We strongly commend the Sydney Peace Foundation, under the auspice of the University of Sydney, for awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi in recognition of “her commitment to human rights, to the peace process in the Middle East and for her courage in speaking against oppression, against corruption and for justice”. Hanan Ashrawi grew up in the West Bank town of Ramallah, just outside Jerusalem. She studied English Literature at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, after which she was awarded her PhD in the USA. Dr Hanan Ashrawi became chair of the Department of English and then Dean of the Faculty of Arts at Bir Zeit University, becoming more actively involved in the Palestinian cause. She participated in speeches, performances and demonstrations, and founded and led the Bir Zeit University Legal Aid Committee and Human Rights Action Project. From 1991 through 1993 Dr Hanan Ashrawi served as the Official Spokesperson of the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Process. Dr Ashrawi was Minister for Higher Education and Research in the Palestinian Authority. In 1998, she resigned to better pursue her human rights advocacy. Dr Ashrawi remains a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council Dr. Ashrawi is a member of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo and of numerous international advisory boards including the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region (MENA), and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Dr Hanan Ashrawi is presently Secretary General of MIFTAH, The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy. She is a declared advocate of non-violence and a peaceful two state solution to the Palestine/ Israel conflict. Her own words speak most eloquently of her commitment to justice and peace: “The dynamics of violence, revenge and all other forms of dehumanization seem to have taken hold as both Palestinians and Israelis are locked in a fatal embrace that promises to plunge both peoples into the abyss… “How did we allow Sharon to formulate our agenda and dictate our timing by responding to his calculated provocations specifically designed to draw us within his cycle or retribution? Pain, grief and the impulse for revenge are negative motivations that give rise to mutually destructive acts of desperation. No relief and no remedy can be found in that course. “Why and when did we allow a few from our midst to interpret Israeli military attacks on innocent Palestinian lives as license to do the same to their civilians? [February, 2002: “The (US) Progressive’]” One cannot deny the commitment and resilience Dr Hanan Ashrawi has demonstrated over the years in advocating for peace and human rights and in building a healthy dialogue to resolve the long-term Israel/Palestine conflict. We kindly ask you to sign the petition: "Support Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi" We are trying to reach 5000 signatures, and we need YOUR HELP! Please help by signing this petition. It takes 30 seconds and will really help. Please follow this link: www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/439042231 Once you have signed, we ask you to email this petition to your friends and family to sign as well. Thank you,
Darren Raeburn
Randa Kattan
Related Articles
By: Ben Saul
Date: 29/10/2003
×
A Just Peace, Not Just Any Peace
The Sydney Peace Prize is Australia ’s pre-eminent way of acknowledging the extraordinary people who risk their lives for the cause of peace. Past recipients have been towering symbols of justice: Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu, Xanana Gusmao, William Deane and Muhammad Yunus. Their achievements speak for themselves. In stark contrast, the award of this year’s Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi, a well known Palestinian human rights activist, politician and academic, has been dogged by spectacular controversy. The typically laconic pace of Sydney politics has been shaken by claims that Ashrawi supports Palestinian violence and opposes Israel ’s right to exist. In response, the city council has withdrawn its support for the prize in protest against Ashrawi. The lord mayor has been accused of bowing to Jewish pressure to reject Ashrawi, in order to help her husband get elected to federal politics in an electorate with a large Jewish population. The local university has refused to allow the award to be presented in its ceremonial hall. It seems the full fury of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been dumped on the beaches of the relaxed harbour city. Ashrawi herself arrives in Sydney in early November to collect her prize, surrounded by this turmoil. The Sydney Peace Prize is judged on three criteria: a significant contribution to global peace, an ability to further the cause of peace with justice, and a commitment to non-violence. Putting aside the provincial politicking, on all of these measures, Dr Hanan Ashrawi is a deserving and well considered choice. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is simply impossible to achieve universal agreement on the ‘right’ choice. The history of that conflict is one of deep bitterness, which has soured this year’s award and obscured the real achievements of Dr Ashrawi. To her credit, Dr Ashrawi has refused to comment on the parochial politics and considerable vitriol behind much of the dispute. Unlike most commentators, Hanan Ashrawi has lived her life under Israeli military occupation. At different times she has been arrested and detained, barred from her homeland, subjected to arbitrary and humiliating strip-searches at military checkpoints, held the head of a dying student, rushed wounded students to hospital, been fired on with teargas, and borne the brunt of intense international scrutiny and criticism, including hurtful assertions that she is not really committed to peace. Despite all of this, Ashrawi has remained committed to a peaceful and non-violent solution. Since her early student involvement in human rights and legal aid, she has had a distinguished role in grassroots politics, including during the intifadah, as well as by representing Palestinians in government and at peace talks. She founded leading civil society groups devoted to citizen’s rights, dialogue and democracy. She has also been a strong supporter of the rule of law, through strengthening judicial institutions, training and disciplining police and security forces, ensuring due process, and guaranteeing the accountability of those in power. She resigned from the Palestinian government in 1998 because of concerns about corruption, and she fell out with Arafat over her call for the democratic reform of Palestinian institutions. She plainly does not put politics before principle, even if it damages her own career. Internationally, she has worked with the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank and the United Nations. It is a wonder that someone so principled and distinguished has become so embroiled in a messy local controversy, which unfairly challenges her reputation. Yet Ashrawi is an easy person to defend, precisely because her record is so impressive. Two main accusations must be answered – first, that she has encouraged violence and second, that she rejects a two-state solution and Israel ’s right to exist. On the first charge, Ashrawi’s record shows that she has been firmly committed to non-violence. As she plainly wrote in 2002: “Violence against civilians is morally reprehensible and repugnant regardless of the identity of the perpetrator”. While she has often discussed why Palestinians have resorted to violence, there is a crucial moral difference between explaining the causes of violence and actively supporting it. Identifying the causes does not justify violence, but hopes to understand the grievances and desperation felt by Palestinians under occupation. Many of the views falsely attributed to Ashrawi rest on a failure to understand this distinction. Ashrawi has rightly stated that much of the violence, while deplorable, is a response to illegal Israeli occupation, territorial expansion through settlements, the building of a physical wall of segregation, the policy of assassination, the demolition of houses and confiscation or destruction of land, political detentions and human rights abuses – including torture – in detention. It was past winner of the Peace Prize, Desmond Tutu, who in 1989 compared the Israeli occupation to apartheid in South Africa . As Ashrawi said in 2000, Israel cannot “create a powder keg situation and then complain once the powder keg explodes”. At the same time, Ashrawi has condemned terrorism. On Australian television in September 2003, she strongly criticised the violence of Hamas and Jihad and demanded that they commit to democracy and the rule of law. As she said: “Nobody gave Hamas or Jihad the mandate to carry out these [terrorist] actions in the name of the Palestinians.” In her view, Hamas and Jihad are not controlled by the PLO, but oppose it, precisely because, unlike the PLO, those groups do not accept Israel ’s right to exist. Ashrawi has also observed that it was unrealistic to expect the Palestinian Authority to crack down on terrorist groups at a time when Israel was methodically destroying the institutions and capabilities of the Authority. She said that to require the under-resourced Palestinian Authority to stop the same violence that the Israeli army could not stop ‘is to set the authority up for a fall’. Pre-conditioning peace on the Authority eliminating violence was always unrealistic. Ashrawi correctly denied that Palestinians celebrated the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is true that limited television footage showed some groups of Palestinians celebrating. But that hardly proves that most Palestinians reacted that way, just as footage of soccer hooligans does not prove that most soccer fans are violent. Indeed it is a bluntly orientalist view of Palestinians to believe that brief and sensational news clips reflect the experience of wider Palestinian society. Yet it also is important to distinguish armed conflict from terrorism. Terrorism has no meaning in international law, whereas military action in self-defence by a people (or self-determination group) against an illegal occupier is well recognized in law. When Xanana Gusmao received the Peace Prize in 2000, nobody argued that he was a poor choice because he supported the East Timorese military campaign against Indonesia . The important point is that civilians must not be targeted and Ashrawi has never called for the killing of civilians, nor even for the killing of Israeli soldiers. On the second charge, it manifestly clear that Ashrawi accepts the principle of a two-state solution and Israel ’s right to exist. She has constantly struggled for a just peace, not just any peace. She has repeatedly said that negotiations cannot trade justice for peace; that politicians cannot barter away the human rights of Palestinians in the search for a solution. Indeed this argument has been one of her major contributions to the peace process and is why some parts of the road-map on a two-state solution have been so unacceptable. Dr Ashrawi has argued that the great inequality of power between Israel and the Palestinians has disadvantaged Palestinians in the peace process. The weakness of Palestinians is exploited by Israel , which dictates the terms of the negotiations and excludes multilateral solutions in conformity with international law. As Ariel Sharon himself said in 1998: “The Oslo agreement is very important for the Palestinians since it is the only official agreed-upon document they got. We have another document, a much older one … the Bible.” Under the peace deal suggested by Israel , the territory offered to Palestinians was limited in both size and quality, with Israeli settlers poaching much of the best land, water and roads. The right of return of refugees was excluded. As Ashrawi says, the foundation of Israel took over 78 per cent of the British mandate territory of Palestine , yet Israel wants to retain control over the best parts of the remaining 22 per cent comprising the occupied territories. Accepting any of the settlements amounts to consent to the acquisition of territory by force, which is indisputably unlawful under international law. Critics say that Palestine was never a State and the Palestinians never had legal title to the land. But that misses the point. Palestinians once lived there. Then they were forced to leave. Over 4.6 million are still in exile, awaiting justice. Legal complexities do not change the fact that many Palestinians once had homes but now do not. It is also doubtful whether Palestinians can trust their partners in peace. In 1998, Ariel Sharon told a group of Jewish militants: “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” It is hard to negotiate in good faith with a Prime Minister such as this, historically known for inciting violence. As Ashrawi said at the World Conference Against Racism in 2001, it is little wonder that Palestinians feel victimized when senior Israeli leaders in the past have called them two-legged vermin, cockroaches, beasts walking on two legs, a people that have to be exterminated unless they live as slaves, grasshoppers to be crushed, crocodiles, and vipers. Far from being a Holocaust denier, as an English scholar, a Palestinian, and a woman, Ashrawi is painfully aware of the dehumanizing and demonising language of persecution. Israel ’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, was frank about the dispossession of the Palestinians. His words should be remembered by those who blame the Palestinians for the failure of peace: “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel . It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz , but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”. Dr Ashrawi accepts it because, after so much violence, she wants peace. Ben Saul is a Tutor in Public International Law at Magdalen College, University of Oxford. He wrote this opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald. By: Vivienne Porzsolt
Date: 30/10/2003
×
Campaign against Hanan Ashrawi
Dear friends You may not know that Hanan Ashrawi has been awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for 2003 awarded by the Sydney Peace Foundation. Hanan Ashrawi has been subject to an unprecedented campaign of vilification and disinformation by the Zionist Establishment. There is an international campaign to have Carr and the University of Sydney dissassociate itself from the award. The University has already withdrawn the use of its Great Hall for the presentation, despite it having been available for previous awards. The Premier of NSW Bob Carr is presenting the prize 6 November. He has so far resisted the pressure to withdraw. The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Lucy Turnbull has caved in to the pressure and has disassociated the City of Sydney, a sponsor of the prize, from the presentation this year. A factor is that Turnbull's husband, Malcolm Turnbull, is a very wealthy merchant banker now trying to bulldoze his way into a nomination for a parliamentary seat. This may seem a storm in a teacup for you as someone far from the parochial squabbles of Sydney. But with the intervention of Associate Professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar Ilan University with an international petition now said to number 10,000, this is an international attack on the standing and credibility of a key Palestinian leader. It is an attack on the Palestinian national movement. What you can do: Write to:
Australian Jewish News valhadeff@jewishnews.net.au
Shalom
Vivienne Porzsolt
By: Alan Ramsey
Date: 26/10/2003
×
Here's Lucy, Caving In, Taking Flight
Dr Hanan Mikhail Ashrawi is a woman, a professor of English, an international human rights activist, and a politician. A year ago she was chosen, unanimously, to receive the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. The Premier, Bob Carr, will present Ashrawi with her award at State Parliament in 12 days. The first four recipients of the annual prize were honoured at functions in the Great Hall of Sydney University. They included South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999), East Timor's President Xanana Gusmao (2000) and Australia's Sir William Deane (2001). However, for Ashrawi, the Great Hall is out of bounds. This is not because Ashrawi is either a woman, an academic or a political activist. It is because she is a Palestinian. That is enough to ensure a virulent campaign of distortion and ridicule by Jewish critics to brutalise her image and try to have Carr renege on Ashrawi's presentation and the award taken from her. So far Carr has refused to buckle. Not so Sydney University. Earlier this year the university's chancellor, Justice Kim Santow of the NSW Supreme Court, made it known to Professor Stuart Rees, director of the Sydney Peace Foundation, and to Kathryn Greiner, the foundation's chairwoman at the time, that the Great Hall would be closed to Ashrawi. Rees and an academic colleague, Ken McNabb, took the matter to Sydney's vice-chancellor, Gavin Brown. In what was called a "difficult and shameful" meeting, Brown confirmed the decision. The campaign now is about maximum political pressure for other corporate and civic sponsors to abandon Ashrawi and intimidate Carr. Lucy Turnbull, Sydney's Lord Mayor since Frank Sartor joined Carr's ministry after the NSW elections in March, is the latest to fold her tent and take flight. Sartor, as lord mayor, had earlier arranged for the City of Sydney to be a $30,000 annual sponsor, for five years, of the Peace Foundation lecture, which is always given, in a separate function, by the peace prize winner the night before the award ceremony on the first Thursday in November. On Tuesday this week, in a brief "Dear Professor Rees" letter dated October 20, Turnbull told Rees the Sydney City Council "will be unable to participate in this year's Peace Prize events". That is, the council was blackballing both the lecture and the award ceremony. Turnbull's reasons for doing so were a travesty: the usual ignorant mishmash of allegations forever trotted out by the usual suspects against any Palestinian with international credibility and standing in the peace process. Lucy Turnbull should read the letter from a Jewish academic at Oxford University published in the Herald yesterday. Then she should go hide her head in shame. The letter responded to Tony Stephens's story in the Herald two days earlier about Turnbull's craven cave-in to the anti-Ashrawi campaign. It said: "Opposition to awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi has so far been based on historical ignorance, ideological blindness, wilful malevolence or provincial political opportunism." (Are you listening, Malcolm?) The letter continued: "Dr Ashrawi has been a rare and precious voice of reason in the peace process and her commitment to a just solution has been exemplary. She has consistently encouraged Palestinians to reject violence, despite continuing Israeli territorial expansion and systemic political oppression." (signed) Ben Saul, Tutor in International Law, Magdalen College, University of Oxford, England. And what does Rees think of Lucy's white feather? He said yesterday: "When I negotiated the sponsorship contract with the City of Sydney, I did so with Frank Sartor, not Lucy Turnbull. She's an interesting person. I've had face-to-face communications with all the major corporate sponsors who support us over this issue. I even flew down to Melbourne to talk to Rio Tinto. But Lucy Turnbull and co are like the Medicis of the Town Hall. She never talks to me. All I got was this summary note a couple of days ago in which, for her own purposes, she completely misinterprets Ashrawi's public statements and says she won't publicly support us this year. "In other words, she won't be seen in the same company as Ashrawi. She doesn't even want to be seen in the lecture theatre. Apparently it's more than her husband's political life is worth." Ah, yes, of course - Malcolm Turnbull's much publicised stalking of the Liberals' Peter King in his pursuit of the eastern suburbs' federal seat of Wentworth. Lucy Turnbull has gone to ground since her "Dear John" letter to Rees this week. But a senior business figure phoned Rees on Tuesday to tell him of a conversation he'd overheard at a function the previous night. It apparently included Lucy being told something like: "That wretched King is going around saying you support the Palestinians because you're a party to this peace prize." Rees commented: "So Hanan Ashrawi gets her name sullied and ridiculed because the Turnbulls want to be more important that they already are." And Kathryn Greiner? Greiner was chairwoman of the Sydney Peace Foundation for four years until her resignation this year over an issue of solidarity involving her husband, Nick, against the Senate of Sydney University and unconnected with the peace prize bitchiness. She was one of the jury of six who selected Ashrawi unanimously in September last year as this year's recipient (the other five: Rees; social researcher Hugh Mackay; Dr Jane Fulton from University management; Stella Cornelius, Sydney's 83-year-old grand dame of conflict mediation; James McLachlan, a director of Kerry Packer's PBL). Greiner remains a non-voting member in support of Rees. But two weeks ago, on October 9, she phoned Rees to talk frankly about her concerns with an accelerating campaign against Ashrawi. A file note of their conversation reads: KG: "I have to speak logically. It is either Hanan Ashrawi or the Peace Foundation. That's our choice, Stuart. My distinct impression is that if you persist in having her here, they'll destroy you. Rob Thomas of City Group is in trouble for supporting us. I think he must have had a phone call from New York. And you know Danny Gilbert [partner in the law firm, Gilbert and Tobin] has already been warned off." SR: "You must be joking. We've been over this a hundred times. We consulted widely. We agreed the jury's decision, made over a year ago, was not only unanimous but that we would support it, together." KG: "But listen, I'm trying to present the logic of this. They'll destroy what you've worked for. They are determined to show we made a bad choice. I think it's Frank Lowy's money. You don't understand just how much opposition there is. We cannot go ahead. If only there was progress in the Middle East, this would not be such a bad time." SR: "I won't be subject to bullying and intimidation. We are being threatened by members of a powerful group who think they have an entitlement to tell others what to do. This opposition is orchestrated. The arguments are all the same - that Hanan Ashrawi has not condemned violence sufficiently, that she was highly critical of Israel in her address to the UN's Johannesburg Conference on racism, and wilder accusations that do not bear repetition." KG: "But you're not listening to the logic. The Commonwealth Bank - I was at a reception last night - is highly critical. We could not approach them for financial help for the Schools Peace Prize. We'll get no support from them. The business world will close ranks. They're saying we are being one-sided, that we've only supported Palestine." SR: "Kathryn, we need to avoid the trap of even using the language of 'one side'. That's not the issue. We are being bullied and intimidated and you are asking that we give way to it. The letter writers and the phone callers who this group encourage have spent weeks bullying a 25-year-old colleague of mine who handles the foundation's administration. You are asking me to collude with bullying." KG: "I'll tell you how serious this is. Bob Carr won't come to the dinner. He'll flick the responsibility to [his deputy, Andrew] Refshauge at the last minute. And you won't get the Town Hall. It is more than Lucy's life is worth. They will desert us as well." SR: "I've never given way to bullying. Public life is too much characterised by cowardice. If we give way I'd be so ashamed I couldn't face myself. The image of the Peace Foundation would be shameful. Our reputation would count for nothing." KG: "My friend, I am telling you what the reality is. The foundation will be destroyed. I'd hate to see its work come to nothing over this. Our critics are saying it's an awful choice." SR: "These critics are 'they' and 'them', invisible but powerful people. They stay powerful because they are invisible. They bully and intimidate in the same breath they behave as unblemished pillars of the community. Do you mean to say that in cautious, often gutless Australia we are not going to follow through on this? No. I remain completely committed to our decision." Watch this space. Source: Sydney Morning Herald Read More...
By: MIFTAH
Date: 20/05/2006
×
Petition Against the Israeli High Court of Justice’s Discriminatory Decision to Amend the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law
On 14 May 2006, the Israeli High Court of Justice voted 6-5 in favor of an amendment to the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law that bars family reunification for Israelis, particularly Palestinian-Israelis, married to Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This law affects tens of thousands of couples including Palestinian-Israelis inside the Green Line and in Jerusalem, who are also subject to Israeli law and who often marry Palestinians from inside the occupied territories. According to Amnesty International, the law violates the absolute prohibition on discrimination contained in international human rights law, notably several treaties which Israel has ratified and is obliged to uphold, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Israel is also violating the International Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16 of the Declaration states, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family,” and “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” In addition, The Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, to which Israel is party, requires signatory states to enable every foreign woman married to a citizen of the state to obtain the citizenship held by her husband, at her request, through special and preferred citizenship procedures. For Palestinian ID holders married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents of Jerusalem, this means they must either build their family outside of the country or choose to live “illegally” inside Israel, which subjects them to the constant threat of arrest, deportation and harassment. In addition, living illegally means they are not entitled to any rights of a resident/citizen and cannot therefore work, drive or conduct otherwise routine everyday actions. Hence, we the undersigned call on the relevant parties (the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process & Personal Representative of the Secretary General, the Middle East Quartet, the Israeli High Court of Justice, and the Office of the Israeli Prime Minister) to have this discriminatory law annulled, insomuch that it prohibits Palestinian families to live in peace and prosperity with their spouses inside Israel and Jerusalem and which contravenes all laws of humanity, which respect the sanctity of the family unit. This is especially true in regards to the right of children to be brought up in a stable home without the risk of deportation and harassment on the sole basis of nationality.
By: The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel
Date: 02/06/2004
×
Call to Repeal Israeli Discriminatory Citizenship Law
The following petition has been instituted by Mossawa, The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel. Please consider signing the petition, and passint it on. To: All elected governments On July 31st, 2003, the Israeli Knesset passed the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 2003 prohibiting citizenship, permanent residency and/or temporary residency status to West Bank/Gaza Palestinians married to Israeli citizens. Nearly all of the affected Israeli families are Arab. According to Israel's Ministry of Interior, the law, to be applied retroactively, will affect 21,298 families. The law also denies citizenship to children born of an Israeli citizen and resident of the Occupied Territories. Via special permission from Israel's Interior Minister children will be allowed to remain with their family in Israel until the age of 12, when the child will be uprooted and forced to leave the state. This law is considered a new level of human rights violations by the State of Israel, taking into consideration the 27 Arab citizens killed by Security Forces since October 2000 and the ongoing social, economic and political discrimination against Arab citizens. Israel's expressed security concerns related to a handful of cases, does not justify the collective punishment of over 100,000 innocent individuals. Civil rights attorneys point out that the law will not apply to settlers in the West Bank/Gaza. The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 2003 violates Israel's commitment to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination's (ICERD) basic condemnation of racial discrimination described in articles 1, 2, and 3. The current law also relates to Article 5.d. (iv): "States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the right to marriage and choice of spouse." The current law builds upon a series of attempts by the State to limit the number of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. As of September 2000, the issuing of residence permits for Palestinian spouses has been effectively frozen. On May 12, 2002, the Israeli cabinet formalized and expanded this policy "in light of the security situation and because of the implications of the immigration and the establishment in Israel of foreigners of Palestinian descent" (Government Decision no. 1813). The bill highlights the "demographic debate" in Israeli society, characterized by questions of citizenship, immigration and fertility policy. Former Minister of Interior, Shas member Eli Yishai often presented his view that Arab families present "a demographic threat" to the maintenance of a Jewish majority in Israel. In 2002, Yishai reinstated the Demographic Council, a body charged with the goal of maintaining a demographic balance (i.e. a Jewish majority) in Israel. The Demographic Council recommended discouraging growth of families by cutting child-subsidies; at the same, it advocated the launching of programs encouraging Jewish births. Therefore, we the undersigned world citizens condemn the Israeli government's passage of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 2003 and the multiple human rights violations it represents. We call upon our elected leadership to continue expressing opposition to the law by taking steps towards suspension of economic relations with the State of Israel. Sincerely,
By: The National Initiative to Resist the Wall
Date: 09/11/2003
×
Wall Petition
The National Initiative to Resist the Wall Dear Sir/Madame, On June 23rd 2002, Israel started the construction of what it calls a “security fence,” but what the world overwhelmingly recognizes as a “separation or colonization wall.” This wall is to be built in three phases and by the time it is finished, 55% of the West Bank would be captured. The West Bank which includes east Jerusalem makes up 22% of historical Palestine and along with Gaza is intended to form a future viable and independent state for the Palestinians is accordance with President Bush’s June 2001 vision of two states living side by side in peace. The construction of the “colonization wall” is a grave violation of human rights, international law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, and most importantly the international will. The Wall will seize the wealthiest Palestinian agricultural land and will manage to increase the area available for the development of illegal settlements built on privately owned Palestinian land. The Wall is designed to grant Israel control over the water resources which exist on the western and eastern sides of the West Bank. The western and eastern sides will become “security zones” providing linkage between the Green Line and the Jordan Valley while dividing the Palestinian urban areas and neighborhoods into isolated communities, which are completely surrounded by Israel. The myth that this wall separates Palestinians form Israelis needs to be addressed. In the first phase alone, the route of the wall moved into Palestinian territories some 20 kilometers at some points in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements built near the Green Line, while leaving 23 settlements, home to 196,000 Israeli settlers on the Palestinian side of the wall and inside the Jerusalem envelope. The already constructed northern part of the Wall has resulted in the uprooting of 83,000 trees, the damaging of 35,000 meters of irrigation networks and the demolishing of 280 Palestinian homes. Frighteningly, these numbers are expected to at least triple by the time the wall is completed. This wall is a direct violation of Palestinian rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The right of movement has been severely impacted by the gates and electronic fences that are accompanied by remote controlled machine guns to assure that no one living close to the wall can move around. Concomitantly, the right to work and have an adequate standard of living has been gravely curtailed, as Palestinians are imprisoned behind concrete walls. Moreover, the right to property has all but disappeared as 55% of the land belonging to the Palestinians that forms a significant part of the West Bank will be confiscated by Israel. Last but not least, the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of mental or physical health and education has been devastated by the inherent lack of resources brought on by the above restrictions. Israel has disclosed plans that it intends to annex the strategic Jordan River Valley to Israel. A senior Israeli official said the plan for the wall that would cut the Jordan River Valley off from the rest of West Bank has been approved. Nineteen small illegal Israeli settlements dot the Jordan River Valley, a parched, hot strip of barren land punctuated by two main oases — the Palestinian towns of Jericho and Jiftliq. Palestinians and the international community, including the US, fear the partition's route will harden into a de facto border and prejudice negotiations. It is clear to the international community that’s this wall encroaches beyond its ‘security’ purpose. It goes along with Sharon’s long-standing concept of a permanent arrangement with the Palestinians that would give them control over populated enclaves around the West Bank, while ensuring that Israel would maintain control over the entire periphery. President Bush was quoted as saying: “there is a difference between security and land acquisition.” It is that kind of leadership and stance we expect from the protector of human rights, international law and democratic values, which should apply to all. While the American administration has been vocal in its opposition of the wall, it has been weak in its actions, resulting in growing mistrust for the American role and evenhandedness in making Middle East peace. It is time to take a stance with justice and with human rights. It is time to think of the future and put an end to this land theft for the sake of true peace in the region. We call upon you, our world leaders and the Israeli Prime Minister to take a brave stance for justice and human rights. One can only lead through good will and equality for only then can one trust others’ intentions and cooperate accordingly. “With great powers come great responsibilities,” so we turn to you to save the Palestinian existence along with what is left of Palestinian land. Without justice there can never be peace, we simply turn to you and expect from you to uphold the values you preach and give peace a chance.
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street, Al Massayef, Ramallah Postalcode P6058131
Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647 Jerusalem
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1 972-2-298 9492 info@miftah.org
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
|