KEEPING ON A STEADY COURSE TO APARTHEID by Jeff Halper

For all the attention and hysteria the latest events in Gaza have
generated since the Hamas "takeover," for Israel they represent
nothing but a minor blip in its inexorable drive towards its own
unilateral "solution:" apartheid. Israel's end-game, explicit and
unruffled by the recent turmoil on the ground, is clear. It is laid
out in detail in the Convergence Plan" Olmert presented to a joint
session of the American Congress in May, 2006, based on Sharon's plan
of "cantonization." With minor adjustments, it constitutes the plan
Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is quietly advancing with the
help of Condoleezza Rice, and it is accepted in its entirety by Ehud
Barak, the newly-elected leader of the Labor Party, who played a key
role in its formulation. The Israeli plan for apartheid is as follows:



(1) Creating a truncated Palestinian "state" comprised of four
disconnected cantons, three in the West Bank and Gaza. By annexing its
major settlement blocs defined by the Wall, Israel thereby expands
onto 85% of the country, leaving the Palestinians confined to
impoverished enclaves on the remaining 15% of the land. In such a
"two-state solution" Israel would control the borders, external and
internal Palestinian movement, the "Greater" Jerusalem area, all the
water resources, the air space, the communications sphere and even the
Palestinian state's foreign policy. Such a Bantustan would have no
genuine sovereignty or viable economy – but would have to accept all
the traumatized and impoverished Palestinian refugees.



(2) If this fails, primarily because Israel cannot find the quisling
Palestinian leader who would sign off on a Bantustan, Plan B – the
Livni-Rice plan – calls for the unilateral declaration by the US of a
"provisional" Palestinian state with no fixed borders, no meaningful
sovereignty and no viable economy, squeezed between the Wall, Israel's
eastern "demographic" border incorporating the settlement blocs, and
the Jordan Valley, Israel's eastern "security" border. The
Palestinians would thus be left in the limbo of a "provisional" state
indefinitely – or until they agree to a Bantustan – all in conformity
to the parameters of the "Road Map."



Period. Regardless of the "peace initiative" of the moment – the Road
Map, the Saudi initiative, the summit at Sharm el-sheikh, the
appointment of a Middle East envoy – all these plans will have to
conform to one of these alternatives or be doomed to irrelevance.



What happens in Gaza, then (tellingly nicknamed "Hamastan," the
Palestinian cantons of the West Bank now dubbed "Fatahland"), is
therefore irrelevant to Israel, since Gaza represents nothing more
than a tiny part of the tiny Palestinian Bantustan (about 8%). Whether
Gaza would have been "quieted" after the Israeli disengagement as
Sharon had planned, exporting cheap labor into Israel and perhaps
enjoying limited economic growth, whether it was merely isolated and
impoverished due to US and Israeli sanctions after the Hamas election
victory or whether, as happened, it explodes, nothing will hamper
Israel's ceaseless process of consolidating its hold on the West Bank.
Sooner or later, in the Israeli-American plan, Gaza will fall into
place.



Not only are the Palestinians irrelevant, in Israel's view, but the
Hamas "takeover" is actually a positive development, since it furthers
the apartheid process. A key reason why Palestinians voted for Hamas
was the perception that it would resist pressures to accept a
Bantustan better than the weak, vacillating Fatah movement, which was
seen as little more than Israel's policeman in the Territories.
Israel, the US and a complicit Europe is thus seen as trying to
isolate precisely those who truly resist the Occupation while
"strengthening" Abbas and the "moderates" – "moderate" defined as
those willing to pacify the Palestinians without securing their
fundamental right to a sovereign and viable state of their own. The
American-sponsored program of arming Fatah against its own people,
complete with "lending" them an American general (Dayton), only
confirms these suspicions, especially if they make Abbas dependent
upon outside forces for his survival.



Israel and the US are doing in microcosm in Palestine what the US is
doing throughout the Muslim world, forcing the Palestinians to choose
between two unacceptable options: either the prospects of an apartheid
regime which is all the "moderates" can deliver or continued
resistance to occupation and apartheid under Hamas at the price of
international isolation and an unwanted process of Islamization. Where
are the true liberators who can deliver a viable Palestinian state
while recognizing – though standing up to – Israel? Where are the
progressive leaders who represent the wishes of the overwhelming
majority of the Palestinian people? Where are the "strong" leaders
that Bush claims are lacking on the Palestinian side? Either dead, the
victims of a 30-year campaign on the part of Israel to eliminate any
effective Palestinian leader, or languishing in refugee camps or in
exile, or in prison. If Marwan Bargouti and the prisoners of all the
factions who produced the Prisoners' Document, the only viable peace
plan that has any chance of success, were free and allowed to lead
their people, the Israel/Palestine conflict could be resolved
tomorrow.



What is lacking, of course, is good faith. The will among governments
to stand up for Palestinian rights and against Israeli apartheid is
totally lacking. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz (21.6.07) noted the
cynicism underlying the recent Olmert-Bush meeting. "Olmert reached an
understanding with…Bush during his visit to Washington that it is
necessary to support Abbas," a senior political source in Jerusalem
said. "The decision to aid Abbas was made despite skepticism about his
chances for success, in view of past experience. Olmert and Bush
agreed they must not allow the impression that Abbas failed because
Israel or the U.S. failed him."



Israel is not going to bolster Abbas – unless he becomes the
collaborator Israel is looking for, which he won't. Olmert has already
announced that there will be no final status negotiations in the
foreseeable future. So neither the Saudi Inititative nor the Sharm
meeting will lead to genuine negotiations. The US, with its moribund
Road Map, will not facilitate the establishment of a viable
Palestinian state and Europe will not act independently to do so, even
in its own interest. The Palestinians, for their part, are powerless
to achieve a viable state on their own and will continue to be beaten
and blamed for their own incareration and resistance.



Our governments have failed us. Unless we, the people worldwide, can
mobilize grassroots opposition to the Israeli-US-European Occupation,
a new apartheid regime,in the Holy Land no less, will soon emerge
before our very eyes. Its only when the people lead that our "leaders"
will even contemplate doing the right thing.

(Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House
Demolitions (ICAHD) and a candidate, with the Palestinian peace
activist Ghassan Andoni, for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. He can be
reached at .)

Iraq and the Human Rights Act - Baha Mousa judgment

Well done to Phil Shiner and PIL in winning this case before the House
of Lords
The Government is facing a damaging lawsuit and demands for a public
inquiry into its policy on torturing detainees in Iraq after a law lords
ruling today.
The UK's top judges ruled that the death of Baha Musa in British
military custody in Iraq fell under the remit of the Human Rights Act.
Musa, a hotel receptionist in Basra, died 48 hours after his arrest by
British soldiers. He was apparently beaten to death, suffering 93
separate injuries to his body.
Today's verdict by the UK's highest appeal court enables Mr Musa's
family not only to sue the Government in High Court - lawyers have already
said that they will be seeking exemplary damages - but to insist on a
public inquiry into his death.
Phil Shiner, a lawyer for the Musa family, reeled off a list of
questions he felt should now be answered by the Government.
He asked why it abandoned a ruling by Edward Heath's government in 1972
that outlawed the practice of hooding detainees, and of "stressing"
them by depriving them of food and water and bombarding them with noise
and abuse.
He also queried whether the right people had been charged with the
right offences over Mr Musa's death. He accused the government of
suppressing damning evidence from the court martial, including "a video showing
hooded and cuffed detaineees being verbally and physically abused as
they were man-handled into the UK's preferred stress position".
"When the head of army legal services blew the whistle on hooding and
stressing, he was told that the Attorney-General had advised that the
Human Rights Act did not apply, and so lower standards were applied,"
said Mr Shiner.
"It is imperative that the Government and the military face up to these
issues."
Speaking outside Parliament after the verdict was read out, Shami
Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the human rights campaign group, said
that today's ruling was "incredibly important" as it established the
principle that any detainee in British custody anywhere in the world was
entitled to the protection of the Human Rights Act.
"Our Law Lords have ensured that there can never be a British
Guantanamo Bay anywhere in the world in the future," said Ms Chakrabarti. "There
can be no British detention facility where the law does not apply."
She accused the Government of trying to pretend that the killing was
the result of rogue behaviour by a few bad apples rather than the result
of systemic failures in planning the aftermath of the war, and of a
secret change in policy to permit soldiers to use torture techniques.
"Individual soldiers and individual officers cannot be scapegoated and
left to carry the can for the failings of our Government," she said.
Colonel Daoud Musa, father of Baha, was said to be very pleased by this
morning’s judgment. On the phone from Basra he told his lawyer, Martyn
Day: "It means that I have not lost hope of getting justice for my son.
"I hope that as a result of this judgment the truth will come out and
that no other family should have to experience what me and my
grandchildren have gone through."
Expert View

The death of Baha Musa in British military custody was a disgraceful
episode for which only one soldier has so far been punished
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
More
Post a comment
Related Links
Comment: two questions remain over Musa murder
Full judgment: law lords on UK military and human rights
Torture: 10 claims against the Army
Mr Day, said: "From talking to not just Colonel Musa but also with some
of our other clients this morning they all feel this decision is a
major step forward in their fight for justice.
"The legal team have done an excellent job in ensuring that the British
Army will now always be held to account for their actions when people
are brought under their power. There will be no difference whether this
happens in Birmingham or Basra.
"Let us hope there is now a speedy agreement by the Ministry of Defence
that a public enquiry should be held into the terrible events of
September 2003. "
Colonel Jorge Mendonca MBE, the highest-ranking soldier in recent
history to face a court martial, was cleared of negligently failing to
prevent his men from mistreating Musa after a five-month trial at Bulford
army camp in Wiltshire.
Five other officers and soliders were also exonerated, but Corporal
Donald Payne, 36, who became Britain's first convicted war criminal when
he admitted a charge of inhuman treatment of civilians at the tribunal,
was dismissed from the army and sentenced to one year in a civilian
jail.
Today's ruling by the law lords however dismissed an appeal by the
families of five other Iraqi civilians killed by British soldiers on
patrol, on the grounds that they were not in detention and therefore not
protected either by UK domestic law or by the European Convention on Human
Rights.
After the ruling, Amnesty International called on the Government to set
up an expert, civilian-led body to take the place of the military
authorities in carrying out independent inquiries into allegations of human
rights violations at the hands of British armed forces personnel.
But Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, said in a statement
afterwards that investigations should be carred out by the military. He
welcomed the ruling which he said provided "helpful clarification of
the precise legal framework under which UK forces operated overseas".
"As the Chief of General Staff has already said, Baha Musa died after
being held in UK custody and was subject to an unlawful conditioning
process," said Mr Browne.
"We have never argued that the treatment of Baha Musa was acceptable or
that his death should not have been investigated.
"Credible allegations of serious wrong-doing have to be, and are,
investigated. Where evidence is independently assessed as justifying a
prosecution, the application of a robust, fair system of military justice
must follow."
He went on: "Since 2003 we have reviewed our practices in relation to
detention, and where necessary made changes. This is a complex judgment,
some 60 pages long, and needs careful consideration. However if further
lessons or action needs to be taken on board as a result of this
judgement we will do so."
She accused the Government of trying to pretend that the killing was
the result of rogue behaviour by a few bad apples rather than the result
of systemic failures in planning the aftermath of the war, and of a
secret change in policy to permit soldiers to use torture techniques.
"Individual soldiers and individual officers cannot be scapegoated and
left to carry the can for the failings of our Government," she said.
Colonel Daoud Musa, father of Baha, was said to be very pleased by this
morning’s judgment. On the phone from Basra he told his lawyer, Martyn
Day: "It means that I have not lost hope of getting justice for my son.
"I hope that as a result of this judgment the truth will come out and
that no other family should have to experience what me and my
grandchildren have gone through."
Expert View

The death of Baha Musa in British military custody was a disgraceful
episode for which only one soldier has so far been punished
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
More
Post a comment
Related Links
Comment: two questions remain over Musa murder
Full judgment: law lords on UK military and human rights
Torture: 10 claims against the Army
Mr Day, said: "From talking to not just Colonel Musa but also with some
of our other clients this morning they all feel this decision is a
major step forward in their fight for justice.
"The legal team have done an excellent job in ensuring that the British
Army will now always be held to account for their actions when people
are brought under their power. There will be no difference whether this
happens in Birmingham or Basra.
"Let us hope there is now a speedy agreement by the Ministry of Defence
that a public enquiry should be held into the terrible events of
September 2003. "
Colonel Jorge Mendonca MBE, the highest-ranking soldier in recent
history to face a court martial, was cleared of negligently failing to
prevent his men from mistreating Musa after a five-month trial at Bulford
army camp in Wiltshire.
Five other officers and soliders were also exonerated, but Corporal
Donald Payne, 36, who became Britain's first convicted war criminal when
he admitted a charge of inhuman treatment of civilians at the tribunal,
was dismissed from the army and sentenced to one year in a civilian
jail.
Today's ruling by the law lords however dismissed an appeal by the
families of five other Iraqi civilians killed by British soldiers on
patrol, on the grounds that they were not in detention and therefore not
protected either by UK domestic law or by the European Convention on Human
Rights.
After the ruling, Amnesty International called on the Government to set
up an expert, civilian-led body to take the place of the military
authorities in carrying out independent inquiries into allegations of human
rights violations at the hands of British armed forces personnel.
But Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, said in a statement
afterwards that investigations should be carred out by the military. He
welcomed the ruling which he said provided "helpful clarification of
the precise legal framework under which UK forces operated overseas".
"As the Chief of General Staff has already said, Baha Musa died after
being held in UK custody and was subject to an unlawful conditioning
process," said Mr Browne.
"We have never argued that the treatment of Baha Musa was acceptable or
that his death should not have been investigated.
"Credible allegations of serious wrong-doing have to be, and are,
investigated. Where evidence is independently assessed as justifying a
prosecution, the application of a robust, fair system of military justice
must follow."
He went on: "Since 2003 we have reviewed our practices in relation to
detention, and where necessary made changes. This is a complex judgment,
some 60 pages long, and needs careful consideration. However if further
lessons or action needs to be taken on board as a result of this
judgement we will do so."
She accused the Government of trying to pretend that the killing was
the result of rogue behaviour by a few bad apples rather than the result
of systemic failures in planning the aftermath of the war, and of a
secret change in policy to permit soldiers to use torture techniques.
"Individual soldiers and individual officers cannot be scapegoated and
left to carry the can for the failings of our Government," she said.
Colonel Daoud Musa, father of Baha, was said to be very pleased by this
morning’s judgment. On the phone from Basra he told his lawyer, Martyn
Day: "It means that I have not lost hope of getting justice for my son.
"I hope that as a result of this judgment the truth will come out and
that no other family should have to experience what me and my
grandchildren have gone through."
Expert View

The death of Baha Musa in British military custody was a disgraceful
episode for which only one soldier has so far been punished
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
More
Post a comment
Related Links
Comment: two questions remain over Musa murder
Full judgment: law lords on UK military and human rights
Torture: 10 claims against the Army
Mr Day, said: "From talking to not just Colonel Musa but also with some
of our other clients this morning they all feel this decision is a
major step forward in their fight for justice.
"The legal team have done an excellent job in ensuring that the British
Army will now always be held to account for their actions when people
are brought under their power. There will be no difference whether this
happens in Birmingham or Basra.
"Let us hope there is now a speedy agreement by the Ministry of Defence
that a public enquiry should be held into the terrible events of
September 2003. "
Colonel Jorge Mendonca MBE, the highest-ranking soldier in recent
history to face a court martial, was cleared of negligently failing to
prevent his men from mistreating Musa after a five-month trial at Bulford
army camp in Wiltshire.
Five other officers and soliders were also exonerated, but Corporal
Donald Payne, 36, who became Britain's first convicted war criminal when
he admitted a charge of inhuman treatment of civilians at the tribunal,
was dismissed from the army and sentenced to one year in a civilian
jail.
Today's ruling by the law lords however dismissed an appeal by the
families of five other Iraqi civilians killed by British soldiers on
patrol, on the grounds that they were not in detention and therefore not
protected either by UK domestic law or by the European Convention on Human
Rights.
After the ruling, Amnesty International called on the Government to set
up an expert, civilian-led body to take the place of the military
authorities in carrying out independent inquiries into allegations of human
rights violations at the hands of British armed forces personnel.
But Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Defence, said in a statement
afterwards that investigations should be carred out by the military. He
welcomed the ruling which he said provided "helpful clarification of
the precise legal framework under which UK forces operated overseas".
"As the Chief of General Staff has already said, Baha Musa died after
being held in UK custody and was subject to an unlawful conditioning
process," said Mr Browne.
"We have never argued that the treatment of Baha Musa was acceptable or
that his death should not have been investigated.
"Credible allegations of serious wrong-doing have to be, and are,
investigated. Where evidence is independently assessed as justifying a
prosecution, the application of a robust, fair system of military justice
must follow."
He went on: "Since 2003 we have reviewed our practices in relation to
detention, and where necessary made changes. This is a complex judgment,
some 60 pages long, and needs careful consideration. However if further
lessons or action needs to be taken on board as a result of this
judgement we will do so."

R (Al Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence

PIL is acting in the case of Al Skeini on behalf of Iraqi civilians who were tortured, in some cases to death, and killed during the occupation of Iraq. We argue that their rights under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 3 (the prohibition against torture) ECHR were breached and the Government is therefore obliged to hold an independent inquiry into their treatment. We have already achieved partial and significant victories at the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which found that the Human Rights Act applies in situations where an individual is under the control of a British authority, in this case, the military. The House of Lords will hear the appeal for six days from 17th to 19th and 23rd to 25th April 2007.

JUDGEMENT IS EXPECTED IN LATE SUMMER AND WE ARE CONSIDERING HOLDING A MEETING IN LONDON TO DISCUSS ITS IMPLICATION.PHIL SHINER OF PIL WOULD BE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS

This test case will establish whether the European Court of Human Rights applied to the actions of UK soldiers wherever they are serving abroad.

Background

The case, R (on the application of Al Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence (Al Skeini) reveals shocking allegations of unlawful killings and severe beatings during detention of Iraqi civilians. The 6 cases selected as test cases to be considered by the Court at the end of July are as follows:

1. Hazim Jum’aa Gatteh Al-Skeini: Hazim, aged 23, was shot dead by a British soldier on 4 August 2003 whilst attending a funeral. The family subsequently received a letter from the British army in Basra, which expressed deep regret and offered to make a small donation.

2. Hannan Mahaibas Saeed Shmailawi: On 10 November 2003 Hanan was with her husband and family at the Institute of Education in Basra when the building was fired into by British forces outside. She was shot in the head and legs, taken to hospital in an army vehicle and subsequently died. A handwritten note from a Major in the British Army confirms that Hannan was shot by C Company of the 1st King’s Brigade.

3. Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim: On 5 November 2003 Muhammad was at his brother-in-law’s house. British soldiers forced entry by breaking down the front door and one soldier fired a rifle with a silencer into Mohammad’s stomach who later died in hospital. A subsequent letter from a Major in the British Army confirms that the British forces had entered the property by mistake.

4. Waleed Fayayi Muzban: On 24 August 2003 Waleed was driving home from work in a people carrier when it was hit on a number of occasions by bullets fired by British soldiers from behind. He was wounded in the chest and stomach and died in a military hospital. The British Forces in Basra apparently refused to return the vehicle, which has been impounded.

5. Raid Hadi Sabir Al Musawi: On 7 August 2003 Raid Hadi Al Musawi, a policemen, was taking a box of “suggestions and complaints” to a judge’s house, as part of his duty, when he was fired on by a British patrol. He subsequently died in hospital on 6 November.

6. Baha Mousa: Baha, aged 26, died in custody of the British Army. He worked at a hotel in Basra. On the morning of 14 September 2003, a British army unit raided the hotel looking for the owner, who they believed had guns hidden there. During the raid they arrested Baha and other hotel employees. All were taken away and detained until 16 September. During that period, hoods were placed over their heads, they were beaten and kicked, forced to crouch for hours in stress positions, not given food or water except for extremely spicy food which they could not eat and water which was poured onto their hoods. Baha was taken to a separate room and could be heard moaning, saying he was dieing. On the third day, his father, Daoud Mousa, was informed that his son had died in custody. He was taken to identify the body which had been severely beaten. A month later, the British Military Commander wrote to Daoud Mousa expressing his regrets and condolences.

High Court ruling

The High Court decided that the HRA and the ECHR applied in the cases of those detained in British military prisons, such as the case of Baha Mousa. In this case, the Court even went as far as to say that the UK had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3, in particular, it had failed to conduct an independent investigation. In relation to the other cases, the Court found that the ECHR could not apply outside of Europe, even where a State Party had effective control of territory. However, the most recent case from the European Court of Human Rights (Issa v Turkey) found that where effective control does exist, the ECHR could apply outside the Council of Europe.

Court of Appeal ruling

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's finding that HRA and the ECHR apply to Mr Mousa's case on the basis that he came within the authority and control of British forces in Iraq. The Court of Appeal went further and held that not only those in British prisons were protected by the HRA and ECHR, but individuals whose liberty had been restricted by British forces were also covered, regardless of whether they were detained in a prison, as they came under British authority and control. The Court of Appeal further highlighted the defects in military investigations, in particular, the role of the Commanding Officer and the inherent problems resulting from investigations lacking independence from the military chain of command. The Court recognised the important and unique protection provided by the ECHR, through the positive obligation under article 2 and 3, to conduct an independent investigation and that such protection could extend to territory outside Europe where a State Party was found to have effective control over such territory.

However, the Court of Appeal did not consider that cases 1 - 5 fell within British authority and control because those individuals did not have their liberty restricted, nor did the UK have effective control over the territory in Southern Iraq where these incidents took place. But permission to appeal to the House of Lords against these two findings has been granted to the families. PIL consider that where British armed forces personnel are, for example, performing policing functions, such as home raids, street patrols and manning check points, they are exercising authority and control and therefore, the HRA and ECHR should apply.

Implications of case

The Al-Skeini case involves issues which are not only important to the victims and their families and their right to redress, but also extremely significant in in ensuring that future conflicts, occupations and peacekeeping operations are subject to human rights law.

Although the occupation of Iraq is governed by international humanitarian law and was authorised by Security Council Resolution 1483, international law provides for human rights and humanitarian law to apply side by side. Military occupation is subject to long established rules set out in the Geneva Conventions, protecting the basic human rights of the civilian population. These rules, if violated after July 2002, may also mean that “War Crimes”, as defined by section 8 of the Rome Statute, have been committed, which would bring such acts within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, a new and untested guardian of international human rights.

However, the judicial review action in this case is particularly important because it involves using the HRA to bring about accountability, through domestic courts, for treatment of civilians in occupied territory. The HRA replicates the basic standards of International Human Rights Law (even before the Geneva Conventions, these basic standards were part of Customary International Law), but significantly, advances the procedural application and enforceability of human rights through an obligation to investigate, which has not been made possible in domestic courts under International Humanitarian Law. In the case of Iraq, the argument for domestic accountability is made even stronger in light of the immunity afforded to Coalition personnel (under Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17) from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Such personnel enjoy complete immunity from criminal and civil liability under Iraqi jurisdiction.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is an important victory for the torture cases in which PIL are acting. Accountability involves knowing who was responsible, how far up the chain of command this went, and whether the war and subsequent occupation was properly planned and prepared. It also involves the full participation of relatives in the independent inquiry, full damages, if these were unlawful killings, and the possibility of criminal prosecutions for “war crimes” of those responsible. Hopefully, this will now be possible.

The proceedings to date have resulted in close scrutiny of military investigations by lawyers, the courts and the Attorney General and have raised serious doubts as to whether such investigations are able to cope with abuses of fundamental human rights.

The court martial of the seven soldiers, including Colonel Mendonca, implicated in the torture and killing of the 25-year-old hotel receptionist Baha Mousa is currently taking place at Bulford Court Martial Centre. This has already been described as the most important courts martial in history. PIL does not accept, however, that this court martial satisfies the requirements of impartiality and independence under Article 2 ECHR, on the basis that the military cannot impartially investigate and prosecute itself.

Bitter fruits of boycott

Leader
Thursday June 14, 2007
The Guardian


Alvaro de Soto is not the first experienced diplomat to have entered
the Middle East a moderate and to have left it two years later angry at
the role of Israel and the US in subverting the search for peace. Nor
will he be the last. In his confidential 52-page report, published by the
Guardian this week, the former Peruvian foreign minister describes the
reality of diplomacy. Informed observers already suspected that US
pressure had "pummelled into submission" the UN's role as an impartial
negotiator, that it had made the Middle East peace process subservient to
wider policies on Iraq and Iran, and that the US had got the other
members of the Quartet negotiating team - the EU, Russia and the UN - to
impose sanctions on the government formed after painful negotiations
between Fatah and Hamas. The sanctions did not encourage the unity
government to function properly. They killed it off.
Mr de Soto does not spare Hamas either, with its "abominable" charter,
its links to Iran and its abysmal record on stopping violence directed
at Israeli civilians. What makes his report so prescient is the
full-scale civil war now raging in Gaza. Far from being a success, the
international boycott on the Hamas-led national-unity government has proved to
be a disaster. Its bitter fruits could be seen in Khan Younis
yesterday, when the Islamic militants demolished Fatah's security headquarters
and took over the town. Last night they began a fierce assault on
security bases in Gaza City after members of the Fatah-allied Bakr clan
encamped in a seaside neighbourhood surrendered. If the fighting is not
stopped soon, the whole of Gaza could fall to Hamas.
Setting aside the internal reasons for Palestinian blood-letting, the
assumption on which Israel and the international community have been
operating is that the longer the boycott is maintained, the more likely it
is that Hamas will split and accept the three conditions that were
imposed on it: ending violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of
previous agreements including the road map. Israel has refused to pay the
Palestinian government money it is owed in tax revenues, which would
allow it to pay 160,000 workers. It has argued that this down payment
would be seen as a sign of weakness, a sign that the rocket attacks on the
Israeli town of Sderot had worked.
But as Mr de Soto argues, the three conditions for the lifting of the
Israeli siege on Gaza were phrased in such a way as to make it
impossible for Hamas to accept them. If they did, they would cease to be a
militant Islamic movement and they would lose their core of 20% of the total
vote. If there was little evidence of a carrot in the Quartet's
conditions, there was plenty of stick. Unable to pay its workforce, or to
maintain control in Gaza, the national-unity government ceased to exist
some time ago. Hamas has not changed heart, and if an election were to
take place tomorrow the party would keep the 43% of the vote it won in
January last year.
The Palestinians can be blamed for weak leadership, for allowing
missile attacks that have no strategic value, other than to harden the view
in Israel that if they allowed the same thing to happen in the West
Bank, missiles would rain down on the runway of Ben Gurion airport. But the
impoverishment and fragmentation of Gaza is a result not just of tribal
Palestinian politics, but of the cumulative despair generated by living
in an open-air prison. As Israel is the jailer it bears responsibility
too for the conditions inside. The election of Ehud Barak as the Labour
party's leader may embolden Ehud Olmert to start a new initiative, such
as talking to Syria. The return of the former prime minister bolsters
the battered authority of Mr Olmert's government. But if there is no
partner for peace, Israel has to start creating the conditions for one to
emerge. If that means negotiating with Hamas before it relinquishes its
rejectionist position then it has to do that

LIVING IN A 'SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY'

Dear NCLG

You are invited to the spiked/Clarke Mulder Purdie
seminar LIVING IN A 'SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY'

on Wednesday 20 June 6.30pm - 8.30pm

at The Commonwealth Club

For details of the event, and how to book, see:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/eventindex/

Britain now has more CCTV cameras than any other
country, a national identity card in the pipeline
and myriad other measures of regulation and
surveillance.

The official Information Commissioner claims that we
are _sleepwalking into a surveillance society_, while
the authorities insist that their aim is to protect
the public and that those who have nothing to hide
should have nothing to worry about. What implications
does living in a _surveillance society_ have for our
public and private lives?


speakers:

NICK CLEGG MP
Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary

DOLAN CUMMINGS
editorial director, Institute of Ideas
and author of Surveillance and the City

JOHN FITZPATRICK
director of the Kent Law Clinic at the
University of Kent

NIGEL GILBERT
Professor of sociology, University of
Surrey & editor, Royal Academy of
Engineering report Dilemmas of Privacy
& Surveillance

HENRIK KIERTZNER
associate director, Arup Security and Risk
Consulting