轉貼來源: 中央社
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=334020&id=5&id2=2
瑞士洛桑艾里賽(Elysee)攝影博物館為堅持創作自由的原則，於26日決定取消與知名服飾品牌Lacoste合作成立的攝影獎，因為贊助廠商執意排除1名入圍的巴勒斯坦攝影師。
艾里賽博物館館長史都則(Sam Stourdze)為法國人，2010年上任後，促成與以鱷魚為品牌形象的Lacoste合作，聯名設立攝影獎，總獎金2萬5,000歐元(約3萬2,600美元)，用意在發掘並鼓勵新秀。
在11月入圍的攝影師名單中，在耶路撒冷出生的巴勒斯坦人珊蘇兒(Larissa Sansour)以「國家資產(Nation Estate)」為題，拍攝系列圖片，描繪巴勒斯坦國家的誕生。
珊蘇兒在個人部落格指出，這項創作計畫是1組科幻系列照片，以敘事方式描繪巴勒斯坦經歷和平談判，自廢墟中建國；巴勒斯坦人在1棟摩天大樓裡建國，不同城市之間的檢哨站在此由電梯取代。
藝術評論雜誌12月報導攝影獎入圍作品時，不見珊蘇兒的名字。媒體報導，Lacoste公司向艾里賽博物館施壓，表明不願支持這類「太明顯支持巴勒斯坦」的作品。
珊蘇兒在部落格指出，作品遭到Lacoste審查，所以被剔除出入圍名單；Lacoste則表示，完全是因為珊蘇兒的作品不符合今年徵件題目「生命喜悅」。Lacoste並強調，所有決定是與艾里賽博物館一起做成的。
但在爭議擴大後，Lacoste和艾里賽博物館上週陸續發表聲明，宣布取消攝影獎。博物館指明原因在於贊助廠商執意排除珊蘇兒。博物館同時表達支持藝術家，肯定珊蘇兒的藝術創作品質及參與。
2011年12月27日 星期二
2011年12月14日 星期三
Palestinian flag raised over UNESCO headquarters
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/20111213134259952607.html
Palestinians have raised their flag at the headquarters of the UN cultural agency in Paris in a historic move and symbolic boost for their push for an independent state.
Cheers rose alongside the red, black, white and green flag during a ceremony held in the rain on Tuesday.
"This is truly a historic moment," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said at the ceremony, his speech punctuated by rousing applause and standing ovations.
"We hope this will be a good auspice for Palestine to become a member of other organisations," he said.
Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland, reporting from Paris, said, "it was a moment steeped in symbolism".
Palestine was admitted as a member of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in an October vote that prompted the US to cut off funds to the agency.
Two US laws required the halt in the flow of funds to the agency, forcing it to scale back literacy and development programmes in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the new nation of South Sudan.
The Palestinians also are seeking full-fledged UN membership, but Washington has threatened to veto that move, saying a negotiated settlement with Israel should come first.
Abbas said on Tuesday that efforts were continuing to gain full UN membership and admission to other international institutions.
"We are currently holding talks with the parties. We have not yet asked for a vote but this could happen at any moment," he said.
"If we don't have a majority, we will repeat our request again and again."
'Tense diplomatic atmosphere'
Al Jazeera's Rowland said: "President Abbas made it quite clear that it was an important and significant step on the road towards Palestinian statehood. And he also reiterated his willingness to restart peace talks with Israel.
"It seems that everyone agrees that negotiations are not in any way ruled out by this move but [it] certainly has led to a more tense diplomatic atmosphere," she said.
US officials have said UNESCO's decision risked undermining the international community's work towards a comprehensive Middle East peace plan, and could be a distraction from the aim of restarting direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The US contributes $80m annually in dues - 22 per cent of UNESCO's overall budget - and its 2011 contribution was not yet in when the laws took effect, immediately throwing UNESCO into crisis.
Several countries are lobbying the US to renew its funding.
"The suspension of the lion’s share of the funding to UNESCO really threatens the UN body's ability to continue with very important, particularly educational programmes, some of which are in Palestinian territories themselves," our correspondent said.
"Really the problem now for UNESCO is to find other donors, other member states to come forward and bring that money.
"There is a serious question over the future ability of UNESCO to carry out some of its very important projects."
UNESCO is known for its programme to protect cultures via its World Heritage sites, but its core mission also includes activities such as helping eradicate poverty, ensuring clean water, teaching girls to read and promoting freedom of speech.
2011年11月30日 星期三
2011年11月22日 星期二
Home Front
HOME FRONT: Mohammed El Kurd (1 of 4)
HOME FRONT: Terry Benninga (2 of 4)
HOME FRONT: Amal Qassem (3 of 4)
HOME FRONT: Gil Gutglick (4 of 4)
HOME FRONT: Terry Benninga (2 of 4)
HOME FRONT: Amal Qassem (3 of 4)
HOME FRONT: Gil Gutglick (4 of 4)
2011年11月18日 星期五
研究指出以色列佔領行動重創巴勒斯坦經濟
轉貼來源:紀念若雪巴勒斯坦資訊網Palestine Information Website
http://palinfo.habago.org/archives/2011/10/05/19.34.33/
Harriet Sherwood於拉馬拉報導；Liz Lai 譯；李鑑慧 校訂
Date: 2011.10.05
原文出處：2011.09.29英國衛報
在Shuweike村附近，巴勒斯坦農人Mussa Samamreh（圖右）仔細檢查園裡橄欖樹的斷枝，他的樹園據當地村民說遭到以色列屯民的破壞。攝影：Abed al-Hashlamoun/EPA
一份在拉馬拉（Ramallah）出版的研究報告顯示：以色列在西岸與迦薩的佔領行動使巴勒斯坦每年承受44億歐元的經濟損失，相當於巴人85%的名義國內生產毛額。
這份研究指出，以色列對巴勒斯坦之「佔領事業」不但對巴勒斯坦經濟造成損害，它還讓以色列與她境內的企業得以藉巴勒斯坦之自然與觀光資源獲利。
「不論巴勒斯坦人迄今靠著自己的力量成就了什麼，佔領行動讓我們無法像居住在自己國家的自由人民一般，完全發揮經濟潛力。」巴勒斯坦自治政府的經濟部長Hasan Abu Libdeh在這份於週四發表的報告中如此表示。他並且說：「國際社會應該要知道，以色列不願意為和平盡最大努力的原因之一，正在於此佔領行動所能提供給她的經濟利益。」
研究顯示，若以方停止佔領行動，巴勒斯坦的經濟規模將可以達到目前的近兩倍，而這也可以減少巴勒斯坦對國際救援的依賴。
這份報告乃是由巴勒斯坦當局之經濟部以及「耶路撒冷應用研究協會」（Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem）所共同完成，是第一個將以色列佔領行為對巴勒斯坦經濟所造成的影響進行量化的研究。它指出：「關於總損失的金額，目前得到的數字是2010年的68.97億美元，高達巴勒斯坦國內生產總額的84.9%。」
「這些損失與安全考量並無太大相關，主要造成因素乃是來自以色列對巴人種種嚴格的限制，這些限制使得巴人無法利用自己所擁有的自然資源，但以方卻得以剝削巴人之水、礦產、鹽、石材與土地等資源。」
研究報告將這近69億美元的損失細分為幾大項，其中包括：封鎖迦薩造成的損失為19億美元、限制用水19億美元、限制使用自然資源18億美元、進出口限制2億8千8百萬美元、交通限制1億8千4百萬美元、死海的觀光收入1億4千3百萬美元。
報告並且顯示，以色列的佔領「對巴勒斯坦的經濟發展設下無數的限制，它讓巴人無法在自己的土地上使用自己的自然資源，將巴勒斯坦孤立於國際市場之外，並將巴人的活動區域限縮在幾個零星的區塊中。」
迦薩地區的經濟高度依賴進出口物資，但封鎖則對進出口設下嚴厲的限制。該區遭受的武力轟炸使得多數基礎建設被破壞以及原物料短缺，這也使得水電供應無法應付工業及農業發展之需求。
許多欲進口至西岸及迦薩的物資被以色列認為具有「雙重用途」而遭到限制，如化學藥品與肥料可能被加工成為武器，這項限制對該區的製造業與農業造成了嚴重影響。
在西岸地區，路障、哨站與分道政策對物資與人力的流通都帶來限制，這使得巴勒斯坦經濟發展受到嚴重壓縮。研究將西岸與其他城市間的直接交通路線與巴勒斯坦人所必須迂迴通行的路線做了比較。如，西岸北方的那不勒斯（Nablus）與約旦河谷的al-Jiftlik兩地間，直接路線為36英里（58公里），但巴勒斯坦人必須繞行的路線卻使得這段路程必須增加至107英里（173公里），造成時間與物資的重大損失。
▲駐守中東西岸的以色列邊境巡警在哨站檢查巴勒斯坦婦女的證件，一群婦女正排隊等候要進入耶路撒冷，圖攝於2011年8月12日。（圖文／路透）
巴勒斯坦人禁止進入死海地區的規定使他們無法藉由該地的礦產、鹽與觀光資源而獲利—這些都成為了以色列的經濟收入來源。報告指出，死海地區的資源可以製作美容美膚產品，而以色列的公司每年藉由生產與銷售這些產品可創造高達1億5千美元（9千6百歐元）之利潤。
以色列的公司也藉由在西岸進行的採礦與鑿石作業而獲利。西岸的水資源並且被導入以色列屯墾區、工業區與農業區。研究指出，以色列人由西岸的三大地下蓄水層所汲取的水資源是巴勒斯坦人的10倍之多。約有250萬棵樹，其中包括橄欖樹叢，自1967年起因為屯墾區、基礎建設與隔離牆之建立而被連根拔起。研究估計每棵成年橄欖樹的年產量為70公斤，每公斤的產品可獲利1.1美元。
巴勒斯坦農人多失去了土地或是無法進入自己的土地耕作。Abu Libdeh說，「（西岸與東耶路撒冷地區）有62萬屯民在6萬4千德南（dumans；1德南約1000平方米）的土地上耕作，而400萬居住在西岸的巴勒斯坦人，則僅能耕作10萬德南的土地」。
「在我們準備建國的同時，我們希望這會是個能夠經濟自主、對環境友善、見容於國際社會的永續生存的國度，」他表示「以色列在土地權利、交通、自然資源使用等方面設下種種限制，使得巴勒斯坦人無法自己營生。要建立能夠永續生存的巴勒斯坦，以色列必須停止終止佔領行動。」
由聯合國、歐盟、美國與俄國所共同構成的「中東四重奏」（Middle East Quartet）上週發表聲明，嘗試讓以巴雙方再度展開和談。對此，巴勒斯坦領導人於週四表示這乃是「令人鼓舞」的發展。「巴勒斯坦解放組織」的資深官員Yasser Abed Rabbo在巴解的執委會議後對外表示：「我們呼籲以色列尊重這項發言中所提出的原則及相關參考事項。」
他說：「『中東四重奏』此次聲明特別提及以巴雙方於『和平路線圖』（譯註：此為『中東四重奏』於2003年針對以巴問題所提出之和平方案）下之義務，以及呼籲避免煽動行為的發生。我們認為這構成明確呼籲，要求以色列停止各種形式的屯墾行為，這是個令人振奮的徵兆。」
以色列內閣於週二就這項發言進行會議討論，但無法達成共識並做出回應。
個案研究
位於那不勒斯的Pal Karm化妝品公司主要生產銷售化妝品以及保養品，銷售對象是當地市場以及以色列。甘油是該公司產品的主要原料。自2007年中起，以色列禁止甘油進口至巴勒斯坦自治區，從那時開始，該公司的產品即無法在以色列市場販售，因為以色列的健康部門規定該類產品必須含有甘油成分。這個公司估計其產品因此在以色列市場損失了30%的獲利。
* 完整研究報告請見「耶路撒冷應用研究協會」（Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem）網站
http://palinfo.habago.org/archives/2011/10/05/19.34.33/
Harriet Sherwood於拉馬拉報導；Liz Lai 譯；李鑑慧 校訂
Date: 2011.10.05
原文出處：2011.09.29英國衛報
在Shuweike村附近，巴勒斯坦農人Mussa Samamreh（圖右）仔細檢查園裡橄欖樹的斷枝，他的樹園據當地村民說遭到以色列屯民的破壞。攝影：Abed al-Hashlamoun/EPA
一份在拉馬拉（Ramallah）出版的研究報告顯示：以色列在西岸與迦薩的佔領行動使巴勒斯坦每年承受44億歐元的經濟損失，相當於巴人85%的名義國內生產毛額。
這份研究指出，以色列對巴勒斯坦之「佔領事業」不但對巴勒斯坦經濟造成損害，它還讓以色列與她境內的企業得以藉巴勒斯坦之自然與觀光資源獲利。
「不論巴勒斯坦人迄今靠著自己的力量成就了什麼，佔領行動讓我們無法像居住在自己國家的自由人民一般，完全發揮經濟潛力。」巴勒斯坦自治政府的經濟部長Hasan Abu Libdeh在這份於週四發表的報告中如此表示。他並且說：「國際社會應該要知道，以色列不願意為和平盡最大努力的原因之一，正在於此佔領行動所能提供給她的經濟利益。」
研究顯示，若以方停止佔領行動，巴勒斯坦的經濟規模將可以達到目前的近兩倍，而這也可以減少巴勒斯坦對國際救援的依賴。
這份報告乃是由巴勒斯坦當局之經濟部以及「耶路撒冷應用研究協會」（Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem）所共同完成，是第一個將以色列佔領行為對巴勒斯坦經濟所造成的影響進行量化的研究。它指出：「關於總損失的金額，目前得到的數字是2010年的68.97億美元，高達巴勒斯坦國內生產總額的84.9%。」
「這些損失與安全考量並無太大相關，主要造成因素乃是來自以色列對巴人種種嚴格的限制，這些限制使得巴人無法利用自己所擁有的自然資源，但以方卻得以剝削巴人之水、礦產、鹽、石材與土地等資源。」
研究報告將這近69億美元的損失細分為幾大項，其中包括：封鎖迦薩造成的損失為19億美元、限制用水19億美元、限制使用自然資源18億美元、進出口限制2億8千8百萬美元、交通限制1億8千4百萬美元、死海的觀光收入1億4千3百萬美元。
報告並且顯示，以色列的佔領「對巴勒斯坦的經濟發展設下無數的限制，它讓巴人無法在自己的土地上使用自己的自然資源，將巴勒斯坦孤立於國際市場之外，並將巴人的活動區域限縮在幾個零星的區塊中。」
迦薩地區的經濟高度依賴進出口物資，但封鎖則對進出口設下嚴厲的限制。該區遭受的武力轟炸使得多數基礎建設被破壞以及原物料短缺，這也使得水電供應無法應付工業及農業發展之需求。
許多欲進口至西岸及迦薩的物資被以色列認為具有「雙重用途」而遭到限制，如化學藥品與肥料可能被加工成為武器，這項限制對該區的製造業與農業造成了嚴重影響。
在西岸地區，路障、哨站與分道政策對物資與人力的流通都帶來限制，這使得巴勒斯坦經濟發展受到嚴重壓縮。研究將西岸與其他城市間的直接交通路線與巴勒斯坦人所必須迂迴通行的路線做了比較。如，西岸北方的那不勒斯（Nablus）與約旦河谷的al-Jiftlik兩地間，直接路線為36英里（58公里），但巴勒斯坦人必須繞行的路線卻使得這段路程必須增加至107英里（173公里），造成時間與物資的重大損失。
巴勒斯坦人禁止進入死海地區的規定使他們無法藉由該地的礦產、鹽與觀光資源而獲利—這些都成為了以色列的經濟收入來源。報告指出，死海地區的資源可以製作美容美膚產品，而以色列的公司每年藉由生產與銷售這些產品可創造高達1億5千美元（9千6百歐元）之利潤。
以色列的公司也藉由在西岸進行的採礦與鑿石作業而獲利。西岸的水資源並且被導入以色列屯墾區、工業區與農業區。研究指出，以色列人由西岸的三大地下蓄水層所汲取的水資源是巴勒斯坦人的10倍之多。約有250萬棵樹，其中包括橄欖樹叢，自1967年起因為屯墾區、基礎建設與隔離牆之建立而被連根拔起。研究估計每棵成年橄欖樹的年產量為70公斤，每公斤的產品可獲利1.1美元。
巴勒斯坦農人多失去了土地或是無法進入自己的土地耕作。Abu Libdeh說，「（西岸與東耶路撒冷地區）有62萬屯民在6萬4千德南（dumans；1德南約1000平方米）的土地上耕作，而400萬居住在西岸的巴勒斯坦人，則僅能耕作10萬德南的土地」。
「在我們準備建國的同時，我們希望這會是個能夠經濟自主、對環境友善、見容於國際社會的永續生存的國度，」他表示「以色列在土地權利、交通、自然資源使用等方面設下種種限制，使得巴勒斯坦人無法自己營生。要建立能夠永續生存的巴勒斯坦，以色列必須停止終止佔領行動。」
由聯合國、歐盟、美國與俄國所共同構成的「中東四重奏」（Middle East Quartet）上週發表聲明，嘗試讓以巴雙方再度展開和談。對此，巴勒斯坦領導人於週四表示這乃是「令人鼓舞」的發展。「巴勒斯坦解放組織」的資深官員Yasser Abed Rabbo在巴解的執委會議後對外表示：「我們呼籲以色列尊重這項發言中所提出的原則及相關參考事項。」
他說：「『中東四重奏』此次聲明特別提及以巴雙方於『和平路線圖』（譯註：此為『中東四重奏』於2003年針對以巴問題所提出之和平方案）下之義務，以及呼籲避免煽動行為的發生。我們認為這構成明確呼籲，要求以色列停止各種形式的屯墾行為，這是個令人振奮的徵兆。」
以色列內閣於週二就這項發言進行會議討論，但無法達成共識並做出回應。
個案研究
位於那不勒斯的Pal Karm化妝品公司主要生產銷售化妝品以及保養品，銷售對象是當地市場以及以色列。甘油是該公司產品的主要原料。自2007年中起，以色列禁止甘油進口至巴勒斯坦自治區，從那時開始，該公司的產品即無法在以色列市場販售，因為以色列的健康部門規定該類產品必須含有甘油成分。這個公司估計其產品因此在以色列市場損失了30%的獲利。
* 完整研究報告請見「耶路撒冷應用研究協會」（Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem）網站
2011年9月24日 星期六
2011年8月28日 星期日
國際特赦組織年度報告(2011) - 以色列及巴勒斯坦佔領區
轉貼來源: 紀念若雪巴勒斯坦資訊網Palestine Information Website
http://palinfo.habago.org/archives/2011/06/13/12.35.04/index.php?page=1
楊舜斌 譯；李鑑慧 校訂
Date: 2011.06.13
原文出處：國際特赦組織2011年度報告
事件發生期間：2010年1月至12月
國家元首：Shimon Peres
行政首長：Binyamin Netanyahu（3月接替Ehud Olmert）
死刑：一般犯罪免除
人口數：730萬人（以色列）；440萬人（巴勒斯坦佔領區，OPT）
平均壽命：80.3歲（以色列）；72.9歲（巴勒斯坦佔領區，OPT）
五歲以下兒童死亡率：每千名兒童，男6女5（以色列）；男23女18（巴勒斯坦佔領區，OPT）
2009年1月，以色列軍隊與巴勒斯坦武裝團體的停火協議普遍獲得認同。但以色列軍隊持續地在佔領區嚴厲監控巴勒斯坦人的行動自由，包括封鎖迦薩走廊地區，讓當地的150萬人民的生活日益艱困並且形同被監禁。數百名巴勒斯坦重病患申請前往迦薩境外接受特殊醫療照護，卻遭到以色列當局拒絕或延遲，許多病患因此而死亡。大部分的迦薩居民皆仰賴國際援助才得以生存，然而以色列的軍事封鎖卻嚴重阻擾各界的國際援助。5月，以色列軍隊在國際海域上，攻擊一艘試圖進入迦薩封鎖圈的國際援助船隻，並且殺害了9人。
在約旦河西岸，由於以色列所設置的數百個檢查哨、關隘，並且持續地在西岸內築起長達700公里的隔離牆，導致巴勒斯坦人的行動自由嚴重受到限制。巴勒斯坦人的住家、蓄水池、建築物遭受以色列政府破壞的數目有顯著的增加，數以千計的居民生活都受到影響。以色列政府並且摧毀位於以色列南部的貝都因人村落。以色列藉由非法佔領巴人土地來擴張其屯墾區，部分土地直到去年9月26號才重新獲得使用。
以色列依然沒有對於該國軍隊在「鑄鉛行動」襲擊中，涉嫌多起戰爭罪和其他嚴重違反國際法的行為進行適當地調查。從2008年12月至2009年1月，在以色列軍隊「鑄鉛行動」22天的襲擊侵略中，造成約1400名巴勒斯坦人喪生，其中有超過300名是孩童。以色列士兵與移墾者，針對巴勒斯坦人及其財產所犯下的嚴重侵犯，包括非法殺人和襲擊，但以色列政府通常都不追究他們的罪行。
以色列軍隊在巴勒斯坦佔領區(OPT)殺害了包括八個孩子在內的33名巴勒斯坦平民。數百名巴勒斯坦人遭到以色列軍隊逮捕和拘留，至少有264名巴勒斯坦人以行政拘留之名在未經起訴或審判之狀況下被監禁，有些人甚至被關了兩年多。而關於刑求與虐待的報導也很多，但是調查動作卻很少見。大約有6000名巴勒斯坦人目前仍被關在以色列監獄裡，許多人後來都遭受不公平的軍事審判。在以色列因良心問題而拒服兵役者則持續地遭到收押。
背景
以色列和黎巴嫩邊境地區之關係仍然持續緊張。8月3日，在兩國軍隊的一場交火中，造成至少3名士兵以及1名黎巴嫩記者的死亡。
儘管以色列軍隊與巴勒斯坦武裝團體們大致都能遵守停火協議時，但是後者偶爾仍會向以色列南方隨意地發射火箭砲與迫擊砲（請參閱巴勒斯坦篇），雖然在程度上已經較去年減少，以色列軍隊因此襲擊並且殺害他們認為應為此負責的巴勒斯坦人。8月31日，四名以色列屯墾者在西岸遭到槍殺，於2006年贏得巴勒斯坦大選並且掌管迦薩地區之哈瑪斯的羽翼戰鬥團體Izz al-Din al-Qassam brigades宣稱該攻擊事件為其所為。
9月，美國召集以色列與巴勒斯坦當局（但不包含哈瑪斯）進行談判會議。然而談判很快就中斷了，因為以色列為期10個月於西岸興建屯墾區的局部禁令，在9月26日宣布解除，這使得巴勒斯坦當局退出會談。這項屯墾區的停建禁令並不包含東耶路薩冷及其周邊，此外在西岸為了「安全需要」的建築以及各種公共建設亦同樣有增無減。
封鎖迦薩與人道危機
從2007年6月以來，以色列持續封鎖迦薩走廊，造成當地經濟蕭條，而人民則幾乎是赤貧的狀態。在健康與衛生條件持續惡化、貧窮與營養缺乏的狀態下，有80%的迦薩人被迫依賴國際人道救援，而人道救援過程中卻總是遭到軍事封鎖的阻擾。嚴重的物資短缺狀況造成高物價，這也導致大部分由聯合國提供的診所與學校的重建計畫必須延後，如此一來，原本有資格可在9月份進入聯合國學校就學的4萬民巴勒斯坦孩童將無法如願。
幾乎所有的迦薩人形同被囚困在一個孤立的土地上，在這裡面有許多需要前往它處就醫的重症病患，以及需要到外地求學與工作的學生和勞工，只有極少數人能獲得允許離開迦薩。
5月，以色列軍隊強行攔截試圖進入封鎖圈的國際援助船隻，一共有9個人遭到殺害並且有超過50人受傷，其中幾位傷勢嚴重，另外幾位以色列士兵也受了傷。針對該起攻擊事件，包含兩個由聯合國所執行之幾個調查單位展開調查。9月份，根據聯合國人權委員會（UN Human Rights Council）所公布的調查指出，「由於以色列軍隊廣泛並且隨意地使用致命性武器，造成不必要的大量死亡或嚴重受傷」。一個由以色列政府所指派的調查委員會則缺乏超然性和透明度。
隨著國際社會對於攻擊事件的批評聲浪之增高，以色列政府宣布將部分鬆緩封鎖，然而這樣的舉動依然不足，無法顯著改善迦薩當地之狀況。直到12月8日，以色列持續地禁止迦薩的各種貨物出口；而直到年底，以色列宣布鬆綁出口限制的支票，也遲遲沒有兌現。國際特赦組織認為，封鎖措施已經構成一種集體懲罰，並且違反國際人權法，並且也不斷地呼籲以色列應盡快解除封鎖。
在西岸對人民的各種限制
數以百計的以色列軍事檢查哨和關隘限制了巴勒斯坦人在西岸的活動，他們阻礙或阻止巴勒斯坦人進入工作場所、教育單位、衛生組織以及使用其它公共服務。
2010年底，一個長達七百公里長的隔離牆已經完成將近60%，而整個路線卻有85%是建築在巴勒斯坦的西岸土地之內。該隔離牆造成數千名巴勒斯坦人與他們的農田和水源分隔開來，想要進入東耶路撒冷的西岸巴勒斯坦人，要獲得入境許可證，只能向隔離牆所設置的16個檢查哨中的其中3個檢查哨申請。這對於嘗試要到達東耶路薩冷的六間專門醫院之病患與醫務人員特別造成影響並導致嚴重後果。
以色列持續拒絕巴勒斯坦人前往他們位於以色列屯墾區附近的大片農田，而這些屯墾區的建立與維持都是違反國際法的。以色列人屯墾於約旦河西岸，包括東耶路撒冷在內的人口已超過50萬人。巴勒斯坦人也被禁止或有限制地使用約300公里長、專為以色列移墾者所建設之公路。雖然2010年在以色列移除了一些路障，以及改善巴勒斯坦交通網路後，往來巴勒斯坦大部分城鎮的旅途時間，有了些許改善，特別是北方，但是旅程依然是緩慢而艱辛的。
居住權－強制驅逐
居住在西岸，包括東耶路撒冷的巴勒斯坦人，他們在興建房屋時面臨嚴格限制，也因此居住權受到嚴重侵犯。以色列在西岸，包括東耶路撒冷，進行強制驅逐，其理由是那些房屋並沒有獲得建築許可，然而巴勒斯坦人想要從以色列當局獲得許可證幾乎是不可能的。拆遷團隊在安全人員的陪同下，一般在無事前通知的狀況下抵達，並且幾乎不給家屬機會取出他們的財產。因為以色列的軍法適用於西岸的大部分巴勒斯坦人地區，因此以色列並不需要對迫遷的家庭重新安置或給予補償。而在東耶路撒冷的巴勒斯坦人，儘管受以色列民事當局管理，實際上也沒有受到更好之待遇。2010年，以色列當局在東耶路撒冷和西岸拆毀了431處建築，比2009年的數量高出59％。
至少有594名巴勒斯坦人，其中一半是兒童，在他們的家園遭到以色列當局拆毀後因而流離失所。另外有超過一萬四千名巴勒斯坦人因為蓄水設備、水井和相關建設被摧毀而生計受到影響。
* 位於西岸 Khirbet Tana 村莊的房屋跟建築，遭到以色列軍隊兩次摧毀，該村莊位於約旦谷地西邊一個被宣告為「封閉軍事區」之內。1月10日，他們搗毀了100個居民所居住的房屋、鄉村學校以及12座牲畜圍欄。還有在12月8日，他們摧毀了10戶人家、17個動物遮蔽所以及一所重建的學校。在更之前的2005年，該村莊就已經被摧毀過一次，村民自從1970年代開始都得不到以色列當局的建築許可證，然而位在附近的 Mekhora 和 Itamar 的以色列屯墾區卻早已經建設完成。
至於位在以色列南部境內，居住於Negev（或 Naqab）區域的貝都因人，其房舍被搗毀的數目有顯著的增加。居住在數十個村莊中的數以萬計的貝都因人雖然是以色列公民，但是卻不為以色列當局所正式認可。這些村莊缺乏基礎建設，而居民們也活在房屋隨時會被拆除與被逐出家園的陰影下。
* 在「未被承認」的 Negev 地區的 al-’Araqib村，大約有250名貝都因居民，他們在7月27日至12月23日間，遭到以色列土地管理局和武裝警察共8次的摧毀。每次遭遇摧毀過後，村民就重建臨時避難所。
武力使用過當
以色列安全部隊以過度地武力對付巴勒斯坦平民，包括在西岸和迦薩地帶的非暴力示威者，以及以色列在迦薩或沿海水域所劃定的「禁區」中的農民、漁民和其他勞工。根據聯合國人道事務協調辦公室（UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs） 所指出，2010年期間，在佔領區裡有33名巴勒斯坦平民，其中包括8名兒童，被以色列軍隊殺害。以色列軍隊為了維持在迦薩北部、東部邊界內約1500米寬的「禁區」以及海上禁令，殺害了15名巴勒斯坦平民，其中包括4名兒童，並使100多人受傷。
* 3月20日在約旦河西岸 Iraq Burin 村莊一場示威活動中，因遭受以色列軍隊實彈射擊，兩名巴勒斯坦少年死亡。Muhammed Qadus被子彈擊中胸部，Usaid Qadus被子彈擊中頭部。四月份，根據以色列軍警調查，兩名以色列高級官員在死亡事件後遭到申斥。
* 9月，三名巴勒斯坦牧羊人—91歲的Ibrahim Abu Said、他16歲的孫子Hosam Abu Sa’id，和17歲的Isma’il Abu ‘Oda—在迦薩Beit Hanoun附近的「禁區」放牧時，被以色列的坦克砲彈炸死。以色列當局後來承認，這三名受害者是平民，而不是他們最初所認定的「恐怖分子」，並宣布將對這一事件進行調查，但直到2010年底前並沒有任何結果。
法外免責
以色列士兵、保安部隊成員和屯墾者依舊享有對巴勒斯坦人人道犯行的法外免責，包括非法殺害。屯墾者的暴力行為包括射擊巴勒斯坦人和破壞巴勒斯坦人的財產。僅有少數案例的肇事者被繩之以法。
2010年10月，根據以色列人權組織 B'Tselem 一份針對有罪不罰之情形所做的詳細報告所公布，以色列軍方在2006-2009年殺害了1,510名巴勒斯坦人，這數字並不包含那些在「鑄鉛行動」中遭到殺害的人數。其中有617名亡者，包括104名18歲以下的兒童，並無從事任何具敵意之行動卻仍遭到殺害。B'Tselem呼籲，針對大部分在迦薩走廊發生的148起犯罪，並造成288人死亡的事件進行調查。然而最終只有22起事件受到調查，而且大部分是發生在西岸地區之案件。B'Tselem報告說，事實上只有四次調查是在案發一個月內就展開調查。在兩個調查結案後，並沒有起訴任何涉案的士兵。
鑄鉛行動
雖然以色列軍方正在調查與此行動相關之事件，但是以色列當局仍然沒有依照國際標準超然地針對以色列軍隊在「鑄鉛行動」中所涉嫌的戰爭罪和其他嚴重違反國際法的罪刑展開調查。關於2009年這次衝突，由聯合國所授權的實地調查團發現（戈德史東報告；Goldstone report），以色列軍隊和巴勒斯坦武裝團體都犯下戰爭罪行，和可能違反人道的罪行。
到2010年底，只有三名參與「鑄鉛行動」的以色列士兵被定罪，其中兩名被認定犯有「非授權行為」，命令一名19歲的巴勒斯坦男孩Majed R.充當「人肉盾牌」去打開一個可能是誘敵裝置的袋子。11月，他們被降職並且暫緩三個月的徒刑。
由於雙方皆沒有進行充分調查，國際特赦組織呼籲，希望透過國際仲裁機制來調查此次行動。
由於「鑄鉛行動」造成聯合國建築物受損，以色列在一月份支付聯合國一千零五十萬美元做為賠償。然而，遭到攻擊的受害者，卻沒有得到任何的補償。聯合國表示，這項賠款解決了「鑄鉛行動」所造成的財務損失。但是戈德史東報告中明確建議聯合國在尋求賠償時，除了針對在攻擊事件中於聯合國建築物裡喪生的聯合國人員和平民，也應該要為其他在「鑄鉛行動」中遭到攻擊的平民受害者求償。
司法系統
未經審訊的拘留
以色列持續施行一套「行政拘留」辦法，在未經起訴或審判下，長時間地強制拘留巴勒斯坦人。在2010年至少有264名巴勒斯坦人遭行政拘留，有些人已經被關超過兩年了。
* Moatasem Nazzal，一名16歲來自Ramallah附近Qalandiya難民營的學生，3月20日在沒有任何說明下於自家被逮捕。他被審問時遭到鐐銬。他連續收到三次行政拘留令，這使他待在監獄直到2010年12月26日。
監禁情況—親屬探訪遭拒
約680位巴勒斯坦囚犯的親屬持續被拒絕前往探訪獄中家屬。有些人已經連續三年無法探視家屬，因為以色列對迦薩實施封鎖，禁止迦薩人前往位於以色列境內的監獄。
不公的審判
受制於以色列的軍法制度，佔領區內的巴勒斯坦人接受公平審判的權利仍然遭到嚴重侵犯。他們通常在沒有律師陪同下遭到審訊，並且儘管他們是平民，他們的案子仍是由軍事法庭而非一般法庭審理。
刑求及其他虐待
對於包含兒童在內的刑求及其他虐待的持續指控，常見於許多報導。其中最常被提及的方法包括了毆打、威脅被拘留者或他們的家庭、剝奪睡眠及長時間使其維持在受壓迫的姿勢。據稱，被指控乃是在脅迫下所取得的自白在以色列的軍事和民事法庭裡依然被視為證據。
* A.M，一名15歲、來自Hebron附近的Beit Ummar村莊的巴勒斯坦人，5月26日遭到逮捕，被關在Gush Etzion的拘留中心，在六天的審訊中據稱遭到刑求，而他在「承認」扔石頭後被釋放。他說：「安全官員在他的生殖器上繫上一條電線，並威脅他將遭到電擊」。八月份，兩個非政府組織，一個來自巴勒斯坦，另外一個來自以色列對於該青年所指控的刑求，向以色列警方和軍隊提出控訴。在警方方面，此案以「證據不足」為由結案，軍方則是到2010年年底仍在調查這起控訴。
言論和集會自由
以非暴力方式抗議以色列興建隔離牆而遭到逮捕、審判和監禁的人數明顯地增加。通常有關當局憑藉軍事命令第101條（Military Order 101）—「禁止10人以上的集會，若其行為具有政治目的或者可被解釋為具有政治性的」，除非抗議活動事先獲得以色列軍事指揮官的許可。
* 十月，以色列軍事法庭判處Abdallah Abu Rahma一年監禁。他是一名老師，同時也是西岸Bil'in村反抗隔離牆人民委員會（Popular Committee Against the Wall in the West Bank）的領導者，他被認定犯有「組織和參與非法示威罪」和「煽動罪」。在「投擲石塊」和「擁有武器」之指控上，他則被判定無罪。他是一名良心犯。
* 2010年5月，前核子技術員Mordechai Vanunu被送回監獄三個月，罪名是接觸了外國公民。幾乎是即刻地，他被單獨監禁。他是一個良心犯。他因為揭露以色列的核武能力給一家英國報紙而曾遭到18年的監禁。自從他在2004年獲釋後，仍因受制於軍事命令而持續受警方監督；此一軍事命令每半年會重新更新一次。除此之外，該命令禁止他與外國人交涉或出國。2010年10月，以色列最高法院駁回了取消這些禁令的請願書。
良心犯—以色列的良心反對者
至少有12名良心犯因拒絕服兵役而遭到監禁。
* Shir Regev來自以色列北部Tuval村莊，因拒絕服兵役被監禁過三次，共64天，因為他反對以色列軍事佔領
http://palinfo.habago.org/archives/2011/06/13/12.35.04/index.php?page=1
楊舜斌 譯；李鑑慧 校訂
Date: 2011.06.13
原文出處：國際特赦組織2011年度報告
事件發生期間：2010年1月至12月
國家元首：Shimon Peres
行政首長：Binyamin Netanyahu（3月接替Ehud Olmert）
死刑：一般犯罪免除
人口數：730萬人（以色列）；440萬人（巴勒斯坦佔領區，OPT）
平均壽命：80.3歲（以色列）；72.9歲（巴勒斯坦佔領區，OPT）
五歲以下兒童死亡率：每千名兒童，男6女5（以色列）；男23女18（巴勒斯坦佔領區，OPT）
2009年1月，以色列軍隊與巴勒斯坦武裝團體的停火協議普遍獲得認同。但以色列軍隊持續地在佔領區嚴厲監控巴勒斯坦人的行動自由，包括封鎖迦薩走廊地區，讓當地的150萬人民的生活日益艱困並且形同被監禁。數百名巴勒斯坦重病患申請前往迦薩境外接受特殊醫療照護，卻遭到以色列當局拒絕或延遲，許多病患因此而死亡。大部分的迦薩居民皆仰賴國際援助才得以生存，然而以色列的軍事封鎖卻嚴重阻擾各界的國際援助。5月，以色列軍隊在國際海域上，攻擊一艘試圖進入迦薩封鎖圈的國際援助船隻，並且殺害了9人。
在約旦河西岸，由於以色列所設置的數百個檢查哨、關隘，並且持續地在西岸內築起長達700公里的隔離牆，導致巴勒斯坦人的行動自由嚴重受到限制。巴勒斯坦人的住家、蓄水池、建築物遭受以色列政府破壞的數目有顯著的增加，數以千計的居民生活都受到影響。以色列政府並且摧毀位於以色列南部的貝都因人村落。以色列藉由非法佔領巴人土地來擴張其屯墾區，部分土地直到去年9月26號才重新獲得使用。
以色列依然沒有對於該國軍隊在「鑄鉛行動」襲擊中，涉嫌多起戰爭罪和其他嚴重違反國際法的行為進行適當地調查。從2008年12月至2009年1月，在以色列軍隊「鑄鉛行動」22天的襲擊侵略中，造成約1400名巴勒斯坦人喪生，其中有超過300名是孩童。以色列士兵與移墾者，針對巴勒斯坦人及其財產所犯下的嚴重侵犯，包括非法殺人和襲擊，但以色列政府通常都不追究他們的罪行。
以色列軍隊在巴勒斯坦佔領區(OPT)殺害了包括八個孩子在內的33名巴勒斯坦平民。數百名巴勒斯坦人遭到以色列軍隊逮捕和拘留，至少有264名巴勒斯坦人以行政拘留之名在未經起訴或審判之狀況下被監禁，有些人甚至被關了兩年多。而關於刑求與虐待的報導也很多，但是調查動作卻很少見。大約有6000名巴勒斯坦人目前仍被關在以色列監獄裡，許多人後來都遭受不公平的軍事審判。在以色列因良心問題而拒服兵役者則持續地遭到收押。
背景
以色列和黎巴嫩邊境地區之關係仍然持續緊張。8月3日，在兩國軍隊的一場交火中，造成至少3名士兵以及1名黎巴嫩記者的死亡。
儘管以色列軍隊與巴勒斯坦武裝團體們大致都能遵守停火協議時，但是後者偶爾仍會向以色列南方隨意地發射火箭砲與迫擊砲（請參閱巴勒斯坦篇），雖然在程度上已經較去年減少，以色列軍隊因此襲擊並且殺害他們認為應為此負責的巴勒斯坦人。8月31日，四名以色列屯墾者在西岸遭到槍殺，於2006年贏得巴勒斯坦大選並且掌管迦薩地區之哈瑪斯的羽翼戰鬥團體Izz al-Din al-Qassam brigades宣稱該攻擊事件為其所為。
9月，美國召集以色列與巴勒斯坦當局（但不包含哈瑪斯）進行談判會議。然而談判很快就中斷了，因為以色列為期10個月於西岸興建屯墾區的局部禁令，在9月26日宣布解除，這使得巴勒斯坦當局退出會談。這項屯墾區的停建禁令並不包含東耶路薩冷及其周邊，此外在西岸為了「安全需要」的建築以及各種公共建設亦同樣有增無減。
封鎖迦薩與人道危機
從2007年6月以來，以色列持續封鎖迦薩走廊，造成當地經濟蕭條，而人民則幾乎是赤貧的狀態。在健康與衛生條件持續惡化、貧窮與營養缺乏的狀態下，有80%的迦薩人被迫依賴國際人道救援，而人道救援過程中卻總是遭到軍事封鎖的阻擾。嚴重的物資短缺狀況造成高物價，這也導致大部分由聯合國提供的診所與學校的重建計畫必須延後，如此一來，原本有資格可在9月份進入聯合國學校就學的4萬民巴勒斯坦孩童將無法如願。
幾乎所有的迦薩人形同被囚困在一個孤立的土地上，在這裡面有許多需要前往它處就醫的重症病患，以及需要到外地求學與工作的學生和勞工，只有極少數人能獲得允許離開迦薩。
5月，以色列軍隊強行攔截試圖進入封鎖圈的國際援助船隻，一共有9個人遭到殺害並且有超過50人受傷，其中幾位傷勢嚴重，另外幾位以色列士兵也受了傷。針對該起攻擊事件，包含兩個由聯合國所執行之幾個調查單位展開調查。9月份，根據聯合國人權委員會（UN Human Rights Council）所公布的調查指出，「由於以色列軍隊廣泛並且隨意地使用致命性武器，造成不必要的大量死亡或嚴重受傷」。一個由以色列政府所指派的調查委員會則缺乏超然性和透明度。
隨著國際社會對於攻擊事件的批評聲浪之增高，以色列政府宣布將部分鬆緩封鎖，然而這樣的舉動依然不足，無法顯著改善迦薩當地之狀況。直到12月8日，以色列持續地禁止迦薩的各種貨物出口；而直到年底，以色列宣布鬆綁出口限制的支票，也遲遲沒有兌現。國際特赦組織認為，封鎖措施已經構成一種集體懲罰，並且違反國際人權法，並且也不斷地呼籲以色列應盡快解除封鎖。
在西岸對人民的各種限制
數以百計的以色列軍事檢查哨和關隘限制了巴勒斯坦人在西岸的活動，他們阻礙或阻止巴勒斯坦人進入工作場所、教育單位、衛生組織以及使用其它公共服務。
2010年底，一個長達七百公里長的隔離牆已經完成將近60%，而整個路線卻有85%是建築在巴勒斯坦的西岸土地之內。該隔離牆造成數千名巴勒斯坦人與他們的農田和水源分隔開來，想要進入東耶路撒冷的西岸巴勒斯坦人，要獲得入境許可證，只能向隔離牆所設置的16個檢查哨中的其中3個檢查哨申請。這對於嘗試要到達東耶路薩冷的六間專門醫院之病患與醫務人員特別造成影響並導致嚴重後果。
以色列持續拒絕巴勒斯坦人前往他們位於以色列屯墾區附近的大片農田，而這些屯墾區的建立與維持都是違反國際法的。以色列人屯墾於約旦河西岸，包括東耶路撒冷在內的人口已超過50萬人。巴勒斯坦人也被禁止或有限制地使用約300公里長、專為以色列移墾者所建設之公路。雖然2010年在以色列移除了一些路障，以及改善巴勒斯坦交通網路後，往來巴勒斯坦大部分城鎮的旅途時間，有了些許改善，特別是北方，但是旅程依然是緩慢而艱辛的。
居住權－強制驅逐
居住在西岸，包括東耶路撒冷的巴勒斯坦人，他們在興建房屋時面臨嚴格限制，也因此居住權受到嚴重侵犯。以色列在西岸，包括東耶路撒冷，進行強制驅逐，其理由是那些房屋並沒有獲得建築許可，然而巴勒斯坦人想要從以色列當局獲得許可證幾乎是不可能的。拆遷團隊在安全人員的陪同下，一般在無事前通知的狀況下抵達，並且幾乎不給家屬機會取出他們的財產。因為以色列的軍法適用於西岸的大部分巴勒斯坦人地區，因此以色列並不需要對迫遷的家庭重新安置或給予補償。而在東耶路撒冷的巴勒斯坦人，儘管受以色列民事當局管理，實際上也沒有受到更好之待遇。2010年，以色列當局在東耶路撒冷和西岸拆毀了431處建築，比2009年的數量高出59％。
至少有594名巴勒斯坦人，其中一半是兒童，在他們的家園遭到以色列當局拆毀後因而流離失所。另外有超過一萬四千名巴勒斯坦人因為蓄水設備、水井和相關建設被摧毀而生計受到影響。
* 位於西岸 Khirbet Tana 村莊的房屋跟建築，遭到以色列軍隊兩次摧毀，該村莊位於約旦谷地西邊一個被宣告為「封閉軍事區」之內。1月10日，他們搗毀了100個居民所居住的房屋、鄉村學校以及12座牲畜圍欄。還有在12月8日，他們摧毀了10戶人家、17個動物遮蔽所以及一所重建的學校。在更之前的2005年，該村莊就已經被摧毀過一次，村民自從1970年代開始都得不到以色列當局的建築許可證，然而位在附近的 Mekhora 和 Itamar 的以色列屯墾區卻早已經建設完成。
至於位在以色列南部境內，居住於Negev（或 Naqab）區域的貝都因人，其房舍被搗毀的數目有顯著的增加。居住在數十個村莊中的數以萬計的貝都因人雖然是以色列公民，但是卻不為以色列當局所正式認可。這些村莊缺乏基礎建設，而居民們也活在房屋隨時會被拆除與被逐出家園的陰影下。
* 在「未被承認」的 Negev 地區的 al-’Araqib村，大約有250名貝都因居民，他們在7月27日至12月23日間，遭到以色列土地管理局和武裝警察共8次的摧毀。每次遭遇摧毀過後，村民就重建臨時避難所。
武力使用過當
以色列安全部隊以過度地武力對付巴勒斯坦平民，包括在西岸和迦薩地帶的非暴力示威者，以及以色列在迦薩或沿海水域所劃定的「禁區」中的農民、漁民和其他勞工。根據聯合國人道事務協調辦公室（UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs） 所指出，2010年期間，在佔領區裡有33名巴勒斯坦平民，其中包括8名兒童，被以色列軍隊殺害。以色列軍隊為了維持在迦薩北部、東部邊界內約1500米寬的「禁區」以及海上禁令，殺害了15名巴勒斯坦平民，其中包括4名兒童，並使100多人受傷。
* 3月20日在約旦河西岸 Iraq Burin 村莊一場示威活動中，因遭受以色列軍隊實彈射擊，兩名巴勒斯坦少年死亡。Muhammed Qadus被子彈擊中胸部，Usaid Qadus被子彈擊中頭部。四月份，根據以色列軍警調查，兩名以色列高級官員在死亡事件後遭到申斥。
* 9月，三名巴勒斯坦牧羊人—91歲的Ibrahim Abu Said、他16歲的孫子Hosam Abu Sa’id，和17歲的Isma’il Abu ‘Oda—在迦薩Beit Hanoun附近的「禁區」放牧時，被以色列的坦克砲彈炸死。以色列當局後來承認，這三名受害者是平民，而不是他們最初所認定的「恐怖分子」，並宣布將對這一事件進行調查，但直到2010年底前並沒有任何結果。
法外免責
以色列士兵、保安部隊成員和屯墾者依舊享有對巴勒斯坦人人道犯行的法外免責，包括非法殺害。屯墾者的暴力行為包括射擊巴勒斯坦人和破壞巴勒斯坦人的財產。僅有少數案例的肇事者被繩之以法。
2010年10月，根據以色列人權組織 B'Tselem 一份針對有罪不罰之情形所做的詳細報告所公布，以色列軍方在2006-2009年殺害了1,510名巴勒斯坦人，這數字並不包含那些在「鑄鉛行動」中遭到殺害的人數。其中有617名亡者，包括104名18歲以下的兒童，並無從事任何具敵意之行動卻仍遭到殺害。B'Tselem呼籲，針對大部分在迦薩走廊發生的148起犯罪，並造成288人死亡的事件進行調查。然而最終只有22起事件受到調查，而且大部分是發生在西岸地區之案件。B'Tselem報告說，事實上只有四次調查是在案發一個月內就展開調查。在兩個調查結案後，並沒有起訴任何涉案的士兵。
鑄鉛行動
雖然以色列軍方正在調查與此行動相關之事件，但是以色列當局仍然沒有依照國際標準超然地針對以色列軍隊在「鑄鉛行動」中所涉嫌的戰爭罪和其他嚴重違反國際法的罪刑展開調查。關於2009年這次衝突，由聯合國所授權的實地調查團發現（戈德史東報告；Goldstone report），以色列軍隊和巴勒斯坦武裝團體都犯下戰爭罪行，和可能違反人道的罪行。
到2010年底，只有三名參與「鑄鉛行動」的以色列士兵被定罪，其中兩名被認定犯有「非授權行為」，命令一名19歲的巴勒斯坦男孩Majed R.充當「人肉盾牌」去打開一個可能是誘敵裝置的袋子。11月，他們被降職並且暫緩三個月的徒刑。
由於雙方皆沒有進行充分調查，國際特赦組織呼籲，希望透過國際仲裁機制來調查此次行動。
由於「鑄鉛行動」造成聯合國建築物受損，以色列在一月份支付聯合國一千零五十萬美元做為賠償。然而，遭到攻擊的受害者，卻沒有得到任何的補償。聯合國表示，這項賠款解決了「鑄鉛行動」所造成的財務損失。但是戈德史東報告中明確建議聯合國在尋求賠償時，除了針對在攻擊事件中於聯合國建築物裡喪生的聯合國人員和平民，也應該要為其他在「鑄鉛行動」中遭到攻擊的平民受害者求償。
司法系統
未經審訊的拘留
以色列持續施行一套「行政拘留」辦法，在未經起訴或審判下，長時間地強制拘留巴勒斯坦人。在2010年至少有264名巴勒斯坦人遭行政拘留，有些人已經被關超過兩年了。
* Moatasem Nazzal，一名16歲來自Ramallah附近Qalandiya難民營的學生，3月20日在沒有任何說明下於自家被逮捕。他被審問時遭到鐐銬。他連續收到三次行政拘留令，這使他待在監獄直到2010年12月26日。
監禁情況—親屬探訪遭拒
約680位巴勒斯坦囚犯的親屬持續被拒絕前往探訪獄中家屬。有些人已經連續三年無法探視家屬，因為以色列對迦薩實施封鎖，禁止迦薩人前往位於以色列境內的監獄。
不公的審判
受制於以色列的軍法制度，佔領區內的巴勒斯坦人接受公平審判的權利仍然遭到嚴重侵犯。他們通常在沒有律師陪同下遭到審訊，並且儘管他們是平民，他們的案子仍是由軍事法庭而非一般法庭審理。
刑求及其他虐待
對於包含兒童在內的刑求及其他虐待的持續指控，常見於許多報導。其中最常被提及的方法包括了毆打、威脅被拘留者或他們的家庭、剝奪睡眠及長時間使其維持在受壓迫的姿勢。據稱，被指控乃是在脅迫下所取得的自白在以色列的軍事和民事法庭裡依然被視為證據。
* A.M，一名15歲、來自Hebron附近的Beit Ummar村莊的巴勒斯坦人，5月26日遭到逮捕，被關在Gush Etzion的拘留中心，在六天的審訊中據稱遭到刑求，而他在「承認」扔石頭後被釋放。他說：「安全官員在他的生殖器上繫上一條電線，並威脅他將遭到電擊」。八月份，兩個非政府組織，一個來自巴勒斯坦，另外一個來自以色列對於該青年所指控的刑求，向以色列警方和軍隊提出控訴。在警方方面，此案以「證據不足」為由結案，軍方則是到2010年年底仍在調查這起控訴。
言論和集會自由
以非暴力方式抗議以色列興建隔離牆而遭到逮捕、審判和監禁的人數明顯地增加。通常有關當局憑藉軍事命令第101條（Military Order 101）—「禁止10人以上的集會，若其行為具有政治目的或者可被解釋為具有政治性的」，除非抗議活動事先獲得以色列軍事指揮官的許可。
* 十月，以色列軍事法庭判處Abdallah Abu Rahma一年監禁。他是一名老師，同時也是西岸Bil'in村反抗隔離牆人民委員會（Popular Committee Against the Wall in the West Bank）的領導者，他被認定犯有「組織和參與非法示威罪」和「煽動罪」。在「投擲石塊」和「擁有武器」之指控上，他則被判定無罪。他是一名良心犯。
* 2010年5月，前核子技術員Mordechai Vanunu被送回監獄三個月，罪名是接觸了外國公民。幾乎是即刻地，他被單獨監禁。他是一個良心犯。他因為揭露以色列的核武能力給一家英國報紙而曾遭到18年的監禁。自從他在2004年獲釋後，仍因受制於軍事命令而持續受警方監督；此一軍事命令每半年會重新更新一次。除此之外，該命令禁止他與外國人交涉或出國。2010年10月，以色列最高法院駁回了取消這些禁令的請願書。
良心犯—以色列的良心反對者
至少有12名良心犯因拒絕服兵役而遭到監禁。
* Shir Regev來自以色列北部Tuval村莊，因拒絕服兵役被監禁過三次，共64天，因為他反對以色列軍事佔領
2011年8月27日 星期六
國際特赦組織年度報告(2011) - 巴勒斯坦當局
轉貼來源: 紀念若雪巴勒斯坦資訊網Palestine Information Website
http://palinfo.habago.org/archives/2011/06/13/12.17.24/
湯智巽 譯；Liz Lai校訂
Date: 2011.06.13
原文出處：國際特赦組織2011年度報告
事件發生期間：2010年1月至12月
巴勒斯坦當局元首: Mahmoud Abbas
自治政府首相: Salam Fayyad
死刑存廢: 保留
人口數: 440萬人
平均壽命: 73.9歲
五歲以下幼兒死亡率: 每千名兒童，男23女18
成人識字率: 94.1%
當迦薩執政的哈瑪斯肆意拘禁與法塔聯繫的人民時，西岸由法塔掌控的巴勒斯坦當局，也同樣任由安全部隊拘禁與哈瑪斯通聯的人民。在雙方的拘禁行動中，人們被施以酷刑及慘無人道的虐待，而施行者卻可獲得法外免責。雙方都對人民的言論與結社的自由進行箝制。在迦薩，至少有11人被判死刑，5人的判決被執行，這是自2005年以來首度執行的死刑。在迦薩走廊，150萬居民的人道危機隨著以軍在佔領區的封鎖與國際間對執政的哈瑪斯所實施的制裁而不斷惡化。
背景
約旦河西岸、東耶路薩冷與迦薩走廊皆處於以色列的佔領之下，但有兩個獨立的非國家巴勒斯坦當局各自以其有限的權力運作著。西岸是臨時巴勒斯坦自治政府，由法塔掌管，總理為Salam Fayyad，迦薩則由前巴勒斯坦當局總理Isma’il Haniyeh所領導的哈瑪斯執政。雙方關係至今依然緊張。
自2009年一月起，附屬於哈瑪斯的武裝團體，大致上和以色列維持著非正式的停火協議。但其他的巴人武裝團體仍零星地對以色列南部以無特定射擊目標的方式發射火箭及迫擊砲。
巴勒斯坦當局仍是國際承認的巴人代表機構，9月時並參與了一系列由美國所發起的新的雙邊會談，目的在與以色列就屯墾區的問題做政治協商。但此次會談終於破局，因為除了東耶路撒冷之外，以色列拒絕延長在西岸屯墾區的停建計畫。所有的協商，哈瑪斯均被排除在外。
以色列持續控制著迦薩的邊界與空域，並擴大管制西岸的出入境。以色列對迦薩的軍事封鎖嚴重地影響當地居民的生計，使當地的人道危機更加惡化，其中約80%的迦薩人民需仰賴國際人道救援組織提供的物資度日。迦薩人民的出入境均受到嚴格控管與限制，即使是重症患者也無法順利出境尋求迦薩境內無法獲得的專業醫療。持續而廣泛的進口限制，除了以方在6月及12月實施的「寬鬆政策」外，已為糧食安全、健康及當地建設帶來嚴重的衝擊。對迦薩人民的封鎖行動構成了集體懲罰，此舉違反了國際人道法。迦薩通往埃及的地下道是人民走私民生用品的管道，因以軍對該地進行的空襲、地道本身的崩壞及其他事故，導致46人死亡及89人受傷。
有數個拉丁美洲國家正式承認巴勒斯坦以其1967年的邊界為一獨立國家。
哈瑪斯軍隊與其他巴人武裝團體在「鑄鉛行動」時遭指稱犯下戰爭罪與危害人類罪，但哈瑪斯當局並無致力調查；該行動是以色列所發動、為期22天的軍事攻擊，結束於2009年1月18日。
2009年9月，聯合國真相調查團的報告建議給予以色列與巴勒斯坦有關當局6個月的時間，用來調查並起訴這場衝突中的戰爭罪犯。哈瑪斯執政當局在2月提交聯合國的報告中，否認巴人武裝團體以平民為目標進行攻擊。7月，由哈瑪斯所指派的調查委員會在另一份報告中指出：並無「可靠的證據」能起訴那些被指稱蓄意攻擊以色列平民的人。
哈瑪斯仍一再拒絕被俘虜的以色列士兵Gilad Shalit與「紅十字會國際委員會」（ICRC）接觸，也拒絕其家人探視。該名士兵在2006年6月被俘。
任意逮捕與拘禁
在西岸的巴勒斯坦安全部隊任意逮捕及監禁疑似支持哈瑪斯的人民，而迦薩的哈瑪斯安全部隊也以同樣方式對待疑似支持法塔者。雙方的執政當局都放任其安全部隊濫權，包括非法逮捕、拘禁、刑求與虐待犯法的人民，且給予上述行為法外免責權。「獨立人權委員會」（ICHR） 的報告指出，他們於西岸地區收到了超過1400件任意逮捕的投訴案件，迦薩地區有300件以上。
刑求與其他虐待情事
據傳安全部隊與警察對被拘禁者有刑求與虐待的情事，犯行主要來自於西岸巴勒斯坦當局的「預防性安全部隊」（Preventive Security force） 與「情報總局」，以及迦薩的「內部安全機構」（Internal Security）。「獨立人權委員會」（ICHR） 指出，其在西岸受理遭到巴勒斯坦當局刑求或虐待的投訴案件超過150件，在迦薩，受害於哈瑪斯的則超過200件案例。以下是2009年案例的最新報告。
在西岸與迦薩，犯下刑求與虐待情事者皆享有法律免責權。在一極罕見的獲起訴案件中，有5名「情報總局」成員在2010年被控涉及2009年Haitham Amr在羈押中死亡的案件，但軍事法庭判他們無罪。
* Mohammed Baraka Abdel-Aziz Abu-Moailek在迦薩被「內部安全機構」（Internal Security）的人員刑求，他在2009年4月以疑似以「通敵(以色列)」為名遭到逮捕，隨後遭斷絕對外通聯長達50天。他表示曾遭到電擊刑求、打腳底板、香菸燙傷及受到死亡威脅以迫其認罪。直到2010年底，他仍被拘禁與審問。
* 一位機械工Ahmed Salheb於9月遭到巴勒斯坦安全人員逮捕，隨後遭到刑求。安全人員稱其涉嫌勾結哈瑪斯。他說他在一個極度痛苦不適的姿勢下被長時間緊緊捆綁，這使得再先前受到安全人員酷刑所造成的背傷嚴重惡化。10月，他被無罪釋放。
在迦薩，一人在拘禁中遭警察毆打致死。
* 1月1日，迦薩的Nazira Jaddou’a al-Sweirki遭警察重擊背部與接續的毆打後隨即死亡。她的三個成年的兒子都遭毆打，其中兩個更以涉嫌支持法塔遭拘禁。
司法體系
在西岸，保安機構並未遵守法庭命令釋放被拘禁者。巴勒斯坦當局持續禁止前司法人員及警察到迦薩為哈瑪斯工作，而迦薩的哈瑪斯當局則繼續自行任用缺乏適當訓練、資格不符且不具司法獨立精神的檢察官及法官。
死刑
在迦薩，至少11人被「軍事及犯罪法庭」宣判死刑，其中5人在死刑執行前並沒有經過符合國際公平標準的審判，當中2人在4月間因以「通敵(以色列)」入罪，3人於5月間被判謀殺定讞。
言論及結社自由
西岸的巴勒斯坦當局與迦薩的哈瑪斯當局都持續嚴密地箝制言論自由，並且騷擾記者、部落客及評論家，甚至起訴他們。
* 10月31日，一位部落客Walid al-Husayin在西岸的Qalqilya遭「情報總局」拘禁。他在部落格裡張貼的文章被懷疑倡導無神論及批評伊斯蘭和其他宗教；直到年底，仍未獲得釋放。
* 2月，一名英籍記者Paul Martin在設法幫助一名遭指控「通敵(以色列)」的人民之後被逮捕。最初他被控為以色列的間諜，但在拘禁25日後無罪釋放。
哈瑪斯與巴勒斯坦當局箝制人們的結社自由，兩者都阻撓伊斯蘭團體Hizb ut-Tahrir的聚會，強制驅離和平抗議者，並限制其他政黨與民間組織的活動。
* 8月25號，在Ramallah的一場和平抗議被安全人員強制驅散，當時的訴求為反對巴勒斯坦當局與以色列開啟新的和平對話。在場的許多記者、攝影師、人權觀察者也都受到襲擊。
* 自5月31日起，一個在拉法（Rafah）地區宣導家庭計畫的民間組織，「南方婦女健康協會」（South Society for Women’s Health），據報被哈瑪斯當局強制關閉了3週，之後僅能在其內政部的監督下重新運作。另外兩個在拉法（Rafah）的婦女團體也同時被強制關閉。
*「Sharek青年論壇」（Sharek Youth Forum）是一個由「聯合國發展計畫」（UN Development Programme） 資助的民間組織，運作於西岸與迦薩走廊。該論壇自11月30日起即被通知暫時關閉，隨之而來的是哈瑪斯當局為期數月的騷擾。直到2010年底，其迦薩地區的辦公室仍被關閉。
武裝團體的暴行
與「法塔」、「伊斯蘭聖戰」（Islamic Jihad） 和「解放巴勒斯坦人民陣線」（Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine） 有關的武裝團體，在3月18日向以色列南部以無特定射擊目標的方式發射了若干火箭與迫擊砲，造成一位泰國移民工死亡，並危及其他人的生命安全。火箭發射的數量較過去幾年減少很多。以軍亦對這些攻擊者發動反擊。
5月及6月間，一名身分不明的持槍巴人將聯合國近東巴勒斯坦難民救濟工作署（UNRWA，UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East） 的設施燒毀，那是夏日兒童遊戲計畫所使用的設備。
8月31日，就在美國所發起的新的雙邊對話前夕，有四名以色列人在西岸的以色列屯墾區Kiryat Arba附近被殺，包含一名孕婦。隔天，又兩名以色列人在另一個屯墾區Kochav Hashachar附近遭槍擊受傷。哈瑪斯的羽翼戰鬥團體，Izz al-Din al-Qassam旅，聲稱犯下這兩起攻擊事件。
http://palinfo.habago.org/archives/2011/06/13/12.17.24/
湯智巽 譯；Liz Lai校訂
Date: 2011.06.13
原文出處：國際特赦組織2011年度報告
事件發生期間：2010年1月至12月
巴勒斯坦當局元首: Mahmoud Abbas
自治政府首相: Salam Fayyad
死刑存廢: 保留
人口數: 440萬人
平均壽命: 73.9歲
五歲以下幼兒死亡率: 每千名兒童，男23女18
成人識字率: 94.1%
當迦薩執政的哈瑪斯肆意拘禁與法塔聯繫的人民時，西岸由法塔掌控的巴勒斯坦當局，也同樣任由安全部隊拘禁與哈瑪斯通聯的人民。在雙方的拘禁行動中，人們被施以酷刑及慘無人道的虐待，而施行者卻可獲得法外免責。雙方都對人民的言論與結社的自由進行箝制。在迦薩，至少有11人被判死刑，5人的判決被執行，這是自2005年以來首度執行的死刑。在迦薩走廊，150萬居民的人道危機隨著以軍在佔領區的封鎖與國際間對執政的哈瑪斯所實施的制裁而不斷惡化。
背景
約旦河西岸、東耶路薩冷與迦薩走廊皆處於以色列的佔領之下，但有兩個獨立的非國家巴勒斯坦當局各自以其有限的權力運作著。西岸是臨時巴勒斯坦自治政府，由法塔掌管，總理為Salam Fayyad，迦薩則由前巴勒斯坦當局總理Isma’il Haniyeh所領導的哈瑪斯執政。雙方關係至今依然緊張。
自2009年一月起，附屬於哈瑪斯的武裝團體，大致上和以色列維持著非正式的停火協議。但其他的巴人武裝團體仍零星地對以色列南部以無特定射擊目標的方式發射火箭及迫擊砲。
巴勒斯坦當局仍是國際承認的巴人代表機構，9月時並參與了一系列由美國所發起的新的雙邊會談，目的在與以色列就屯墾區的問題做政治協商。但此次會談終於破局，因為除了東耶路撒冷之外，以色列拒絕延長在西岸屯墾區的停建計畫。所有的協商，哈瑪斯均被排除在外。
以色列持續控制著迦薩的邊界與空域，並擴大管制西岸的出入境。以色列對迦薩的軍事封鎖嚴重地影響當地居民的生計，使當地的人道危機更加惡化，其中約80%的迦薩人民需仰賴國際人道救援組織提供的物資度日。迦薩人民的出入境均受到嚴格控管與限制，即使是重症患者也無法順利出境尋求迦薩境內無法獲得的專業醫療。持續而廣泛的進口限制，除了以方在6月及12月實施的「寬鬆政策」外，已為糧食安全、健康及當地建設帶來嚴重的衝擊。對迦薩人民的封鎖行動構成了集體懲罰，此舉違反了國際人道法。迦薩通往埃及的地下道是人民走私民生用品的管道，因以軍對該地進行的空襲、地道本身的崩壞及其他事故，導致46人死亡及89人受傷。
有數個拉丁美洲國家正式承認巴勒斯坦以其1967年的邊界為一獨立國家。
哈瑪斯軍隊與其他巴人武裝團體在「鑄鉛行動」時遭指稱犯下戰爭罪與危害人類罪，但哈瑪斯當局並無致力調查；該行動是以色列所發動、為期22天的軍事攻擊，結束於2009年1月18日。
2009年9月，聯合國真相調查團的報告建議給予以色列與巴勒斯坦有關當局6個月的時間，用來調查並起訴這場衝突中的戰爭罪犯。哈瑪斯執政當局在2月提交聯合國的報告中，否認巴人武裝團體以平民為目標進行攻擊。7月，由哈瑪斯所指派的調查委員會在另一份報告中指出：並無「可靠的證據」能起訴那些被指稱蓄意攻擊以色列平民的人。
哈瑪斯仍一再拒絕被俘虜的以色列士兵Gilad Shalit與「紅十字會國際委員會」（ICRC）接觸，也拒絕其家人探視。該名士兵在2006年6月被俘。
任意逮捕與拘禁
在西岸的巴勒斯坦安全部隊任意逮捕及監禁疑似支持哈瑪斯的人民，而迦薩的哈瑪斯安全部隊也以同樣方式對待疑似支持法塔者。雙方的執政當局都放任其安全部隊濫權，包括非法逮捕、拘禁、刑求與虐待犯法的人民，且給予上述行為法外免責權。「獨立人權委員會」（ICHR） 的報告指出，他們於西岸地區收到了超過1400件任意逮捕的投訴案件，迦薩地區有300件以上。
刑求與其他虐待情事
據傳安全部隊與警察對被拘禁者有刑求與虐待的情事，犯行主要來自於西岸巴勒斯坦當局的「預防性安全部隊」（Preventive Security force） 與「情報總局」，以及迦薩的「內部安全機構」（Internal Security）。「獨立人權委員會」（ICHR） 指出，其在西岸受理遭到巴勒斯坦當局刑求或虐待的投訴案件超過150件，在迦薩，受害於哈瑪斯的則超過200件案例。以下是2009年案例的最新報告。
在西岸與迦薩，犯下刑求與虐待情事者皆享有法律免責權。在一極罕見的獲起訴案件中，有5名「情報總局」成員在2010年被控涉及2009年Haitham Amr在羈押中死亡的案件，但軍事法庭判他們無罪。
* Mohammed Baraka Abdel-Aziz Abu-Moailek在迦薩被「內部安全機構」（Internal Security）的人員刑求，他在2009年4月以疑似以「通敵(以色列)」為名遭到逮捕，隨後遭斷絕對外通聯長達50天。他表示曾遭到電擊刑求、打腳底板、香菸燙傷及受到死亡威脅以迫其認罪。直到2010年底，他仍被拘禁與審問。
* 一位機械工Ahmed Salheb於9月遭到巴勒斯坦安全人員逮捕，隨後遭到刑求。安全人員稱其涉嫌勾結哈瑪斯。他說他在一個極度痛苦不適的姿勢下被長時間緊緊捆綁，這使得再先前受到安全人員酷刑所造成的背傷嚴重惡化。10月，他被無罪釋放。
在迦薩，一人在拘禁中遭警察毆打致死。
* 1月1日，迦薩的Nazira Jaddou’a al-Sweirki遭警察重擊背部與接續的毆打後隨即死亡。她的三個成年的兒子都遭毆打，其中兩個更以涉嫌支持法塔遭拘禁。
司法體系
在西岸，保安機構並未遵守法庭命令釋放被拘禁者。巴勒斯坦當局持續禁止前司法人員及警察到迦薩為哈瑪斯工作，而迦薩的哈瑪斯當局則繼續自行任用缺乏適當訓練、資格不符且不具司法獨立精神的檢察官及法官。
死刑
在迦薩，至少11人被「軍事及犯罪法庭」宣判死刑，其中5人在死刑執行前並沒有經過符合國際公平標準的審判，當中2人在4月間因以「通敵(以色列)」入罪，3人於5月間被判謀殺定讞。
言論及結社自由
西岸的巴勒斯坦當局與迦薩的哈瑪斯當局都持續嚴密地箝制言論自由，並且騷擾記者、部落客及評論家，甚至起訴他們。
* 10月31日，一位部落客Walid al-Husayin在西岸的Qalqilya遭「情報總局」拘禁。他在部落格裡張貼的文章被懷疑倡導無神論及批評伊斯蘭和其他宗教；直到年底，仍未獲得釋放。
* 2月，一名英籍記者Paul Martin在設法幫助一名遭指控「通敵(以色列)」的人民之後被逮捕。最初他被控為以色列的間諜，但在拘禁25日後無罪釋放。
哈瑪斯與巴勒斯坦當局箝制人們的結社自由，兩者都阻撓伊斯蘭團體Hizb ut-Tahrir的聚會，強制驅離和平抗議者，並限制其他政黨與民間組織的活動。
* 8月25號，在Ramallah的一場和平抗議被安全人員強制驅散，當時的訴求為反對巴勒斯坦當局與以色列開啟新的和平對話。在場的許多記者、攝影師、人權觀察者也都受到襲擊。
* 自5月31日起，一個在拉法（Rafah）地區宣導家庭計畫的民間組織，「南方婦女健康協會」（South Society for Women’s Health），據報被哈瑪斯當局強制關閉了3週，之後僅能在其內政部的監督下重新運作。另外兩個在拉法（Rafah）的婦女團體也同時被強制關閉。
*「Sharek青年論壇」（Sharek Youth Forum）是一個由「聯合國發展計畫」（UN Development Programme） 資助的民間組織，運作於西岸與迦薩走廊。該論壇自11月30日起即被通知暫時關閉，隨之而來的是哈瑪斯當局為期數月的騷擾。直到2010年底，其迦薩地區的辦公室仍被關閉。
武裝團體的暴行
與「法塔」、「伊斯蘭聖戰」（Islamic Jihad） 和「解放巴勒斯坦人民陣線」（Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine） 有關的武裝團體，在3月18日向以色列南部以無特定射擊目標的方式發射了若干火箭與迫擊砲，造成一位泰國移民工死亡，並危及其他人的生命安全。火箭發射的數量較過去幾年減少很多。以軍亦對這些攻擊者發動反擊。
5月及6月間，一名身分不明的持槍巴人將聯合國近東巴勒斯坦難民救濟工作署（UNRWA，UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East） 的設施燒毀，那是夏日兒童遊戲計畫所使用的設備。
8月31日，就在美國所發起的新的雙邊對話前夕，有四名以色列人在西岸的以色列屯墾區Kiryat Arba附近被殺，包含一名孕婦。隔天，又兩名以色列人在另一個屯墾區Kochav Hashachar附近遭槍擊受傷。哈瑪斯的羽翼戰鬥團體，Izz al-Din al-Qassam旅，聲稱犯下這兩起攻擊事件。
2011年8月5日 星期五
Village fights for survival
source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/inpictures/2011/07/2011719151145851623.html
Wadi Fukin village, which sits just west of Bethlehem along the 1967 border, was destroyed when the Israeli army dynamited much of the town during and in the years following the 1948 war, and then rebuilt when residents returned almost 20 years later. It was the only time, as far as many Palestinians can recall, that residents rebuilt a town destroyed in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. Now the town's 1,200 residents are facing what many fear could be its second death. The neighbouring Beitar Illit settlement has the highest birthrate of any settlement in the occupied West Bank and currently houses more than 40,000 Israeli settlers. The expanding settlement, deemed illegal under international law, continues to take more of Wadi Fukin's land.
Ironically, it is often the men from Wadi Fukin who run the jackhammers and build the settlement's multi-story homes. Land confiscation, along with cheap Israeli produce that has flooded the Palestinian markets, is putting farmers in this verdant valley out of business and pushing them into construction jobs within the settlement. Under the proposed route of the Israeli wall, Wadi Fukin will eventually be surrounded on three sides, cutting the village off from the rest of the West Bank.
1) Yousef Manasra, 87, raises his cane in frustration as he looks at the Beitar Illit settlement on the hill above Wadi Fukin on December 30, 2009. "As much as life squeezes us ... we are still holding on tightly to our land, still holding on to our homeland," he said [Jakob Schiller]
2) A farmer and sheep herder pass each other on one of the main roads in Wadi Fukin on January 2, 2010. The town, which is fed by several springs, used to be known as the breadbasket for the nearby city of Bethlehem. Today, few people still work the land because they have to compete with cheaper produce, imported from Israel's large-scale farms [Jakob Schiller]
3) Men from the town of Wadi Fukin participate in a wedding celebration on June 3, 2011 [Jakob Schiller]
4) Young boys from the town of Wadi Fukin jump into an irrigation pool to cool off on June 2, 2011. Farmers in Wadi Fukin use the pools to store water from the natural springs that flow into the valley [Jakob Schiller]
5) Maher Sukkar harvests turnips from his land in Wadi Fukin on December 29, 2009 [Jakob Schiller]
6) Since it is difficult for farmers to sell goods in the market, most of the food grown in Wadi Fukin is eaten by the community. Some of the crops include wheat, cabbage, turnips and chili peppers [Jakob Schiller]
7) Ibrahim Manasra tends to one of his sheep while they graze above his house in Wadi Fukin on January 1, 2010. Manasra is part of the first generation in Wadi Fukin who can no longer make a living from the land. At one point he was forced to drive a cement truck in the Beitar Illit settlement to support his family [Jakob Schiller]
8) Two young men from the town of Wadi Fukin sneak through a fence on their way to work illegally in the Beitar Illit settlement on December 29, 2009. The Israeli occupation prevents residents in Wadi Fukin from earning their traditional living in agriculture, so most of the young men now make their living by working construction in nearby settlements or in Israel. "At the end of the day, people need money and a source of income for their families - and the only available source of income to be seen for Wadi Fukin, and maybe many communities around it, is work inside the settlements themselves; building these same settlements that suffocate them," said Suhail Khalilieh, who monitors settlements for the Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem, a Palestinian think tank [Jakob Schiller]
9) Wael Manasra, 34, helps his four-year-old son, Adel, with his homework on January 1, 2010. Last year, Wael illegally snuck into Israel to work on a housing development. While he was there, he fell off a set of scaffolding and knocked out his front teeth. Bloody and in shock he had to spend the night hiding on a rooftop before he could sneak back into Palestine. Since his accident he has lost 30 pounds, because he can't eat solid foods. He's currently trying to save enough money for a set of dentures [Jakob Schiller]
10) Wisam Manasra, 25, gets his hair cut by Nader Manasra on March 28, 2006. At the time, Wisam wanted to attend a university and work as a journalist, but feared it would be impossible with Israel's impending wall. Instead, he left Wadi Fukin after marrying a US citizen he met online. He now lives in Providence, Rhode Island, and works the night shift at a bakery [Jakob Schiller]
11) Men dance during a wedding celebration in Wadi Fukin on June 2, 2011. The lights from the nearby Israeli settlement of Beitar Illit can be seen in the distance [Jakob Schiller]
12) Ibrahim Manasra plays with his grandkids Malik, 13 (L), and Sameh, 14, in Wadi Fukin on January 1, 2010 [Jakob Schiller]
13) An abandoned couch sits in front of the Israeli wall near the Palestinian town of al-Walaja, located just northeast of Wadi Fukin. The wall will eventually surround Wadi Fukin on three sides, cutting it off from the rest of the West Bank [Jakob Schiller]
14) Mohammed Mizher (L) and Mohammed Fahri, both 11, point out where they live in Wadi Fukin on December 31, 2009 [Jakob Schiller]
15) Majid Atta, 9, in Wadi Fukin on June 2, 2011 [Jakob Schiller]
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/inpictures/2011/07/2011719151145851623.html
Wadi Fukin village, which sits just west of Bethlehem along the 1967 border, was destroyed when the Israeli army dynamited much of the town during and in the years following the 1948 war, and then rebuilt when residents returned almost 20 years later. It was the only time, as far as many Palestinians can recall, that residents rebuilt a town destroyed in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. Now the town's 1,200 residents are facing what many fear could be its second death. The neighbouring Beitar Illit settlement has the highest birthrate of any settlement in the occupied West Bank and currently houses more than 40,000 Israeli settlers. The expanding settlement, deemed illegal under international law, continues to take more of Wadi Fukin's land.
Ironically, it is often the men from Wadi Fukin who run the jackhammers and build the settlement's multi-story homes. Land confiscation, along with cheap Israeli produce that has flooded the Palestinian markets, is putting farmers in this verdant valley out of business and pushing them into construction jobs within the settlement. Under the proposed route of the Israeli wall, Wadi Fukin will eventually be surrounded on three sides, cutting the village off from the rest of the West Bank.
2011年6月5日 星期日
Israeli forces fire at 'Naksa' protesters
source: Al Jazeera and agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/20116591150521659.html
Syrian state media says at least 23 people have been killed and 350 more wounded after Israeli forces opened fire along the frontier to disperse pro-Palestinian demonstrators attempting to enter the Israel-occupied portion of the Golan Heights.
The official SANA news agency quoted Wel al-Halki, the country's health minister, as saying the dead included a woman and a 12-year-old boy.
The reported deaths occurred as the protesters marching from the Golan Heights approached the Israel-occupied area on Sunday. The day is observed as "Naksa Day" or "Day of Defeat" by many, marking the 44th anniversary of the 1967 war, when Israel occupied the area.
"Anyone who tries to cross the border will be killed," Israeli soldiers reportedly shouted through loudspeakers at the crowd of several hundreds.
Protesters waved Palestinian flags and threw rocks and rubbish over the fence.
Protesters, most of them young men, eventually managed to cut through coils of barbed wire marking the frontier, entering a buffer zone and crawling towards a second fence guarded by Israeli troops.
A Reuters correspondent at the scene saw at least 11 demonstrators carried away on stretchers by the crowd.
"We were trying to cut the barbed wire when the Israeli soldiers began shooting directly at us," Ghayath Awad, a 29-year-old Palestinian who had been shot in the waist, told the AP news agency.
US 'deeply troubled'
Sunday's protests were designed to draw attention to the plight of Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes during Israel's war of independence in 1948.
Now, around half a million Palestinian refugees live across 13 camps in Syria.
The US state department expressed its concern over the clashes, saying: "We are deeply troubled by events that took place earlier today in the Golan Heights resulting in injuries and the loss of life.
"We call for all sides to exercise restraint. Provocative actions like this should be avoided."
The US statement emphasised that "Israel, like any sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself".
Meanwhile in the occupied West Bank, skirmishes broke out at the main crossing into Jerusalem as several hundred Palestinian young people tried to approach the checkpoint.
Reacting to Sunday's incidents, Mustafa Barghouthi, an independent Palestinian politician, told Al Jazeera: "What we saw in the Golan Heights, and in front of the checkpoint to Jerusalem, were peaceful Palestinian demonstrators demanding their freedom and the end of occupation, which has become the longest in modern history.
"And they were encountered by terrible violence from Israel. They have used gunshots, tear gas, sound bombs and canisters emanating dangerous chemicals against demonstrators.
"They also beat us. I was one of those who was beaten today by the Israel soldiers today while we were peacefully trying to reach the checkpoint to Jerusalem."
Israeli account
Israel has accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of permitting the Golan protests to try to divert international attention from his bloody suppression of the popular revolt against his authoritarian rule.
Giving Israel's version of the events, Avital Leibovich, the Israeli army's spokesman, told Al Jazeera: "We [the military] saw near 12 noon an angry mob of a few hundreds of Syrians trying to reach the border fence between Israel and Syria.
"We did three steps. We first warned them verbally, we told them not to get close to the fence in order for them not to endanger their lives.
"When this failed, we fired warning shots into the air. When this failed, we had to open fire selectively at their feet in order to prevent an escalation."
The Israeli military also accused the Syrian government of instigating the protests to deflect attention from its crackdown of a popular uprising at home.
"This is an attempt to divert international attention from the bloodbath going on in Syria,'' Leibovich said.
Israel had vowed to prevent a repeat of a similar demonstration last month, in which hundreds of people burst across the border into the Golan Heights.
More than a dozen people were killed in that unrest, in which protesters had gathered to mark the 63rd anniversary of the "Nakba", to mark the expulsion of an estimated 700,000 Palestinians following Israel's 1948 declaration of statehood.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/20116591150521659.html
Syrian state media says at least 23 people have been killed and 350 more wounded after Israeli forces opened fire along the frontier to disperse pro-Palestinian demonstrators attempting to enter the Israel-occupied portion of the Golan Heights.
The official SANA news agency quoted Wel al-Halki, the country's health minister, as saying the dead included a woman and a 12-year-old boy.
The reported deaths occurred as the protesters marching from the Golan Heights approached the Israel-occupied area on Sunday. The day is observed as "Naksa Day" or "Day of Defeat" by many, marking the 44th anniversary of the 1967 war, when Israel occupied the area.
"Anyone who tries to cross the border will be killed," Israeli soldiers reportedly shouted through loudspeakers at the crowd of several hundreds.
Protesters waved Palestinian flags and threw rocks and rubbish over the fence.
Protesters, most of them young men, eventually managed to cut through coils of barbed wire marking the frontier, entering a buffer zone and crawling towards a second fence guarded by Israeli troops.
A Reuters correspondent at the scene saw at least 11 demonstrators carried away on stretchers by the crowd.
"We were trying to cut the barbed wire when the Israeli soldiers began shooting directly at us," Ghayath Awad, a 29-year-old Palestinian who had been shot in the waist, told the AP news agency.
US 'deeply troubled'
Sunday's protests were designed to draw attention to the plight of Palestinian refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes during Israel's war of independence in 1948.
Now, around half a million Palestinian refugees live across 13 camps in Syria.
The US state department expressed its concern over the clashes, saying: "We are deeply troubled by events that took place earlier today in the Golan Heights resulting in injuries and the loss of life.
"We call for all sides to exercise restraint. Provocative actions like this should be avoided."
The US statement emphasised that "Israel, like any sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself".
Meanwhile in the occupied West Bank, skirmishes broke out at the main crossing into Jerusalem as several hundred Palestinian young people tried to approach the checkpoint.
Reacting to Sunday's incidents, Mustafa Barghouthi, an independent Palestinian politician, told Al Jazeera: "What we saw in the Golan Heights, and in front of the checkpoint to Jerusalem, were peaceful Palestinian demonstrators demanding their freedom and the end of occupation, which has become the longest in modern history.
"And they were encountered by terrible violence from Israel. They have used gunshots, tear gas, sound bombs and canisters emanating dangerous chemicals against demonstrators.
"They also beat us. I was one of those who was beaten today by the Israel soldiers today while we were peacefully trying to reach the checkpoint to Jerusalem."
Israeli account
Israel has accused Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of permitting the Golan protests to try to divert international attention from his bloody suppression of the popular revolt against his authoritarian rule.
Giving Israel's version of the events, Avital Leibovich, the Israeli army's spokesman, told Al Jazeera: "We [the military] saw near 12 noon an angry mob of a few hundreds of Syrians trying to reach the border fence between Israel and Syria.
"We did three steps. We first warned them verbally, we told them not to get close to the fence in order for them not to endanger their lives.
"When this failed, we fired warning shots into the air. When this failed, we had to open fire selectively at their feet in order to prevent an escalation."
The Israeli military also accused the Syrian government of instigating the protests to deflect attention from its crackdown of a popular uprising at home.
"This is an attempt to divert international attention from the bloodbath going on in Syria,'' Leibovich said.
Israel had vowed to prevent a repeat of a similar demonstration last month, in which hundreds of people burst across the border into the Golan Heights.
More than a dozen people were killed in that unrest, in which protesters had gathered to mark the 63rd anniversary of the "Nakba", to mark the expulsion of an estimated 700,000 Palestinians following Israel's 1948 declaration of statehood.
2011年6月2日 星期四
France presents plan to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
source: WAFA
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16328
RAMALLAH, June 2, 2011 (WAFA) - French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe Thursday expressed hope that a new French plan to revive the peace process before September would be accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis.
He said that Paris plans to hold an international peace conference in late June or early July to revive the peace process if the protagonists accept the French plan.
Juppe, speaking at a press conference in Ramallah after meeting Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, said that the French plan is based on US President Barack Obama’s proposal of resuming Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on the bases of the 1967 borders with agreed land swap.
The French official had presented the plan to President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday in Rome.
Juppe said that in addition to basing the negotiations on the 1967 borders with land swap, it also calls for security for Israel and Palestine, and that the issues of Jerusalem and refugees would be resolved within one year.
Fayyad said that a proposed economic conference planned in Paris for later this month could be expanded to also include political issues, which has been a Palestinian demand.
The Paris economic conference, which is “a Palestinian interest,” said Fayyad, “can also have very clear political dimensions that should lead to an end to occupation.”
France has called for a conference to be held in Paris to discuss aid to the Palestinian Authority for its 2011-2013 development plan. The Paris II economic conference, as it has been called, may be expanded to become an international peace conference if the French plan gets accepted.
Juppe said he would discuss his plan with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he meets him later Thursday in Jerusalem.
He said he expects both sides to give answers to the French plan within days, not six months, because “we are convinced that if nothing happens between now and September, the situation will be difficult for everyone.”
The Palestinian Authority is going to ask the United Nations in September to recognize its 1967 borders and accept it as a full member.
Juppe said the French position regarding this issue is that “if nothing happens between now and September, France would act according to its responsibilities,” adding that “all options are open.”
Juppe welcomed the Palestinian reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, describing it as “good news.”
He said, however, that it should be agreed that what this would lead to is two states for two people.
France presents plan to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/france-presents-plan-to-relaunch-israeli-palestinian-peace-talks-1.365538
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe presented a peace plan to the Palestinian Authority Thursday during a visit to Ramallah, meant to revive stalled talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
The peace plan, Juppe said, is largely based on U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last month, which called for a resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps.
However, while Obama focused on guaranteeing Israel's security, the French initiative is concerned with "security for the two states (Israel and Palestine)," Juppe told a news conference with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the central West Bank city.
The plan had already been shown to President Mahmoud Abbas in Rome Wednesday.
The French initiative sets a one-year deadline for resolving the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, which Obama referred to without time-lines.
Juppe said he did not expect the Palestinians to respond to his proposal immediately, adding that he was scheduled to meet later Thursday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem to present the French plan to the prime minister as well.
"The situation here cannot continue," he said. "We are convinced that if nothing happens between now and September, the situation will be difficult for everyone," he said.
Juppe was referring to Palestinian plans to address the United Nations in September, asking for full membership in the UN as a state with recognized borders.
He did not specify whether France would support the proposed UN resolution, reiterating the French position, as stated by President Nicolas Sarkozy, that "if nothing happens between now and September, France would act according to its responsibilities, adding "all options are open."
Juppe said he hopes the French plan, which he claims has European Union and U.S. backing, will receive further credibility during a proposed international peace conference France wants to host in late June or early July.
The conference would be an expansion of a planned economic conference, also referred to as Paris II. France wants to host the economic conference in June in order to enlist aid for the Palestinian Authority for the next three years, according to Fayyad.
The Paris II conference "is primarily a Palestinian interest," said Fayyad in response to a question if the PA would accept an invitation to the proposed international peace conference.
"We also want it to have very clear political dimensions that would lead to the one thing we all want, and that is an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of the independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders," the Palestinian prime minister said.
Juppe said he expected Palestinians and Israelis to take time to discuss the French peace plan before responding to it.
Official Palestinian sources told the German Press-Agency DPA that Abbas told Juppe after the Rome meeting he will convene with the Palestinian leadership to discuss the plan before he gives his final answer.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16328
RAMALLAH, June 2, 2011 (WAFA) - French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe Thursday expressed hope that a new French plan to revive the peace process before September would be accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis.
He said that Paris plans to hold an international peace conference in late June or early July to revive the peace process if the protagonists accept the French plan.
Juppe, speaking at a press conference in Ramallah after meeting Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, said that the French plan is based on US President Barack Obama’s proposal of resuming Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on the bases of the 1967 borders with agreed land swap.
The French official had presented the plan to President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday in Rome.
Juppe said that in addition to basing the negotiations on the 1967 borders with land swap, it also calls for security for Israel and Palestine, and that the issues of Jerusalem and refugees would be resolved within one year.
Fayyad said that a proposed economic conference planned in Paris for later this month could be expanded to also include political issues, which has been a Palestinian demand.
The Paris economic conference, which is “a Palestinian interest,” said Fayyad, “can also have very clear political dimensions that should lead to an end to occupation.”
France has called for a conference to be held in Paris to discuss aid to the Palestinian Authority for its 2011-2013 development plan. The Paris II economic conference, as it has been called, may be expanded to become an international peace conference if the French plan gets accepted.
Juppe said he would discuss his plan with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he meets him later Thursday in Jerusalem.
He said he expects both sides to give answers to the French plan within days, not six months, because “we are convinced that if nothing happens between now and September, the situation will be difficult for everyone.”
The Palestinian Authority is going to ask the United Nations in September to recognize its 1967 borders and accept it as a full member.
Juppe said the French position regarding this issue is that “if nothing happens between now and September, France would act according to its responsibilities,” adding that “all options are open.”
Juppe welcomed the Palestinian reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, describing it as “good news.”
He said, however, that it should be agreed that what this would lead to is two states for two people.
France presents plan to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/france-presents-plan-to-relaunch-israeli-palestinian-peace-talks-1.365538
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe presented a peace plan to the Palestinian Authority Thursday during a visit to Ramallah, meant to revive stalled talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
The peace plan, Juppe said, is largely based on U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last month, which called for a resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps.
However, while Obama focused on guaranteeing Israel's security, the French initiative is concerned with "security for the two states (Israel and Palestine)," Juppe told a news conference with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the central West Bank city.
The plan had already been shown to President Mahmoud Abbas in Rome Wednesday.
The French initiative sets a one-year deadline for resolving the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, which Obama referred to without time-lines.
Juppe said he did not expect the Palestinians to respond to his proposal immediately, adding that he was scheduled to meet later Thursday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem to present the French plan to the prime minister as well.
"The situation here cannot continue," he said. "We are convinced that if nothing happens between now and September, the situation will be difficult for everyone," he said.
Juppe was referring to Palestinian plans to address the United Nations in September, asking for full membership in the UN as a state with recognized borders.
He did not specify whether France would support the proposed UN resolution, reiterating the French position, as stated by President Nicolas Sarkozy, that "if nothing happens between now and September, France would act according to its responsibilities, adding "all options are open."
Juppe said he hopes the French plan, which he claims has European Union and U.S. backing, will receive further credibility during a proposed international peace conference France wants to host in late June or early July.
The conference would be an expansion of a planned economic conference, also referred to as Paris II. France wants to host the economic conference in June in order to enlist aid for the Palestinian Authority for the next three years, according to Fayyad.
The Paris II conference "is primarily a Palestinian interest," said Fayyad in response to a question if the PA would accept an invitation to the proposed international peace conference.
"We also want it to have very clear political dimensions that would lead to the one thing we all want, and that is an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of the independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders," the Palestinian prime minister said.
Juppe said he expected Palestinians and Israelis to take time to discuss the French peace plan before responding to it.
Official Palestinian sources told the German Press-Agency DPA that Abbas told Juppe after the Rome meeting he will convene with the Palestinian leadership to discuss the plan before he gives his final answer.
2011年5月30日 星期一
David Cameron resigns as patron of the Jewish National Fund
source: guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/29/david-cameron-resigns-patron-jnf
David Cameron has stepped down as a patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in a move pro-Palestinian campaigners claim is a result of pressure but which Downing Street insists is part of a general review of the prime minister's charity connections.
The JNF was only one of a number of charities from which Cameron stepped down, said Downing St. His predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continued to be JNF patrons throughout their tenure.
The JNF was originally set up to buy land in Palestine to establish Jewish settlements before the creation of the state of Israel. Now it is a global charity which describes itself as the "caretakers of the land and people of Israel", specialising in planting forests. Critics say it expropriated land belonging to Palestinians and has obliterated pre-1948 Arab villages by planting forests and parks. The JNF is involved in the demolition of Bedouin villages in the Negev desert as part of an afforestation plan.
Sofiah Macleod of the UK-based Stop the JNF Campaign said the organisation's lobbying had led Cameron to withdraw. "There has been a change in public opinion and awareness about Israel's behaviour and there was specific pressure on [Cameron] to step down from the JNF," she said. "We believe he has stepped down as a result of this political pressure. Given the establishment support that the JNF has received, it's not a decision he will have taken lightly."
The Stop the JNF Campaign wrote an open letter to the prime minister this month, claiming the JNF had committed war crimes against the Palestinian people and urging his resignation as patron.
An early day motion tabled in the Commons in March regretted Cameron was a JNF patron and said revoking its charitable status should be considered. However, Downing St insisted Cameron's resignation was part of a wider review.
"Following the formation of the coalition government, a review was undertaken of all the organisations and charities the prime minister was associated with. As a result of this review, the prime minister stepped down from a number of charities – this included the JNF," it said in a statement.
Traditionally, the leaders of the three main political parties have become patrons of the JNF. However, Cameron's resignation means that none of the current three leaders are JNF patrons.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign welcomed the decision. "It reflects the fact it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend public support to racism," campaign director, Sarah Colborne, said in a statement.
"The JNF plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians."
The JNF did not respond to a request for comment. In a letter to the Guardian last October, Samuel Hayek, JNF UK chairman, said: "To accuse the JNF of being "actively complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians' represents a distortion of the truth on the grandest of scales.
"Our environmental and humanitarian work is not based on any political or religious affiliation, but rather on supporting Israel and its population – whatever their background. This was the case before the modern state of Israel was created and will continue to be the case long into the future."
British PM removes his name from list of Jewish National Fund patrons
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/british-pm-removes-his-name-from-list-of-jewish-national-fund-patrons-1.364641
British Prime Minister David Cameron has removed his name from a list of patrons of the UK branch of the Jewish National Fund - and pro-Palestinian activists have taken credit for the move.
Cameron's decision to drop his link with the charity was explained by his office as simply having to do with "time constraints." In an e-mail, Downing Street reiterated the explanation without going into details. "The Prime Minister stepped down from a number of charities - including the JNF," the office wrote.
Downing Street declined to comment on the fact that the Stop the JNF Campaign has actively lobbied for Cameron to withdraw as a patron of the charity. The prime minister became an honorary patron of the JNF five years ago, after he became the leader of the Conservative Party.
In its last open letter to Cameron, sent two weeks ago, Stop the JNF characterized the JNF's British Park in Israel as one that was planted "in order to cover over the remains of the Palestinian villages of Ajjur and Zakariyya, destroyed in 1948, and to prevent the original population and their descendants from returning."
Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Sarah Colborne said in a statement that Cameron's decision "reflects the fact that it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend their public support to racism." She added: "The Jewish National Fund plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/29/david-cameron-resigns-patron-jnf
David Cameron has stepped down as a patron of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in a move pro-Palestinian campaigners claim is a result of pressure but which Downing Street insists is part of a general review of the prime minister's charity connections.
The JNF was only one of a number of charities from which Cameron stepped down, said Downing St. His predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continued to be JNF patrons throughout their tenure.
The JNF was originally set up to buy land in Palestine to establish Jewish settlements before the creation of the state of Israel. Now it is a global charity which describes itself as the "caretakers of the land and people of Israel", specialising in planting forests. Critics say it expropriated land belonging to Palestinians and has obliterated pre-1948 Arab villages by planting forests and parks. The JNF is involved in the demolition of Bedouin villages in the Negev desert as part of an afforestation plan.
Sofiah Macleod of the UK-based Stop the JNF Campaign said the organisation's lobbying had led Cameron to withdraw. "There has been a change in public opinion and awareness about Israel's behaviour and there was specific pressure on [Cameron] to step down from the JNF," she said. "We believe he has stepped down as a result of this political pressure. Given the establishment support that the JNF has received, it's not a decision he will have taken lightly."
The Stop the JNF Campaign wrote an open letter to the prime minister this month, claiming the JNF had committed war crimes against the Palestinian people and urging his resignation as patron.
An early day motion tabled in the Commons in March regretted Cameron was a JNF patron and said revoking its charitable status should be considered. However, Downing St insisted Cameron's resignation was part of a wider review.
"Following the formation of the coalition government, a review was undertaken of all the organisations and charities the prime minister was associated with. As a result of this review, the prime minister stepped down from a number of charities – this included the JNF," it said in a statement.
Traditionally, the leaders of the three main political parties have become patrons of the JNF. However, Cameron's resignation means that none of the current three leaders are JNF patrons.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign welcomed the decision. "It reflects the fact it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend public support to racism," campaign director, Sarah Colborne, said in a statement.
"The JNF plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians."
The JNF did not respond to a request for comment. In a letter to the Guardian last October, Samuel Hayek, JNF UK chairman, said: "To accuse the JNF of being "actively complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians' represents a distortion of the truth on the grandest of scales.
"Our environmental and humanitarian work is not based on any political or religious affiliation, but rather on supporting Israel and its population – whatever their background. This was the case before the modern state of Israel was created and will continue to be the case long into the future."
British PM removes his name from list of Jewish National Fund patrons
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/british-pm-removes-his-name-from-list-of-jewish-national-fund-patrons-1.364641
British Prime Minister David Cameron has removed his name from a list of patrons of the UK branch of the Jewish National Fund - and pro-Palestinian activists have taken credit for the move.
Cameron's decision to drop his link with the charity was explained by his office as simply having to do with "time constraints." In an e-mail, Downing Street reiterated the explanation without going into details. "The Prime Minister stepped down from a number of charities - including the JNF," the office wrote.
Downing Street declined to comment on the fact that the Stop the JNF Campaign has actively lobbied for Cameron to withdraw as a patron of the charity. The prime minister became an honorary patron of the JNF five years ago, after he became the leader of the Conservative Party.
In its last open letter to Cameron, sent two weeks ago, Stop the JNF characterized the JNF's British Park in Israel as one that was planted "in order to cover over the remains of the Palestinian villages of Ajjur and Zakariyya, destroyed in 1948, and to prevent the original population and their descendants from returning."
Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Sarah Colborne said in a statement that Cameron's decision "reflects the fact that it is now impossible for any serious party leader to lend their public support to racism." She added: "The Jewish National Fund plays a critical role in facilitating the continued dispossession and suffering of Palestinians."
2011年5月29日 星期日
Netanyahu asked Canada PM to thwart G8 support for 1967 borders
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635
G8 statement would have supported Obama's policy that Israeli-Palestinian talks should be based on 1967 lines with land swaps.
At the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper thwarted an announcement Friday by the G-8 countries that would have supported U.S. President Barack Obama's statement that talks between the Palestinians and Israel should be based on the 1967 borders with exchanges of territory.
The G-8 countries - the United States, Russia, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada - met in France on Thursday and Friday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.
Obama presented his Middle East policy to the G-8 as an alternative to a unilateral Palestinian move to seek support for statehood in the United Nations General Assembly in September, and to clarify to the Palestinians that the international community takes a dim view of the Palestinians' move to win statehood in the United Nations.
According to a senior government official in Jerusalem, Israel was concerned over the implications of a specific mention of support for Obama's call for negotiations based on the 1967 borders and exchanges of territory, so the prime minister's bureau and the Foreign Ministry began working on the matter as early as the middle of last week.
The Foreign Ministry instructed its envoys in the various capitals to ask that the G-8's concluding statement emphasize three things: that a Palestinian state will arise only through direct negotiations, not through a unilateral move in the United Nations; opposition to Hamas-Fatah reconciliation as long as Hamas rejects the Quartet's conditions; and opposition to a mention of the issue of 1967 borders and exchanges of territory. However, there was concern over whether inclusion of the latter issue could be prevented, the official said, because at least seven out of the eight G-8 countries supported including it.
Tuesday, after Netanyahu's speech to Congress, he telephoned Harper, who heads a rightist government under whose leadership Canada has become one of Israel's greatest allies.
The senior government official said Netanyahu told Harper that mentioning the issue of the 1967 borders in the statement, without mentioning the other issues, such as Israel as a Jewish state or opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, will be detrimental to Israeli interests and a reward to the Palestinians.
"The prime minister is in constant contact with various leaders in moving ahead the diplomatic process," Netanyahu's bureau said.
Since a decision on the statement requires consensus, Canada's efforts led to a release of the statement without reference to the 1967 borders.
The statement released expressed general support for the Obama speech, but called for the establishment of a Palestinian state through negotiations, not unilaterally, and for Hamas to accept the Quartet's conditions.
Harper said Friday that he thought the statement issued was "balanced." He also said it was important not to "cherry-pick" Obama's statement. "I think if you're going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama's speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized."
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke over the weekend with Canada's foreign minister, John Baird, and thanked him for Canada's position during the G-8 deliberations. "Canada is a true friend of Israel and with a realistic and proper view of things, it understands that the 1967 borders do not conform to Israel's security needs and with the current demographic reality," Lieberman said.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-asked-canada-pm-to-thwart-g8-support-for-1967-borders-1.364635
G8 statement would have supported Obama's policy that Israeli-Palestinian talks should be based on 1967 lines with land swaps.
At the request of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper thwarted an announcement Friday by the G-8 countries that would have supported U.S. President Barack Obama's statement that talks between the Palestinians and Israel should be based on the 1967 borders with exchanges of territory.
The G-8 countries - the United States, Russia, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada - met in France on Thursday and Friday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.
Obama presented his Middle East policy to the G-8 as an alternative to a unilateral Palestinian move to seek support for statehood in the United Nations General Assembly in September, and to clarify to the Palestinians that the international community takes a dim view of the Palestinians' move to win statehood in the United Nations.
According to a senior government official in Jerusalem, Israel was concerned over the implications of a specific mention of support for Obama's call for negotiations based on the 1967 borders and exchanges of territory, so the prime minister's bureau and the Foreign Ministry began working on the matter as early as the middle of last week.
The Foreign Ministry instructed its envoys in the various capitals to ask that the G-8's concluding statement emphasize three things: that a Palestinian state will arise only through direct negotiations, not through a unilateral move in the United Nations; opposition to Hamas-Fatah reconciliation as long as Hamas rejects the Quartet's conditions; and opposition to a mention of the issue of 1967 borders and exchanges of territory. However, there was concern over whether inclusion of the latter issue could be prevented, the official said, because at least seven out of the eight G-8 countries supported including it.
Tuesday, after Netanyahu's speech to Congress, he telephoned Harper, who heads a rightist government under whose leadership Canada has become one of Israel's greatest allies.
The senior government official said Netanyahu told Harper that mentioning the issue of the 1967 borders in the statement, without mentioning the other issues, such as Israel as a Jewish state or opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, will be detrimental to Israeli interests and a reward to the Palestinians.
"The prime minister is in constant contact with various leaders in moving ahead the diplomatic process," Netanyahu's bureau said.
Since a decision on the statement requires consensus, Canada's efforts led to a release of the statement without reference to the 1967 borders.
The statement released expressed general support for the Obama speech, but called for the establishment of a Palestinian state through negotiations, not unilaterally, and for Hamas to accept the Quartet's conditions.
Harper said Friday that he thought the statement issued was "balanced." He also said it was important not to "cherry-pick" Obama's statement. "I think if you're going to get into other elements, obviously I would like to see reference to elements that were also in President Obama's speech. Such as, for instance, the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state. The fact that the Palestinian state must be de-militarized."
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke over the weekend with Canada's foreign minister, John Baird, and thanked him for Canada's position during the G-8 deliberations. "Canada is a true friend of Israel and with a realistic and proper view of things, it understands that the 1967 borders do not conform to Israel's security needs and with the current demographic reality," Lieberman said.
2011年5月28日 星期六
G8挺歐巴馬 支持以巴重回1967年邊界
轉貼來源: 中央廣播電台
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=299051&id=6&id2=2
八大工業國家(G8)領袖今天(27日)表示，支持美國總統歐巴馬的主張，以色列和巴勒斯坦的和平協定，應該奠基於回到1967年六日戰爭前的邊界狀態。
正在法國召開高峰會的八國集團在一項聲明草案中，呼籲以色列和巴勒斯坦回歸實質的和平談判，以達成最終永久協議為著眼點。
聲明中指出，為達成這項目標，八國集團強烈支持歐巴馬在5月19日提出的建議。
根據歐巴馬的建議，以色列和未來巴勒斯坦國的邊界，應該以1967年六日戰爭前的界線為準，在經過雙方同意交換某些領土後，使雙方的邊界都能安全且獲得相互承認。
對於歐巴馬的建議，以色列隨即表達反對立場。總理尼坦雅胡(Benjamin Netanyahu)24日在美國國會發表演說，明確表示以色列絕對不會撤回到1967年的邊界。他並且重申，耶路撒冷是以色列永久、不可分割的首都。
潘基文：歐巴馬提出中東和平「好」建議
轉貼來源: 中央廣播電台
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=299079&id=5&id2=2
聯合國秘書長潘基文(Ban Ki-moon)今天(27日)說，美國總統歐巴馬(Barack Obama)提出以1967年六日戰爭之前的疆界，作為巴勒斯坦建國後，與以色列的邊界，並且建議以、巴雙方透過交換土地來達成這項目標，有助於以、巴化解多年來的仇恨，並且可望達到真正的中東和平。
潘基文接受法國「世界報」訪問時指出：「歐巴馬勾勒出協助以、巴達成和平藍圖的一系列重要方針，可望解決以、巴在安全及領土上的問題。」
潘基文說：「我知道以色列並不歡迎歐巴馬所提出的這項和平計畫，但是顯而易見的是，若是要避免以、巴不斷爆發衝突，絕對有必要重啟和平談判。」
他說，若是以、巴爆發衝突，可能會迫使聯合國必須在是否承認巴勒斯坦建國的問題進行表決，而且巴勒斯坦也已表態，準備在今年9月的聯合國大會上，提出建國決議案。
潘基文表示，雖然聯合國大會不見得會通過巴勒斯坦建國案，但是「一定會在政治層面上，造成某種程度的影響」。
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=299051&id=6&id2=2
八大工業國家(G8)領袖今天(27日)表示，支持美國總統歐巴馬的主張，以色列和巴勒斯坦的和平協定，應該奠基於回到1967年六日戰爭前的邊界狀態。
正在法國召開高峰會的八國集團在一項聲明草案中，呼籲以色列和巴勒斯坦回歸實質的和平談判，以達成最終永久協議為著眼點。
聲明中指出，為達成這項目標，八國集團強烈支持歐巴馬在5月19日提出的建議。
根據歐巴馬的建議，以色列和未來巴勒斯坦國的邊界，應該以1967年六日戰爭前的界線為準，在經過雙方同意交換某些領土後，使雙方的邊界都能安全且獲得相互承認。
對於歐巴馬的建議，以色列隨即表達反對立場。總理尼坦雅胡(Benjamin Netanyahu)24日在美國國會發表演說，明確表示以色列絕對不會撤回到1967年的邊界。他並且重申，耶路撒冷是以色列永久、不可分割的首都。
潘基文：歐巴馬提出中東和平「好」建議
轉貼來源: 中央廣播電台
http://news.rti.org.tw/index_newsContent.aspx?nid=299079&id=5&id2=2
聯合國秘書長潘基文(Ban Ki-moon)今天(27日)說，美國總統歐巴馬(Barack Obama)提出以1967年六日戰爭之前的疆界，作為巴勒斯坦建國後，與以色列的邊界，並且建議以、巴雙方透過交換土地來達成這項目標，有助於以、巴化解多年來的仇恨，並且可望達到真正的中東和平。
潘基文接受法國「世界報」訪問時指出：「歐巴馬勾勒出協助以、巴達成和平藍圖的一系列重要方針，可望解決以、巴在安全及領土上的問題。」
潘基文說：「我知道以色列並不歡迎歐巴馬所提出的這項和平計畫，但是顯而易見的是，若是要避免以、巴不斷爆發衝突，絕對有必要重啟和平談判。」
他說，若是以、巴爆發衝突，可能會迫使聯合國必須在是否承認巴勒斯坦建國的問題進行表決，而且巴勒斯坦也已表態，準備在今年9月的聯合國大會上，提出建國決議案。
潘基文表示，雖然聯合國大會不見得會通過巴勒斯坦建國案，但是「一定會在政治層面上，造成某種程度的影響」。
2011年5月27日 星期五
Egypt to open Rafah border permanently
Egypt opens Rafah border with Gaza
source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201152872159493180.html
Egypt has reopened its Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip, allowing people to cross freely for the first time in four years - a sharp departure from the policies of former president Hosni Mubarak.
The opening on Saturday morning provided long-awaited relief for Palestinians - a move ushered in by Egypt's new government in a bid to ease the suffering of Gaza residents.
Al Jazeera's Nicole Johnston, reporting from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, said there will still be restrictions in place, preventing men younger than 40 from leaving the coastal territory.
"It will allow basically all women to leave Gaza, also children under the age of 18 years will be allowed to leave, as well as men over the age of 40 years. However, those between the ages of 18 and 40 years will require an Egyptian visa," she said.
"Visas would have to come from Ramallah. Sources in Hamas say they have been told by the Egyptian authorities over the last few weeks that they [Egyptians] do intend to open some sort of representative office inside Gaza, so that people can get the visa from there."
Among the first to cross the reopened border post were two ambulances ferrying patients from the hitherto-blockaded Gaza Strip for treatment in Egypt as well as a minibus carrying a dozen visitors. About 400 Gazans were reported to be waiting at the crossing.
Israeli siege
The crossing is seen as the main gateway for the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Among the other border posts, it is the only crossing not controlled by Israel.
Rafah has been mostly closed since 2007 when Israel imposed a siege on Gaza after Hamas took over the Strip.
Our correspondent said that Hamas used to have a list of people who needed to go through the border crossing, and that list currently has 12,000 names on it.
"That list used to be sent through to the Egyptians who then vetted it and allowed around 300 people a day through it - but it was very limited and now it will be free and open for most people," she said.
The crossing is to open to people for eight hours a day from 9:00am, apart from holidays and Fridays, giving Gazans a gateway to the world as Rafah is the only crossing that does not pass through Israel.
Commercial traffic will continue to have to pass through border points with Israel to enter the impoverished Palestinian enclave.
"In the future, Hamas says that it would like this to become a terminal for goods," our correspondent said.
"But a lot of people in Gaza say that if the Rafah border crossing becomes a commercial goods terminal, then Israel could place all responsibility for Gaza on the Egyptians, which people do not want because Gaza is still occupied by Israel."
The United Nations has called the Gaza blockade illegal and repeatedly demanded it be lifted.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/2011525174117897741.html
The news agency MENA said on Wednesday that Egypt's new military rulers had set the date for the opening of the crossing as part of efforts "to end the status of the Palestinian division and achieve national reconciliation".
It said the Rafah border crossing would be opened permanently, starting on Saturday, from 9am to 9pm every day except Fridays and holidays.
Minha Bakhoum, spokeswoman for the Egyptian foreign ministry, told Al Jazeera that the decision was taken to ease the suffering of Gaza residents.
"This comes in the context of the decision taken by the new Egyptian government to help end the disunity between Palestinian factions, in the absence of any resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," she said.
Siege 'not over'
Mustafa Barghouti, a long time activist and former Palestinian presidential candidate, told Al Jazeera that re-opening the border was a "big step forward".
"Hundreds of people have lost their lives because they could not get medical care in Gaza, thousands of students have lost their studies, and thousands of businesses have suffered," Barghouti said.
"But the siege is not over. Construction material is still forbidden and that means that the 25,000 houses that were destroyed by Israel during the war on Gaza cannot be rebuilt."
"We appreciate the Egyptian initiative - this is one of the big changes after the Egyptian revolution."
Al Jazeera's Nicole Johnston, reporting from Gaza, said there would still be restrictions in place, preventing men younger than 40 from leaving the strip.
"It will allow basically all women to leave Gaza, also children under the age of 18 years will be allowed to leave, as well as men over the age of 40 years. However, those between the ages of 18 and 40 years will require an Egyptian visa," she said.
"Visas would have to come from Ramallah. Sources in Hamas say they have been told by the Egyptian authorities over the last few weeks that they [Egyptians] do intend to open some sort of representative office inside Gaza, so that people can get the visa from there."
Sharp departure from past
The decision is a sharp departure from the policies of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, who had restricted the movement of people and goods through the Egyptian-Gaza border.
"One of the military's first and important announcements was to abide by all international agreements that the previous government had committed to," said Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Cairo.
One of those agreements commits Egypt to granting access to the crossing to European monitors. Sources told Al Jazeera that European monitors had not been notified that the border would be opening on Saturday.
"Certainly this is going to cause some concerns for Israel, particularly as to what mechanism is going to be put in place," our correspondent said.
Sources at Rafah said it was unlikely that all the mechanisms needed to be put in place could actually be ready in time to deal with the flow of people expected to come out of Gaza.
"There's no doubt if the border is opened freely for all, there's going to be a massive influx of Palestinians, who would want to get out for the first time since the siege was put in place," said Mohyeldin.
Gazans have circumvented the blockade by operating hundreds of smuggling tunnels under the 15km Gaza-Egypt border, which have been used to bring in all manner of products, as well as people.
Israel says Hamas, which controls Gaza, has used the tunnels to import weapons, including rockets that can reach main population centres in Israel.
The crossing has been mostly closed, in line with Israel's blockade on Gaza, imposed since 2007 when Hamas took control of the coastal territory.
2011年5月26日 星期四
內唐亞胡「妥協」 巴勒斯坦斥宣戰
轉貼來源 聯合新聞網
http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR3/6358585.shtml
以色列總理內唐亞胡24日在國會對參眾兩院的議員發表演說，他表示，願意做出痛苦的妥協，來達成歷史性的中東和平，但他提出以色列與巴勒斯坦達成和平協議的條件，包括耶路撒冷不可分割和是以色列的首都、以色列保留耶路撒冷的郊區和特拉維夫附近地區、有限的土地換和平、以色列不會回到1967年前的邊界、巴勒斯坦難民和其後裔只能重回未來的巴勒斯坦國境內，不得回到其舊居地。
巴勒斯坦總統阿巴斯的高級助理夏斯24日反應相當負面。他指出，內唐亞胡提出的和談條件，無法讓談判恢復，內唐亞胡堅持保留巴勒斯坦要求建國的主要部分土地，是對「巴勒斯坦的宣戰」。
內唐亞胡24日在對立場比白宮更同情以色列的國會議員說，為了真正的和平，以色列願意放棄部分祖先的土地，一些以色列人已屯墾的土地可畫在以色列最後的邊界外，但他堅持不會回到1967年的邊界，未來的巴勒斯坦國也必須完全非軍事化，以色列陸軍將繼續沿約旦河駐軍。
內唐亞胡在國會的演說是他在華府訪問的高潮，歐巴馬總統19日呼籲談判建立巴勒斯坦國，以色列回到1967年的邊界，並且進行雙方同意的土地交換和平。內唐亞胡起初對歐巴馬的宣布非常憤怒，但過去數日他則強調兩人有共識之處。美國國會議員顯然熱衷表現支持以色列的立場，有意在2012年大選前，討好美國政治中最有力的選民團體之一—猶太人，而內唐亞胡也有意向歐巴馬顯示他獲得了國會兩黨議員的支持。
內唐亞胡在演說中也呼籲阿巴斯撕毀與被美國視為恐怖組織的哈瑪斯的和解協議，他說，以色列不會與一個巴勒斯坦版的凱達組織談判。阿巴斯則定25日與巴勒斯坦解放組織和其法塔運動的領袖討論其下一步行動。
【2011/05/25 世界日報】@ http://udn.com/
http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR3/6358585.shtml
以色列總理內唐亞胡24日在國會對參眾兩院的議員發表演說，他表示，願意做出痛苦的妥協，來達成歷史性的中東和平，但他提出以色列與巴勒斯坦達成和平協議的條件，包括耶路撒冷不可分割和是以色列的首都、以色列保留耶路撒冷的郊區和特拉維夫附近地區、有限的土地換和平、以色列不會回到1967年前的邊界、巴勒斯坦難民和其後裔只能重回未來的巴勒斯坦國境內，不得回到其舊居地。
巴勒斯坦總統阿巴斯的高級助理夏斯24日反應相當負面。他指出，內唐亞胡提出的和談條件，無法讓談判恢復，內唐亞胡堅持保留巴勒斯坦要求建國的主要部分土地，是對「巴勒斯坦的宣戰」。
內唐亞胡24日在對立場比白宮更同情以色列的國會議員說，為了真正的和平，以色列願意放棄部分祖先的土地，一些以色列人已屯墾的土地可畫在以色列最後的邊界外，但他堅持不會回到1967年的邊界，未來的巴勒斯坦國也必須完全非軍事化，以色列陸軍將繼續沿約旦河駐軍。
內唐亞胡在國會的演說是他在華府訪問的高潮，歐巴馬總統19日呼籲談判建立巴勒斯坦國，以色列回到1967年的邊界，並且進行雙方同意的土地交換和平。內唐亞胡起初對歐巴馬的宣布非常憤怒，但過去數日他則強調兩人有共識之處。美國國會議員顯然熱衷表現支持以色列的立場，有意在2012年大選前，討好美國政治中最有力的選民團體之一—猶太人，而內唐亞胡也有意向歐巴馬顯示他獲得了國會兩黨議員的支持。
內唐亞胡在演說中也呼籲阿巴斯撕毀與被美國視為恐怖組織的哈瑪斯的和解協議，他說，以色列不會與一個巴勒斯坦版的凱達組織談判。阿巴斯則定25日與巴勒斯坦解放組織和其法塔運動的領袖討論其下一步行動。
【2011/05/25 世界日報】@ http://udn.com/
2011年5月21日 星期六
Palestine Papers: Why I blew the whistle
source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201151432144832519.html
(The Palestinian house key is the symbol that represents collective memory of the Palestinian diaspora [Getty])
In Palestine, the time for national reconciliation has come. On the eve of the 63rd commemoration of the Nakba, this is a long-awaited and hopeful moment. Earlier this year, the release by Al Jazeera and the Guardian of 1,600 documents related to the mislabelled "peace process" caused deep consternation amongst Palestinians and in the Arab world. Covering more than ten years of talks (1999-2010) between Israel and the PLO, these "Palestine Papers" illustrate the tragic consequences of a highly inequitable and destructive political process grounded on the assumption that the Palestinians could effectively negotiate their rights and achieve self-determination while enduring the hardship of the Israeli occupation.
Since my name was circulated as one of the possible sources of these leaks, I would like to clarify here the extent of my involvement in these revelations and explain my motivations. I have always acted in fact in the best interest of the Palestinian people, in its entirety, and to the full extent of my capacity.
My own experience with the "peace process" started in Ramallah in January 2008 after I was recruited as an adviser for the Negotiation Support Unit (NSU) of the PLO, specifically in charge of the Palestinian refugee file. That was a few weeks after a goal had been set at the Annapolis conference: the creation of the Palestinian State by the end of 2008. Only 11 months into my job, in November of that same year, I resigned. By December 2008, instead of the establishment of a State in Palestine, I witnessed on TV the killing of more than 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli army.
"The peace process is a spectacle, a farce, played to the detriment of Palestinian reconciliation, at the cost of the bloodshed in Gaza."---Ziyad Clot in Il n'y aura pas d'Etat palestinien (There will be no Palestinian State)
My strong motives for leaving my position with the NSU and my assessment of the "peace process" were clearly detailed to Palestinian negotiators in my resignation letter dated of 9th November 2008.
The "peace negotiations" were a deceptive farce, whereby biased terms were unilaterally imposed by Israel and systematically endorsed by the US and EU capitals. Far from enabling a negotiated fair end of the conflict, the pursuit of the Oslo process has deepened Israeli segregationist policies and justified the tightening of the security control imposed on the Palestinian population as well as its geographical fragmentation. Far for preserving the land on which to build a State, it has tolerated the intensification of the colonisation of the Palestinian territory. Far from maintaining a national cohesion, the process I participated in, albeit briefly, proved to be instrumental in creating and aggravating divisions amongst Palestinians. In its most recent developments, it became a cruel enterprise from which the Palestinians of Gaza have suffered the most. Last but not least, these negotiations excluded for the most part the great majority of the Palestinian people: the 7 million-Palestinian refugees. My experience over those 11 months spent in Ramallah confirms in fact that the PLO, given its structure, was not in a position to represent all Palestinian rights and interests.
After I resigned, I believed I had a duty to inform the public of the most alarming developments of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. These talks were unfair, misleading and became unsustainable. Tragically, the Palestinians were left uninformed of the fate of their individual and collective rights in the negotiations and their divided political leaderships were not held accountable for their decisions or inaction.
Shortly after the Gaza war, I started to write about my experience in Ramallah. In my book published in France in September 2010 under the disillusioned title "Il n’y aura pas d’Etat palestinien" (There will be no Palestinian State Ed. Max Milo), I concluded: "The peace process is a spectacle, a farce, played to the detriment of Palestinian reconciliation, at the cost of the bloodshed in Gaza." Therefore, in full conscience and independence, I later accepted to share some information with Al Jazeera specifically with regard to the fate of Palestinian refugee rights in the 2008 talks. Other sources did the same, although I am unaware of their identity. Taking these tragic developments of the "peace process" to a wider Arab and Western audience was essential and justified by the public interest of the Palestinian people. I had no doubt at that time that I had a moral, legal and political obligation to proceed accordingly. My conviction and motives have not been altered since.
Today, I am relieved that this first-hand information is available to the Palestinian people scattered in the occupied Palestinian territory, in Israel and in exile. In a way, Palestinian rights are back in their holders' possession and the people are now in a position to make enlightened decisions about the future of their struggle. I am also glad that international stakeholders to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can access these documents. The world can no longer overlook that while Palestinians’ strong commitment to peace is genuine, the fruitless pursuit of the "peace process" framed according to the exclusive conditions of the occupying power lead to disastrous compromises which would be unacceptable in any other region of the globe.
Finally, I feel reassured that the people of Palestine overwhelmingly realise that the reconciliation between all their constituents must be the first step towards national liberation. The Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians in Israel and the Palestinians living in exile have a future in common. The path to Palestinian self-determination will require the participation of all, in a renewed political platform.
Ziyad Clot is a French lawyer of Palestinian descent and author of "Il n'y aura pas d'Etat palestinien" Ed. Max Milo (There will be no Palestinian State). He was a legal adviser in the Annapolis negotiations between Israel and the PLO.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/201151432144832519.html
In Palestine, the time for national reconciliation has come. On the eve of the 63rd commemoration of the Nakba, this is a long-awaited and hopeful moment. Earlier this year, the release by Al Jazeera and the Guardian of 1,600 documents related to the mislabelled "peace process" caused deep consternation amongst Palestinians and in the Arab world. Covering more than ten years of talks (1999-2010) between Israel and the PLO, these "Palestine Papers" illustrate the tragic consequences of a highly inequitable and destructive political process grounded on the assumption that the Palestinians could effectively negotiate their rights and achieve self-determination while enduring the hardship of the Israeli occupation.
Since my name was circulated as one of the possible sources of these leaks, I would like to clarify here the extent of my involvement in these revelations and explain my motivations. I have always acted in fact in the best interest of the Palestinian people, in its entirety, and to the full extent of my capacity.
My own experience with the "peace process" started in Ramallah in January 2008 after I was recruited as an adviser for the Negotiation Support Unit (NSU) of the PLO, specifically in charge of the Palestinian refugee file. That was a few weeks after a goal had been set at the Annapolis conference: the creation of the Palestinian State by the end of 2008. Only 11 months into my job, in November of that same year, I resigned. By December 2008, instead of the establishment of a State in Palestine, I witnessed on TV the killing of more than 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli army.
"The peace process is a spectacle, a farce, played to the detriment of Palestinian reconciliation, at the cost of the bloodshed in Gaza."---Ziyad Clot in Il n'y aura pas d'Etat palestinien (There will be no Palestinian State)
My strong motives for leaving my position with the NSU and my assessment of the "peace process" were clearly detailed to Palestinian negotiators in my resignation letter dated of 9th November 2008.
The "peace negotiations" were a deceptive farce, whereby biased terms were unilaterally imposed by Israel and systematically endorsed by the US and EU capitals. Far from enabling a negotiated fair end of the conflict, the pursuit of the Oslo process has deepened Israeli segregationist policies and justified the tightening of the security control imposed on the Palestinian population as well as its geographical fragmentation. Far for preserving the land on which to build a State, it has tolerated the intensification of the colonisation of the Palestinian territory. Far from maintaining a national cohesion, the process I participated in, albeit briefly, proved to be instrumental in creating and aggravating divisions amongst Palestinians. In its most recent developments, it became a cruel enterprise from which the Palestinians of Gaza have suffered the most. Last but not least, these negotiations excluded for the most part the great majority of the Palestinian people: the 7 million-Palestinian refugees. My experience over those 11 months spent in Ramallah confirms in fact that the PLO, given its structure, was not in a position to represent all Palestinian rights and interests.
After I resigned, I believed I had a duty to inform the public of the most alarming developments of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. These talks were unfair, misleading and became unsustainable. Tragically, the Palestinians were left uninformed of the fate of their individual and collective rights in the negotiations and their divided political leaderships were not held accountable for their decisions or inaction.
Shortly after the Gaza war, I started to write about my experience in Ramallah. In my book published in France in September 2010 under the disillusioned title "Il n’y aura pas d’Etat palestinien" (There will be no Palestinian State Ed. Max Milo), I concluded: "The peace process is a spectacle, a farce, played to the detriment of Palestinian reconciliation, at the cost of the bloodshed in Gaza." Therefore, in full conscience and independence, I later accepted to share some information with Al Jazeera specifically with regard to the fate of Palestinian refugee rights in the 2008 talks. Other sources did the same, although I am unaware of their identity. Taking these tragic developments of the "peace process" to a wider Arab and Western audience was essential and justified by the public interest of the Palestinian people. I had no doubt at that time that I had a moral, legal and political obligation to proceed accordingly. My conviction and motives have not been altered since.
Today, I am relieved that this first-hand information is available to the Palestinian people scattered in the occupied Palestinian territory, in Israel and in exile. In a way, Palestinian rights are back in their holders' possession and the people are now in a position to make enlightened decisions about the future of their struggle. I am also glad that international stakeholders to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can access these documents. The world can no longer overlook that while Palestinians’ strong commitment to peace is genuine, the fruitless pursuit of the "peace process" framed according to the exclusive conditions of the occupying power lead to disastrous compromises which would be unacceptable in any other region of the globe.
Finally, I feel reassured that the people of Palestine overwhelmingly realise that the reconciliation between all their constituents must be the first step towards national liberation. The Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians in Israel and the Palestinians living in exile have a future in common. The path to Palestinian self-determination will require the participation of all, in a renewed political platform.
Ziyad Clot is a French lawyer of Palestinian descent and author of "Il n'y aura pas d'Etat palestinien" Ed. Max Milo (There will be no Palestinian State). He was a legal adviser in the Annapolis negotiations between Israel and the PLO.
Netanyahu doesn't want peace
Obama to aides: Netanyahu will never do what it takes to achieve Mideast peace
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-to-aides-netanyahu-will-never-do-what-it-takes-to-achieve-mideast-peace-1.362964
Comment reported in New York Times comes amid growing tensions between Washington and Jerusalem over the U.S. President's backing of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.
U.S. President Barack Obama does not think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will ever make the concessions necessary to achieve a Middle East peace deal, the New York Times cited Obama aides as saying on Friday.
The comments attributed to associates of the U.S. president comes amid what is turning become into a veritable war of words between Israel and the U.S., following Obama's Mideast strategy speech on Thursday in which the American leader voiced his support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.
Following Obama's speech, Netanyahu, who is set to meet the U.S. president later today, said Thursday that Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.
"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."
In what seems to be a response to Netanyahu's comments, Obama aides told the New York Times that the U.S. president did not believe Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of concessions that would lead to a peace deal.
Those comments, which seem to heat an already intense atmosphere between Netanyahu and Obama, comes just hours before a fateful meeting between the two leaders in the White House on Friday.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor expressed disappointment Thursday in regards to Obama's Mideast policy speech, saying he failed to propose a serious plan for achieving Mideast peace.
"Today, the president outlined his hopes for Mideast peace – a goal that we all share – but failed to articulate a serious plan for achieving this goal," Cantor said in a statement. "This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself."
"The President’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace. In reality, Israel - since its creation - has always proven willing to make the sacrifices necessary for peace, while the Palestinians on numerous occasions have rejected those offers."
Friedman: Netanyahu doesn't want peace
source: ynet news
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4070400,00.html
NYT columnist Thomas Friedman slams prime minister for 'spending his time in office trying to avoid peace deal'
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wasted his two years in office without truly attempting to achieve peace with the Palestinians, controversial New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written in his latest opinion article.
"Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel’s creativity to find ways to do a (peace) deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal — and everyone knows it. No one is fooled," Friedman wrote.
Ahead of Netanyahu's meeting with US President Barack Obama on Friday, Friedman added that "the only way for Netanyahu to be taken seriously again is if he risks some political capital and actually surprises people".
Regarding the prime minister's comments during a Knesset speech, in which he said Israel was willing to cede certain areas in negotiations, Friedman responded, "Fine, put a map on the table. Let’s see what you’re talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel’s government."
The columnist added that Netanyahu should not be addressing the US Congress, but rather the "Palestinians down the street".
Advertisement
"And it is equally silly for the Palestinians to be going to the United Nations for a state when they need to be persuading Israelis why a Hamas-Fatah rapprochement is in their security interest," Friedman wrote.
The columnist also called on the US to prevent another Mideast conflict. "The best we can do now is manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable," he wrote.
source: Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-to-aides-netanyahu-will-never-do-what-it-takes-to-achieve-mideast-peace-1.362964
Comment reported in New York Times comes amid growing tensions between Washington and Jerusalem over the U.S. President's backing of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.
U.S. President Barack Obama does not think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will ever make the concessions necessary to achieve a Middle East peace deal, the New York Times cited Obama aides as saying on Friday.
The comments attributed to associates of the U.S. president comes amid what is turning become into a veritable war of words between Israel and the U.S., following Obama's Mideast strategy speech on Thursday in which the American leader voiced his support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.
Following Obama's speech, Netanyahu, who is set to meet the U.S. president later today, said Thursday that Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.
"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."
In what seems to be a response to Netanyahu's comments, Obama aides told the New York Times that the U.S. president did not believe Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of concessions that would lead to a peace deal.
Those comments, which seem to heat an already intense atmosphere between Netanyahu and Obama, comes just hours before a fateful meeting between the two leaders in the White House on Friday.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor expressed disappointment Thursday in regards to Obama's Mideast policy speech, saying he failed to propose a serious plan for achieving Mideast peace.
"Today, the president outlined his hopes for Mideast peace – a goal that we all share – but failed to articulate a serious plan for achieving this goal," Cantor said in a statement. "This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself."
"The President’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace. In reality, Israel - since its creation - has always proven willing to make the sacrifices necessary for peace, while the Palestinians on numerous occasions have rejected those offers."
Friedman: Netanyahu doesn't want peace
source: ynet news
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4070400,00.html
NYT columnist Thomas Friedman slams prime minister for 'spending his time in office trying to avoid peace deal'
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wasted his two years in office without truly attempting to achieve peace with the Palestinians, controversial New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written in his latest opinion article.
"Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel’s creativity to find ways to do a (peace) deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal — and everyone knows it. No one is fooled," Friedman wrote.
Ahead of Netanyahu's meeting with US President Barack Obama on Friday, Friedman added that "the only way for Netanyahu to be taken seriously again is if he risks some political capital and actually surprises people".
Regarding the prime minister's comments during a Knesset speech, in which he said Israel was willing to cede certain areas in negotiations, Friedman responded, "Fine, put a map on the table. Let’s see what you’re talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel’s government."
The columnist added that Netanyahu should not be addressing the US Congress, but rather the "Palestinians down the street".
Advertisement
"And it is equally silly for the Palestinians to be going to the United Nations for a state when they need to be persuading Israelis why a Hamas-Fatah rapprochement is in their security interest," Friedman wrote.
The columnist also called on the US to prevent another Mideast conflict. "The best we can do now is manage the unavoidable and avoid the unmanageable," he wrote.
2011年5月20日 星期五
Obama Speech on Middle East
source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/2011519174053886277.html
I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.
The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.
Today, I would like to talk about this change – the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.
Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.
That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.
Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.
The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.
This lack of self determination – the chance to make of your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.
In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.
But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.
In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”
In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”
In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”
In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.
Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.
The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.
We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.
Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.
That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.
So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.
As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:
The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.
We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.
And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.
Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest– today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.
Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.
That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.
Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.
But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.
While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.
The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad
Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.
Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.
We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.
In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.
Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.
Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.
After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.
The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.
Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.
First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.
Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.
Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.
Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.
Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.
My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”
That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, ‘peaceful,’ ‘peaceful.’ In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.
For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union – organizing, marching, and protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self -evident, that all men are created equal.”
Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa – words which tell us that repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/2011519174053886277.html
I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark – one million frequent flyer miles. I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.
The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security; history and faith.
Today, I would like to talk about this change – the forces that are driving it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader – Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.
Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.
That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.
Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home – day after day, week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.
The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few. In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.
This lack of self determination – the chance to make of your life what you will – has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.
In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.
But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world – a world of astonishing progress in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.
In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”
In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.”
In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a feeling you can’t explain.”
In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.”
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.
Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age – a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to fierce contests for power.
The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.
We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.
Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways – as Americans have been seared by hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens – a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.
That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then – and I believe now – that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.
So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.
As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can – and will – speak out for a set of core principles – principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months:
The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.
We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.
And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region.
Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest– today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.
Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.
That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.
Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to impose regime change by force – no matter how well-intended it may be.
But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.
While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime – including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.
The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a; and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise, President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad
Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations.
Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known. But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens, and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.
We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the technology to connect with – and listen to – the voices of the people.
In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.
Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men – by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.
Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.
After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.
The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.
Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.
First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.
Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.
Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.
Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.
Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.
My Administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.
Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”
That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.
For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, ‘peaceful,’ ‘peaceful.’ In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.
For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union – organizing, marching, and protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self -evident, that all men are created equal.”
Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa – words which tell us that repression will fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)