Human rights organizations uniformly concluded that Israel "routinely" tortured Palestinian detainees from right after the occupation in June 1967. Israel was the only country in the world that had legalized torture. During the period 1987-1993 alone, estimates are that Israel tortured tens of thousands of Palestinian detainees. After the Israel High Court rendered its decision in 1999 partially banning torture, the extent of torture decreased somewhat. Currently, Palestinian detainees typically suffer ill-treatment while "high quality" detainees are still tortured.
In an article you wrote in 2006 for a Norwegian newspaper (Aftenposten), you've explained that an economic boycott of Israel was justified. What is your view on other types of boycott and, more precisely, academic ones?
I do not have strong views on this subject. I can see the arguments on both sides. But in my opinion it is a pragmatic issue: is boycott an effective tactic? I see nothing in principle wrong with it.
According to a new Associated Press report, the US is offering Israel a record $30-billion 10-year military aid package (which works out to about 5000 dollars in arms aid per man, woman and child OR ten times the entire US aid budget to fight aids in Africa). What would it take for the U.S.A to stop their blind and unconditional support to Israel?
In principle the challenge is not different from other aspects of U.S. foreign policy that violate international law: it requires organization and commitment. I don't think there are any magic formulas in these matters.
Olmert and Bush, during their White House summit in June 07, concluded that Hamas's violent ousting of Fatah from Gaza had presented the world with a new "window of opportunity"-. What did both mean by that?
Presumably it means that Fatah was finally desperate enough to play the role for which it was groomed during the Oslo years: a Quisling for U.S.- Israel power in the Occupied Territories. The technical term for this is "bring democracy to the Middle East."
Hamas, since the Gaza events, has reacted to Abbas's war with constant calls for dialogue, reconciliation and a return to a national unity government. It has also, despite the siege of Gaza, succeeded in holding its own government successfully, paying the wages of thousands of government employees and has offered Israel to start negotiating a long term truce. In contrast Abbas has rejected any intra-Palestinian dialogue, has asked for the Rafah Gaza-Egypt crossing point to remain closed, has sent a Palestinian delegation to lobby tirelessly at the UN to block a UN call for helping the Palestinian population in Gaza (July 30) and has received Olmert like a king in Jericho literally embracing the occupier and coloniser. What, in your opinion, does he want to achieve? What are his goals?
Abbas is now working for the Americans and Israelis, who believe that the Arabs only understand the language of force and must be brought to their knees. In fact it's not altogether impossible that this strategy will succeed and Abbas will become the head of a puppet regime, while the U.S. throws him some crumbs to consolidate a thin layer of Israel society loyal to the new arrangement, while the security services handles the recalcitrants.
What's most likely to happen in Gaza in the next few months?
More of the same. I see no possibility of a successful resistance. Hamas has no strategy. It's just tit-for-tat. The Israelis might yet succeed in crushing any resistance, in the short term.
In light of all this, what do you think are the objectives of Bush, Olmert and Co in the U.S sponsored Middle-East peace conference set to take place in November 2007?
Bush and Rice have been criticized for not having engaged in the "peace process." I suppose this is supposed to demonstrate that in fact they are engaged. I can't see any other purpose to it. I doubt it will fill more than a couple of days of news, if that much.
To conclude, does the creation of a Palestinian state have any chance to happen in the future or are we about to witness the destruction of Palestine? Also, what part do you think activism around the world should play in this unending conflict?
Intellectually I see no possibility of a reasonable settlement of the conflict in the near future. But one never knows. In 1914 Lenin lamented that he would never live to see a socialist revolution...
Frank Barat is a peace activist. He can be contacted thru his blog: http://lifeunderoccupation.wordpress.com/
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
