New B’Tselem report: Using security as pretext, Israel managed to forcibly transfer Palestinian residents of Hebron / The elections and the Two State Solution

New B’Tselem report: Using security as pretext, Israel managed to forcibly transfer Palestinian residents of Hebron A new B’Tselem report released today, Playing the Security Card: Israeli Policy in Hebron as a Means to Effect Forcible Transfer of Local Palestinians, demonstrates how Israel has been using security excuses to implement a policy that has made life unbearable for the Palestinian residents of Hebron’s city center (the Old City), in an effort to drive them from their homes. This policy relies on the extreme regime of separation Israel has been implementing in the city for the past 25 years – ever since the massacre of Palestinians carried out by Baruch Goldstein – so as to enable a small number of settlers to live in the heart of a crowded Palestinian city. This policy violates the prohibition against forcible transfer, which constitutes a war crime. Population figures illustrate how this policy has achieved its goal. Natural population growth in Hebron has been offset by the forced departure of thousands of Palestinians from Area H2, where Israel retained full control. In 1997, when the Hebron Agreement was signed, about 115,000 Palestinians were living in Area H1 of Hebron. It is now home to 166,000 residents, an increase of roughly 45%. In Area H2, on the other hand, the number of residents has dropped from 35,000 when the agreement was signed to about 34,000 today. The historic city center, which had been a bustling commercial hub for the entire southern West Bank, has declined and dwindled, becoming a ghost town where only people who cannot afford to move elsewhere in Hebron still remain.  The separation regime is based on a system of travel restrictions that create a distinct corridor within the city that is partly or fully off limits to Palestinian vehicles and pedestrians. To enforce this regime, the military has installed, in quite a small area, no fewer than 22 checkpoints and 64 physical obstructions of various types which serve to keep Palestinians off their own city’s streets. Routine daily activities such as shopping, visiting relatives or getting to school and work involve crossing at least one checkpoint and undergoing humiliating and arbitrary security checks. The other option is to take bypass routes which make the journey much longer, and are often ill-suited to older adults or people with disabilities. Life in the city comes with routine violence at the hands of security forces, including night raids of homes, searches on the streets and acts of violence. Palestinians also suffer daily violence at the hands of settlers, with the full support of the authorities. The regime instated by Israel in the West Bank as a whole has many elements that are reminiscent of the systemic aspects of South Africa’s Apartheid regime, known as grand apartheid, including restricting access to land, limiting movement and denying political rights.  In Hebron, Israel’s draconian regime also takes a form reminiscent of petty apartheid, with policed segregation of public spaces according to ethnicity – Jewish or Palestinian – exercised through separate streets and physical obstructions. The settlement enterprise in Hebron could never have begun, nor later thrived, without massive support by all the official branches of the Israeli state, from 1968 to the present day. All the relevant decision makers – politicians affiliated with the right and left, Supreme Court justices, senior military commanders and defense establishment officials, the personnel of both the Military Advocate General Corps and the State Attorney’s Office  – have effectively accepted the existence of an Israeli settlement in the heart of a Palestinian city, tolerated the severity and frequency of the violent incidents it produces, and justified the ongoing oppression of Palestinian residents dispossessed of their homes, property and workplaces. This overwhelming support continues despite clear evidence of the heinous effect Israel’s policy in the city is having. View a current map of Hebron’s city center Read the executive summary  Read the full report For additional information: Amit Gilutz, +972-54-6841126, amit@btselem.org Our mailing address is B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories P.O. Box 53132, Jerusalem 9153002  Want to change how you receive these

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Two-State Index <TSI@genevainitiative.org>
 

If you can't see this email properly, click here

Featuring an analysis by Dr. Yossi Beilin on the impact of the election results on the peace process In the wake of elections in Israel, we still don't know what kind of government will be set up and what its policies will be regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue. However, we know what will not happen. There will not be a government coalition of the right and extreme right like the one that has been in place these past years; there will not be unilateral annexation of territories; and the settlers' leaders will not be in positions of power that determine foreign policy and security. The increase in the number of mandates that the left-leaning parties received (the Joint List grew by 30%, while Labor and Meretz together rose by 10%), may even increase the likelihood of making the voice that supports the two-state solution louder than before. There is no surety that the new government will prioritize advancement of the peace process with the Palestinians, but it is apparent that a new political and public reality has been created which will allow for a discussion about the need for such a process, in a departure from recent trends.  The new reality is also likely to allow for more interest and involvement from actors in the international community, as the heads of the Geneva Initiative learned in their meeting last Thursday in Moscow with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. If new Israeli leadership is established, it is possible that Palestinian leadership will also need to reconsider its approach to the peace process.  For the diplomatic options following the elections, see the article below by Dr. Yossi Beilin, head of the Geneva Initiative on the Israeli side and former Minister of Justice and member of the Israeli cabinet. Yossi Beilin and the heads of the Geneva Initiative meet Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, 19th September 2019 And Now: Setting Israel’s Eastern Border Yossi Beilin  The area of governance that calls for the greatest change in the event that “Blue and White” heads the government for at least the first half of the tenure, and perhaps for its entirety, is that of the conflict. In 1996, with the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister, the Oslo process largely came to a stop and the expected date for a final status agreement (May 4, 1999) disappeared without anyone paying much attention. In 1999 Ehud Barak entered the Prime Minister’s office in full diplomatic swing, attempted to come to a final status agreement with the PLO, and held talks with the Syrian foreign minister on peace with Syria and withdrawal from Lebanon. Two years later, Ariel Sharon was chosen to fill the most important position in Israel; he ended talks with the Palestinians and Syrians and decided to withdraw from the Gaza Strip without trying to do so as part of an understanding between himself and the new Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. Ehud Olmert, towards the end of 2005, first as interim and then as elected Prime Minister, renewed talks with the PLO and the Syrians but never finished his work, while Netanyahu, who replaced him in 2009, continued settlement acceleration and made an effort – successful, from his perspective – to achieve American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, move the American embassy to Jerusalem, and attain recognition of the annexation of the Golan Heights. His goal was to prove that there is no need for peace with the Palestinians and the concessions that come with it, since with the help of the friends in America, and of the Arab states that oppose Iran, it is possible to achieve all of our diplomatic goals.  The most pressing issue, at the moment, is to stop Netanyahu’s push for annexation (he promised to annex the Jordan Valley in violation of the Interim Agreement of 1995 as well as the territories in the West Bank with settlements), to stop the demolition of houses outside of territory that Israel has civil and military administrative power over (Area C), and to allow Palestinians to build housing units and industrial structures in Area C. It is important to increase the number of work permits into Israel for Palestinians from the West Bank and from Gaza, and to transfer the tax money of Palestinians to the Palestinian Authority without any conditions (whether there is a need to legislate this or not).  But in parallel to steps that ease the daily life of Palestinians, it is also crucial to treat the roots of the problem and to renew negotiations with President Abbas. Abbas, who was afraid to reenter discussions without preconditions because he understood that Netanyahu uses these discussions to create a façade of diplomatic advancement while continuing to do as he likes in the occupied territories, needs for his part to offer Gantz talks without preconditions. These discussions can start from the point where they were broken off, i.e. April 2014. There is no reason to begin the entire peace process from scratch. The Geneva Initiative can save a great deal of time when it comes to solving essential and technical issues. The demographic clock is ticking. There are already more Palestinians than Jewish Israelis west of Jordan. The danger of an apartheid state is getting stronger; it will be realized the moment Palestinians demand the right to be elected to the Knesset and Israel refuses, while at the same time rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state where their rights can be actualized.  If Gantz and his government also conclude that the demands of the Palestinians are too far from what they are willing to concede, it is likely that they will not remain inactive but will prefer to pursue a unilateral process of separation. However, this move must only come after they have exhausted attempts at a bilateral agreement. The goal of the next government, one way or another, must be the establishment of an eastern border for Israel.    To learn about the Geneva Initative's TSI, visit our website, including our elaborative methodology page. The Two-State Index (TSI) is brought to you by the Geneva Initiative, a Palestinian-Israeli organization working to promote a negotiated peace agreement in the spirit of the two-state vision. The TSI is produced by an Israeli-Palestinian team, and reflects a unique bilateral perspective. Think we missed something this month? Send us tips and comments here. This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Geneva Initiative’s Two-State Index (TSI) editorial team and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Advertisement

This message was sent byTwo-State Index, H.L. Education for Peace, Geneva Initiative, 33 Jabotinsky rd., Ramat-Gan 525108, Israel, .

--
To unsubscribe, send mail to

intl-request@mailman.gush-shalom.org

and write the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

In some programs it is enough to use the following link:

mailto:intl-request@mailman.gush-shalom.org?subject=unsubscribe
--NB: IN CASE THE AUTOMATIC UNSUBSCRIBE FUNCTION FAILS:
send it again but now to info@gush-shalom.org and we will do it manually

If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to

intl-request@mailman.gush-shalom.org