Sugar Cubes

Read part 1 here

By Mustafa Barghouti*

But the Israelis did not get out of Gaza. A big fuss was created about the great sacrifice Israel was making and how painful it was for settlers to leave. If you steal a piece of land and keep it for 20 years, of course it becomes painful to leave it but it is still something stolen that should be returned to its owners. Prior to the disengagement, a total of 152 settlements existed in the occupied territories: 101 in the West Bank, 30 in East Jerusalem, and 21 in the Gaza Strip. These figures do not include the settlements that Sharon and the Israeli army have created in the West Bank without officially recognising them. With the disengagement, and the evacuation of settlements in Gaza and four small settlements in the Jenin area of the West Bank, 127 settlements have been left in place.

The total population of settlers — illegal under international law, and under the 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which states that the separation wall and every settlement in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem must be removed — numbers some 436,000: 190,000 in Jerusalem, and 246,000 in the West Bank. Just 8,475, or two per cent of the total number of illegal settlers in the occupied territories were removed from the Gaza Strip and Jenin area. Yet in the same period, the settlement population in the West Bank has grown by a massive 15,800.

So why remove settlers from Gaza if the disengagement was simply an exercise in relocation? Firstly, Israel never really wanted to keep them there. They were a bargaining chip to use when the time came to talk about the future of the occupied territories. But providing security for this relatively small number of settlers through a sustained military presence in the Gaza Strip was proving costly.

*Mustafa Barghouti secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative.

While reading the below article by Mazin Qumsiyeh* (I highly recommend that you subscribe to his human rights e-newsletter), the exchange of comments on Naseem’s blog came to mind. Naseem compared MSM focus on Sharon’s recent stroke and his deteriorating health conditions to the poor coverage of recent bad incidents like the death of more than 76 Muslims as one of Mecca’s hotels collapsed, or the death of at least 55 Iraqi in one day wondering what makes the death of the Israeli president more important.

More than a year ago many in the US media focused on how the passing of an ailing Arafat would become the key to unlock the deadlocked peace process (we now know this to be untrue or was vastly exaggerated).

There was hardly any US coverage of the nature of his “mysterious illness” (to date there was no diagnosis). There was hardly any coverage the good wishes he received from leaders around the world. Nor was there balanced discussion of his history or even of his Israeli supporters or his Palestinian critics (only Israeli critics were highlighted).

Now Sharon is ailing and the contrast in some coverage could not be any more dramatically different. The double standard goes deeper and perhaps relates to the wider problem of US foreign policy credibility around the world.

He continues to ask, why do the violations and crimes of zionists and lobbyists like Abramoff whose associates have already fleed to Israel and are probably waiting for him to join after things cool down, are often deliberately reported shyly with the big picture often ignored :

One can understand the media’s concern for the health of an Israeli Prime Minister but what should never be excused is shabby journalism and hypocrisy in covering illnesses of leaders like Arafat versus Sharon. Perhaps other affairs gives more hints of these double standards.

Going back, one could site the dubious reasons for invading Iraq while supporting Israel (Israel was and continue to be in violation of 10 times more UN resolutions than Iraq ever was). More recently the Abramoff affair may also shed some light (and may be the straw that breaks the camels’ back).

Abramoff pleaded guilty to defrauding Native American tribes of million and directing the money through fake charities to gain political influence and to help his pet causes. But why is it that many in the US media (with few brave exceptions) failed to mention that his top “cause” and his passion was Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands.

Abramoff for example diverted money (”charity donations”) to Israeli settlers living illegally on Palestinian lands. His “customers” were told this money is intended for inner city poor Americans. Instead the money bought military hardware to help settlers terrorize native Palestinians.

[Read full article: Sharon, Arafat, Abramoff, and the Media]

*Mazin Qumsiyeh is an associate professor at Yale University and co-founder of Palestine Right of Return Coalition

Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan has been threatened with legal action over a film poster that depicts him smoking a cigar.

Sweeeeeeeet!