MEETING ON PALESTINE IS TOLD ISRAEL HAD MADE OCCUPATION

OF TERRITORIES ‘INVISIBLE’ TO WORLD PUBLIC OPINION

Madrid Professor Says Harshest Criticism of Israeli Leaders

Comes from Israeli Press; Speakers Urge Global Support for Security Efforts

(Received from a UN Information Officer.)

MADRID, 18 July -– Israel’s “matrix of control” was designed to allow Israel to control every aspect of Palestinian life in the occupied territories, while lowering its military profile, the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, Jeff Halper, said this morning to the United Nations International Meeting on the Question of Palestine in Madrid.  He said the idea was to give the impression that the occupation was merely proper administration and that Israel had a duty to defend itself and the status quo.

He went on to say that Israel had succeeded in making the occupation invisible to both international and Israeli public opinion.  The role of the international community was to make the occupation visible.  Peace was not going to come from inside Israel.

The Vice-President of the Palestinian Council for Justice and Peace, Allam Jarrar, said that the visit of Ariel Sharon (now Prime Minister of Israel) to the Al-Aqsa Mosque had ignited the intifada, but frustration among Palestinians had been building before that because of inattention to essential issues of concern to them, including the end of the occupation, withdrawal of all Israeli forces, sovereignty over their land, including Jerusalem, and a solution to the refugee situation.

Felipe Sahagun, Professor of International Relations, Complutense University of Madrid and journalist, said western journalists tended to favour the victim.  In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, that was nuanced by the Israeli propaganda machine which was more effective than that of the Palestinians and the Arabs.

The theme of the two-day meeting, convened by the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, is “The Road to Israeli-Palestinian Peace”.  Speakers this morning reviewed the security situation since September 2000, the need for international protection of the Palestinian people, international efforts at ending the crisis, the issue of Israeli settlements, and the state of the Palestinian economy.

Statements were also made by Luisa Morgantini, Member of the European Parliament, and Francis Okelo, Deputy United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process.  A representative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also spoke.

Statements

ALLAM JARRAR, Vice-President, Palestinian Council for Justice and Peace, Ramallah, said Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque had ignited the explosion that resulted in the intifada.  Prior to that, however, frustration among Palestinians had been building because attention to the essential issues of concern to them had been deferred and postponed.  Yasser Arafat had not given the order to start the intifada.  It had risen from the people themselves.

The Israeli military force had tried to crush the ambitions of the people who wanted a solution that would guarantee a minimum respect for their rights, including the end of the occupation, withdrawal of all Israeli forces to the borders of 1967, and sovereignty over their land, including Jerusalem.  Moreover, there must be a solution to the refugee situation, and the settlement of that problem must be in accordance with United Nations resolutions.  Any solution must guarantee the security for all countries in the region.

From the Israeli point of view, he said, the Labour Party had stated that there would be no return to the borders of 1967.  It was not true that Barak wished to return occupied territories.  When the settlements had been established, the Israelis knew that they were illegal.  The Israeli establishment had said that Jerusalem must be unified as Israel’s capital both in the east and the west; when they spoke of East Jerusalem, they were referring to villages outside of East Jerusalem.

At the beginning of the intifada, it had not been clear that it would last for so long.  The current situation was very dangerous with implications for the entire region.  He said 50 per cent of the injured Palestinians had been wounded by Israeli soldiers.  Medical services had been reduced to practically nothing in the occupied territory.  Citizens had no access to emergency services.  Palestinians had lost two thirds of their production, and the unemployment rate was now at about 48 per cent.

To find a solution, there must be an agreement on the principles, and there must be a yardstick that applied to everyone such as those contained in international resolutions.  The present situation could not be dealt with through military means.   There was a moral and political responsibility to be shouldered by the international community to ensure that international resolutions be implemented.

Regarding the Mitchell Report (by former United States Secretary George Mitchell), he said the Palestinian Authority had already given its approval.  Despite that, Israeli troops had been deployed and as late as yesterday had invaded Palestinian territory.  The Palestinians were asking for international authorities to intercede.  The situation was highly explosive and, without the intercession of a third party, it would only deteriorate.

JEFF HALPER, Coordinator, Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, Jerusalem, said the occupation had become invisible to the average Israeli.  They saw the situation as one in which the violence had to be stopped.  Israel had also succeeded in making the occupation invisible on the international scene.

Israel needed a Palestinian State, he said.  If it annexed the occupied territories and granted citizenship to 3 million Palestinians, it created a de facto bi-national State of 5 million Jews and 4 million Palestinians, not counting the refugees.  Israel wanted an “occupation by consent” in which the Palestinians received enough territory to establish a mini State.  The control had to be subtle.  It had to be through a so-called civil administration that was actually run by the military.  It would envelop the Palestinians in a web of restrictions and allow Israel to maintain control over a long period of time.  If the “matrix of control” were not dismantled, he said, there would be peace and there would be a Palestinian State emerging, but there would not be a just peace. 

He said the matrix of control comprised outright active measures of control, including military actions both in response to the intifada and in “normal times”.  That included the extensive use of collaborators who undermined the very fabric of Palestinian society because no one knew who was an agent of the Israeli system.  It also included a massive system of highways; severe control on Palestinian movements; construction of industrial parks; maintaining control over aquifers; and exploiting holy places as pretexts for maintaining a security presence.

The subtlest controls, he said, were those of a bureaucratic or legal nature.  They entangled Palestinians in a tight web of restrictions, including a permanent closure of the West Bank and Gaza, a discriminatory system of work, entrance and travel permits restricting freedom of movement, active displacement through exile, deportation and induced immigration.

The only way out was for the matrix of control to be dismantled.  The settlement blocks were there for reasons of control.  If Israelis thought that it was only one or two settlement blocks for some Israelis to live, they did not really understand the strategy.  The role of the international community was to make the occupation visible.

Israel’s “matrix of control” was designed to allow Israel to control every aspect of Palestinian life in the occupied territory, while lowering its military profile so as to give the impression that the occupation was merely proper administration and that Israel had a duty to defend itself and the status quo.

FRANCIS OKELO, Deputy United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Process, Gaza, said his organization’s mandate was to participate in the Middle East peace process and to mobilize and coordinate resources in support of that process.  The agency was based in Gaza although it covered Beirut, Amman and Damascus.  It supported a peace that was based on land for peace and relevant United Nations resolutions and that totally rejected violence and terrorism.  It was a peace that guaranteed security for all in the area.

The pursuit of those principles had not been easy or fully successful.  On the Israeli side, there was concern about Palestinian enactment of their security obligations.  The Palestinians were concerned about sovereignty over territory.  The full implementation of the Mitchell recommendations was the only hope of getting back to the negotiating table.  In constructing a house, one had to build the foundation, the wall and the roof. In the house of peace, the foundation was the need to improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people.  The wall represented the need to restore the hope of the Palestinian people.  The roof was the security of both parties.  You could not build a house starting with the roof.  The political issues must be taken care of in tandem with the security concerns. 

LUISA MORGANTINI, Member of European Parliament, Milan, said she was tired of listening to words that were not followed by actions.  The problem was how to make the United Nations effective.  Power had been usurped by organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and individual governments.  As a member of the European Parliament and other organizations, she worked together with grass-roots organizations to help protect the Palestinian people.  She appreciated, in particular, the work of small Israeli grass-roots groups who tried to stop the demolition of houses, which were destroyed every day by the Israelis. The international community did nothing to stop the collective punishment meted out by the Israelis. The European Parliament must take action to ensure that Israel fulfil the accords to which it had agreed.

She said that, as a believer in non-violence, she deplored terrorism.  Peace was possible but there was little chance of finding a solution between the Israeli and Palestinian leadership.  The duty of the European Parliament was to ensure Palestinian rights, including the right to their own State, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.  It was not enough to be aware of the situation and to give money.  The international community must be pushed to respond to that minimum obligation and to stop the Israeli settlement policy.  Peace could not be possible when every day the Palestinians saw their land being expropriated.

FELIPE SAHAGUN, Professor of International Relations, Complutense University, Madrid, said both parties had propaganda machines.  The most that could be asked was that the propaganda on both sides enabled a window of opportunity through which the truth could filter.  The tendency was for western journalists to favour the victim, especially in Spain.  That was, however, nuanced by Israeli propaganda (which was more effective than that of the Palestinians and the Arabs) and by the negative aspects of action by radical Palestinians and Jewish influence over some media.

He said most of the press relied on Israeli terminology.  A suicide attack was always a terrorist attack.  An Israeli attack was never State terrorism.  The Israelis had provided a list to Israeli journalists indicating that closure should be called preventing the entry of terrorists.  Instead of reprisal or punishment, journalists should use the term security measures.  Kidnapping of terrorists should be described as detention of suspects.  Still, one of the best things about Israel was the great freedom of the press there.  The harshest criticism of Israeli leaders could be found in the Israeli press.

The Government felt that the western media presented Israel as the aggressor and Palestinians as victims.  And yet a poll of United States readers would indicate that 60 to 70 per cent supported Israel.  Spanish media had been and continued to be pro-Palestinian.

The representative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) said that for more than 21 years the UNDP Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People had offered technical and capital assistance worth more than $350 million.  It was an important partner in programmes relating to infrastructure, water, sewage, roads, rural development and capacity-building.  Referring to the deepening economic crisis since the intifada, he said two thirds of the population was below the poverty line, and there was over 50 per cent unemployment.  While it was rarely mentioned, the situation had a serious impact on the psychological health of the people.

Palestinian municipalities were facing serious problems because they did not receive necessary funds and were unable to provide basic services.  Numerous families were no longer able to continue to support the education of their children.  He said there had been a lack of response to the situation by the international community which had resulted in a collective loss of the gains of development assistance.  He called for support for rehabilitation, health, education, housing and agriculture.

* *** *