The New York Times,
December 15, 2005

On Steven Spielberg's Munich

David Brooks faults Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich" for not distinguishing between "constructive" (Israeli) and "destructive" (Palestinian) violence. Mr. Brooks urges violence against Palestinian extremists like Hamas so that "reasonable elements" on both sides can compromise. ("What 'Munich' Left Out," column, Dec. 11.)

But all violence is destructive. Since 2000, more than 3,000 Palestinians and almost 1,000 Israelis have died (not to speak of thousands maimed) because of extremists on both sides.

Mr. Brooks does not mention Jewish settlers who, backed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, are taking the land and water resources of Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

What Israel's supporters ignore is that Israeli extremists are in power, while the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, reflects Palestinian moderates.

The violence of the Israeli occupation, which significantly violates international law and human rights, is the root cause of much Palestinian violence. The "road map" peace plan calls for the end of Israeli as well as Palestinian violence.

Rather than calling for more violence, Mr. Brooks should call for the United States and the United Nations to press for a just peace based on international humanitarian law.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

The New York Times has a circulation of 1,121,000.

Human Rights Watch,
November 23, 2005.

Letter to Senator Clinton on Comments about the Construction of the Wall.

We write in response to comments attributed to you in Ha’aretz (November 15, 2005) during your recent trip to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) regarding the construction there of a metal and concrete barrier (hereinafter referred to as a “wall,” in accordance with the terminology used by the International Court of Justice). The media has quoted you as expressing support for the wall because it “is against terrorists” and “not against the Palestinian people.” In light of your general standing as a supporter of international law and human rights, we find these comments disturbing and disappointing.

Israel certainly claims that its construction of the wall is designed to counter terrorist attacks by building a barrier between Israelis and Palestinians, but that could have been accomplished by building it along the Green Line. Instead, Israel has built the bulk of the wall (benignly referred to as a “security fence” by the Israeli government) well inside the OPT for the purpose of capturing Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian land and resources they control, on the “Israel side” of the wall.

Under the current route, only twenty percent of the wall’s route is inside Israel or along the Green Line, while 80 percent deviates from it, encompassing fifty-five Israeli settlements and other land in the OPT. These settlements contain the vast majority of more than 400,000 settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The wall succeeds in providing contiguity among the illegal settlements, their access roads, and Israel, while severing Palestinian cities, towns and villages from each other and from their land. This deep intrusion suggests that the function of the wall is less for security than for facilitating the eventual annexation of territory. B’Tselem, a leading human rights organization in Israel, unequivocally concluded in its September 2005 report, “Under the Guise of Security”, that
contrary to the state's claim that the Barrier`s route is based solely on security reasons, the main consideration in setting the route in some locations was to include on the “Israeli” side of the Barrier areas which are slated for settlements expansion. In some cases, the expansion amounts to the establishment of new settlements.

The location of the wall outside Israel is also illegal under international law. In 2004, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes international humanitarian law and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the “Israel side” of the wall. The court wrote that Israel should cease construction of the wall on Palestinian territory, dismantle those portions already constructed there, and pay reparations for damage caused. Unfortunately, Israel has failed to follow the court’s decision and continues its construction of the wall.

The court also reiterated its finding, shared by international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, that the settlements themselves violate international humanitarian law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits Israel, as the occupying power in the OPT, from transferring members of its own population into the OPT; Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, a component of customary international law, also prohibits Israel from making permanent changes to the territory, such as establishing Jewish-only settlements, that do not benefit the local inhabitants. These laws were designed in recognition of the tremendous damage that colonization of occupied territories causes to the lives of the indigenous population.

Sadly, all evidence indicates that the wall is, in fact, very much “against” the Palestinian people. The humanitarian, economic, and social impact of the wall on Palestinian communities has been nothing short of disastrous, as extensively documented by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, relief organizations, and human rights groups, among others. In the case of many Palestinian villages, the wall separates students from their schools, families from their relatives and friends, workers from their jobs, and farmers from their agricultural land, greenhouses, olive and citrus trees, and even water. The wall has severely circumscribed the already limited access of a number of Palestinian cities and villages to their local hospitals, schools and social service facilities. Worst off are the Palestinians trapped on the “Israel side” of the wall, who must now obtain special permits from the Israeli government to reside in their own homes. By making movement and in some cases residence so difficult, the wall seems intended to encourage Palestinians to leave for other areas of the West Bank, or even other countries.

Even the Supreme Court of Israel has recognized that the Israeli government cannot ignore altogether these humanitarian impacts. In two recent cases, although the court continued to avoid ruling on the illegality of settlements, it ordered Israel to consider rerouting the wall or its route in certain areas where Palestinians in a number of villages demonstrated the destructive effect of the wall on their ability to earn a livelihood or have any semblance of normalcy in their lives. While these decisions may alleviate some of the damage caused to those particular villages that were able to file claims and receive a hearing, they fail to address the ongoing, overall harm caused by the wall to Palestinians in the OPT or the fundamental illegality of the wall’s construction on Palestinian territory.

In light of these considerations, we hope that you will reconsider your position in support of the wall, which ignores, and thereby undermines, the pronouncement of the world’s highest judicial authority on matters pertaining to international law. We hope you will reconsider the evidence indicating that the placement of the wall inside the OPT is designed to annex settlements to Israel, under the guise of security. And we hope that you will instead join us and other human rights organizations, both around the world and inside Israel and the OPT, in demanding that Israel respect international law and protect the human rights of the Palestinians subject to Israeli military occupation.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division

New York Times,
October 3, 2005.

On Israel's Obligations under the Road Map.

"Ariel Sharon's Choice: Israel or Likud?" [editorial, Sept. 28] refers to a negotiated Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Palestinian responsibility to stop violent acts against Israel. But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon demands an end of Palestinian violence before Israel even enters talks.

The so-called road map for peace expects simultaneous steps, including the end of indiscriminate violence by Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinian civilians, the dismantling of dozens of small Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the end of expansion of existing settlements. In addition, those parts of Israel's separation barrier that are in the West Bank and East Jerusalem violate international law.

Yet settlement expansion and the wall continue, as does violence against Palestinian civilians. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz tells of Israeli soldiers ignoring settler "pogroms" against Palestinians in Hebron, and Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Btselem, Israel's leading human rights organization, report that Israeli soldiers and settlers act "with impunity" against helpless Palestinian civilians.

Until Israel begins to seriously meet its obligations under the road map and international law, no Palestinian leader will use force against militants for fear of being seen by Palestinians as a collaborator.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

The New York Times has a circulation of 1,121,000.

Newsweek,
September 12, 2005

Apart from a reference to Palestinians "unable to freely come and go," your Aug. 22 article on Jewish settlers' leaving Gaza ("The End of a Dream") barely mentions the price Palestinians paid for this "dream." For 8,500 settlers, Israel confiscated from Gaza's 1.3 million Palestinians almost one third of Gaza and much of the tiny area's precious water resources. Jewish settlements in Gaza (as in the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem) are in violation of international law. Why the massive coverage of the victimizers and barely a word about the victims?

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

Newsweek has a circulation of 4,000,000.

Christian Science Monitor,
May 5, 2003

Toward Middle East peace

While generally perceptive, your April 25 editorial“Bending Bush‘s ear" errs in asserting that“even Mr. Sharon now admits" Israel“will eventually need to live next to a Palestinian state." Ariel Sharon has no intention of dismantling Jewish settlements on Palestinian land; indeed, he wants to expand them. He also seeks to undercut the“road map" to peace. His vision of a“Palestinian state" entails giving Palestinians less than half of the West Bank, and controlling their air space, water, and borders. Israeli human rights groups have warned that Israel seeks to create one or more Palestinian “Bantustans" and to perpetuate an apartheid system already in place in the occupied territories. A viable Palestinian state will come about the same way apartheid ended in South Africa: through concerted political and economic pressure by the world community - including the UN and the US - on the stronger party (South Africa, Israel) until that party recognizes the human and national rights of the people they are oppressing. This requires “regime change" in Israel and a reversal of US policy, which for decades has given Israel the financial, diplomatic, and military support needed to perpetuate a colonial occupation that precludes a just peace.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

The New York Times,
June 2, 2000

On the Brink of Mideast Change

Re  “Deal in Mideast Is ‘Within View,’ Clinton Declares” (front page, June 2):
Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return home is in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 
As a  “Jewish state,” Israel recruits affluent Jews from the United States and elsewhere, while excluding indigenous Palestinians, several hundred thousand of whom fled in 1948, either forced out by Israeli troops or fleeing out of fear of expulsion.
 
Such undemocratic behavior will not lead to a viable, realistic peace.  Peace and security for Israelis cannot be at the expense of justice for Palestinians.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

The Boston Globe,
May 19, 2000

An unbalanced definition of terrorism

Your May 2 editorial (Defining terrorism) accepts the State Department view of Syria as a  sponsor of terrorism, but you do not see that Israel sponsors the terrorism of its puppet South Lebanon Army and that Israeli troops and settlers terrorize Palestinian civilians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Gaza, and Arab East Jerusalem.
 
If Israelis were subject to land confiscation, house demolition, torture, and exile, the media, including the Globe, and Congress would justifiably urge US and UN intervention to protect them. Palestinians deserve the same commitment.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

The Christian Science Monitor,
July 22, 1999

Too optimistic on Mideast peace?

Both your editorial cartoon of July 14 and your opinion piece of July 16 (Mideast peace prospects high) are much too optimistic about the commitment to peace of  newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
 
Barak opposes the right of return to their homeland for Palestinian refugees from the war of 1948, opposes the return by Israel to the borders of 1967, and opposes dismantling the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. His insistence on Israeli control over all of Jerusalem precludes rights for Palestinian Christians and Muslims, especially those who reside in Jerusalem.
 
As leader of the opposition Labor Party, Barak did not oppose the systematic violation of human rights by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Violations included torture, confiscation of land, demolition of homes, collective punishment, diversion of scarce water resources, and confiscation of residency permits of Palestinian Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem.
 
Indeed, B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights group, concludes that regarding Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, Israeli governments have been violating most of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 
Rather than naive optimism regarding Barak’s intentions, journalists (and politicians) ought to ask Barak if he intends for Israel to finally adhere to international law and human rights conventions. Only then will a just Palestinian-Israeli peace be possible and optimism warranted.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.

The New York Times,
July 19, 1999

Easing Israel’s Burden

You report that Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Israeli public are ready to make territorial concessions in order to free Israel from what Mr. Barak calls the burden of ruling the Palestinians
(Week in Review, July 18).
 
However, unless Israelis decide to grant the Palestinians equality and self-determination,  territorial concessions can only be token and cannot lead to peace. Mr. Barak and many Israelis seek to maintain most of the Jewish settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. These settlements — illegal under international law — and the military outposts and bypass roads needed to protect the settlers involve so much confiscation of Palestinian land, destruction of homes and diversion of water as to preclude an economically viable Palestinian society – not to speak of a Palestinian state.

Edmund R. Hanauer, Executive Director, Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel, Framingham, MA.