FEBRUARY-MARCH 2008

gaza - fuel and electricity cuts

Gaza: a gas for Blair?

It's always nice to start a new job with a trick up your sleeve, and the Middle East's new envoy Tony Blair could be forgiven for thinking he has just that. In the near future, a $4bn deal to exploit Gaza's offshore gas reserves will be signed by the Israeli government, Britain's BG Group (BG), the Palestinian Authority (PA)'s investment arm, the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) and Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC). Environmental considerations notwithstanding, an injection of this kind of capital into the occupied territories could transform the political landscape. By fortune or design, Tony Blair has been crucial to the deal's genesis. But the pressure he has put on other parties to agree a deal that economically ties the PA to Israel has exacerbated Fatah-Hamas tensions, put the PIF on the political defensive, and may even have helped stoke the recent fighting in Gaza.

It was the Gaza-Jericho first agreement in 1994 that first allocated the PA a 20-mile maritime zone off Gaza's coast. But it was not until 1999, the year that BG gained its exploration concession on the field, that Israel agreed to "give" it to the PA. In exchange, the PA signed away "full security control" of the sea off Gaza to Israel. They probably thought they had got a bargain. The Gaza maritime field is estimated to contain between 35-40bn cubic metres - or one trillion cubic feet - of gas. In the words of the British Foreign Office, it is "by far the most valuable Palestinian natural resource" and revenues from its output are usually estimated at $4bn. For this reason, Ariel Sharon always opposed its development, claiming that monies raised might be used to arm Israel's enemies.

In the summer of 2005, when Sharon was focused on "disengagement" from Gaza, BG signed a memorandum with the Egyptian company EGAS to sell the gas there. However, the deal was scuppered a year later, when Tony Blair intervened at the last minute to plead the Israeli government's case to BG, allegedly following a request from Ehud Olmert. The PIF maintains that the deal was a purely commercial enterprise. But one informed source told me it was also a "highly political" venture in which Britain's relationship with Israel had been "key". "The UK and US, who are the major players in this deal, see it as a possible tool to improve relations between the PA and Israel," he said. "It is part of the bargaining baggage."

If the benefits of the deal to Tony Blair's future career and BG's public image would have been clear in 2006, the advantages to Israel were clearer still. As well as diversifying the country's energy supplies, the project could provide up to 10% of the country's energy needs, at around half the price the same gas would cost from Egypt. One well-placed Palestinian source told me there was "an obvious linkage" between the BG-Israel deal and attempts to bolster the Olmert-Abbas political process.

The Money:
Behind the scenes, a battle is developing with Palestinian modernisers, who are lobbying for the money to go into a "development pot" earmarked for infrastructure projects. For now, the US and UK's preferred option of an international bank account over which Abbas would hold sway, appears more likely. There is a long tradition of such bank accounts in the PA. They have not been a vote-winner for Fatah. Ever sensitive to popular anger at the exploitation of Palestine's national treasure, one of Hamas's first demands after seizing power in Gaza was for a renegotiation of the BG contract.

Ziad Thatha, the Hamas economic minister, had previously denounced the deal as "an act of theft" and modern-day Balfour Declaration, that "sells Palestinian gas to the Zionist occupation". His rhetoric might have been a response to the circumvention of the Gaza Strip in the deal, which will pipe gas directly onshore to Ashkelon in Israel. But it could also have reflected the fact that Hamas had been cut out of the deal, while one of its most deadly rivals might have been cut in.

On April 29, two weeks before fighting flared in Gaza, Yossi Maiman, co-owner of the rival Israeli gas company EMG, claimed that in 2004, while he was in talks to join the project, it was revealed to him that shares in it were being held in trust for two confidential partners: Mohammed Rashid and Martin Schlaff. BG denied the claims but they were damaging. Schlaff is a millionaire who was investigated on charges of attempting to bribe Ariel Sharon in 2006. Mohammed Rashid is a former director general of the PIF and erstwhile "mentor" and ally to the now-exiled Gazan warlord Mohammed Dahlan. Conflicts Forum website described Rashid as a sometime advisor to the US and "an essential part of America's programme to undermine Hamas". A note of caution is necessary here. Yossi Maiman is reportedly a former employee of the Mossad. So is Shabtai Shavit, the CEO of his company who was condemned by Israel's attorney general in 2004 for using his intelligence connections to advance EMG's interests in the Gaza gas fields. Debkafile, a website associated with Israeli spooks has also previously used Rashid's alleged involvement in the BG deal as an excuse to lobby against it. Among Israel's securocrats, the Sharonist position of 2003 (equating Fatah with Hamas with terrorism) may still be a weighty one. But just because one wing of Israel's security establishment seems paranoid, does not mean another is not out to get Hamas. It would have been understandable if the group's leadership had seen the monies raised by the BG deal as a long-term threat to the balance of power in Gaza, irrespective of Rashid's alleged involvement. The fact that the PIF's chief executive, Muhammad Mustafa, is also Abbas's economic advisor alone would have raised questions for Hamas about the final destination of gas revenues.

But a combination of factors - the obsession among Israeli and western leaders with controlling the Palestinian's use of their revenues, the deal's alleged terms, the uncertainty surrounding its beneficiaries, the secrecy with which the whole shebang was negotiated and, critically, the choice of Israel rather than Egypt as a buyer - instead just stirred an already simmering pot. If Tony Blair were serious about redeeming his reputation in the Middle East, he could start by bringing Hamas into the deal's framework, while insisting that its revenues be administered by an accountable but non-aligned committee for the benefit of the Palestinian people as a whole. He could advise BG to make good on their threats to reopen negotiations with Egypt if Israeli hardball games continue around the talks. He could publicly say that more free lunches for the unaccountable title holders of international bank accounts and British mega-corporations will set back the cause of peace - between Israel and Palestine as well as between Fatah and Hamas. He could do all of this and more. Or he could sit back and let suspicions continue that the wrong people might just end up laughing all the way to the bank with the proceeds of Gaza's gas.


Comment is Free
THUS:Mr. Neslen, this is a timely, instructive and accurate piece of journalism. This gives more "gas" to the assertions I made in another thread which I reproduced below:The "real" aim of Mr. Blair will be to continue to do what Ms. Rice and Mr. Abrams failed to achieve, i.e., promote an Algerian type coup by their agents like Dahlan (he is gone now but there are others, equally competent). This armed take over of the Palestinian territories is to be effected with agents (Badr Brigade) trained in Jordan and Egypt, armed and assisted by USA and Israel. If all these fail to subjugate the Palestinians, Mr. Blair will create the ground for direct Anglo-American military intervention as the "last resort" and as a part of his colonial doctrine of "liberal intervention".
from FUTUREHUMAN

Re Tony Blair: The point is that this honorary patron of the UK's Jewish National Fund has no business being an envoy for any group of states or organisations interested in peace in the Middle East, if there are any. Here's a report on the JNF's Israeli counterpart: http://tinyurl.com/2k8vds
They've fallen out over control and finance but not on the principle of Jews only land. And Blair's the honest broker for the Quartet. That's more criminal than any scam over gas.And why would a paper like the Guardian want its readers to think ill of a zionist like Blair? Just recently they had Jonathan Freedland editorialising for Israel against the NUJ's boycott vote. Here's the editorial: http://tinyurl.com/2ywnnb Compare it to Freedland's Cif piece on the same thing: http://tinyurl.com/37wqu4 For those that can't be bothered to follow the links they are both comment pieces by Freedland, a self-declared zionist, saying that the NUJ's vote to boycott Israel compromises journalists' impartiality! The earlier piece was the Cif one, like a practice run for the editorial. But Abtalyon, if the Guardian isn't Zionist enough for you I'm not sure if you're the best judge of what's good for the Palestinian economy.ILAN

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/arthur_neslen/2007/07/gaza_a_gas_for_blair.html

A PETITION
For Immediate Release – Wednesday, January 30, 2008In response to the Supreme Court's Rejection of Petition against Fuel and Electricity Cuts:Gisha and Adalah: "This decision sets a dangerous legal precedent that allows Israel to continue to violate the rights of Palestinians in Gaza and deprive them of basic humanitarian needs, in violation of international law." Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008:  Israel's Supreme Court today rejected a petition by human rights organizations to stop Israel from cutting supplies of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip, as part of a governmental decision authorizing punitive measures against the population of Gaza. The petitioners had claimed that cutting fuel and electricity supplies constitutes forbidden collective punishment and violates the international law prohibition against deliberately targeting civilians. The fuel cuts, which have forced Gaza's only power plant to reduce production of electricity, have severely disrupted the functioning of vital humanitarian services, including hospitals, water wells, and sewage pumps.   The court's decision allows the state to proceed with its plan to cut electricity sold to Gaza directly by Israel's Electric Company, beginning February 7.

Gaza is already experiencing a 20% electricity deficit, which is forcing rolling blackouts in hospitals and other vital humanitarian institutions. The petitioners submitted extensive documentation showing that cuts in supplies of electricity and the industrial diesel needed to produce electricity will necessarily mean longer and more frequent power outages across Gaza, from which vital humanitarian institutions will not be spared.  

At the last hearing held Sunday, Jan. 27, Israel's military prevented utility officials from Gaza from attending the hearing, in violation of a previous commitment to the court. The state attorneys offered oral testimony by a military official, unsubstantiated by affidavit as required, claiming that the cuts would not harm humanitarian needs.   According to Sari Bashi, Director of Gisha: "This is an unprecedented decision authorizing collective punishment in its most blatant form. The court ruling relies on unsubstantiated declarations by the military and ignores the indisputable and well-documented evidence of harm to civilians caused by the fuel and electricity cuts – with no legally valid justification."   According to Hassan Jabarin, Director of Adalah: ""According to the Supreme Court's decision, it is permitted to harm Palestinian civilians and create a humanitarian crisis for political reasons. This constitutes a war crime under international criminal law."

Background on the Fuel and Electricity Petition   The court decision comes at a time when the Gaza Strip is already suffering from a 20% deficit in electricity, during the winter peak season – even before the February 7 cuts go into effect.    During the winter, the demand for electricity in the Gaza Strip is approximately 240 mega-watts, depending on the weather, but as of today, Gaza has just 192 megawatts from all sources: 120 mega-watts sold by Israel; 17 megawatts supplied by Egypt; and 55 megawatts from. Gaza's power plant is able to produce 80 megawatts, but restrictions imposed on the supply of industrial diesel sold to Gaza limits the power plant to generating just 55 megawatts. As a result, the Gaza Electricity Distribution Company (GEDCO) is unable to provide the electricity needed to operate hospitals, water pumps and schools and so institutes rolling blackouts across main lines. Some humanitarian institutions have back-up generators, but the restrictions on the supply of diesel have disrupted the operation of the generators, too.   The petition was submitted October 28, 2007, the day that Israel cut supplies of petrol (benzene), diesel, and industrial diesel to Gaza. Residents of Gaza purchase fuel from an Israeli company and receive it via Israeli-controlled crossings.   A prior decision of the Supreme Court prevented Israel from cutting supplies of electricity sold to Gaza by Israel's Electric Company. Today's decision allows the direct electricity cuts to be implemented on February 7

The organizations who petitioned the court are:   Adalah – The LegalCenter for Arab Minority Rights in Israel Gisha - LegalCenter for Freedom of Movement HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual Physicians for Human Rights-Israel The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel Gaza Community Mental Health Programme B'Tselem – The IsraeliInformationCenter for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Al –Haq MezanCenterfor Human Rights   Maher Najjar, Deputy Director of Gaza's Coastal Municipalities Water Utility and a farmer from Beit Hanoun also joined the petition

from khulood badawi <Khulood48@yahoo.com

Genocide In Gaza, Ethnic Cleansing
In The West Bank

By Ilan Pappe

28 January , 2008
The Indypendent

Not long ago, I claimed that Israel is employing genocidal policies in the Gaza Strip. I hesitated before using this very charged term and yet decided to adopt it. The responses I received indicated unease in using such a term. I rethought the term for a while, but concluded with even stronger conviction: it is the only appropriate way to describe what the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip.

On Dec. 28, 2006, the Israeli human rights organization Betzelem published its annual report on Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories. In 2006, Israeli forces killed 660 citizens, triple the number of the previous year (around 200). Most of the dead are from the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces demolished almost 300 houses and have slain entire families. Since 2000, almost 4,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces, half of them children, and more than 20,000 wounded.

The point is not just about escalating intentional killings but the strategy.

Annexation

Israeli policy makers are facing two very different realities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the former, they are finishing construction of their eastern border. Their internal ideological debate is over, and their master plan for annexing half of the West Bank is gaining speed.

The last phase was delayed due to the promises made by Israel, under the Road Map, not to build new settlements. Israel found two ways of circumventing this. First, it defined a third of the West Bank as Greater Jerusalem, which allowed it to build towns and community centers within this new annexed area. Second, it expanded old settlements to such proportions that there was no need to build new ones.

Creeping Transfer

The settlements, army bases, roads and the wall will allow Israel to annex almost half of the West Bank by 2010. Within these territories, Israeli authorities will continue to implement creeping transfer policies against the considerable number of Palestinians who remain.

There is no rush. As far as the Israeli are concerned they have the upper hand there; the daily abusive and dehumanizing combination of army and bureaucracy effectively adds to the dispossession process.

All governing parties from Labor to Kadima accept Ariel Sharon’s strategic thinking that this policy is far better than the one offered by the blunt “transferists” or ethnic cleansers, such as Avigdor Liberman. In the Gaza Strip there is no clear Israeli strategy, but there is a daily experiment with one. The Israelis see the Strip as a distinct geo-political entity from the West Bank. Hamas controls Gaza, while Mahmoud Abbas seems to run the fragmented West Bank with Israeli and American blessing.

There is no land in the Strip that Israel covets and there is no hinterland, like Jordan, to which the Palestinians can be expelled.

Ethnic cleansing is ineffective here. The earlier strategy in the Strip was ghettoizing the Palestinians there, but this is not working. The Jews know it best from their history. In the past, the next stage against such communities was even more barbaric. It is difficult to tell what does the future hold for the Gaza community: ghettoized, quarantined, unwanted and demonized.

Throwing Away the Key

Creating the prison and throwing the key to the sea, as South African law professor John Dugard has put it, was an option the Palestinians in the Strip reacted against with force in September 2005. Determined to show that they were still part of the West Bank and Palestine, they launched the first significant number of missiles into the Western Negev. The shelling was a response to an Israeli campaign of massive arrests of Hamas and Jihad people in the Tul Karim area.

Israel responded with operation “First Rain.” Supersonic flights were flown over Gaza to terrorize the entire population, succeeded by heavy bombardment of vast areas from the sea, sky and land. The logic, the Israeli army explained, was to weaken the community’s support for the rocket launchers. As was expected, by the Israelis as well, the operation only increased the support for the rocket launchers.

The real purpose was experimental. The Israeli generals wished to know how such operations would be received at home, in the region and in the world. And it seems the answer was “very well;” no one took interest in the scores of dead and hundreds of wounded Palestinians.

Following operations were modeled on First Rain. The difference was more firepower, more casualties and more collateral damage and, as expected, more Qassam missiles in response. Accompanying measures ensured full imprisonment of Gazans through boycott and blockade, with which the European Union is shamefully collaborating.

The capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006 was irrelevant in the general scheme, but it provided an opportunity for the Israelis to escalate even more. After all, there was no strategy that followed the decision of Sharon to remove 8,000 settlers from Gaza whose presence complicated “punitive” missions. Since then, the “punitive” actions continue and have become a strategy.

First Rain was replaced by “Summer Rains.” In a country where there is no rain in the summer, one can expect only showers of F-16 bombs and artillery shells hitting the people of the Strip.

Summer Rains brought a novel component: the land invasion into parts of the Gaza Strip. This enabled the army to kill citizens and present it as an inevitable result of heavy fighting within densely populated areas and not of Israeli policies.

Summer Rains, Autumn Clouds

When the summer was over came the even more efficient “Autumn Clouds:” beginning on Nov. 1, 2006, the Israelis killed 70 civilians in less than 48 hours. By the end of that month, almost 200 were killed, half of them children and women.

Some of the activity was parallelled the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, making it easier to complete the operations without much external attention, let alone criticism. From First Rain to Autumn Clouds there is escalation in every parameter. The first is erasing the distinction between “civilian” and “non-civilian” targets: the population is the main target for the army’s operation. Second is the escalation in the means: employment of every possible killing machine the Israeli army possesses. Third is escalation in the number of casualties: with each future operation, a much larger number of people are likely to be killed and wounded. Finally, and most importantly, the operations have become a strategy — the way Israel intends to solve the problem of the Gaza Strip.

A creeping transfer in the West Bank and a measured genocidal policy in the Gaza strip are the two strategies Israel employs today. From an electoral point of view the policy in Gaza is problematic, as it does not reap any tangible results; the West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas is yielding to Israeli pressure and there is no significant force that arrests the Israeli strategy of annexation and dispossession.

Gaza Fights Back

But the Strip continues to fire back. This would enable the Israeli army to initiate larger genocidal operations in the future, but there is also the great danger that, as in 1948, the army would demand a more drastic and systematic “punitive” action against the besieged people of the Gaza Strip. Ironically, the Israeli killing machine has rested lately. Its generals are content that the internal killing in the Strip does the job for them.

They watch satisfied the emerging civil war in the Strip that Israel foments and encourages. The responsibility of ending the fighting lies of course with the Palestinian groups themselves, but U.S. and Israeli interference, the continued imprisonment, the starvation and strangulation of the Strip all make such an internal peace process very difficult.

Cutting Israel’s Oxygen

What unfolds in Gaza is a battleground between America’s and Israel’s local proxies most unintentional but who dance to Israel’s tune nonetheless — and those who oppose their plans. The opposition that took over Gaza did it in a way that one finds very hard to condone or cheer.

Once fighting there subsides, the Israeli Summer Rains will fall down again on the people in the Strip, wreaking havoc and death. There is no other way of stopping Israel than that of boycott, divestments and sanctions. The only soft point of this killing machine is its oxygen lines to “western” civilization and public opinion. It is still possible to puncture them and make it at least more difficult for the Israelis to implement their future strategy of eliminating the Palestinian people either by cleansing them in the West Bank or genocide in the Gaza Strip.


Dr. Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian and author of numerous books, including The Modern Middle East and The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.