| Washington
Report, January/February 2006, pages 28-29
United
Nations Report
Australia,
Canada Join U.S. and Puppet Reefs in Backing Israel-centric Agenda
By
Ian Williams
An
UNRWA official shows EU Commissioner Louis Michel (c) homes in the Gaza
Strip’s Rafah refugee camp destroyed by the Israeli military. In Gaza City
earlier that day, Nov. 30, Michel signed an agreement with UNRWA pledging
14 million euros to help the U.N. relief agency provide food, shelter and
other emergency assistance to Palestinian refugees (AFP photo/Said Khatib).
AS
THE end of the U.N.’s 60th anniversary loomed, it was déjà
vu all over again in New York. After a few years in which the United States
had broken with recent tradition and actually paid its dues, things were
back to normal, with threats of withholding from John Bolton and his soul-mate,
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)-who does such good imitations of his alter ego,
Dr. Jekyll.
And
underlying everything-again-was the issue of the Palestinians. The original
excuse for holding off payments was Washington’s refusal to fund the U.N.’s
Palestinian programs, and now it is prominent on the agenda again. Looming
in the congressional backwoods is the attempt to defund UNRWA, now that
it has done its job of paying the welfare and education costs that, under
the Geneva Convention, Israel should have borne when it was occupying Gaza,
instead of turning it into a self-governing prison camp.
It
is a measure of how battered the world community is that someone with as
much blood on his hands as Ariel Sharon, with more forks in his tongue
than a banquet table setting, should get so much international support.
It was one thing for the few coral atolls paid for by the Congress to back
the U.S. and Israel on General Assembly resolutions, but recent resolutions
on the Palestinian programs revealed that Australia and Canada have been
suborned into voting with Israel, while the European Union and associated
states-a very significant bloc-abstains, mostly to avoid upsetting Washington.
Sadly, upsetting Washington is the price a country pays for having a rational
mind and foreign policy of its own.
Among
the resolutions abstained on was one on the Golan Heights. The excuse given
was that, “historically,” a different position had been taken by the EU’s
two new members-a reference to new East European countries who recently
have jumped to do what the U.S. wanted. There may even be a correlation
between states which allow secret CIA prisons and those emasculating the
EU position on international law in relation to the Middle East.
The
U.S. and Australia, plus the usual puppet reefs, even voted against a resolution
calling upon the Israelis not to appropriate the natural resources of the
occupied territories, nor to destroy agricultural land and orchards. Since
it was basically a restating of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UK, on
behalf of the EU, voted for the resolution. But then the U.S.-Israel bloc
also voted against a resolution calling for a peaceful solution to the
problem in accordance with the road map.
Washington
Report readers are well aware that Ariel Sharon has ripped up the road
map and used it for political toilet tissue, but we must remember that
these diplomats are all swearing by it in order to avoid taking any action
to force Israel to keep its promises. And then they watch its major proponents
vote against it!
More
Déjà Vu?
In
2002, some people thought this writer was alarmist because I said that
the Bush administration had set its sights on invading Iraq. They did,
of course. Vindication aside, like most people on the globe, I wish it
had not happened.
Apart
from the Bush rhetoric, I based my prophecy of doom on the steady attrition
of leaks and briefings from the administration’s neocon corner. At least
they could come up with a credible motive-taking out Iraq would be good
for Israel. Apart from George W. Bush’s aside that Saddam Hussain had tried
to assassinate his father, no one else really has come up with an excuse
for the war that would hold water, let alone all the oil and blood that
has been spilt.
So
when in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion I began to see signs of a similar
move on Syria, I warned about the impending invasion. My evidence was that
there were demands for it from Israel, and if ever an administration has
proved to be a tail-waggable canine, then this is it. There were also the
leaks and briefings: the missing weapons of mass destruction had been seen
heading across the border into Syria; the insurgent jihadists had been
seen heading across the border from Syria; Damascus supported Islamic fundamentalist
terrorists.
At
one point, George W. Bush famously even discovered that-shock, horror!-there
were Ba’athists in Damascus. That the Ba’ath founder was a Christian, and
that the party’s secular (albeit fascistic) programs made it a very unlikely
supporter of al-Qaeda were mere technical details, quibbles from realists
with no standing in faith-based circles.
True,
the Syrians did support Hezbollah, whose successful long-term war of attrition
against Israel had evicted the occupiers from Lebanon. This led to long-standing
grudges against the regime in Damascus, compounded by Syrian ineptitude
in keeping the Shaba Farms issue hot. Of course Syria’s ambivalent attitude
to Lebanon did not help either.
However,
my Cassandra-like prophesy of an attack on Syria did not come to pass-yet.
The casualty rate in Iraq sapped any domestic enthusiasm for it in the
U.S.
Like
the end of the world, however, it is only postponed, not cancelled. Looking
at the intensive activity over Lebanon at the United Nations, it is highly
likely that the road to Damascus now goes through Beirut.
The
pattern is the same as it was over Iraq, equally aided by the ineptitude
of its rulers. Now Washington has the support of the French, who for their
own reasons are interested in restoring Francophiles to power in Beirut,
but who seem insouciantly unaware that they may be getting taken for a
ride-to Damascus.
Of
course it is possible that Washington is just concerned about Lebanese
independence and sovereignty in the face of Syrian occupation. The test
for such altruistic support for national boundaries would, of course, be
strong U.S. resolutions against the occupiers of the West Bank, Golan and
Western Sahara, or even pressure on Ethiopia to honor its commitments to
the settlement of the border dispute with Eritrea.
In
the absence of any such signs of concern from Washington, however, we can
safely assume that regime change in Syria is indeed back on the agenda.
Somewhere between Foggy Bottom and Capitol Hill, I am confident that there
are planning groups working on the hypothesis that it would take hardly
any troops at all to roll over Syria, and that the key to stemming the
insurgency in Iraq is to do just that. All the previous excuses still apply.
And, of course, a well-timed unequivocal victory in Syria-a pushover, they
would say-may play well with the 2006 mid-term elections.
Between
the gullibility of other U.N. members and the stupidity of the Syrians,
it may even have some degree of U.N. approval!
Equally
worrying, but meeting more resistance, are the signs that Iran is getting
the same treatment. And the new government there seems equally cooperative
in providing plausible excuses. But we should remember what it looks like
to the reality-based world. John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador, who is on
the record with profound skepticism about both the United Nations and international
law, wants the U.N. Security Council to take action against Iran for alleged
violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose strengthening he opposed
the year before. It may be worth mentioning that Iran is not in violation
of the treaty-but that the U.S. and UK are, while Israel, which is pushing
for action against Iran, has not even signed it.
No
matter, it may not be a full-scale invasion of Iran, since even the looniest
neocon may balk at that. But they do think that some sort of regime change
in Tehran is effectible and that, as in Iraq (and Syria), the masses are
just waiting for their oppressive regimes to be gone to declare their undying
love for George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon. In Iran, of course, the masses
have just ditched the reformers, who were anyway scorned and isolated by
the U.S., for a hard-liner they now have to deal with. He may not be nice,
but neither is George Bush. And both were elected by their faith-based
constituencies.
I
really do not see why we need to waste money on NASA when we have a government
that is so clearly mentally in orbit, and certainly looking at another
planet when it makes its plans.
Ian
Williams is a free-lance journalist based at the United Nations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home
> Archives > Jan_Feb_2006 > Australia, Canada Join U.S. and Puppet Reefs
in Backing Israel-centric Agenda
American
Conscientious Objector Wins Right to Appeal Refugee Board Ruling
By
Faisal Kutty
Members
of the Coalition Against Israel’s War Crimes demonstrate in Toronto Nov.
14 as part of a public rally protesting the visit of Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon (Photo Himy Syed).
A
FEDERAL court in Toronto has agreed to hear an appeal from an American
soldier turned down for refugee status in Canada after refusing to serve
in Iraq. If he is sent back to the U.S., Jeremy Hinzman faces a court martial
and the possibility of up to five years in jail as a deserter.
Hinzman
joined the elite infantry division, the 82nd Airborne, about three years
ago. He served in a noncombat role in Afghanistan and was later turned
down by the military brass as a conscientious objector. When, on his subsequent
return to the U.S., he learned that he would be deployed in Iraq, he decided
to cross the border into Canada in early 2004. He is currently living in
Toronto with his wife, Nga Nguyen, and son, Liam.
The
Rapid City, South Dakota native believes that the U.S. attack on Iraq is
illegal under international law and that he would be a party to war crimes
if he participated.
In
March 2005, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board turned down Hinzman’s
refugee claim. The former soldier’s lawyer, Jeffrey House, had argued that
the 27-year-old Hinzman would be punished for acting on his conscience.
The
board, however, found that Hinzman did not qualify as a conscientious objector.
The adjudicator also held that he was not convinced that the ex-soldier
would face persecution in the U.S. if forced to return. The board, which
has never accepted a refugee from the United States, has stated in the
past that America is not a “refugee producing” country.
In
denying Hinzman’s claim, the adjudicator opined that the legal status of
the war in Iraq had no bearing on the case. One of the issues on which
Hinzman’s appeal is based is the question of whether this decision not
to consider the legality of the war amounted to an error in law.
The
politically sensitive case is being closely monitored by authorities in
Canada and the U.S. Indeed, the case has become the proverbial public relations
“hot potato” for American authorities. At the hearing, a former U.S. Marine
testifying in Hinzman’s support stated that American soldiers in Iraq routinely
violated international law by killing unarmed women, children and other
Iraqi civilians.
Canadian
supporters say that hundreds of U.S. soldiers may be in the country and
that at least 20 of them are trying to gain refugee status. Profiles
of a few of them are available online at <http://www.resisters.ca/resisters_stories.html>.
Lee
Zaslofsky of the War Resisters Support Campaign called the federal court
ruling a “real breakthrough” for U.S. resisters. “This is very good,” Zaslofsky
told the press. “It will have an impact on all the other cases.”
The
matter will be heard by Federal Court Justice Sean Harrington on Feb. 7
in Toronto. According to attorney House, if his arguments are successful
the court likely will refer the matter back to the board (to a different
adjudicator or panel) for further consideration. Justice Harrington may
also provide specific instructions on dealing with the contested issues,
House said, principally the legality of the war in Iraq.
“The
best possible outcome,” he said, “is that we get a full hearing in which
all our arguments are considered.”
Both
House and Zaslofsky are Vietnam-era war resisters who settled in Canada.
A
new film on war resisters, “Let Them Stay,” will screen in Toronto on Dec.
10. The film, narrated by Shirley Douglas and produced and directed by
Alex Lisman, features one-on-one interviews with U.S. war resisters, documenting
their life-changing experiences in Iraq and the hidden realities of U.S.
military recruitment and warfare. It also documents the War Resisters Support
Campaign, a pan-Canadian coalition working with the war resisters to put
pressure on the federal government to allow these former soldiers to remain
in the country.
A
number of resisters, including Darrell Anderson, Patrick and Jill Hart,
Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, and Ryan and Jen Johnson will attend the premiere.
For
more information, contact the War Resisters Support Campaign by phone,:
(416) 598-1222 or e-mail, <resisters@sym patico.ca>.
Faisal
Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer and writer whose articles are archived
at <www.faisalkutty.com>. He can be reached at <wrmea@faisalkutty.com>.
SIDEBAR
Ode
to a Canadian Friend of Palestine, Jim Graff (1937-2005)
James
Graff, a professor of moral and political philosophy at the University
of Toronto’s Victoria College for 40 years, died of cancer Oct. 23, 2005.
Shortly before his death, he helped organize the Sabeel conference on morally
responsible investment held in Toronto Oct. 26 to 29 (see report on p.
60 of this issue). Born in East Orange, NJ, he earned his B.A. at Lafayette
College in Easton, PA, and his master’s and Ph.D. from Brown University.
A longtime activist on behalf of the Palestinian cause, in 1984 he established
the Near East Cultural and Education Foundation of Canada (NECEF), which,
beginning in 1986, he represented for 10 years on the North American Coordinating
Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine. Graff served as vice chair
of that organization as well, which met at U.N. headquarters in New York,
except for two meetings in Montreal and Toronto, Canada that he initiated.
The author of Palestinian Children and Israeli State Violence, he was a
prime mover of and inspiration to Canada’s peace and justice community.
He is survived by his wife, Aida, daughter, Noha, son, Hani, and his brother.
October
24, 2005
Dear
Friend,
It
is with sorrow and sadness that I learn that you left us to claim your
eternal resting place in the heavens, Jim. It is difficult to conceive
of a solidarity movement and activism in Toronto without you. Indeed it
is difficult to imagine Canada without Jim. Soon after I came to Canada
and found my way through its web of activism and solidarity fury that came
about in support of the Palestinian intifada of December 1987, I heard
your name. I arrived in Canada a few days after the intifada began. In
Toronto, an intifada of solidarity was brewing and you were at the core
of it.
I
saw you speak many times, read your articles and enjoyed a cigarette and
a drink with you once or twice. It was not until 1991 at York University
where you spoke about Palestine and I had the privilege of introducing
you that I realized that you are no ordinary man. Ever since, I have been
a great admirer of yours. It is difficult to exaggerate the tremendous
impact that you had on me personally, but more importantly on the question
of Palestine. Your seminal work, Palestinian Children and Israeli State
Violence, was a ground-breaking chronicle of the impact on children of
Israeli occupation and Israeli soldiers’ behaviors.
Whether
in Toronto, doing your many things, or in New York attending the United
Nations North American NGO conference on Palestine, or in Gaza or Ramallah
visiting with friends and many projects you created and supported, you
have been one of this country’s most faithful supporters of Palestine,
justice and human rights.
For
that we Palestinians are most fortunate-indeed, very lucky to have had
you as one of our supporters.
Jim,
we may have been less grateful than you truly deserve. We did not tell
you enough how much we admired your undying love for justice and human
rights. Often, some of us were disgraceful in their disagreements with
you. But today all of us are in mourning. As many of us often joked, you,
Jim, have been Toronto’s best Palestinian.
Your
gentle passion and eloquent commitment to Palestine remarkably moved many
of us in the Palestinian Arab community. We will miss your presence on
countless planning committees for conferences, like the upcoming Sabeel
conference on divestment. We will miss you bringing to Toronto and introducing
stellar speakers like Noam Chomsky and your final guest on Oct. 3, David
Barsamian. I am delighted that I had the chance to see you that evening
and shake your hand. You did say you were not well. I only regret not knowing
how ill you were. I probably would have told you, in addition to I love
you, thank you.
Thank
you for every meeting you attended on behalf of Palestine and for Palestinians,
for every lecture you delivered, for each speaker you brought from Palestine
and the world over and for hosting receptions for them at your house. Thank
you for every intervention you made at the U.N. during the meetings of
the coordinating committee of the North American NGO on Palestine. Thanks
for every page you wrote. For every book you reviewed, every newsletter
you edited, thank you. For every dollar you raised for Palestine, simply
thank you.
I
will miss many things about you for sure, Jim. But most of all I will miss
your tender walk and your cane; I will miss your trademark shirts with
many pockets. I will miss your spectacles and blond mustache.
Surely,
Jim, there is much much more to you than your work on Palestine. Today,
however, I want to claim you as ours and only ours.
Your
family lost a beloved husband and father. Our thoughts and prayers are
with them, especially with Aida.
With
your passing Palestine has lost a friend, a champion, a human giant and
a passionate lover. I will remember you with a smile each time I am part
of a planning committee for an event on Palestine. Jim, our next meeting
on the “Made in Palestine” art project is in two weeks. You attended the
first two, and I know you will be with us until the end.
Jim,
Palestinians should-I hope we will-name a mountain after you in Palestine.
Rest
in peace, my friend.
Jehad
Aliweiwi
Board
Member, Muslim Canadian Congress, Toronto
Committee
on the Inalienable Rights
of
the Palestinian People
292nd
Meeting (AM) GA/PAL/1001
10
February 2006
General
Assembly
GA/PAL/1001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department
of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York
WITH
ELECTION, PALESTINIANS UNDERLINED COMMITMENT TO BUILDING DEMOCRACY,
SAYS
SECRETARY-GENERAL, AS PALESTINIAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONVENES
Describes
Outcome as 'Watershed in Palestinian Political History',
Appeals
for Urgent Support to Stabilize Palestinian Authority's Finances
Voting
in large numbers two weeks ago, the Palestinian people had underlined their
commitment to building democracy and achieving self-determination, Secretary-General
Kofi Annan said this morning, in statement to the Committee on the Exercise
of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian people.
Describing
the election outcome as a watershed in Palestinian political history, the
Secretary-General noted that discussions had begun on forming a government.
As the Quartet and the Security Council had recently made clear, the international
community would be watching very carefully to see how a new government
would rise to the challenges of fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities
that would fall upon it. They included Palestinian-Israeli agreements
starting with the Oslo accords and the Arab Summit resolutions and ending
with the resolutions agreed upon by the international community, particularly
the Road Map.
Emphasizing
that the Palestinian economy, security services and government institutions
all needed continued support, as well as far-reaching reforms, he said
the most urgent need was to stabilize the Palestinian Authority's finances,
and appealed to donors for the required support at the present critical
time. In addition, Palestinian territory remained under occupation,
settlement activity continued in certain areas and nearly 400 checkpoints
restricted movement throughout the West Bank, despite a recent agreement
to ease such restrictions. Fluid communication between Gaza and the
West Bank had yet to be established, and a barrier continued to be built,
despite the ruling of the International Court of Justice.
The
Quartet was deeply concerned about those matters, and had reminded Israel
that it must meet its obligations, he said. At the same time, the
clear majority of Palestinians did not wish to pursue violence or terrorism
against Israeli citizens. They understood and accepted that Israel,
a Member State of the United Nations, had a right to exist as a State,
alongside the State of Palestine, which Palestinians deserved and wanted
to achieve. They wanted the agreements and obligations that their
elected representatives had already entered into, including the Road Map,
to be implemented, not abandoned.
Riyad
Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, said the
elections marked the first time in an Arab country that a ruling party
had lost an election and then peacefully transferred the cabinet to the
winning party. That was further evidence of the Palestinian people's
commitment to democracy. President Abbas had reiterated the Palestinian
commitment to all the treaties and agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian National Authority. Moreover,
he had reaffirmed the commitment of the Palestinian side to the Road Map
and its intention to uphold its obligations.
Meanwhile,
the economic aid provided to the Palestinian people must not be halted
or interrupted, he said, adding that the international community must not
punish the Palestinians for exercising their democratic right to elect
their representatives. As such, the choice they had made deserved
respect and support. Hence, those who had made negative pronouncements
about revoking financial assistance should re-evaluate and rescind those
positions. Any decision to stop aid would have a "tremendous negative
impact" on the daily lives of the Palestinian people and compound their
already dire humanitarian situation.
He
said that the tragic plight of the Palestinian people, living under occupation,
should be transmitted to every household in order to create a more boisterous
voice calling for an end to occupation once and for all. In supporting
the Secretary-General's personal role and as a Quartet member, everyone
must think collectively on possible ways to bring a just solution to the
conflict based on the Road Map and relevant United Nations resolutions.
The Observer Mission of Palestine stood ready to work with Committee members
and observers, as well as the Secretary-General, to find way to achieve
that.
At
the outset of today's meeting, the Committee elected Paul Badji, Permanent
Representative of Senegal, as its Chairman; Ravan Farhadi (Afghanistan)
and Rodrigo Malmierca Díaz (Cuba) as Vice-Chairmen; and Victor Camilleri
(Malta) as Rapporteur.
The
Committee also heard the Chairman's report on the United Nations Latin
American and Caribbean Meeting on the Question of Palestine, held in Caracas,
Venezuela, on 13 and 14 December, and followed on 15 December by a Forum
of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
In
other business, the Committee took note of the Chairman's report and approved
its draft programme of work, regarding which he responded to delegates'
concerns by assuring them that he had taken to heart the matter of United
Nations management reform, which would eventually have an impact on the
Committee. Given its General Assembly mandate, the Committee should
be more visible and proactive so that criticisms against it could be swept
away. The streamlining of the Committee had already begun and it
no longer carried out its activities in a mechanical fashion.
Speaking
in his national capacity, Mr. Badji noted that the Committee remained just
as relevant today as it had upon its establishment three decades ago, despite
the fact that some appeared to wish for the its elimination, as well as
that of other United Nations structures dealing with the question of Palestine.
Other
speakers today, included the representatives of Mali, Syria, Cuba, Afghanistan,
Malaysia and Venezuela.
The
representative of the League of Arab States also spoke.
Statements
United
Nations Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said that the Palestinian vote two
weeks ago in large numbers underlined the Palestinians' commitment to build
their democracy and achieve self-determination. The Palestinian Authority
had ensured security on election day, showing that the insecurity of the
recent past could be overcome. And, the Palestinian Central Election
Commission, with the support of the United Nations and the international
community, did an excellent job of organizing the voting. The Secretary-General
congratulated President Abbas, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian
people on that achievement. He thanked the electoral observers from
all over the world for their contributions, and he respected the decision
of the Palestinian people.
Calling
the election outcome a "watershed in Palestinian political history", he
noted that discussions had begun on forming a government. That was
a sensitive moment indeed. President Abbas, speaking after the election,
underlined the obligations and responsibilities that would fall on any
new government, including, in his words, "Palestinian-Israeli agreements
starting with the Oslo accords and the Arab Summit resolutions and ending
with the resolutions that have been agreed upon by the international community,
in particular the Road Map as the sole framework that is being posed now
for implementation".
The
clear majority of the Palestinian people did not want to pursue violence
or terrorism against Israeli citizens, the Secretary-General said.
They also understood and accepted that Israel, which was a Member State
of the United Nations, had a right to exist as a State, alongside the State
of Palestine, which Palestinians deserved and wanted to achieve.
They wanted the agreements and obligations that their elected representatives
had already entered into, including the Road Map, to be carried forward
and implemented, and not abandoned.
He
said that as the Quartet and the Security Council had recently made clear,
the international community would be watching very carefully to see how
a new government rose to those challenges.
Meanwhile,
the international community was fully aware of the plight of the Palestinian
people, he said. Their territory remained under occupation.
Settlement activity continued in certain areas. Nearly 400 checkpoints
restricted movement throughout the West Bank, despite a recent agreement
to ease such restrictions. Fluid communication between Gaza and the
West Bank had yet to be established. A barrier continued to be built
on occupied Palestinian territory, despite the ruling of the International
Court of Justice. The Quartet was deeply concerned about those matters,
and had reminded Israel that it must meet its obligations.
The
Palestinian people also faced serious humanitarian and development challenges,
he said. The economy, security services and government institutions
all required continued support, as well as far-reaching reforms.
The most urgent need was to stabilize the Palestinian Authority's finances.
The Secretary-General appealed to donors from the region and the wider
international community to provide the support that was required at the
present critical time. He stressed his personal commitment to help
the Palestinian people achieve, by peaceful means, what was rightfully
theirs: a viable, contiguous, independent State of Palestine, living
at peace with the State of Israel. "Let everyone commit unequivocally
to this goal, he said. "And let us then work together to achieve
it."
Committee
Chairman PAUL BADJI (Senegal), speaking in his national capacity, said
that, for his country, promoting the rights of the Palestinian people did
not mean working against the rights and interests of Israel, with which
Senegal had diplomatic relations, as well as relations of respect and mutual
trust. The just-ended year of 2005 had coincided with the thirtieth
anniversary of the Committee's establishment. He recalled that on
10 November 1975 the General Assembly had decided to establish the body
to promote the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which it had
defined as including the right to self-determination, independence, national
sovereignty, as well as the right to return to their homes and properties,
from which they had been displaced and uprooted. Three decades later,
the General Assembly could take stock of how much remained to be done in
achieving those legitimate goals, which remained just as relevant today,
despite the fact that some people appeared to wish for the elimination
of the Committee, as well as other United Nations structures dealing with
the issue of Palestine.
RIYAD
MANSOUR, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, said that,
for the second time in the history of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian
people, living under Israeli occupation, went to the polls to vote on their
new legislature. Voter turnout had been an astonishing 77 per cent.
The international community, including the international observers monitoring
the elections, had applauded the Palestinian people for conducting the
elections in a free and fair manner, and demonstrating their commitment
to democracy. It had been a very proud day for the Palestinian people,
not only because of the "festival of democracy" displayed, but also because
it had been accomplished under Israel's military occupation. Even
more extraordinary had been that the elections had taken place at a time
when the Palestinians were facing the severest imposition of restrictions,
including to their freedom of movement.
|
