Mid-East Realities | www.middleeast.org |
The order also forbids Israelis to transport Palestinians with valid entry permits via these roads. Instead, Palestinians must enter via one of the 11 crossing points earmarked for them. Until now, Israelis could ferry Palestinians with valid permits into Israel without going through one of these special crossings.
The Defense Ministry's Seam Line
Administration has posted signs at all other access roads from the West Bank
into Israel warning that non-Israelis may not use these crossings. However, the
signs explicitly define "Israelis" not only as citizens or residents of the
state, but also as tourists or anyone entitled to immigrate to Israel under the
Law of Return.
"The IDF was forced to change its deployment because of
the exploitation of the crossings by terrorist elements to carry out terrorist
acts inside Israel," the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman said. The spokesman
also stressed that transporting Palestinians via an "Israeli-only" crossing is
against the law, and will be punished accordingly.
The order was signed
by Major General Yair Naveh, the commander of the IDF forces in the West Bank,
on December 15. It authorized the Civil Administration to determine which
crossings could be used by non-Israelis, and also to determine "the arrangements
that will apply at these crossing points." In addition, it defined who is an
Israeli, using the same language that is now posted on the signs at the various
crossings.
On January 3, Brigadier General Kamil Abu Rokun, the head of
the Civil Administration, signed the list of 11 crossings that Palestinians
would be allowed to use, and stated that the order would take effect a month
from that date. Eight of these 11 crossings are not on the Green Line, but
either within the West Bank or inside territory annexed to Jerusalem in 1967.
The order does contain one exception: Palestinians employed by
international organizations - a few hundred people - will be able to enter
Israel via two routes that are otherwise reserved for Israelis. One of them is
the Tunnel Road, which connects the Gush Etzion settlements to Jerusalem from
the south, and the other is via the Hizma Checkpoint, which is used by the
settlements north and east of Jerusalem. A Civil Administration spokesman said
that this decision was made because many international organizations that employ
Palestinians have their offices in East Jerusalem, and the administration did
not want to make it too cumbersome for these employees to reach their jobs.
Most of these employees have "long-term" - i.e. three-month - entry
permits. However, they are generally not allowed to drive within Israel.
In Ze'evi's footsteps | ||
By Amira Hass | ||
Ha'aretz - 15 February: Someone
who apparently had an especially sarcastic sense of humor decided to
officially name the Jordan Valley Road, Route 90, the "Gandhi Road."
The reference is not to Mahatma Gandhi, but to Rehavam Ze'evi, who
advocated "transfer" - the expulsion of the Palestinians from their
land. Perhaps he understood that this was indeed the appropriate name
for the eastern road. For not only on this road, but throughout the
enormous and beautiful expanse of the Jordan Valley and the eastern
slopes of the hills, there is an oppressive sense of absence, loss, and
emptiness. | ||
Israeli
soldiers control this absence via four principal checkpoints that
divide the valley from the rest of the West Bank. They obey the orders
of their commanders: It is forbidden for any Palestinian - in other
words, some two million people (the 1.4 million residents of Gaza are
already forbidden to come to the West Bank in any case) - to enter the
valley, except for those whose official address, in their ID, is the
Jordan Valley. |
New section of separation fence to slice through Judean Desert | ||
By Zafrir Rinat | ||
| ||
The
defense establishment said it had given much consideration during
construction planning to the possible impacts on the landscape and the
ecosystem. |
AP - 17 February: PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - By Brian Murphy: A wide-ranging, global gathering of Christian leaders has become a forum for a question that one delegate calls a religious minefield: Should churches use their investment portfolios to protest Israeli policies toward Palestinians?
The debate cuts across ethics, interfaith ties and Holy Land politics and has taken on an even sharper edge since the Church of England approved a motion for "morally responsible investment" earlier this month. It could lead the church to eventually reshuffle its $1.53 billion in stocks away from companies it considers aiding or profiting from Israeli control of Palestinian territories.
Supporters of pro-Palestinian divestment are now seeking more momentum at the biggest and most diverse Christian gathering in nearly a decade: the World Council of Churches assembly of mainline Protestants, Anglicans and Orthodox churches that together represent more than 500 million followers and billions of dollars in stock holdings.
The amount the churches hold in companies targeted by the divestment campaign is just a fraction, so any possible action would be mostly symbolic. But organizers hope to raise the movement's profile by carrying it from college campuses to mainstream churches nearly all Protestant as a way to pressure Israel into concessions.
Powerful critics stand in the way. Jewish groups are riled by echoes of the anti-apartheid campaign of the 1980s. They call it a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and complain it smacks of anti-Semitism. Most evangelical Protestants, meanwhile, sympathize with Israeli policies and some believe that biblical prophecy demands Jewish sovereignty over the entire Holy Land.
"The (Church of England) has chosen to take a stand on the politics of the Middle East over which it has no influence, knowing that it will have the most adverse repercussions on a situation over which it has enormous influence, namely Jewish-Christian relations in Britain," wrote the chief rabbi of Britain, Sir Jonathan Sacks, in an article for Friday's edition of the Jewish Chronicle.
Even mainline churches that overwhelmingly condemned Israel's security barrier are divided over whether a stand for divestment is worth poisoning relations with Jews and others. Lord Carey, the former spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, told The Jerusalem Post he was "ashamed to be an Anglican" after the vote by the Church of England, the communion's historic cradle.
"We are calling on churches to move from statements to action," said the Rev. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian Anglican who heads the Jerusalem-based group Sabeel, one of the most active pro-divestment groups. "But we know this is a religious minefield. We are asking churches pleading with them to have the moral courage to do the right thing."
His pitch to the WCC gathering was to a friendly crowd. Last year, the central committee of the WCC-backed "economic pressure" as an acceptable policy tool for its more than 350 member denominations. But its members are still a long way from turning sympathy for Palestinians into any significant economic leverage on Israel.
Most churches studying divestment calls prefer to move cautiously, by starting talks with companies whose products are used in Israeli security operations and other roles, such as Caterpillar Inc., Motorola Inc. and ITT Industries Inc. Divestment if it occurs at all is widely seen as the last option.
Many church views on divestment were further clouded by last month's landslide election victory of the Palestinian militant groups Hamas, which calls for Israel's destruction. Even pro-divestment Christian leaders take pains to support Israel's right to exist and reject calls for blanket boycotts on Israeli products. Many churches have property holdings in Israel.
"No one said this would be an easy campaign," Ateek said. "But economic muscle is really our own true weapon. I hope to see the snowball getting bigger this year."
The coming months could offer some clues.
The Church of England will examine whether to sell Caterpillar stock, valued at roughly $4.4 million. Pro-divestment campaigners allege its construction equipment is used to demolish Palestinians homes. Caterpillar says it adheres to all "local, U.S. and international laws and policies" where it sells products.
In May, the Church of Scotland is expected to study possible divestment at its general assembly. The head of the church, the Rev. David Lacy, called the Israeli security barrier an "oppressive sign of distrust and hatred in the birthplace of the son of God" following a trip in November.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) in June plans to review its 2004 declaration to support eventual "phased, selective divestment" of the church's $8 billion portfolio. Some regional Presbyterian groups have urged the church modify or revoke the policy.
"I hope that since churches are taking this so seriously" it has "in some small way contributed to a decision (by Israeli leadership) that this model of occupation won't work," said the church's top executive, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick. He is taking part in the WCC conference, which ends on Thursday.
Other churches, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the U.S. Episcopal Church, favor policies that stress investment in Palestinian development and other measures. The Roman Catholic Church, which is not a member of the World Council of Churches, also does not support divestment appeals.
"This should tell the advocates of divestment that the movement is backtracking," said Rabbi David Rosen, the international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee.
But it still remains a force being closely watched by Jewish organizations and the Israeli leadership. It's more a battle over impressions than investments, said professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel.
"When you talk about the word `divestment' it's associated with South Africa and the fight against apartheid," said Steinberg, who studies Jewish-Christian relations. "For Israel, it's strictly about casting Israel as a state without legitimacy. They feel some churches are trying to delegitimize Israel as a state."
Mid-East Realities | www.middleeast.org |
Source: http://www.middleeast.org/articles/2006/2/1356.htm |