According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East UNRWA, Mohammad Al-Khateeb (aged 14) was killed on March 15 by a bullet as he was returning home on foot after buying bread from a bakery in his neighborhood in Dera’a. On March 19, Hisham Mahmoud (aged 10) and Farhat Mubarak (aged 11), were killed at the crossroad of Yazour and Safad Streets in Yarmouk, Damascus. They were returning home from classes at a community-run learning center when an explosive shell detonated nearby, killing them instantly. In a separate incident on the same day, two brothers, Ali Mijel (aged 14) and Abdullah Mijel (aged 15), were killed along with their aunt and cousin when an explosive shell hit their home on Hittin Street in Sbeineh Camp.

Prior to the Syrian Civil War, there were approximately one million Palestinian refugees living in the country. Last November, the PLO estimated that over 600 Palestinians died in the war, though this number has risen considerably since. At least 20,000 Palestinians have been able to flee the country to Lebanon, while the Jordanian government continues to send Palestinian refugees back, claiming that they are not affected by the conflict in the same way other Syrian civilians are. However, many believe that the as refugees, the Palestinians are actually more vulnerable than other groups.

Following the killing of 30 other Palestinians last month, Christopher Gunness, a spokesperson for UNRWA, told +972 that “refugees by their nature are already among the most vulnerable people in any society, and in a situation like in Syria clearly they are more vulnerable.”

Related:
30 Palestinians killed last week in Syria
‘Why don’t you write about Syria?’

Syrian refugee camp (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) issued a press release on Sunday expressing grave concern over the rising number of Palestinian casualties in the Syrian civil war. According to credible sources, an estimated total of 30 Palestinians were killed in the last week. Twelve of the casualties – including five members of the same family – were from Yarmouk refugee camp.

Ma’an News Agency reported that a high-level PLO delegation arrived in Syria today to discuss the situation of the Palestinians in the country. The delegation intends to talk to members of the Syrian regime and representatives from Palestinian refugee camps in Syria. Back in November, the PLO estimated the number of Palestinians who died in the war at 600, but since then there have been dozens more casualties. “The situation is so confused that it’s impossible to give a confirmed figure of casualties,” Christopher Gunness a spokesperson for UNRWA, told +972 today.

Half a million Palestinian refugees lived in Syria prior to the war. At least 20,000 Palestinians were able to flee the country to Lebanon, but the Jordanian government continues to send Palestinian refugees back, claiming that they are not affected by the conflict in the same way (the real reason probably has to do with Jordanian fears for the stability of the regime). In November, the Economist estimated that only 1,700 Palestinians were allowed by Jordan into the country. According to reports, there are no Palestinians in the Zaatari refugee camp, located in the north of Jordan.

A press release by UNRWA on Sunday stated that:

UNRWA deplores the unrelenting armed conflict in Syria and the extreme suffering it is inflicting on civilians, including Palestine refugees. In recent statements, the Agency has highlighted the crisis of large numbers compelled to leave the refugee camps in Rif Damascus to seek safety elsewhere, and the plight of those who remain in the camps. These Palestine refugees are unable to move safely, are subject to severe movement restrictions and face escalating threats from shelling and armed clashes. Poverty and deprivation are increasing in the Palestinian community, exacerbating vulnerabilities that existed prior to the Syria conflict, and lack of access to food and essential services continues to cause serious distress. These developments have left the Palestine refugee community, alongside their Syrian neighbours, profoundly traumatized and fearful of the future.

The UN estimates that about 5,000 people are fleeing Syria every day. Since the conflict began, 787,000 people were registered as refugees by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Palestinians are at high risk in this conflict due to their special position in the region. “Refugees by their nature are already among the most vulnerable people in any society,” says Mr. Gunness, “and in a situation like in Syria clearly they are more vulnerable.”

They came, they saw, they conquered

The event was rather diplomatic: lots of handshakes, formalities, photo-ops and smiles. But some, including the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – representing the American delegation – came out swinging:

[P]rotectionist policies might provide short-term benefits to domestic terms, but they disrupt supply chains, they scare investors, and ultimately, they set back economies and weaken the rules of the road that are designed to benefit everyone.

Indeed, “protectionism” was a dirty word, while “free trade” was the battle-cry. Though Clinton mentioned no country by name in her attack – she’s more diplomatic than that – it was assumed by most that she was referring to China, whose leaders she just visited in Beijing, and whose president spoke just hours earlier.

APEC Russia 2012 logo on canopy, Vladivostok, September 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

For his part, the Chinese President Hu Jintao announced his intentions to rebalance his country’s economy, and promised a transition of power in China – due in the coming months – won’t change that commitment.  Hu urged the some five-hundred CEOs from the region also attending APEC, who represent the private sector, to help with China’s reform:

China welcomes the Asia Pacific business community getting involved in China’s reform, and opening up, the modernization and sharing the benefits and opportunities of China’s development. China will work  with all of you to sustain economic growth and improve the lives of the Asia Pacific people.

There were some notable successes. Among them, a renewed commitment to more eco-friendly trade that saw a list of “green goods” expanded to include fifty-four groups. Goods included in those groups will see their tariffs cut to 5% by the year 2015.  There was also lots of talk of finding new ways to get food in and out  of countries, by means that are quicker, easier, and cheaper.  This fell under the mantra of food security, a particularly sensitive issue in a year when drought has affected three significant exporting countries: the U.S., Australia, and the host country Russia.  More than 80% of U.S. arable land was affected by this year’s water shortage, with production of corn dropping to levels not seen since 1995 and the price of the staple good rising (in some cases) by 25%. It is estimated that Americans spend only ten percent of this post-tax income on consumable goods (i.e. food), and though they likely noticed a change in the price of corn, it won’t “make or break” them.

However, in some of the other members’ economies – namely, developing countries in Asia which rely on importing U.S. crops – a change in the American price meant more people on this side of the Pacific going hungry. So, as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin noted, it is not just about producing the grains – it is also about getting them to those who need them in a cost-efficient way. Speaking on Sunday at the closing press conference of the event, Putin noted that the Soviet Union lacked much of the necessary infrastructure to export grains. Now, according to Putin, Russia is the second or third largest grain exporter in the world. But, he added, the infrastructure is still not as good as it should be.

Zolotoy Rog Bay Bridge soars as a reminder of Russian investment in Vladivostok ahead of APEC 2012 (photo: daniilr)

As was consistent with the theme during the week, Russia called on regional members to invest more in developing Russia’s Far East, specifically expanding the infrastructure in its largest city, Vladivostok, which hosted the gathering. Indeed, based on this last week, it seems Russia has the most to gain. Putin oversaw the investment of $20 billion in the city to get it ready for APEC 2012. That include a new airport terminal, additional roads, the modernization of rails and shipping terminals, and the construction of three new bridges linking various parts of the city (and the once secretive Russkiy Island, where Putin’s folks built a new university campus to house the event, the media, the leaders and their delegates).

Putin is a happy man today

Putin, who appeared pleased with the results, vowed to invest more:

We will be making full use of the active involvement and initiative of the people of our country, and we will try to fully tap new prospects of integration and partnership with our Asia-Pacific neighbors that will now open up.

And it’s paying off. At the APEC Leaders Week, Russian and Chinese leaders agreed to expand trade between the two bordering nations to $100 billion by 2015, and $200 billion by 2020 – three times the current amount. But the investment in the region and the new bilateral deals represents something much larger: a shift in focus in Moscow from the West to the East. Collectively, Europe is Russia’s largest trading partner, meaning that the EuroZone crisis deeply affected Russia. Leaders in the Kremlin, more than 6,000 kilometers away, usually rejected this region. So the cost of living remained high, and young people are leaving at an unsustainable rate. Putin, it appears, has decide that it is better to bet on the Asia-Pacific region, which represents some 40% of the world’s population, and more than 55% of its output production (GDP). Essentially, Moscow wanted in on the action, and even presented the reinforcement of the Trans-Siberian Railway – with its final stop in Vladivostok – as an alternative transport route to the Suez Canal.

Overlooking the problem

But will the investment pay off?  Not until the bigger issues are addressed, says Alexey Chomutov. The Vladivostok businessman owns a local shipping company.  His boats, now in Japan, brought some of the building material for APEC:

It’s a good investment for Vladivostok, and its makes the people happy.  But there are a lot of problems — problems that affect business — and they still need to be fixed.

What he’s alluding to is the unfavorable business culture in Russia. Ironically, some of that was obvious in the way the event and the construction of the facilities themselves were handling, according to “video monstr,” an anonymous vimeo user which spammed journalists on the first day with a video making all sorts of accusations about the campus. Aside from warning visitors about the immediate and long-term health risks posed by what it claims is poorly-planned construction, video monstr also accused the Russian government – which even Putin himself admitted heavily overspent on its budget to host APEC – of awarding the construction contract without a competitive tender. Effectively meaning that a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend – who is likely close to someone important – got a multi-billion dollar contract.

Watch the video for yourself by clicking here. (Note: I cannot verify the claims)

Other media have made similar accusations. If true, this stands in sharp contradiction to the principles promoted by the APEC leaders, and even more ironically, by Putin himself: namely, a free market economy. How can that be promoted if private companies – nevermind foreign ones – are not allowed to compete for government tenders? And how can you guarantee the people, whose tax money is being used, that the best product was provided at the best price?

Russian efficiency: the elevator buttons inside the APEC press center, Vladivostok, September 2012 (photo: Roee Ruttenberg)

And then there is efficiency. I would like to share an anecdote. The brand-new “international media center” is eleven stories tall. Nevermind that the “official entrance” was through the back on the 5th floor. It reminded me of American shopping centers, in which the escalators require you to cut across the enter building on ever floor so that you forcibly pass by all of the shops. This was exactly the same: getting up and down involved a series of multiple elevators, escalators and even stairs, all in different locations. And getting out required sophisticated navigation skills (making this further ironic: the Russian hosts gave the media a “goody-bag” that include a GPS tablet). The point is: can Russia promote efficiency on a regional level when it can’t seem to first get it right on a local level? This is essentially the criticism Chumotov makes: fix the small before you tackle the big. Putin response is: the investment was all worth it, and when you bring in more and more business, the “small” will fix itself.

Speaking with the Delegates

I had the good fortune of interviewing a handful of delegates, both from the private and government sector (Note: the views presented here are my own and do not reflect the network for which I conducted the interviews).

With the Australian Trade Minister, Craig Emerson, I discussed the issue of food security and the government sector’s role in addressing the issue. I had a similar conversation – but about the private sector – with Sam Allen, CEO of John Deere & Company.

I also discussed the effects the EuroZone crisis has had on the Asia-Pacific region with David Gray of PwC Russia, and the growth opportunities to be found in Pat Dawson, CEO of Dow Chemical Asia. Meanwhile, Jing Ulrich, the Managing Director for Global Markets (China) at JP Morgan Chase, shared her views on where the Chinese economy is heading. And John Faraci, CEO of International Paper, told me what steps can be taken moving forward from APEC.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State Robert Hormats, who was the highest-ranking American delegate until his boss Hillary Clinton showed up, said he is optimistic about America’s role in the region.

What’s Missing?

Critics say, for all the rhetoric, what has been achieved – while significant – is overshadowed by what hasn’t been achieved.  And much of that is thanks to politics. Hu Jintao did not meet with his South Korean and/or Japanese counterpart. The three largest Asian economies are engaged in an ongoing political spat involving disputed islands. Hu also failed to met with the leader from the Philippines, a country engaged in a simliar dispute.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama who is focusing on his re-election campaign, skipped the event altogether (as mentioned earlier, the American delegation was represented instead by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton). It is the first time an American president has missed an APEC gathering in more than fifteen years, arguably discouraging for those hoping to remedy trade disputes between Moscow and Washington. It should be noted that Clinton vowed to push for the repeal of Congressional laws will put restrictions on Russian trade, laws that date back thirty years to when Soviet authorities refused to let Jews leave the Soviet Union. Still, this has been a source of frustration between the two, particularly now that Russia is the newest member of the World Trade Organization, officially joining in August after 18 years of negotiations. Clinton applauded Russia’s membership.

And an least one regional leader was noticeably missing. Pyongyang is not a member of APEC, even though it sits in A-Asia and touches P-the Pacific. Its young presidential-hier, Kim Jung-Un, was not invited, though North Korean officials reportedly asked to attend as “observers,” a request that appears to have been rejected. But since politics and economics are so intertwined, might it not have made sense to have him there? …particularly since five of the “Six Party Talks” delegations were in attendance?

Meanwhile, on the issue of the environment, the members did not really tackle the larger regional issue: clean energy. Getting rid for-good of dirty energy might help not only avoid environmental disasters – pollution in East Asia’s capitals, and floods in South Asia’s villages – but also relieve some of the region’s internal energy dependency tensions. This was pushed by some members, like Australia, but not really on the agenda, which is set by the host country (it should be remembered that Russia is an energy exporter).

And with all the attention focussed on improving food supply chains and securing food production, it is perhaps all the more worrying that in several of the member economies, over the past two decades, the economic gap has grown not shrunk. This means that the rich are getting richer, and the poor and getting even poorer.

What most usually remember from APEC is the family photo at the end – with leaders dressed in culture clothing of the host country. But that tradition has become irrelevant.  Some wonder if the same could be said about the meetings themselves.

In truth, probably not. These economies are becoming more and more intertwined and interdependent, whether they like it or not. For example, just a few days ago, a Russian car plant opened in Vladivostok producing, for the first time ever, Mazda cars, the brand of the Japanese giant. It was inspiring to see two engineers – one Russian, one Japanese – built one car with one manual. This is the direction the world appears to be taking. The leaders here acknowledge that. The question is: can a body like APEC, where the resolutions are non-binding, really force them to play by the rules? “Do as I say, not as I do” may eliminate some barriers, but it will artificially create new ones. That will be APEC’s biggest challenge.

A deserted island is lonely

In the Biblical chapter of Genesis, it notes, “It is not good that man should be alone.” Had a nation-state with multi-trillion dollar GDPs existed back then, the same may have been said about the institutions themselves. In general, economies cannot thrive in isolation. The DPRK is one such example, the soaring rial currency in Iran is another. I could not help but wonder about the economic opportunities that would exist if Israel – and a future Palestinian state – were park of a larger, regional trading union? The former French President Nicholas Sarkozy floated around the idea of a Mediterranean Union, consisting of Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon and Israel. Nevermind the politics – none of those neighbors really likes the others – but the idea is the same: that each economy could reach greater potential if it liberalized trade within its region.

Imagine looking East, rather than West, to Israel’s border with Jordan. There has been talk of a free trade area in their shared southern plains or all along the Jordan River – on both sides. There was discussion of a bi-national airport north of Eilat in which the runways would be shared but passengers would be shuttled left-or-right to the country of their choice. Imagine would sort of hub such an airport could be for the region and the world, positioned in between Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. When I mention this, I am told “…then we will all since Kumbaya together.” But economics always wins over politics, so I’ll bring the guitar.

By David Hughes

Children of Bil'in sit where the fence once stood, looking at land returned to their village and the new position of the separation wall (photo: activestills.org)

In response to former Justice Edmond Levy’s report on the status of the West Bank, Itamar Mann considers Levy’s controversial proposal that Israel’s presence in the West Bank does not amount to an occupation. Mann’s position is surprising: perhaps easing the collective fixation on the terminology of occupation “will enable us to rethink self-determination for both groups much more ambitiously.”  In other words, he is suggesting that abandoning the term “occupation” might indeed open an opportunity to advance the self-determination both societies crave.

Mann thus challenges the way the occupation is conceived.  International law holds that territory becomes occupied when it is placed under the authority of a hostile army.  Following the recognition of an occupation, the Four Geneva Conventions are applied – these serve to regulate the conduct of armed hostilities and limit its effect.  Recognizing occupation in a legal sense entails a host of obligations, ranging from defining the status of the settlements to ensuring the safety of civilians.  Rejecting the notion of occupation would limit the application of international law within the West Bank, compromising several of the prescribed protections for the Palestinian population currently in place.

Still, it is worth considering Mann’s proposal, and its ramifications should be debated by lawyers, activists, politicians, and all those affected by or engaged in the conflict.  In fact, it’s time to open up the broad question of the effectiveness of international law in general, in its current role within the conflict and the peace process.

A strong case can be made for re-evaluating the role of international law within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Following 45 years of Israeli political, military, and civilian presence in the West Bank, an ongoing cycle of indiscriminate violence, and untold adversity on the lives of all involved, it appears that the grand legal appeals to human rights and self-determination embraced in the latter half of the twentieth century have failed Palestinains and Israelis alike.

After all, under international law, the law of belligerent occupation serves to maintain the status quo ante bellum (the state of things before the war).  Those like the former Justice, who favor the unabated development of Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank, argue that prior to 1967 the “status quo” involved a territory that did not fall under the recognized sovereignty of a nation-state (Jordan’s annexation was never recognized extended its sovereignty to the West Bank). Therefore, they say, the West Bank was never ‘occupied’ by Israel.

Others who view the settlements as an impediment to peace, which denies the basic rights of Palestinian inhabitants, and insist that the West Bank was not Israeli territory prior to 1967. Therefore, they argue, Israel’s continued presence amounts to an occupation – which justifies invoking the associated legal regime of international humanitarian law.

In sum, although the spirit of international law is intended to protect the occupied population and allow for a return to the status quo, in fact, the varying interpretations are sufficiently conducive to contradictions that they have led to the current stalemate.  International legal norms have become yet another source of contention within the conflict, an adversarial tool employed to advance competing ideologies.

Still, minimizing the role of international law could have other problematic consequences, and these must be explored.

Perhaps the central consequence is that formally abandoning the language of occupation, whether for the reasons promoted by Edmond Levy or Itamar Mann would evolve into a conceptual paradigm shift in favour of one state.  Many are comfortable advancing this paradigm given that the two-state solution heralded during the Oslo era now lies dormant or is considered a dangerous failure.  Proponents of such a shift, though, face a series of perplexing questions – from a demographic swing to charges of apartheid – that run afoul of the prevailing international orthodoxy and popular consensus.

Mann asks why so many are attached to the category of occupation, and I suggest that this term maintains a conception of the status quo that allows for the eventual realization of a two-state solution.  Clearly such a solution is not the preference of all; some from both the left and right call for a single state, either directly or implicitly and albeit for wildly divergent reasons.  However, the majority of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians alongside the international community remain in favor of two states.

But the fact that international law supports the two-state paradigm is not sufficient reason to preserve its current role, if at present, international law serves to perpetuate the conflict.  International law is increasingly being applied when deemed relevant to an ideological agenda, and therefore its impact is limited.  The modern development of human rights and international humanitarian law were intended to contribute to a new world in which war and undue suffering would become obsolete.  Despite this, international law has failed to ensure sufficient rights, security, and self-determination for the inhabitants of Palestine and Israel.

These failures provide ample justification to reconsider the role of international law within the conflict. One consequence may be the weakening of the legal framework upon which a two-state solution may have been realized. But there is a need for new normative vocabularies, as Mann suggests, and international legal norms need not hold a monopoly over how we think about the conflict. Still, such norms do provide value and thus it is important to expose the increasingly adversarial uses of international law, while still seeking to preserve its underlying virtues.

David Hughes is a doctoral candidate in law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Canada, whose research focuses on international legal aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Related Articles:

Panel appointed by Netanyahu concludes: There is no occupation
Israeli human rights lawyer: Occupation is not temporary
Report that claims ‘there is no occupation’ presents an opportunity
‘Nonexistent occupation’ memes go viral in social media

]]> http://972mag.com/re-thinking-the-role-of-international-law-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/51609/feed/ 14 http://972mag.com/letter-from-jerash-jordan-a-visit-to-the-gaza-refugee-camp/51165/ http://972mag.com/letter-from-jerash-jordan-a-visit-to-the-gaza-refugee-camp/51165/#comments Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:52:11 +0000 +972blog http://972mag.com/?p=51165 The writer shares snippets of life from the Palestinians living in the refugee camp in Jordan – from the longing for  a home unknown, to reservations about the ‘Arab Spring’  reaching them. Dispatch from Jerash. 

By Munir Atalla

Children from the Gaza Refugee Camp, Jerash Jordan. (photo: Munir Atalla)

Last month I worked at the Gaza Refugee Camp in Jerash, Jordan.  The camp is home to about 24,000 Palestinian refugees who left the Gaza Strip in 1968.  Most of the families living there were also displaced in 1948, meaning that they have lost their homes twice in one lifetime.  The majority live on less than $2 a day.  About a quarter live on less than one.

The camp starts unexpectedly.  After the stone ruins of Jerash, one turns left into a valley.  The streets become narrower and the pedestrians more numerous.  Like a punch in the gut, the air begins to smell of hot sewage and rotting fruit. Sweaty and dusty from walking through the camp in the scorching summer, the one word that wouldn’t leave my mind was “hellish.”  The market on the main road is very crowded.  Amongst the frying falafel and bread baking, an old man was selling homemade perfumes.  “Come here young man, I’ll make a personalized scent that will make you irresistible to young women,” he grinned and advertised.

If anything can be said about the inhabitants of the many refugee camps in Jordan, it is that they have shown remarkable resilience in the face of unspeakable injustice.  The people at Gaza Camp are warm and welcoming, albeit suspicious.  Numbers haunt the life of every refugee.  There are passport numbers, national identification numbers, and social security numbers that are denied to them.  There are the statistics that their lives have been reduced to: 24,000 refugees, 2,000 makeshift shelters, 50% unemployment, 0.75 square kilometers.

I introduced myself as a Palestinian student studying in America.  People were irritated with my vagueness, “yes, but where are you from” they asked.  They were asking me from which Palestinian town my family was.  “Jerusalem, although I’ve never really lived there and my parents were born here [in Jordan],” I thought it was necessary to qualify.  “I’m from Jaffa,” chimed one boy.  “Nablusi and proud,” boasted another.  They had probably never seen the places to which they claimed loyalty except though their grandparents’ stories, yet the promise of a homeland was kept close in their hearts, a dream deferred.

I spoke to someone from the camp about the Arab Spring.  Why had it seemingly passed over them?

“You know what Munir, I’m someone who is ‘with’ the Arab Spring not hitting the refugee camps,” she began.

“Historically, every protest in the camps has been met with slaughter.  We are not considered people by the world, so maybe it is best that we just keep our heads down and work in different ways to earn our humanity.”

To have an uprising, there needs to be hope.  Although people here struggle to find water and clothing, hope is the resource that they need most.

I saw how the weight of displacement had manifested itself on each individual generation.  For the old, the homeland is a bittersweet memory.  “Not a day goes by where I don’t think of the house I grew up in,” told me one elderly man in a kuffiyeh.

“Now, as I reach the end of my life, all I want is to be buried by my father’s olive grove.”

The young are just as sentimental, but frustrated with lives spent entirely in refugee camps and used as political pawns.  “People keep telling us ‘right of return, right of return’, but it doesn’t look to me like we’re returning anytime soon.  I want to return, but until then, can’t I live a humane life?”

The argument is a difficult one.  If the refugees settle down, they will be playing right into Israel’s hands.  Zionists have long advocated a “Jordan is Palestine” policy, hoping that time will erase all ties to the land.

I was sitting in the headquarters of the Community Development Office (CDO), an offshoot of UNRWA, when a veiled woman walked in.  She was holding an infant to her chest and dragging a toddler behind her.

“I would like to register for an allowance,” she said, without enthusiasm.  The woman in charge of the office apologized, “We don’t do that here,” she said.

“Please,” the woman protested, “my children are hungry.”

“We don’t have money for that,” the woman in charge frowned, “you’re going to have to go ask the mosque, they’re the ones who do things like this.”

After the woman left, the manager saw me looking annoyed.  She explained to me, “if we granted every request that came through our door, we wouldn’t be able to run a quarter of our programs.”  Religion acts as a safety net for many people in the camps.  When the entire world has left them in the dark, they believe that the light of God still shines on.  I saw how hard the employees at UNRWA work, but how the United Nations has crippled the agency with a miserable budget, and kept entire populations right above starvation and right below revolt.  Like a perfume seller in a refugee camp with no working plumbing, UNRWA’s efforts only serve as a temporary distraction from the inherent problems faced by the refugees.

Munir Atalla is a Palestinian-Jordanian currently entering his second year at Tufts University.  He hopes to major in Cognitive Science, and is involved with advocacy work surrounding the Middle East. A shorter version of this post was originally published on yourmiddleeast.com

Justice Edmond Levy (Photo: Eyal Warshavsky)

A panel formed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has concluded that Israel is entitled to settle the West Bank with Jews. The committee, headed by former Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, claims that Israel’s control over the West Bank cannot be seen as “occupation” since no country has recognized sovereignty over the territory. Therefore, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prevents the transfer of a civilian population by an occupying force into the occupied territory, does not apply to the West Bank. Justice Levy recommends that the Israeli government end the temporary status of the settlements and register the settlers’ control over the territory.

You can read the entire report here (Hebrew, PDF). A few quick takeaways:

This position is not new. Although the Israeli Supreme Court did cite the Fourth Geneva Convention in various rulings, Israeli legal scholars and some of their supporters have put forward this interpretation before, as part of an attempt to justify the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem and the surrounding areas (I addressed one such effort here). To the best of my knowledge, this position has never been accepted by the majority of the international legal community, or by major legal scholars.

Ceci n'est pas une occupation (by Yuval Ben Ami)

If anything, I see this verdict as additional evidence of the failure of the legal field’s to contest the occupation. The Israeli left has made a historic mistake by believing that courts can provide a platform for battling the occupation. For decades, human rights organizations have filed hundreds of petitions to the Supreme Court in an effort to stop the ongoing annexation, colonization and persecution of the Palestinian people. As a rule, the courts always approved the colonial practice while placing a few caveats. The Supreme Court allowed settlements, but not on privately owned land; it allowed targeted assassinations, but under certain conditions (which were not adhered to by the army); it allowed construction of the separation barrier on Palestinian land, but then moved it in a few places; recently, it also allowed Israel to use and sell Palestinian natural resources. The court even allowed torture under certain conditions, although this is the one aspect where it actually went a step further and ruled out most of the practices used by the Internal Security Service.

One of the last efforts in the legal battle against the occupation was The Outpost Report, produced a decade ago by attorney Talia Sasson (who later joined Meretz). The report concluded that Israel violated its own rules and its international commitments by allowing and aiding the establishment of new settlements in the West Bank and on private Palestinian land. The government approved the report, but in most cases action against the outposts was delayed. Finally, Israeli NGO’s – in most cases, Peace Now – started filing petitions demanding the return of the land to its owners.

After several court rulings in favor of the petitioners, Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to tackle the root of the problem – the Sasson report. This is the reason he formed the new panel. By nominating justice Levy to lead it, the prime minister pretty much determined the outcome – Levy was the single minority justice that ruled against the disengagement from Gaza, declaring that it violates the rights of the settlers. To sum it up, it took the Israeli government a decade to do what most people do in the minute after getting an opinion they don’t like from a legal adviser: they go to another lawyer.

The fact that the Israeli media is taking this report seriously is another testimony to the complete failure of the public political debate here (to be honest, the Sasson report, which separated “legal” settlements from “illegal” ones was not much better. It could and should have served the Israeli bureaucracy, but turning it into a policy report was a bad joke). As any person in his right mind could note immediately, Justice Levy doesn’t address one tiny formality in his report – the Palestinians. The occupation was never (just) about land. It’s first and foremost about the people under military control for 45 years.

Read also on this issue:
> The profitable occupation, and why it is never discussed
> One or two states? The status quo is Israel’s rational choice

Now that we found out that there is no occupation and there never was, I wonder how the great minds of the Israeli legal community would justify the two separate legal systems Israel has in the West Bank – one for 20 percent of the population (Jews) and one for the other 80 percent. If it’s not occupation, how do we call a situation in which millions of people are deprived of freedom of movement, tried in military tribunals, and don’t even have a recognized nationality or a passport? And don’t say Apartheid, because you’ll be called an anti-Semite.

This absurdity is a good opportunity to give up on the notion that the internal process in Israel will end the occupation. “The internal process” has turned the Israeli legal system into a joke, and resulted in a political system in which all mainstream parties share the same denial of reality. Israelis truly believe that there is no occupation, or that Palestinians could be made citizens of Jordan, while Israel keeps holding the territory they live in (this is the popular idea the right is pushing). Why Jordan, I say? If we are going to make them citizens of another system which has no effect over their life, lets at least be generous and make them French!

The delusional state of the public debate is such that nobody even bothers to ask Justice Levy what is he planning for the Palestinians under his new legal vision (I hope that international journalists raise this point in their reports, but I wouldn’t hold my breath). Clearly, all the systems here – the legal, the academic, and on top of everything, the political – have long ago given up on dealing with the Palestinian issue, and are now putting all their resources in rationalizing the status quo. By playing along with those fantasies, Israel’s friends are pretty much making sure that the waking up will be arduous and painful.

Zoe, Mairav and I are looking for something to eat. We head down to Neot Hakikar, a small moshav on the southernmost tip of the Dead Sea. Google claims that it is home to a restaurant named “Fata Morgana” (a mirage).

“I hope it doesn’t vanish when we reach it,” Mairav says.

The restaurant is real enough, but only feeds large groups and only with advanced reservation. The other culinary establishment in town, a tiny diner named “Pnina’s,”  fails to work our appetite. A sign posted to the window promises corn schnitzels, the Israeli vegetarian’s frozen delight.

Neot Hakikar is no Paris when it comes to food, but, as in the case of Ein Gedi, it is literally a flowering garden in the heart of the desert.

To the south the garden is flanked by stout rocky hills, while to the north and east plantations of date palms stretch to the Jordanian border.

All of this is stunning, but we need food. We head back to the main road and turn to the south. I recall a small roadside rest area near moshav Hatzeva, where busses stop over on their way from Eilat to Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Halfway there we pass a peculiar structure standing atop a small mesa overlooking the road. Hungry or not, this calls for a stop.

What is this place? In a land in love with signs and plaques, here is a rare exception. It reminds me of old Indian observatories. Mairav and Zoe mention Gaudi.

Gaudi = Barcelona = La boqueria, Cheese and sausages, tapas from the sea, manchego and jamon, xuixos stuffed with creme Catalan, wine and sangria. On, on to the rest stop!

Disappointingly, it only offers two fast-food franchises, both of them equally dull and uninspiring. One is a “Burger Ranch”, the other – an “Aroma” cafe and sandwich shop. For travelers, even starving travelers, food is a means to a cause. We would like to penetrate the surface of this region and sense its spirit. The north of the vast Arava valley cannot possibly be defined by a Burger Ranch. So we head into the Moshav iteslf, to see what it may offer.

The approach road goes by a small village of vacant tepees made of dried palms. We have reached the land of the head shrinkers. Will we end up succumbing to cannibalism?

That, alas, seems likely, because the small supermarket at Hatzeva is closed. We can’t even buy groceries and picnic on the grass in the company of Thai migrant workers, who rest here at the moment. A sign posted on the door reads: “On Tuesday, 24.4, in the plaza in front of the kindergarten, we will be selling hot Falafel. One full portion: NIS 5, a half a protion: NIS 2. Please come prepared with small bills.

Today is Sunday and the oil won’t be boiling for two days. We drive back out of Hatzeva, among the moshav’s greenhouses. The 200 kilometers separating the Dead Sea and the Red Sea are uninhabited but for a handful of moshavim and kibbutzim. These use the thin brine pumped out of local underground reserves for growing a variety of crops that can live on such water, such as peppers, flowers, and cantaloupe.

That’s enough. We give up and head for the rest stop. Hazeva is impenetrable for the moment. Perhaps on some other visit we shall find out what it really tastes like.

Following the wonderful, exquisite meal, the girls bid me farewell and head north to Ein Gedi. I keep heading south with a worry in my heart. If this introverted stretch of desert does not open up and share something of its reality with me, I will end up traveling a distance double the length of the entire Lebanese border and remain clueless as to its secrets. It’s fine for one flight of fancy stone maze to remain a mystery and a vacant palm village to remain mysterious, but this trip is about understanding.

My fear is somewhat dispersed when I get a lift from a man named Tzur. By the neat, businesslike appearance of his car’s interior I can tell him to be an urbanite, but Tzur is strongly involved in what is happening inside the Arava’s greenhouses. He is, you see, a castrator of flies.

“Organic Magnesium is no longer fashionable as pesticide,” he explains. “We have gone past that. In my company we offer farmers packages of combined pest controls, using insects and less harmful chemicals.”

The insects in question include mutated vermin such as neutered flies, which reduce fly population by mating with fertile ones. Over the following, fascinating hour, Tzur tells me exactly how harmful med flies are fixed, without the use of tiny knives and magnifying glasses.

“The idea actually dates back to the 1950s. It was a byproduct of nuclear weapons development. The flies are exposed to gamma rays, that’s all there really is to it. We have a large factory near Beit Shean, where we produce them. First we warm them up, which kills all the females, then we paint the ones that survive: we put them in a tumbler with fluorescent paint, and it sticks to cracks in their backs.”

I hide my slight shudder. “Does that make them more attractive to the fertile females?” I ask.

“No, but it makes them more visible to us. This way we can monitor which flies are ours and how well they do their job. They must do it very well, because no exported produce may contain any med flies. We are committed to world markets.

Agriculture in the Arava is big business and a source of natural pride. It is also, like everything in this country, a tool of national security. After bidding farewell to Tzur, I travel past the colossal greenhouse city of Paran. This moshav was founded at the entrance to a valley which stretches west into the Sinai, and was frequently used by nomadic Bedouins. Israel plugged the valley with a civilian community, in the interest of maintaining control of its borders.

From Paran I get a lift with two lovers, Raul and Ori. Raul is Spanish from the region of Extramadura and I am thrilled to tell him of how I had visited it over the September journey. Israeli Ori had met him in Brazil years ago, and now takes him around the country along with her dog, Ness (miracle), who cozies against my arm.

We make a bathroom stop at a very strange place, but at least it is one whose story I know. The “101st kilometer inn” is located directly across form Petra, in Jordan. Shimon “Cooshi” Rimon, successfully snuck into Jordanian territory in 1960, by driving a stolen UN vehicle. Other Israeli adventure-seekers who attempted reaching the fabled lost city of the Nabateans, often did not fare as well. Many were shot by border patrols on the way over or back.

Cooshi survived, and he founded a groovy little “Baghdad Cafe” by the side of the long, hot Arava road. Artist friends contributed sculptures,

and over the years a menagerie of strange creatures was accumulated here, complete with a real two-headed snake, a two headed turtle and a tiger. The tiger died of ripe old age a few years ago, an event which signaled the end of the inn’s luck. Soon a fire came, demolishing a number of the wooden structures and killing many of the two and one-headed creatures.

Cooshi purchased a new two-headed snake since, but could not get his hands on another such turtle. All in all, the 101st Kilometer Inn is a sad place these days, and I’m glad to be back on the road.

Actually, I am thrilled. My lovely new friends are continuing to Eilat and will drop me off at one of the two border crossings through which Israelis may enter the Kingdom of Jordan.

When I was a child, the only way I could enter Jordan was by stealing a UN Jeep. This changed in the 1990s, following the Oslo Accords. King Hussein of Jordan promised Israel that when an agreement was reached between its government and the PLO, he would offer a peace agreement that enables travel and trade. He remained true to his word.

During those days of hope, my father, Oded Ben-Ami, served as media adviser to Yitzhak Rabin, and often traveled in secret to different places where history was made by peacemakers. One late night he left home, unable to tell my mother where he was headed. He called her on the phone just before dawn.

“Where are you?” she asked.

“I still can’t tell you,” he said, “but I am looking at Eilat from the east.”

Just east of Eilat, sharing the coast of the same bay, is the Jordanian city of Aqaba. My mother understood that peace with Jordan was nigh and that the Middle East was due to change in earnest. She cried with joy.

That was in 1994. The Middle East stopped changing the following year, when Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish right-wing fanatic in Tel-Aviv. Netanyahu soon took over and the peace process died. Today the Arava border crossing is the quietest spot which I have visited in Israel so far. Quieter even than sandwich-less Hatzeva.

Crossing into Jordan is still possible, but for the most part, only avid hikers and foreign tourists take advantage of that, so no lines await me at the various counters. I pay a transport tax and change some money at the bank counter, then move on to Israeli immigration and on to the Jordanian customs counter where my belongings spark no interest.

Ten minutes into the process, I arrive at Jordanian immigration, which is where things get complicated. My passport is not signed and I am sent to room #3, which turns out to be a police station of the “Tourist Police.”

The officer at the tourist police speaks not a word of English. My Arabic has greatly improved over the past two weeks, but the term he uses over and over isn’t familiar. I finally learn that it means “travel agent.” It appears that a month-old regulation requires all Israelis who enter Jordan to coordinate their visit with a local travel agent, follow that agent to the hotel of his choice, and of course pay a commission.

The officer puts me on the phone with an agent named Ibrahim. While Ibrahim names his price, a man in civilian clothes walks into the station. He grabs the receiver from my one hand and my passport from the other. Spells my name to Ibrahim over the line, and then hangs up and tells me that Ibrahim will be here in five minutes.

I wait for far more than five minutes, watching twilight descend over this very quiet place and taking pictures of King Abdullah’s portrait, out of boredom.

The man in civilian clothes steps out of the station and tells me again that Ibrahim will be here in five minutes, only now he adds “by Arab time,” which I take to mean I may wait here the entire night.

“What is your job?” I ask him.

“I’m Ibrahim’s brother,” he replies.

Finally even he loses his patience and decides to take me to town on his own. He hands me my passport and walks me through immigration, then we’re in Jordan, driving into town to the hotel of Ibrahim’s choice.

Problem number two soon arises. I exchanged only a handful of NIS at the bank, for fear of being stuck with very soft currency upon return into Israel. Ibrahim’s hotel does not accept credit cards, and none of the ATMs in Aqaba accept my card.

“Why don’t I pay you ten dinars now and you’ll free me to go find a hotel that takes credit?” I ask Ibrahim’s brother. Ten dinars are worth about 13 US$, they are what I expected to pay for a cab ride into town. He insists on being paid 20 dinars, but I have no intention of paying that to anyone simply because he has friends at the Tourist Police, so we keep traveling among Aqaba’s ATM’s. This is dragging on and on. My time for enjoying the city is running out “I’m sorry.” I finally say. “I can’t be your prisoner, and I can’t pay you more or I’ll have nothing left to eat. Please take the ten dinars and let me go.”

“I’ll hand you over to the Tourist Police,” he threatens, and it’s no idle threat. Crossing the border of hope, the border of peace, has turned into an Israeli-Jordanian conflict, thanks to pointless regulations which now weigh on both of us. Ibrahim’s now exhausted brother makes phone calls, to try and sort the situation out. So be it. We try to get a hotel to overcharge my card and then pay him. Impossible.

“Let me go!” I beg, “Please!”

“I’m sorry,” he says, you are now under my supervision.”

It takes another full hour before finally he gives up and accepts my offer. Israel had won this little war and now I am fully prepared to make peace now with this world and with this night. The lights of Eilat shine to the west. I am in another country. I have made it to the tip of the Arava, and learned something on the way; it may be a disgusting little something about reducing fly populations, but how can I help but be satisfied? The night smells like hooka smoke, roasted meat and warm sea breeze, the ships out in the water travel from here into the Indian ocean, and for the first time since this journey began I feel that feeling beloved by all travelers: that I am truly far from home.

_______________________________________

The Round Trip thus far!  (zoom out for full map)

View Larger Map

Thanks for reading and taking part in the adventure. All writing on this site is done voluntarily, so if any of you would like to pitch in directly for my travel expenses, please click here or on the “donate” button at the top of this page to do so. Donors who contribute more than $25 will receive free the first part of the three-part ebook (compatible with iPad) that will be released this summer. I’m deeply grateful to those who already donated. Thank you so much! This project would be impossible if not for you.

For more of The Round Trip

Relive the first two journeys:
The September Journey
The Christmas Journey

Yes, Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan, but if the Israeli and American hawks set their sights on Jordan’s nuclear ambitions, they would shriek that a peace treaty is not enough to secure Israel’s future. They would demand Jordan halt its uranium enrichment and dismantle its facilities.

If Jordan refused, and insisted that its nuclear program was for civilian purposes – as Iran has – Israeli leaders would threaten that Israel will do what she “has to do” to protect herself and the future of the Jewish people (more than half of which, mind you, do not live in Israel). I can just hear Netanyahu saying something like “Israel won’t hang its fate on a piece of paper.”

Then there are the Palestinians, a group that constitutes more than half of Jordan’s population. If the Palestinians and Palestinian refugees are really as fearsome and bloodthirsty as Israel makes them out to be – if the Palestinians are indeed terrorists bent on Israel’s destruction – wouldn’t a nuclear program in a country where they constitute more than half the population be of concern to Israel?

So why isn’t Israel barking about Jordan’s nuclear program? Because Jordan is a U.S. ally; because Jordan is open to Western influence.

Some would argue it’s also because Jordan’s program is for civilian purposes. But, the same could be said of Iran. In fact, American intelligence agencies believe that Iran stopped working towards a nuclear weapon in 2003.

As for Iran’s so-called intent to wipe Israel off the map, Jordan and Israel have actually had military confrontations, during the 1948 War and the Six Day War in 1967. If you had to pick who is a bigger threat, would you pick the kid you exchanged words with or the one who you actually had a fist fight with?

Regarding anti-Semitism, Iran has the largest Jewish community in the Middle East, outside of Israel. Ever heard of Jordanian Jews?

That’s not to say that Jordanians are anti-Semitic but, yes, like most places in the world, there is anti-Semitism in Jordan. When I was in Jordan recently on a reporting trip, I attended a pro-reform protest in Amman. At one point the crowd chanted “Jews are pigs” and many an interviewee told me that they want to see a Palestine free of Jews. Still, Israel and the United States aren’t up in arms about Jordan’s nuclear program.

One last point: according to a 2010 study, Jordan is the fifth most militarized country in the world, with Israel, Singapore, Syria, and Russia taking the top four spots, in that order.

According to the same research, Iran came in as the 32nd most militarized country in the world, lagging far behind Israel’s neighbors Jordan and Syria.

By Israeli political standards, it sounds like a real formula for disaster, right? Israel’s neighbor - a highly militarized country with a history of armed conflict with Israel, a country full of Palestinian refugees, a country in which the largest political opposition party is the Islamic Action Front, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood – has a nuclear program. Yet Israel and the United States are mum, suggesting that the Palestinians, Islamists, and nuclear programs aren’t the existential threat Israel pretends them to be.

Sort of makes you wonder what all the fuss about Iran is really about, doesn’t it?

“I’m ready to get into my car at any time and go to Ramallah, even if it’s more than a small headache for my security guards, but Abu Mazen isn’t ready.”

This does not sound like someone with any genuine desire to negotiate or sense of urgency about the future of this region and the people living in it. To declare that traveling to Ramallah is a headache is just smug. It is an insult to the millions of Palestinians inside the West Bank who cannot travel freely and are constantly harassed, as well as the millions more in the diaspora who cannot visit freely at all. It is also an insult to me as a tax-paying Israeli citizen, that I have to pay for all the security that goes into what is such an easy journey for the Prime Minister – a journey that he has already determined is futile through his daily actions as well as the tone of his words.

This sounds like someone who cannot be bothered; like he’s doing the world a favor by turning his attention for a few moments away from war with Iran and imploring Birthright participants to move to Israel. It sounds like he would be just as content doing nothing, which he has proven to be especially good at over the last few years. And why not? He has had to deal with no consequences, either domestically or internationally, for being derelict.

There is such a double standard by Israel vis-a-vis negotiations and it is reported on in Western mainstream media with no criticism at all. This enigmatic 21-point plan submitted by Israel to the Palestinians as a precondition to talks? Twenty-one points? Might these points just state the de facto status quo over and over again: “We are a Jewish state with an undivided capital in Jerusalem and every fifth Israeli lives in the Judea and Samaria.” And apparently these 21 points have “domestic political consensus,” whatever that means.

Netanyahu isn’t even willing to stomach one Palestinian precondition: a halt of settlement construction that has literally eaten away at the possibility of a Palestinian state. May I remind everyone once again that settlement construction is considered illegal by the international community and that they are, in fact UNILATERAL actions taken by Israel on a daily basis that contradict the notion of a so-called “peace process” So who is Bibi kidding? How can anyone talk about “peace talks,” “negotiations” or a “two-state solution” with a straight face anymore?

At this point, I just find all the “news” about negotiations one giant disingenuous insult by Israel to the Palestinian public, the Israeli public and really anyone with any sense of decency. By reporting on it as if it is in fact news, the mainstream media is just feeding into the facade that Israel is a peace-seeking, two-state solution-wanting country. Nothing about its actions indicate that it is, so all this talk about negotiations is absolutely meaningless. It is a waste of space on the page.

Jordan’s King Abdullah has asked the country’s Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit to resign, effective immediately. This, after 70 out of 120 of the country’s MP voted in a no-confidence motion against Bakhit over a 2007 casino corruption charge. He had only been in the post since February, replacing the previous leader who was also removed for being too “pro-business” in the eyes of the many.

While Jordan has been one of the handful of Arab countries in the region that has successfully contained protests in the so-called “Arab Spring,” many would argue that Bakhit is the latest victim of the populist movements. He tried, but apparently failed, to appease growing frustrations among Islamists in the country by offering political reforms. But it appears to have been too little too late.

An outstretched hand
On Sunday, Bakhit received a rare call from his (deposed) Palestinian counterpart, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the Islamist group in the Gaza Strip. The two discussed the Shalit/prisoner exchange deal and Bakhit expressed his support for the Palestinian cause.

What may seem like a trivial phone call between significant figures in the Middle East gets a little more complicated when one remembers that Hamas was exiled from Jordan in 1999. Amman officially recognized the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate government in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and gave Hamas’ offices and officials the boot. They went to the Kingdom of Qatar.

Since then, Fatah’s leader have felt very comfortable on Jordanian territory. When I interviewed the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas earlier this year, it was not in Ramallah, home of the authority’s headquarters and his offices, the Muqatta, but rather in Amman, the Jordanian capital, at the residence of the Palestinian ambassador. Earlier on that day, eating a late lunch at a popular Amman restaurant, I spotted a number of key Palestinian figures dining just tables away, among them the Palestinian’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

This city ain’t big enough for the both of us
Amman is about to get another visitor, or so it has been reported. The exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, is expected to arrive in Jordan in the coming days, accompanied by the Qatari heir-apparent who has been mediating rapproachement between the two parties. Meshaal has not been in Jordan in more than a decade, and his arrival there could signal new political clout for the group, and also an effort to placate Islamist politicians. All of this would be of grave concern to Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, which has been keen to keep its rival, Hamas, as the weak player.

Jordan’s new Prime Minister has already been dubbed. Awn al-Khasawneh is a former judge from the International Court of Justice. It’s not clear how, if at all, his new role may affect fledgling renewed relations with an old friend-turned-foe.