not want to play in Israel.” A three month long effort had been launched to ask the band to refrain. [5]
Marc Almond’s cancellation was welcomed by the BDS Movement. [6] Letters, as well as a Facebook page were created to let the “Tainted Love” singer know about the real Israel. His fans passed out leaflets before a UK concert at the Royal Festival Hall, London. His welcome response came four days later when he refused to play in Israel.

June, 2011: Although Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not a musician, the cancellation of his film promotion at the Jerusalem Film Festival brought a whirlwind of attention to the cultural boycott of Israel. 101 organizations signed a letter praising the basketball legend. [7]
Also, in late June, Jello Biafra and the Guantanamo School of Medicine announced that they would refuse to perform in Tel Aviv. [8] The voice of the Palestinian people was ultimately respected by the vintage punk rocker Jello Biafra.
Punk rock fans unite with punk bands and artists to launch Punks Against Apartheid.

July, 2011: Musicians Dave Randall, Maxi Jazz, and Jamie Catto release the single “Freedom For Palestine” with the Durban Gospel Choir. As the video went viral it gained momentum from endorsements by Coldplay, LUSH Cosmetics, Lowkey,Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Massive Attack, Roger Waters, and many more. [9]

August, 2011: Tuba Skinny, while in Rome en-route to Israel , received information about the cultural boycott. Tuba Skinny refused to perform at the Israel Government-sponsored Red Sea Jazz Festival, cancelling their concert only a few days prior to their scheduled gig. [10] Latin jazz great Eddie Palmieri of Puerto Rico [11]and jazz musician Jason Moran of Houston [12] followed Tuba Skinny, and also cancelled their appearances at the Red Sea Jazz Festival.

September, 2011: Natacha Atlas stuns her Israeli booking agents when she refuses to play her scheduled concert in Israel. She bravely states on her facebook page:
“…after much deliberation I now see that it would be more effective a statement to not go to Israel until this systemised apartheid is abolished once and for all. Therefore I publicly retract my well-intentioned decision to go and perform in Israel and so sincerely hope that this decision represents an effective statement against this regime.”[13]
The cultural boycott came closer to home as the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestrawent on tour. Creative protests were seen in many cities in the USA and Europe. A protest in London during the BBC’s Prom Live Broadcast of the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra resulted in worldwide press coverage when the BBC decided to halt its live broadcast of the concert.
Denise Jannah was written to just prior to her tour in Israel. She did perform in Israel, but her experience in Israel caused her to regret her choice, and she came out in support of the cultural boycott. She stated: “Please let me start by telling you this: of a cultural BDS boycott Ramon and I had NO knowledge, none at all. This is where the problem started, for had I known I would have done things differently: the reasons for this boycott are valid.” [14]
Riverdance set designer Robert Ballagh, in bold support for BDS, called for the cancellation of Riverdance’s tour in Israel, but he was unable to stop it because he does not possess the copyright. However he donated all his royalties from the performance of Riverdance in Israel to the Irish Ship to Gaza campaign.[15]

October, 2011: The Yardbirds were scheduled to play in Israel, and a letter [16] signed by professors in the UK was written to them from BRICUP. They subsequently cancelled their performance. Humanitarians are asking them not to reschedule in 2012.
Greek singer Martha Frintzila bows out of her performance at the Israel Government-sponsored Jerusalem Oud Festival with a the statement that she: “…will not participate in Oud Festival in Jerusalem for conscientious and political reasons.” [17]
Hosam Hayak, a regular performer at the Jerusalem Oud Festival, chose this year to cancel, making a press release in Arabic on his facebook notes.[18]
In another boost to the cultural boycott, John Michael McDonagh, director of Golden Globe nominated (director and main actor) film The Guard, announces that, “due to the conflict, [he] declined to attend the Haifa Film Festival 2011.”

November, 2011: The Jerusalem String Quartet was met with creative protests in both the UK and North America. Parody programs were received by concert attendees in at least four North American cities.[19]
Macy Gray tweets regarding her February Tel Aviv gig @MacyGraysLife “i had a reality check and I stated that I definitely would not have played there if I had known even the little that I know now.”
Punkers Zdob si Zdub of Moldavia were also asked to refrain playing in Israel. They cancelled their 5 November concert, and the BDS movement is asking them to refrain from playing in 2012, as they are being pressured to “reschedule.”[20]
Mireille Mathieu was asked by BDS France [21] to cancel her concert in Tel Aviv. The French singer was also the recipient of a letter [22] signed by seventy people in the artistic community in Gaza asking her to respect the boycott. Mireille Mathieu’scourageous announcement [23] on her website that she has postponed playing in Tel Aviv is a welcome one. The BDS movement encourages her to stand strong against pressure from both French and Israeli booking agents to “reschedule” her concert in the apartheid state.
Rapper MF Doom was called on by numerous groups and individuals not to “rap in the apartheid state.” Press reports indicated he cancelled his 26 Nov concert due to illness. As of this publication, Doom has not rescheduled his concert in Tel Aviv.
In Switzerland, over 150 artists pledge to boycott apartheid Israel.[24]

December, 2011: Oumou Sangaré becomes the third French artist in 2011 to cancel her planned performance with the Israeli Opera, as BDS makes inroads into the classical music world. An informative letter from BDS France was followed by letters from DPAI and BDS Italy. [25]
Joe Lynn Turner’s 16 December concert in Tel Aviv is cancelled.[26]
Joker (UK) refuses to bring his dubstep-bass sounds to Tel Aviv. It appears that his decision might have been influenced by other musicians in the London music scene who asked him to reconsider.

Looking Ahead to 2012:
UK and Irish musicians are taking the lead under the “Freedom for Palestine” banner. In the USA, expect Lupe Fiasco to continue to vocalize his support for Palestinians.
Current campaigns for cultural boycott are underway for Bruce Springsteen, Arch Enemy and Red Hot Chili Peppers to alert them about the reasons to join fellow musicians in refusing to play in the apartheid state. Cultural BDS is growing and volunteers remain busy working in countless creative ways.

NOTES:
[1]See section “Pop Stars urged to Boycott” in http://electronicintifada.net/content/boycott-roundup-us-tear-gas-maker-csi-urged-cancel-israel-sales/9175
[2] Haaretz.com Jan 16, 2011 Did pop star Paradis cancel Israel concert over politics?http://bit.ly/ePtc3T
[3] Roger Waters: My Journey to BDShttp://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/topics/economy-of-the-occupation/3374-roger-waters-my-journey-to-bds
[4] http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/pete-seeger-endorses-boycott-of-israel.html
[5] August Burns Red Have Cancelled Their Planned Concert in Israelhttp://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1612
[6] Marc Almond cancels Israel performance http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/letter-marc-almond-6933
[7] Media Release: 101 Organizations Praise Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s Decision Not to Visit Israelhttp://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=3039
[8] http://punksagainstapartheid.com/2011/06/jello-biafra-cancels-tel-aviv-gig/
[9] ”From the muddy fields of Glastonbury to the occupied streets of Gaza”http://www.freedomoneworld.com/
[10] http://refrainplayingisrael.posterous.com/tuba-skinny-respects-the-pacbis-call-cancels
[11] http://refrainplayingisrael.posterous.com/latin-jazz-great-eddie-palmieri-thank-you-for
[12] http://refrainplayingisrael.posterous.com/jazz-musician-jason-moran-cancels-concert-in
[13] http://www.facebook.com/pages/Natacha-Atlas-Official/125501987488351?sk=wall
[14] http://www.kadaitcha.com/2011/09/18/denise-jannah-and-ramon-valles-now-support-bds/
[15] Riverdance should not go to Israel: Two open letters from the IPSC and set designer Robert Ballaghhttp://www.ipsc.ie/press-releases/riverdance-should-not-go-to-israel-two-open-letters-from-the-ipsc-and-set-designer-robert-ballagh
[16] http://www.bricup.org.uk/documents/cultural/Yardbirds.pdf
[17] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1741 Martha Frintzila cancels participation in Jerusalem Oud Festival
[18] Hosam Hayak Press Release http://www.facebook.com/notes/hosam-hayek/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85/10150341519462611
[19] http://www.usacbi.org/2011/11/jerusalem-quartet-protests/ Jerusalem String Quartet Met By Protests Across North America
[20] http://rebelfrequencies.blogspot.com/2011/11/bds-update-first-delay-then.html
[20] Letter ouverte de la Campagne BDS France a Mireille Matthieu http://bit.ly/w26Xog
[22] Dear Mireille Mathieu http://www.odsg.org/co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2426
[23] “le concert prevu le 22 novembre 2011 en Israel a Tel Aviv est reporte a une date ulterieure” http://www.mireillemathieu.com/#/Nouveautes/Fiche
[24] http://www.bds-info.ch/fr/actualites/Declaration-of-Swiss-Artists
[25] See all three letters at “Victoire: Oumou Sangare annule son concert en Israel”http://www.bdsfrance.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=617%3Avictoire-oumou-sangare-annule-son-concert-en-israel-&catid=9%3Aevenements-bds-france
[26] http://refrainplayingisrael.posterous.com/joe-lynn-turner-refrains-from-playing-in-apar

Fighting a Forbidden Battle: How I Stopped Covering Up for a Hidden Wrong

2012 Martin Luther King, Jr. Writing Awards

First Place (Tie)

Jesse Lieberfeld
11th grade, Winchester Thurston

I once belonged to a wonderful religion. I belonged to a religion that allows those of us who believe in it to feel that we are the greatest people in the world—and feel sorry for ourselves at the same time. Once, I thought that I truly belonged in this world of security, self-pity, self-proclaimed intelligence, and perfect moral aesthetic. I thought myself to be somewhat privileged early on. It was soon revealed to me, however, that my fellow believers and I were not part of anything so flattering.

Although I was fortunate enough to have parents who did not try to force me into any one set of beliefs, being Jewish was in no way possible to escape growing up. It was constantly reinforced at every holiday, every service, and every encounter with the rest of my relatives. I was forever reminded how intelligent my family was, how important it was to remember where we had come from, and to be proud of all the suffering our people had overcome in order to finally achieve their dream in the perfect society of Israel.

This last mandatory belief was one which I never fully understood, but I always kept the doubts I had about Israel’s spotless reputation to the back of my mind. “Our people” were fighting a war, one I did not fully comprehend, but I naturally assumed that it must be justified. We would never be so amoral as to fight an unjust war. Yet as I came to learn more about our so-called “conflict” with the Palestinians, I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases, and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. “Genocide” almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms. Whenever I brought up the subject, I was always given the answer that there were faults on both sides, that no one was really to blame, or simply that it was a “difficult situation.” It was not until eighth grade that I fully understood what I was on the side of. One afternoon, after a fresh round of killings was announced on our bus ride home, I asked two of my friends who actively supported Israel what they thought. “We need to defend our race,” they told me. “It’s our right.”

“We need to defend our race.”

Where had I heard that before? Wasn’t it the same excuse our own country had used to justify its abuses of African-Americans sixty years ago? In that moment, I realized how similar the two struggles were—like the white radicals of that era, we controlled the lives of another people whom we abused daily, and no one could speak out against us. It was too politically incorrect to do so. We had suffered too much, endured too many hardships, and overcome too many losses to be criticized. I realized then that I was in no way part of a “conflict”—the term “Israeli/Palestinian Conflict” was no more accurate than calling the Civil Rights Movement the “Caucasian/ African-American Conflict.” In both cases, the expression was a blatant euphemism: it gave the impression that this was a dispute among equals and that both held an equal share of the blame. However, in both, there was clearly an oppressor and an oppressed, and I felt horrified at the realization that I was by nature on the side of the oppressors. I was grouped with the racial supremacists. I was part of a group that killed while praising its own intelligence and reason. I was part of a delusion.

I thought of the leader of the other oppressed side of years ago, Martin Luther King. He too had been part of a struggle that had been hidden and glossed over for the convenience of those against whom he fought. What would his reaction have been? As it turned out, it was precisely the same as mine. As he wrote in his letter from Birmingham Jail, he believed the greatest enemy of his cause to be “Not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who…lives by a mythical concept of time…. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” When I first read those words, I felt as if I were staring at myself in a mirror. All my life I had been conditioned to simply treat the so-called conflict with the same apathy which King had so forcefully condemned. I, too, held the role of an accepting moderate. I, too, “lived by a mythical concept of time,” shrouded in my own surreal world and the set of beliefs that had been assigned to me. I had never before felt so trapped.

I decided to make one last appeal to my religion. If it could not answer my misgivings, no one could. The next time I attended a service, there was an open question-and-answer session about any point of our religion. I wanted to place my dilemma in as clear and simple terms as I knew how. I thought out my exact question over the course of the seventeen-minute cello solo that was routinely played during service. Previously, I had always accepted this solo as just another part of the program, yet now it seemed to capture the whole essence of our religion: intelligent and well-crafted on paper, yet completely oblivious to the outside world (the soloist did not have the faintest idea of how masterfully he was putting us all to sleep). When I was finally given the chance to ask a question, I asked, “I want to support Israel. But how can I when it lets its army commit so many killings?” I was met with a few angry glares from some of the older men, but the rabbi answered me. “It is a terrible thing, isn’t it?” he said. “But there’s nothing we can do. It’s just a fact of life.” I knew, of course, that the war was no simple matter and that we did not by any means commit murder for its own sake, but to portray our thousands of killings as a “fact of life” was simply too much for me to accept. I thanked him and walked out shortly afterward. I never went back. I thought about what I could do. If nothing else, I could at least try to free myself from the burden of being saddled with a belief I could not hold with a clear conscience. I could not live the rest of my life as one of the pathetic moderates whom King had rightfully portrayed as the worst part of the problem. I did not intend to go on being one of the Self-Chosen People, identifying myself as part of a group to which I did not belong.

It was different not being the ideal nice Jewish boy. The difference was subtle, yet by no means unaffecting. Whenever it came to the attention of any of our more religious family friends that I did not share their beliefs, I was met with either a disapproving stare and a quick change of the subject or an alarmed cry of, “What? Doesn’t Israel matter to you?” Relatives talked down to me more afterward, but eventually I stopped noticing the way adults around me perceived me. It was worth it to no longer feel as though I were just another apathetic part of the machine.

I can obviously never know what it must have been like to be an African-American in the 1950s. I do feel, however, as though I know exactly what it must have been like to be white during that time, to live under an aura of moral invincibility, to hold unchallengeable beliefs, and to contrive illusions of superiority to avoid having to face simple everyday truths. That illusion was nice while it lasted, but I decided to pass it up. I have never been happier.

View the complete list of the 2012 Martin Luther King, Jr. Writing Award winners.

Stay connected with CMU’s Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences on Twitter and Facebook.

Other sources of Carnegie Mellon news include the university news service website and the Carnegie Mellon Today magazine.

Contact Shilo Rea, Director of Public Relations at shilo@cmu.edu or (412) 268-6094.

bron

Des parlementaires français dénoncent (enfin) l’apartheid israélien

Les officines sionistes françaises ne savaient plus à quel saint se vouer, lundi, à la suite de la publication, par la commission des Affaires étrangères de l’Assemblée Nationale, d’un rapport dénonçant enfin, et de manière parfaitement explicite, le régime d’apartheid imposé par Israël au peuple palestinien.

Le rapport, « La géopolitique de l’eau », est disponible sur le lien suivant : http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/rap-info/i4070.asp

La mission parlementaire d’information, qui a remis son rapport le mois dernier, était composée de 11 députés de tous partis : Lionnel Luca (UMP, Alpes-Maritimes, Président de la mission) ; Jean Glavany (PS, Hautes-Pyrénées, rapporteur) ; Nicole Ameline (UMP, Calvados) ; Jacques Bascou (PS, Aude) ; Claude Birraux (UMP, Haute-Savoie) ; Alain Bocquet (PC, Nord) ; Gilles Cocquempot (PS, Pas-de-Calais) ; Jean-Claude Guibal (UMP, Alpes-Maritimes) ; Jean-Pierre Kucheida (PS, Pas-de-Calais) ; Renaud Muselier (UMP, Bouches-du-Rhône), et Jean-Marc Nesme (UMP, Saône-et-Loire).

La lecture du document, d’un peu plus de cent pages, est réellement instructive, tant la question de l’eau et des ressources en eau pour l’humanité est un enjeu fondamental pour l’avenir de la société.

Un chapitre consacré au Tibet rappelle, par exemple, que cette région, au-delà de ce qu’en retient généralement le public avec les apparitions régulières du dalaï-lama à la télévision, est tout simplement le siège des ressources en eau de 3 milliards d’êtres humains, Chinois et Indiens confondus.

Le chapitre consacré, sur une vingtaine de pages, au Proche-Orient, remet lui aussi les pendules à l’heure, en démontrant par A + B que depuis les origines, l’Etat d’Israël n’a eu de cesse de s’emparer des ressources en eau de la région et d’en priver les populations non juives.

Tandis que les habitants de la bande de Gaza sont aujourd’hui ceux du monde qui ont le moins d’eau propre disponible par habitant, leurs frères et sœurs de Cisjordanie en ont pour leur part 10 fois moins que les colons juifs qui volent leurs terres.

Comment nommer un tel crime, une telle situation ? « APARTHEID ! », répondent les auteurs du rapport, dont voici les conclusions, concernant Israël.

« Encadré n°3 : L’eau, révélatrice d’un nouvel apartheid au Moyen Orient Mise en place en 1948 par le premier ministre F. Malan, l’apartheid a vu le développement différencié des groupes ethniques en Afrique du Sud pendant un demi siècle.

Cette politique consistait à la fois en une ségrégation raciale et spatiale (cloisonnement des populations noires et “coloured” dans des espaces confinés appelés bantoustans) mais aussi en une ségrégation citoyenne, les libertés d’une partie de la population (restriction du droit d’aller et venir, du droit de se rassembler dans les lieux publics, violences policières) étant bafouées. L’odieux régime de l’apartheid a pris fin en Afrique du Sud au début des années 90, avec la libération de Nelson Mandela et des prisonniers politiques, le compromis courageux entre M. de Klerk et Mandela et les premières élections libres de 1994 confiant massivement le pouvoir à l’ANC African National Congress, le parti de Mandela.

Bien sûr, comparaison n’est pas forcément raison : la Palestine n’est pas l’Afrique du Sud, et les années 2010 ne sont pas celles d’avant 1990. Pourtant, il est des mots et des symboles qui par leur force peuvent avoir une vertu pédagogique.

Or, tout démontre, même si bien peu nombreux sont ceux qui osent employer le mot, que le Moyen-Orient est le théâtre d’un nouvel apartheid. La ségrégation y est raciale mais comme on n’ose pas le dire, on dira pudiquement « religieuse ». Pourtant, la revendication d’un état « Juif » ne serait-elle que religieuse ?

La ségrégation est spatiale également : le mur élevé pour séparer les deux communautés en est le meilleur symbole. La division de la Cisjordanie en trois zones, A, B et C en est une autre illustration :

L’armée israélienne a transféré à l’Autorité palestinienne la responsabilité des affaires civiles, c’est-à-dire la fourniture de services à la population, dans les zones A et B. Ces deux zones, qui contiennent près de 95 % de la population palestinienne de Cisjordanie, ne représentent que 40 % du territoire. La zone C reste entièrement placée sous l’autorité de l’armée israélienne. Cette zone représente 60 % du territoire de la Cisjordanie, avec toutes les réserves foncières et l’accès aux ressources aquifères, ainsi que toutes les routes principales.

La ségrégation est aussi hautaine et méprisante (« ces gens-là ne sont pas responsables »…répètent à l’envie certains responsables israéliens), vexatrice et humiliante (les passages aux check point sont restreints ou relâchés sans prévenir) voire violente (la répression des manifestations fait régulièrement des morts…).

C’est donc bien d’un « nouvel apartheid » qu’il s’agit.

Et dans cette situation, l’eau est ainsi un élément particulier du conflit entre Palestiniens et Israéliens, au point qu’elle constitue le « 5ème volet » des accords d’Oslo. La Déclaration d’Oslo du 13 septembre 1993 reconnaît les droits des Palestiniens sur l’eau en Cisjordanie. L’accord intérimaire de Taba du 28 septembre 1995 prévoit un partage des eaux jusqu’à la signature d’un accord permanent. Mais ce partage est incomplet : il ne porte que sur les aquifères ; le Jourdain en est exclu, les Palestiniens n’y ayant plus accès. Ensuite il gèle les utilisations antérieures et ne répartit que la quantité d’eau encore disponible, c’est dire 78 mètres cubes de l’aquifère oriental. Il est donc très défavorable aux Palestiniens qui n’exploitent que 18 % des aquifères ; soit 10 % de l’eau disponible sur le territoire.

C’est pourquoi sans règlement politique global, on voit mal comment ce qui est devenu un véritable “conflit de l’eau” pourrait trouver une solution. Quelles sont donc les caractéristiques de ce « conflit de l’eau » ? Du point de vue « hydrique », il concerne avant tout le fleuve Jourdain, où sont réunis tous les éléments prompts à déclencher une « crise de l’eau » : depuis le début du conflit, guerre après guerre, les « extensions territoriales » d’Israël, qu’on le veuille ou non, s’apparentent à des « conquêtes de l’eau », que ce soit des fleuves ou bien des aquifères.

Or, l’eau est devenue au Moyen-Orient bien plus qu’une ressource : c’est une arme.

Pour comprendre la nature de cette « arme » au service de ce « nouvel apartheid », il faut savoir, par exemple, que les 450 000 colons israéliens en Cisjordanie utilisent plus d’eau que 2,3 millions de Palestiniens. Sachons aussi entre autres multiples exemples que :
la priorité est donnée aux colons en cas de sécheresse en infraction au droit international ;
le mur construit permet le contrôle de l’accès aux eaux souterraines et empêche les prélèvements palestiniens dans la « zone tampon » pour faciliter l’écoulement vers l’ouest ;
les « puits » forés spontanément par les Palestiniens en Cisjordanie sont systématiquement détruits par l’armée israélienne ;
à Gaza les réserves d’eau ont été prises pour cible en 2008-2009 par les bombardements.
et comme les zones A et B ne sont pas d’un seul tenant, mais fragmentées en enclaves entourées par des colonies israéliennes et par des routes réservées aux colons, ainsi que par la zone C, cette configuration entrave le développement d’infrastructures performantes pour l’approvisionnement en eau et l’évacuation des eaux usées. La plupart des Palestiniens résident dans les zones A et B, mais les infrastructures dont ils dépendent se trouvent dans la zone C ou la traversent. Les déplacements des Palestiniens dans la zone C sont limités ou interdits ; l’armée israélienne autorise rarement les travaux de construction ou d’aménagement.

On peut citer plusieurs exemples de stations d’épuration programmées par le ministère palestinien de l’Eau et qui sont « bloquées » par l’administration israélienne.

Les Israéliens reprochent aux Palestiniens l’existence de puits non contrôlés responsables de pompages excessifs et d’une salinisation des aquifères. Ils citent l’exemple de Gaza où l’aquifère est en passe d’être perdu. Ils reprochent également l’absence de traitement des eaux. Seuls 31 % des Palestiniens sont raccordés. Mais le Comité n’a approuvé que 50 % des projets palestiniens, avec d’énormes retards, alors que son autorisation doit encore être suivie d’une autorisation administrative pour la zone C. L’appropriation des ressources par les colonies et par le tracé du mur est également troublant. La surexploitation des aquifères est avérée.

Les Israéliens se fondent sur la théorie de la première appropriation pour défendre leurs droits et refusent toute gestion partagée dans une vision sécuritaire de l’eau. Israël propose des solutions, parfois intéressantes, mais où il garderait la maîtrise de l’eau. Il a semblé à la mission que le pays préférerait abandonner les aquifères, en finissant de développer le dessalement, plutôt que de mettre en place une gestion partagée. Il n’y aura pas de partage de l’eau sans solution politique sur le partage des terres.

Pourtant, un comité conjoint sur l’eau (Water joint committee) a été créé par les accords d’Oslo II. Il a compétence pour toutes les questions d’eau relative aux seuls Palestiniens sur le territoire de la Cisjordanie. Ce n’est donc pas un organisme de gestion partagée et encore moins de bassin. Il fonctionne en outre sur le mode du consensus ce qui donne de facto un pouvoir de veto à Israël »

(extrait du rapport « Géopolitique de l’eau », Assemblée Nationale, décembre 2011)

Ayant fini de réveillonner, le député sioniste du très bling bling 16ème arrondissement de Paris Claude Goasguen ne s’est réveillé que ce lundi matin 9 janvier, pour s’époumoner et rameuter contre le rapport de ses collègues. Qu’il braille donc. Nous serions pour notre part plutôt enclins à le féliciter pour avoir fait la promotion du document, et s’être ainsi tiré une balle dans le pied. C’est quand il veut pour la deuxième.

CAPJPO-EuroPalestine

bron