Annapolis: A "Generous Offer" for Palestinian Refugees?
by Neta Golan, 5 December 2007

from AlterNet, see original text here:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/69740/?page=1

Under Israel and Bush's "solution", Palestinian refugees who had been expelled from what is now Israel could return, not to their homes, but to small, non-contiguous parts of less than 22% of their original homeland.


Anyone familiar with Israeli politics was not surprised that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not acknowledge Israel's occupation in his speech at Annapolis. What was surprising was that, while stopping short of mentioning the "R" word -- refugees -- Olmert did acknowledge the Palestinian refugee problem.

Referring to the Palestinians, the Israeli Prime Minister stated in his Annapolis speech: "your people, too, have suffered for many years; and there are some who still suffer. Many Palestinians have been living for decades in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew up, wallowing in poverty, in neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of humiliation."

Olmert's characterization of the refugees is only partially correct. Poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and feelings of humiliation, are only one component of the refugee experience. There are also other components, such as community, pride, generosity, and perseverance. This one-dimensional characterization obviously suits Olmert's conception of a solution. It also casts refugees as objects that will be acted upon (once again), rather than subjects who can genuinely participate in finding a solution. A recent article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, titled "Refugees and Jerusalem: A question of money," sheds light on Olmert's statements. The article revealed the outlines of the deal being cooked to sell the rights of the Palestinian refugees.

In addition to oral testimonies given both by Palestinian refugees and Jewish combatants, many official documents describe policies and actions taken by Jewish militias which were designed to expel Palestinians from what has become the state Israel. According to Israeli Historian Benny Morris, "In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was to become the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves." Yet Olmert presented the refugee issue as a humanitarian problem, not unlike one caused by a natural disaster, saying that "Israel will be part of an international mechanism that will assist in finding a solution to this problem." Olmert made it clear that he was not admitting Israel's responsibility for creating the problem by saying "I came here today not in order to settle historical accounts between us…", and by equating the Palestinian refugee problem with the "constant suffering of many Israelis."

The solution Olmert suggests is "an international effort, in which we (Israel) will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories agreed upon between us." The suggestion that the refugees do not have the choice to return to the lands from which they were expelled, but instead "return" to a future Palestinian state, is contrary to international humanitarian law, and to UN resolution 194 that "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date." Despite this, the United States President George Bush promised Ariel Sharon in a letter on the 14th of April 2004 "an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel." Despite the illegality of these promises, they were ratified on June 23, 2004 by both the United States House and Senate. Olmert refers to this letter in his statement as a point of departure for the negotiations.

Working groups are now developing plans to implement Bush's promise. According to Ha'aretz, The Aix Group, "a semi-official political-economic backchannel," is developing a plan for Palestinian refugees. The Aix Group's members include Israeli, Palestinian and international economic experts, academics, members of economic organizations, and officials from international institutions, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, who participate in the Aix Group in their personal capacities.

The group is administered by a steering committee led by Prof. Gilbert Benhayoun, a Moroccan-born Frenchman, Prof. Arie Arnon, economics professor from Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva, Said Bamya, the former deputy minister for economic affairs in the Palestinian Authority, Dr. Ron Pundak, director of the Peres Center and Dr. Samir Hazbun from DATA Studies and Consultation. Other partners include the European Union, French donors, the World Bank, the French Foreign Ministry, the International Development Research Center in Canada, the General Council of the Bouches du Rhone, and the Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur.

The Aix Group's document opens with a declaration of principles stating that an agreed and just long-term solution to the problem of the 1948 refugees must be based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, including General Assembly Resolution 194, but then nullifies that statement by saying that "a literal application of this Resolution is no longer possible given the substantial changes on the ground." The document then describes an arrangement that would substitute for the U.N. resolution which they have deemed no longer applicable, stating that, "The parties would agree that the measures recommended in the paper implement Resolution 194."

The reference to "substantial changes on the ground" as an obstacle that renders the UN resolution inapplicable perpetuates the myth that physical or material obstacles render return impossible. According to Salman Abu Sitta an expert on the Palestinian refugee issue, "90% of the village sites are still vacant, 7% are partially built-over, and only 3% are totally built over in Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem." Of course, there are obvious issues that would have to be addressed. But these problems have been dealt with in many places, such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Tajikistan, to name a few, and pose no obstacle in and of themselves to return. A hint to what the real obstacle may be lies in Ha'aretz correspondent Akiva Eldar's statement that "The Aix Group is convinced that if bold steps are not taken in the right direction, the vision of one state for two peoples, based on joint citizenship and equality before the law, will be placed on the agenda."

The group suggests that an international committee of experts would determine what constitutes "fair and full" compensation for property claims. They estimate that the total cost of these claims will be between $15 billion and $30 billion.

The group makes it clear that in cases in which "fair and full compensation" is offered, "restitution" (the right of return) will not be considered. This formulation turns the basic principle set in the UN Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons totally on end. The UN principles clearly note that restitution is the primary remedy, and compensation only comes into play if refugees themselves choose compensation, or if restitution is factually not possible as determined by an independent tribunal.

"Palestinian refugees will be asked to choose a permanent place of residence, the group proposes that the individuals choose more than one alternative and rank their priorities." But the implementation of this choice depends on "the states concerned", including Israel. Aix proposes to create an International Agency for the Palestinian Refugees (IAPR) that will be responsible "to ensure that the final decisions satisfy the wishes of the refugees as much as possible and are in line with the overall agreements to be signed between the representatives of the two sides, and possibly also with the relevant host countries and other countries."

The Aix group expects that a large number of refugees will choose to relocate to other countries at the cost of $8 billion to $19 billion, depending on how many refugees will choose to move from their current country of residence. The plan suggests that some of the Palestinian refugees will be rehabilitated in their current locations and will receive compensation "in kind or in money" at a cost of $10 billion to $14 billion.

In addition, the group recommends the creation of a fourth fund, which will require about $22 billion, for compensation relating to "refugeehood" not related to property claims or the other programs. All the registered refugees will receive a uniform amount of about $5,000 each. According to Ha'aretz, the money can be attained in a period spread out over 10 years and with extensive, generous international aid.

Under international humanitarian law the right of refugees to return to their homes is an inalienable, individual human right. Like all human rights, it is invaluable and cannot be bought. Under Israel and Bush's "solution", Palestinian refugee families who had been expelled from what is now Israel would be consigned to return, not to their homes, but to small, non-contiguous parts of less than 22% of their original homeland. Jews from anywhere in the world, on the other hand, would be free to "return" to more than 78% of historic Palestine, frequently to live on land seized from those same Palestinian refugees. Such clear discrimination against Palestinian refugees and privileging of Jews from anywhere in the world illustrates clearly that these proposals would further a separate but unequal solution that cannot result in peace.


Neta Golan is an Israeli peace with justice activist living in Ramallah, and a founder of the International Solidarity Movement. For more information see: http://www.apartheidmasked.org

An Interview with Jonas Moffat,
by Patrick McDermott (2007)

http://www.philipmetres.com/content/view/69

It is often tempting to overlook injustice that does not impact one's daily life. It is unsettling to acknowledge that millions throughout the world cannot enjoy the same freedoms that many take for granted in this country. It is easier not to think about it. This apathy, however, is what allows oppression and evil to persist in the world. Without brave individuals standing up and speaking out, some of history's greatest injustices may have never been corrected. Peace and human rights activists focus their efforts on correcting these injustices and making sure that the world does not turn a blind eye to them. While their efforts may not be widely publicized, the impact that they have is undeniable.

One such individual trying to make an impact is Jonas Moffatt. Jonas is an American activist who centers his efforts in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. While Jonas originally arrived in Palestine as a human rights observer for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), his role has changed somewhat. Jonas became the co-founder of an organization known as the Tel Rumeida Circus for Detained Palestinians (TRCDP). This organization performs circus-style shows in and around Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank. These shows are a way of alleviating tension in what is typically a hostile setting. The TRCDP is certainly a creative approach to activism and also one that is gaining many fans. Whenever Jonas is back in the United States, he and others from both the ISM and TRCDP tour the country educating individuals about their efforts and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general.

I first learned of the Tel Rumeida Circus when I met Jonas at the Cleveland Sabeel Conference. After the conference, Jonas and I began corresponding and I was also able to gather information from his website and blog. Jonas was more than happy to answer questions that I had regarding his involvement in Palestine and a transcript of my interview follows:

What was your knowledge or understanding of the conflict while growing up/ previous to getting involved?

Before I heard Diana Buttu, a lawyer for the PLO Negotiation Affairs Dept, I didn't even know where Palestine was on a map. Ms. Buttu was speaking at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA, and I just happened to see the flyer hanging up on campus and decided to hear her lecture, entitled "In pursuit of peace in the Middle East." My previous understanding was very low. I would have told you that Palestinians were the aggressors or even that Palestine was occupying Israel. But hearing Ms. Buttu speak opened the gates to dismantling the media-version of Palestine and the Palestinians that was forced upon me from as far as I could remember.

How did you first become involved with Tel Rumeida Circus for Detained Palestinians?

I was a human rights observer in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood of Hebron, Palestine, last summer, 2006. One of our duties was to sit or walk the streets in areas of high tension. Tel Rumeida is a Palestinian neighborhood where right-wing, fundamentalist Jewish Israeli settlers have illegally colonized some of the neighborhood. Often, these settlers will attack Palestinians on their way to and from work, school, and home. There is a checkpoint leading into one of the streets, called "Shuhadda St." which means the street of the martyrs. This military checkpoint separates Palestinians in Tel Rumeida from Palestinians in the larger part of Hebron.

Daily, Palestinians, mostly men in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, are subject to arbitrary ID checks. Sometimes, soldiers will detain these men for hours in the hot sun and refuse to give them water.

Another human rights worker and myself, happened to have our circus equipment with us like our poi spinners and juggling pins. We were teaching Palestinian children who live on Shuhadda street circus skills. These children rarely come out and play because they are afraid of being attacked by extremist settlers.

One day, we saw that a Palestinian man was being detained for quite a long time. We decided, in response to this, to try and de-escalate the situation. We started performing next to the checkpoint. Our hope was to put the soldiers in a better mood, to entertain the detainees, to take the focus off of the Palestinians and to place it on us. That first day, the soldiers released the detained Palestinian almost immediately. We showed the soldiers that we were not threatening.

We would return from Shuhadda St. to the checkpoint anytime the soldiers were detaining a Palestinian for long periods of time. And that's how we adopted our name: the Tel Rumeida Circus for Detained Palestinians.

Can you briefly explain exactly what the TRCDP does?

And eventually TRCDP grew. We were asked to start teaching classes at the community center. Because we didn't have any funding or additional equipment, we began to make equipment by hand, using cloth and lentils and thread, then sewing them together to make poi swingers and juggling bean bags.

Then, every Friday, we were asked to perform a weekly fire show, choreographed and set to music. Palestinian children and adults from the neighborhood would gather around. Eventually they told their friends and every Friday our circus audience would grow.

At times, Israeli soldiers from the various checkpoints in the area would leave their post and watch TRCDP perform from the background.

Do you feel that being Jewish is a conflict of interest in the line of work that you do?

Katie Miranda, the co-creator of TRCDP is Jewish. You can direct this
question to her at: katie@theopticnerve.com


How are you received in the United States when you tell people about the type of work that you do?

In the US, I am generally well-received by the majority of my audiences. There are times, however, when I am accused of being anti-Semitic or anti-Israel when I speak. My response is that the photos and videos and stories speak for themselves. When you see a wall ripping apart a village and stealing 60% of the farmland, it speaks for itself. When you see Israeli soldiers forcing Palestinian youth to serve as human shields for the army vehicle, the video speaks for itself. They are the policies
of Israel, apartheid laws that not only me, but the entire international community, international law, Geneva conventions, and human beings are against.

But typically people are shocked when they see my presentations and want to get more involved in some way or another.

How are you received by the Jewish American community for the type of work that you do?

When Katie and I were on a speaking tour for TRCDP of the US, we were denied speaking at a couple synagogues, but for the most part, the Jewish American community that I have been in contact with have been very supportive. The Middle East Peace Forum, for example, hosted my presentation in Pittsburgh.

Do you feel that the average American citizen has an accurate understanding of the current situation in Palestine?

NO, I do not believe that the average American citizen has an accurate understanding of the situation in Palestine. I don't think anyone anywhere in the world can begin to remotely understand it unless they come here and see the situation for themselves, a situation the Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter both say is worse than South African Apartheid. Regarding American citizens, I blame it mostly on the media, and the slant they give and their bias towards Israel. I would recommend "IfAmericansKnew.org" for anyone that wants to understand the extent of this Israel bias. It is also the power of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, one of the largest lobbies in the United States, just a step under the gun lobby. These two factors combined make it nearly impossible for the average American citizen to understand Palestine's situation-- unless they happen to have a Diana Buttu in their life.

What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding or stereotype that Americans have of this conflict?

"All Palestinians are terrorists." I think this is the biggest stereotype. When the media only reports on suicide bombings in Israel and refuses to talk about the massive non-violent resistance movement all over Palestine, or the state-sponsored Israeli terrorism that drops bombs on crowded markets and schools in Gaza, or the demolition of Palestinian homes and olive trees in the West Bank-- when all Americans hear are the violent and negative aspect of Palestinian resistance, it helps to foster this stereotype. When the media over-reports on this violence and does not give a fair account of the Palestinian version- it mandates this stereotype and misunderstanding into the mainstream. It is a stereotype that I once subscribed to. But being here, and living it, and breathing it and feeling it, crossing through military checkpoints and eyewitnessing olive tree uprooting and home demolitions, helps to deconstruct that stereotype, and I would welcome anyone in the US, or the world for that matter, to see the destruction that our tax dollars are causing, in our name. No one can leave Palestine, who holds the "terrorist stereotype", without having it do a full 180.

Do you believe that current war in Iraq has brought more attention to the Palestinian cause?

I don't know if, as a whole, the Iraq war has brought more attention to the Palestinian cause. On a personal level, it did for me. This again relates back to Diana Buttu. Her presentation highlighted the inevitable upcoming war in Iraq. This inherently related to Palestine.

The writers and politicians of PNAC, project for a new American century, called for this war in Iraq. Besides the oil, it doubly served as a war for Israel, and her security. So, along with Iraq, surely it brings more attention to the region. Saddam Hussein, the man whose power the Americans helped to create and strengthen, was later put to death at the request of the same people who made him. Saddam's last words highlighted the Palestinian cause, basically saying that one day Palestine will be free.

Can you describe your feelings and emotions the first time that you visited a Palestinian refugee camp?

Palestinian refugee camps are truly unbelievable and heartbreaking. Here, in some of the most densely populated areas on earth, you have Palestinians who have been kicked out of their homes in what is now Israel. Nearby you can see Israeli settlements with Stars of David waving high and proud, with lush green gardens and water fountains. Then you look to where you are standing, the crowded houses, the children, the mothers and fathers whose faces tell the saddest tales of dispossession and despair-- but who refuse to give up, who resist by striving to survive.

Then on some nights, you hear Israeli tanks and military vehicles driving up and down the deserted streets looking for "wanted men." Curfew may be called by Occupation Forces and no one is allowed on the streets, cannot go to buy milk and water for the children. Patients cannot reach the hospital.

Then you talk to the refugees. Some of them, like their great and great-great grandparents, came from Haifa or Tel Aviv. Then they relocate to the West Bank. Some time later the Israeli government comes in and steals their land to either build an illegal Israeli settlement or to expand an already existing one, demolishing homes in the meantime and becoming refugees twice over. And they end up in the camps, having left their livelihoods, and now relying on international aid so that they can feed themselves and their children.

But they have not given up hope. And you sit with them outside their crowded homes and drink tea and coffee and hear their stories. They have nowhere else to go but back to their homes in what is now Israel. And most of them have not given up on this right of theirs. Some of them showed me their keys and deeds to their houses. And with despair and symbols of military occupation all around them, they can still smile and the hope is still there. And they ask me to take these stories back to America. But my words when I return are up against the words of Fox and CNN.

The camps show you the despair and the plight of the Palestinians, and the undying hope that emanates from it.

How many times have you been arrested or detained by Israeli forces?

Israeli Forces arrest internationals often in Palestine. It is usually during direct actions against the Apartheid Wall or when they try and prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes and farmlands. Internationals with their Palestinian friends will use non-violent techniques to try and dismantle the occupation, like cutting illegal fences which separate Palestinian land from Palestinian land, or they will chain themselves to olive trees that Israeli bulldozers are set to demolish, or they will intervene in a situation where Israeli settlers or soldiers attack Palestinians. According to the Israeli forces, these are grounds for arrest, deportation, or detentions. Just today, a British human rights worker was arrested for supposedly spray painting "Free Palestine" on a wall in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood of Hebron, which is a Palestinian neighborhood under full Israeli military control.

I myself have been detained a few times. Israeli police and border police, just for sitting on the street in Tel Rumeida, serving as a human rights observer, have taken my passport many times. They will detain me in these circumstances until they do a "background check" on me and usually let me go. They, for the most part, know that I am there to witness and document the occupation, and thus, they harass me and try to get me to leave. Once, on a bus full of Palestinians, the Israeli police singled me out and detained me on the side of the road near Hebron. I remained in the sun for one hour. Again, this happens to Palestinians on a daily basis. But sometimes when they see internationals they use these tactics as a means to make us never want to come back. But we do.

Last summer, 2006, Israeli soldiers were beating a farmer in the Hebron region. He was standing in front of a Caterpillar bulldozer, attempting to block the machine from tearing apart his land. The army was destroying the land to make way for the Apartheid Wall. Two Jewish Americans and myself intervened to protect the farmer. We succeeded in halting the abuse, but instead the soldiers detained the other human rights workers and myself. The police came and arrested us. All of this for joining the non-violent struggle to resist land destruction and occupation.

Analysis

It is apparent from speaking with Jonas that he clearly sympathizes with the Palestinian cause. It is obvious that his time in Palestine has caused him to see past his religious and ethnic heritage and view the conflict with a new lens. Moreover, I was surprised to learn that the Jewish American community was in fact "very supportive" of him. I understand now that there is a distinct difference between supporting the state of Israel and supporting Israeli policy.

Another aspect of the interview that I found very interesting was how the TRCDP originally started. I think it's fascinating that the human rights workers resorted to entertainment as way to ease a touchy situation. The founding of the TRCDP made me think of literary characters such as Khilmi in Smile of the Lamb and how he uses his storytelling to help himself and others around him transcend their predicament. Both of these examples show the value of distraction in desperate situations. In addition, I also thought of the scene in Wild Thorns where Usama is stopped and interrogated at an Israeli checkpoint. I cannot help but think that a situation such as that one may have been eased somewhat had a circus performance been occurring nearby.

One response that I found very noteworthy dealt with the stereotypes that Americans have of Palestinians. I am somewhat ashamed to admit that prior to taking this class I also would have made the assumption that "All Palestinians are terrorists." I see now, however, the danger that comes with limited knowledge and a premature desire to choose sides.

Jonas's vivid description of Palestinian refugee camps is also something that I found important and profound. Having never experienced anything remotely close to living in a refugee camp, I cannot begin to imagine the day to day existence of those individuals. Even more surprising was the hope of the people that Jonas described. It is astonishing to me that individuals, without a home for almost 60 years, can still be optimistic in the face of so much despair.

In retrospect, the overwhelming sense that I got from my interaction with Jonas was simply that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. Jonas Moffatt will not be the individual who brings an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His willingness to act, though, plants knowledge, raises awareness, and increases hope. Jonas said that his involvement started because someone made him aware of the situation that was occurring in Palestine. If Jonas can be a catalyst, encouraging others to act on their convictions as well, then perhaps sometime in the future we will see a lasting, just peace in the Middle East.

By Tim Franks
BBC News, Jerusalem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7044069.stm


If [Palestinian] expectations are not met, I fear there may be serious consequences
John Dugard


A top UN expert has said he will urge the world body to withdraw from the Quartet of Middle East mediators unless it addresses Palestinian human rights.


Mr Dugard presents independent reports on human rights to the UN

John Dugard, the UN human rights envoy for the Palestinian Territories, told the BBC the US, EU, UN and Russia were failing to protect the Palestinians.

He said the UN "does itself little good by remaining a member of the Quartet".

In his role as a UN special rapporteur, Mr Dugard has been visiting the West Bank and Gaza for the past seven years.

Special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council.

They are advisers and do not decide UN policy.

"Every time I visit, the situation seems to have worsened," he said in a BBC interview.


I will suggest that the secretary general withdraw the UN from the Quartet, if the Quartet fails to have regard to the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories


Quartet's 'deaf ears'

"This time, I was very struck by the sense of hopelessness among the Palestinian people."

Mr Dugard attributed this to "the crushing effect of human rights violations", and in particular Israeli restrictions on Palestinians' freedom of movement.

He said that although Israel did have a threat to its security, "its response is very disproportionate".

He said the purpose of some of the checkpoints in the middle of the West Bank was to break it up "into a number of cantons and make the life of Palestinians as miserable as possible".

'Weak' response

The South African retired professor of international law said the response of the Quartet was weak because it was "heavily influenced" by the US.


Israel's checkpoints are a source of frustration for Palestinians

An Israeli officer checks the shopping bag of a Palestinian woman at the Israeli Hawara checkpoint on the outskirts of the northern West Bank city of Nablus (7 August 2007)
Israel's checkpoints are a source of frustration for Palestinians

The Quartet failed to engage properly on human rights, he said, and was also failing to deal with the current rift between the rival Palestinian factions of Fatah and Hamas.

The militant Islamist movement Hamas seized the Gaza Strip in June, ousting Fatah, which is led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Mr Dugard said the rift was threatening the Palestinians' right to self-determination, and that the UN "should be playing the role of the mediator".

"Instead the international community has given its support almost completely to one faction - to Fatah," he said. "That's not the role the UN should take."

Pessimistic

For these reasons, Mr Dugard said it might be time for the UN to leave the Quartet.


If [Palestinian] expectations are not met, I fear there may be serious consequences
John Dugard

"In my most recent report to the General Assembly, which I will present later this month, I will suggest that the secretary general withdraw the UN from the Quartet, if the Quartet fails to have regard to the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories," he said.

It is a backdrop which makes him pessimistic about the major US-sponsored peace conference between Israel and the Palestinians, expected to be held next month.

Mr Dugard said he saw a greater danger - that of the Palestinian Authority raising expectations too high in the Palestinian community.

"If those expectations are not met, I fear there may be serious consequences," he added.

The consequences include the possibility of a third "intifada", a large-scale, violent uprising against the Israelis, he said.

Mr Dugard said this should be no surprise.

"Inevitably in a military occupation, there are likely to be those engaged in resistance."

These people may be labelled terrorists, Mr Dugard added, but history treats them differently.

He cited the example of the French Resistance during World War II, and those in Namibia who fought occupation by South Africa.

"Now," he said, "they are in government and treated as heroes."

Palestinians celebrate rare victory over hated barrier
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2162362,00.html


Supreme court vindicates weekly protests and forces Israel to re-route security fences and roads

Rory McCarthy in Bil'in
Wednesday September 5, 2007
The Guardian

From the front door of his single-storey stone house Waheed Suleiman Yassin has an enviable view over the surrounding hills and a compelling vantage point in front of one of Israel's most controversial projects in the occupied West Bank.

Just 20 metres from his door and running down two sides of his house stands the wide metal system of fences and patrol roads that make up this stretch of the 450-mile West Bank barrier.


Yesterday, in a rare victory for the barrier's critics, Israel's supreme court ordered the government to re-route the barrier away from Bil'in, which should eventually allow villagers such as Mr Yassin to reclaim some of the large slice of their farmland that has been cut off from them for nearly three years.

Mr Yassin, 43, who sells limestone from a nearby quarry, has lived in this house with his family for 25 years. On a hilltop overlooking the rest of Bil'in and nearby villages, it was once much admired. "People envied us for having such a beautiful scene," he said, sitting outside his house yesterday. "Three years ago it was a heaven, then the wall came."

Like many in the village, Mr Yassin suddenly found most of his farmland, with its rows of olive and fig trees, out of bounds. Instead he could see in the near distance Modiin Illit, one of the fastest growing settlements in the occupied West Bank stretching ever closer. Modiin Illit is home to 30,000 mostly ultra-Orthodox settlers, and is projected to expand to a city of 150,000.

But, to the embarrassment of the Israeli government, the supreme court yesterday ordered the defence ministry to present a new path for the barrier and said the current route could not be justified. Chief justice Dorit Beinish said: "We were not convinced that it is necessary for security-military reasons to retain the current route that passes on Bil'in's lands." In certain places it would mean the fence must be torn down.

Although not the first such decision by the court, the ruling stands out for its tough language and the fact that Bil'in, almost alone among Palestinian villages, has mounted over the past two-and-a-half years a successful campaign of peaceful resistance to the barrier. "Weapons were forbidden from the start," Mr Yassin said. "People decided we should take a prominent role with a peaceful movement because we knew that with an armed struggle we were not capable of taking back one inch of land. If we had fired one bullet, the Israeli army would have found an excuse to kill the whole village."

Demonstrators gather every Friday, march to the barrier singing and waving flags, and confront the Israeli soldiers. Stones are thrown and answered with teargas, stun grenades and often rubber-coated bullets. At least two people have been seriously injured and many others suffered lesser injuries, including Mr Yassin's son and cousin, both hit by stun grenades or rubber-coated bullets.

Yesterday, trucks and vans carried dozens of singing villagers out to the barrier again where they waved flags and rattled sticks on the metal fence in front of the Israeli soldiers. One villager shouted to the crowd through a loudspeaker: "Your steadfastness brought you here."

"Because of our protests the world knew about us and that's why we won," said Abdul Latif Yassin, 50, a school teacher. "But we still have more land beyond the barrier than has been given back to us today."

One of the protest organisers, Nasir Samarra, 27, stood in the crowd wearing a T-shirt that read: Free Palestine. "Our struggle has only just started," he said. "Now we want Israel to implement this decision, not simply to pass judgment."

Among the demonstrators there have always been foreigners and Israeli activists, so the protests have become one of the highest-profile instances of joint, non-violent action between Israelis and Palestinians.

"This is a great and very important victory for the popular struggle against the wall and the occupation," said Jonathan Pollack, one of the leading Israeli activists at Bil'in. He said yesterday's court decision was at least in part due to the weekly protests.

"The decision highlighted the question that we raised in the appeal: the fact that the wall is being planned to accommodate settlement expansion or land grab and not as an instrument of security."

Israel has maintained that the barrier was built to protect its citizens from suicide bombers and that its construction, although it remains only half-complete, has had a major impact in reducing attacks. However, in an advisory opinion in 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that the barrier was illegal where it crossed into the West Bank, and should be taken down. Palestinians and human rights groups say the barrier is an attempt to take land in the West Bank. When it is complete, 10.1% of the West Bank will fall on the "Israeli" side of the barrier.

Israel's defence ministry said it would "study the ruling and respect it".

Israeli Court Orders Barrier Rerouted
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: September 5, 2007

JERUSALEM, Sept. 4 — In its latest decision overruling Israel’s influential security establishment, the High Court of Justice here on Tuesday ordered the government to reroute a section of its separation barrier that had split a West Bank village from much of its farmland.

Although this is not the first time that Israel’s High Court has ruled in the Palestinians’ favor in a case about the barrier, this case has taken on a special significance as a symbol of popular resistance to construction of the barrier. In the past two and a half years, residents of the village, Bilin, and a band of Israeli far-leftists and foreign supporters have held weekly demonstrations in the fields and groves along the barrier route, often ending in confrontations with Israeli forces.

The panel of three judges ruled unanimously that a mile-long section of the barrier should be redrawn and rebuilt in a “reasonable period of time.” Chief Justice Dorit Beinish wrote in the ruling, “We were not convinced that it is necessary for security-military reasons to retain the current route that passes on Bilin’s lands.”

The Defense Ministry, which oversees the planning and construction of the barrier, said it would “study the ruling and respect it.”

Israel began building the barrier on the West Bank in 2002, with the stated purpose of preventing Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli population centers. Made mostly of chain-link fence, the barrier includes sections of tall concrete wall. Much of the barrier runs through West Bank land, sometimes protruding for several miles to encompass a Jewish settlement.

The military planners say the 425-mile route is based purely on security considerations, but the Palestinians dispute that, accusing Israel of a land grab. In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a nonbinding ruling that construction of the barrier across the 1967 boundary, in West Bank territory, violated international law. Israel rejected the ruling, but in the years since it has altered several segments of the barrier route after rulings by its own courts.

About two years ago, the local council leader of Bilin, Ahmed Issa Abdullah Yassin, hired a prominent Israeli human rights lawyer, Michael Sfard, to petition the High Court on his behalf. Mr. Sfard said the fence put about 500 acres of the village’s agricultural lands on the side under full Israeli control. The villagers had only limited access, through a gate in the fence which the Israeli Army opened and closed.

The government contended that the current barrier route was necessary to protect the residents of a nearby Jewish settlement, Modiin Illit. But the barrier lies more than a mile east of the last houses of the settlement, the court ruling said; its route had taken the planned expansion of the settlement into account, encompassing an area where a new Jewish neighborhood, Mattityahu East B, was meant to go up.

While all Jewish settlement in the West Bank, including expansion, is viewed as illegal by most of the world, Israel holds that the West Bank is disputed territory and that building there is legal. But even in Israel, some earlier construction in the Mattityahu East area is deemed problematic, because it was done without the required building permits.

The ruling stipulates that in rerouting the Bilin section of the barrier, Israeli plans for Mattityahu East B should not be a consideration, meaning that the area is likely to end up on the villagers’ side. In the assessment of Mr. Sfard, the lawyer, the ruling will translate into the return of at least 250 acres of farmland to the villagers’ side.

“Today it becomes completely clear that the route was determined by nonsecurity considerations with the goal of expanding the settlement of Modiin Illit as much as possible,” Mr. Sfard told Israel Radio. “The High Court invalidated this criterion.”

Bilin, with about 1,700 residents, had declared its campaign against the barrier one of nonviolent resistance, but the weekly demonstrations often ended with protesters throwing stones and Israeli forces firing tear gas and rubber bullets. Each side said the other had provoked it.

As news of the court ruling reached Bilin, jubilant villagers headed toward the fence.

“We went to court, hired the best lawyers in Israel, and we won,” Abdullah Abu Rahma, one of the leaders of the weekly protests, told The Associated Press.

Mr. Yassin, the council leader, hailed the ruling as a “victory.”

Jonathan Pollack, of Anarchists Against the Wall, an Israeli group that participated in the protests, said the decision “proved that the people, when they choose to act, have the power over Israeli institutions.”

The High Court has often avoided domestically contentious issues, like the legality of the settlements, but when it comes to the barrier, which enjoys broad support among the Israeli public, it has often gone against the defense establishment.

In a landmark judgment in 2004, a week before The Hague ruling was announced, the High Court ordered the state to bring a 25-mile section of the barrier in the West Bank hills northeast of Jerusalem closer to the 1967 boundary, on grounds that the original route caused disproportionate harm to the rights of Palestinian villagers in the area.

But the Israeli court has upheld the principle of building the barrier in West Bank territory given convincing security reasons, and rules on a case-by-case basis. Last Wednesday, the High Court rejected a petition by Palestinian villagers against the barrier route near the Alfei Menashe Jewish settlement. The Palestinians had wanted the barrier moved closer to the 1967 boundary, and away from their homes.

The same day, the court rejected a petition by Alfei Menashe residents who had wanted the barrier moved farther from their settlement, into the West Bank land.