[GushShalom] Olive harvest - between a rock and a hard place

[Gush Shalom (Israeli Peace Bloc)]

GUSH SHALOM  pob 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 www.gush-shalom.org

International release
Tel-Aviv, October 26.

[] "Between a rock and a hard place" by Adam Keller:
-- report and background of the joint olive harvest at Hirbat Jabara
-- with an epilogue: Sharon, go home (demo in Jerusalem).
[] Israeli roulette - Gush ad in Ha'aretz, October 24
[] Whom to believe? - Avnery answers General Amidror
[] "Two missiles were fired" / "The results were very good" 

                                \\// //\\ \\// //\\ \\//      

[] "Between a rock and a hard place" by Adam Keller:
-- report and background of the joint olive harvest at Hirbat Jabara
-- with an epilogue: Sharon, go home (demo in Jerusalem).

The landscape seemed highly picturesque: the olive trees dotting the 
rolling hills, the strewn rocks, the placidly grazing donkey. Such a sharp 
contrast with the congested superhighways and high-rise office towers of 
metropolitan Tel-Aviv, a short drive away - a short drive, that 
is, to those privileged to pass the various barriers and roadblocks. But 
we had not come as tourists, and the apparently tranquil countryside 
was the inside of a besieged enclave, around which a noose is being 
drawn ever tighter.
It was to help these besieged people that a mobilizartion effort had 
been mounted in the past week by the Olive Harvest Coalition. 
Already before arriving at our destination on this Saturday, Oct. 25, we 
had a good close look at The Fence -  a line drawn across the 
landscape in the past year, cutting arbitrarily across the fields and the 
lives of those who live hereabouts. For some time our cavalcade - 
seven buses and some private cars - moved parallel to this implacable 
barrier, then we moved back from it, along ever-worsening roads and 
tracks. 
Soon came the moment to alight and divide into groups of about 
twenty, each guided by Palestinian farmers. Then quite a long way by 
foot, partly along goat tracks full of thorns and brambles, under a 
blazing sun which would have better fitted a day in mid-August rather 
then late October. Finally we arrived,  panting. Mufid, our guide, 
pointed to the trees to the left: "These are ours, my father planted 
many of them". Then to the buildings on the next hill: "That is the 
settlement of Sal'it. The army is always getting nervous when we try to 
come here. With you, it should be more easy."        
But now, even the settlement takes second place in his worries in 
comparison to The Fence. "My village, Ras, is on the other side, and 
most of our fields and olives were left on this side. We have to ask for 
permits to cross the gate. I got a one-month permit. My wife, who did a 
large part of the harvest last year and in all the years before, did not 
get one. Why? The soldiers just told me "That's the way it is". Half of 
our village got no permit." 
We do our best to take the place of the villagers who were banned from 
coming here. Olive picking is a companionable work. The group spread 
around a tree and went through the branches one by one, hunting for  
the little blue-black olives. "We should be like locusts, leaving not a 
single olive unpicked. The harvest was not particularly good this year, 
we must make the best of what there is there" admonishes Ehud, the 
coordinator of our group. Uri Avnery, who had celebrated his eightieth 
birthday a month ago, is climbing up the bole, in order to get at the 
more difficult upper branches. 
This kind of work leaves a lot of opportunity for talking. Around our tree, 
the talk was mostly of politics - past and present, Israeli and 
international, in a mixture of Hebrew, Arabic, English a bit of Spanish. 
Aside from Israelis and Palestinians, our group included an American, 
two Catalans from Barcelona and two Japanese. And halfway through, 
the Israeli contingent is reinforced by the arrival of Yesh Gvul activists, 
who came directly from the solidarity vigil for the imprisoned refusniks 
held outside military prison 6. 
Unlike political work, olive picking provides a bit of an immediate, 
visible satisfaction - measured in the clump of already-harvested trees 
left behind and on the row of full sacks stretching ahead, filled with 
olives. "Each sack can be rendered into 17 litres of olive oil. One liter 
can nowadays be sold for 12 Shekels. Before the intifada, you could 
get up to 22 shekels, but now it is not possilbe to send olive oil to 
Jordan and very difficult even to get it different parts of the West Bank.  
We can only rely on the local market" explains Mufid. 
Four o'clock. Again we  trudge through the rocky hills. Finally the track 
becomes a street, then a small unpaved plaza where smiling villagers 
offer cold water and mandarin oranges.

The speech given by town councillor and school principal Sadeq 
Mas'ud - far from being just a show of politeness - is informing us about 
the troubles of the hardest hit of the villages, Hirbat Jabara with its 350 
inhabitants. "Our village where you now stand has become a big 
prison. And our jailers, unlike in a normal prison, don't even bother 
about how their prisoners will have what to eat. The Wall is cutting us 
off from the rest of the West Bank. This village lives mainly from 
poultry. How can we continue with that when bringing feed for the 
chickens or transporting meat and eggs to the market has become 
totally impossible? The fence is five kilometers to the east; three 
kilometers to the west is the Green Line and if we take one step 
across, then we are liable to be arrested by the Israeli police for 
illegally entering Israel. And now, the army is demanding that we ask 
for permits to be allowed to stay in our homes!"
Israeli speakers mount the improvised podium:  Uri Avnery representing 
Gush Shalom: "The struggle now is not between Israelis and 
Palestinians but between Israeli and Palestinian peace seekers on the 
one side and the enemies among both peoples on the other side; the 
army hopes to make your life so bitter that you will just go away by 
yourself. We have come here to stand by your side and make sure this 
will not happen." Fathia Oukbi (Coalition of Women for Peace), herself 
an Arab woman from the Galilee, told of her family history: "I am from a 
village of this size which has ceased to exist. My grandmother was 
always telling us "better to be killed on your land than let yourself be 
expelled; but we have come here to show that there is a third way; that 
we can stand together and make sure that you can live on your land."
Peretz Kidron of Yesh Gvul told: "In the military prison there are now 
ten courageous people, four reservists and six youngsters who refuse 
to be conscripts. They are all in prison because they don't want to take 
part in the occupation which does what it does to you." Yigal Bronner 
(Ta'ayush) summarized what had brought so many Israelis to this 
place: "General Kaplinsky of the Central Command issued a decree 
under which a Palestinian who lives in this area between Green line 
and Fence has no inherent right to be here, but has to ask permission, 
as a special favour. On the other hand, Israelis need no permit to come 
here, and the same for another class of persons - those 'who would be 
eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.'. In other words: 
J e w s. A Jewish from New York making a 24-hour stopover has more 
rights in Jabarra than the people who lived here all their lives, and their 
ancestors before them. This is Apartheid."

[Together with Gush Shalom, Ta'ayush and the  Women for Peace, 
also the Committee Against House Demolitions and the Rabbis for 
Human Rights are part of the Olive Harvest Coalition. Photos on the 
site: www.gush-shalom.org ]
                                       ***

Epilogue: Sharon go home!

When boarding the buses for the way back some Tel-Avivians joined 
the Jerusalemites in order to be in time for the Peace Now 
demonstration scheduled to start at seven. 

It was a strange transition. A quick cup of coffee in a Jerusalem cafe 
around the corner from the Prime Minister's Residence, and meanwhile 
the place filled up. Loudspeakers announced: now we are to march - to 
encircle Sharon's place. Activists took up torches and placards 
(Sharon go home! / There is another way! / Sharon is destroying the 
country /  Save the country - Get out of the Territories! / Geneva Now!. 
There was chanting, too.

Back in the place of the beginning, the organizers estimated that there 
were now around 4000 people, and indeed it was quite full, the crowd 
spreading over into the side streets. And very noisy it was. With the 
dust of harvesting still on us, we listened to ever more fiery anti-Sharon 
speeches of ex-Labor-minister Yuli Tamir, Meretz KM Ran Cohen, 
Geneva Agreement participant Dr Menachem Klein, Peace Now's Gaby 
Laski and a moving address of Yona Bargur, whose son was killed as 
a paratrooper officer seven years ago. More than any other factor, the 
"Geneva Accord" and the 39% support it already gained in opinion 
polls were setting the tone. Central themes, the "now proven fact that 
there is a partner" and also the recent killing of soldiers while guarding 
settlements "which should have been dismantled long ago." The 
speeches were accompanied by the chanting of slogans of a well-
coordinated group of youths, megaphones in their hands, standing on 
the high walls surrounding the gardens of the houses in this beautiful 
old neighborhood. Very much booing any time that the name of the PM 
or one of the ministers was mentioned. "Sharon - Ason" (Sharon-
Disaster) - "Two States for Two Peoples" - "Kick out the corruption!" - 
and the resurrected protest song (melody of a childrens' song) of the 
Lebanon War "We will fight for Sharon, and come back in a coffin!" 

Concluding message from the podium: "Sorry Mr Prime Minister, sorry 
to disappoint you. The danger of peace is not over. It is just getting 
started."
 					***

[]  Gush ad "Israeli roulette" in Ha'aretz, October 24

òáøéú áàúø 
www.gush-shalom.org

	ISRAELI  ROULETTE

Four soldiers were sent by their commanders into a classic guerilla 
ambush. They were sent at night into the center of a Palestinian 
village, following a path that could be easily foreseen. Three were killed.

The father of one of them called this "Israeli roulette".

All of us are chips in this roulette. The Sharon government is playing 
with our lives and the future of our state.  


[and in smaller charackters:]
Picking olives in the shadow of the Wall

Tomorrow, Saturday, we shall participate - in the framework of the 
"Olive Picking Coalition" in picking the olives of one of the Palestinian 
villages that are mow imprisoned between the Green Line and the Evil 
Wall.

Gush Shalom,
Help us with donations to
P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033,
Phone 972-3-5221732.
www.gush-shalom.org
						***

[] Whom to believe? - Avnery answers General Amidror

Uri Avnery
25.10.03

òáøéú áàúø 
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article273_heb.html    (Hebrew)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article273.html   (English)

Whom to Believe? Well...

"Whom do you believe?" asked General Ya'akov Amidror on TV with 
subdued anger, "the army spokesman or Hamas?"

General (reserves) Amidror is the highest religious officer in our army. 
In the past he has raised several public storms with some utterances 
denigrating secular Israelis, saying that they are not real Jews. He has 
a sharp mind, much above the average in the army command, and his 
intellect is fully employed in serving his extremist views - both the 
extremist religious and the extremist nationalist ones.

His question was intended to be rhetorical. After all, the answer is self-
evident: on one side there is the IDF, "the most moral and most 
humane army in the world", as it calls itself, and on the other side 
there is a bunch of crazy murderers, so what's the problem?

But, according to Amidror himself, the reverse is happening. The world 
believes Hamas and does not believe the IDF spokesman. The Israeli 
public believes Hamas. Even cabinet ministers and Knesset members 
believe Hams and do not believe the army spokesman.

The crisis of confidence was revealed in all its harshness by a series of 
events last week in the Gaza Strip. According to the Palestinians, the 
army fired air-to-surface missiles at a car in which there were two 
Hamas militants. When people from the neighborhood crowded around 
the smashed car to see if the could help the victims, they were 
attacked by another missile. All in all 14 Palestinians were killed, 
among them a doctor who had rushed there to help, and dozens of 
others, including many women and children, were wounded.

"A big lie!" the Army Spokesman angrily announced. The army did not 
fire another missile at all. It did not hurt civilians! It's just another 
vicious Palestinian slander! 

So there are two opposing versions, which are completely 
incompatible. A matter of either-or. One of the two sides is lying. But 
who?

The Palestinian version is supported by the TV and video coverage of 
the killed, the funerals, the wounded delivered to the hospitals, as well 
as by doctors and journalists, local and foreign. The army version is 
supported by the host of Israeli "military correspondents" and "Arab 
affairs reporters" on TV, the radio and the newspapers who, almost to a 
man, repeat the official line like robots, as if they themselves had 
investigated and come to this conclusion.

This time even the heavy artillery joined the battle, headed by Haaretz 
military commentator Ze'ev Shiff, whose independent judgements are 
often uncannily similar to those of the army command. The Air Force 
commander, already up to his neck in the affair of the rebellious 
combat pilots, took an unprecedented step and had the official version, 
denying the Palestinian story, circulated at all Air force bases.

To reinforce its own story, the Air Force published, after a delay of 24 
hours, a clip shot during the action by an army drone (unmanned 
aircraft). It clearly shows two missiles fired at the suspect car, with 
hardly any civilians in the vicinity. The devoted military correspondents 
even used their stopwatches to measure the seconds between missile 
A and missile B.

So here we have a perfect riddle. A factual clip against the eye-witness 
account of the journalists. What would Sherlok Holmes have said?

Well. Perhaps a Palestinian propagandist of genius invented the whole 
thing. The civilians committed suicide or shot each other, dozens of 
others wounded themselves, all in order to besmirch the IDF with a 
monstrous lie. (By the same logic, the father of little Muhammad al-
Dura killed his son, at the beginning of the present intifada, in order to 
slander our brave and upright soldiers).

Another possibility is that not two, but three missiles were used - the 
two seen in the clip and a third one later on. In order to find out, one 
has to view the whole film, not just an excerpt. And perhaps we are 
dealing with two different events altogether.

If the Israeli media were truly independent, instead of being a 
department of the security establishment, a dozen Israeli journalists 
would have rushed to Gaza on the same day, interviewed the dozens of 
wounded in the hospitals, compared the evidence, visited the families 
of the dead and taken testimony from eye-witnesses, confronting these 
with the army version. But apart from Amira Hass and a Palestinian 
correspondent of Channel 2, this kind of independent investigation has 
disappeared long ago from our media (and perhaps never existed.) 

There remains the rhetorical question posed by General Amidror: 
Whom to believe?

The Minister of the Interior Avraham Poraz (Shinui party) and the 
Knesset member Zahava Gal'on (Meretz) chose, so it seems, the 
Palestinian version and acted accordingly. So did a large number of 
other public personalities. That was what raised the hackles of the 
army.

But even if we take the official version on trust, we would have to raise 
another question: WHY do so many people, in Israel and throughout 
the world, believe the Palestinians? In other words, why do they not 
believe the army spokesman? 

There were times when the army spokesman was believed without 
reservation. During the 50s, I was often asked by foreign journalists 
whether to believe the army statements. My answer invariably was: 
Sure, our army does not lie.

These days are long gone. The occupation, which has corrupted 
everything, has corrupted the army statements, too. During the first 
intifada, the IDF published hundreds of statements that were manifestly 
mendacious. Children "lost their lives" when the army "shot into the 
air" (giving rise to bitter jokes about "flying children"). Palestinians were 
killed while "trying to wrest weapons from the hands of soldiers". Tall 
stories. Baron von Munchhausen would have been envious. Since then, 
the situation has become even worse.

During the last 20 years I have followed the work of foreign 
correspondents, neutral, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, and almost all 
of them trust the Palestinians more than official Israeli spokespersons.

When things get tough, official spokespersons bring up the Jenin affair. 
The Palestinians claimed that during the "Defensive Shield" operation 
in April 2002 a massacre occurred there. This proved to be an 
exaggeration, but the things that did indeed happen there were terrible 
enough. For example, many houses were demolished by the drunken 
driver of a giant army bulldozer, without any idea whether the 
inhabitants were still inside. The terminological battle over the word 
"massacre" distracted attention from what actually happened. 

Credibility is worth more then gold. It takes years to build up, but just a 
few minutes to destroy. Now this affair shows that the credibility of the 
army spokesman has fallen into an abyss.

"Whom do you believe?" the general asked. Well?hmm?it's not 
pleasant to say, but?
					***

[] "Two missiles were fired" / "The results were very good" 

[ Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz' embedded military commentator, reveals how 
the army authorities fight the wave of doubts regarding the IDF's 
credibility after the Gaza strike.  That the disbelief was also from within 
- as remarked already by Avnery in the above article - was reason for 
the army to produce an internal briefing towards all air units. In it is 
admitted that "the second missile was fired about a minute after the 
first missile struck". Read for yourself how this admission, and its 
obvious implication, is buried - as to make it loose all importance.]

IAF report quickly dispels rumors on Gaza strike   
 
By Ze'ev Schiff 
 
Haaretz, Friday Oct. 24

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/353258.html
 
 
There is one document that, in some ways, offers even better 
testimony than do real-time photographs from a pilotless drone as to 
what the Israel Air Force command really knew about Monday's 
missile strikes in Gaza. It is an internal report on the operation sent by 
IAF headquarters to all air force units. 
  
This document, which reached hundreds of personnel, was sent out 
after news reports began claiming that helicopters had deliberately fired 
missiles into a crowd of Palestinian civilians gathered near one of the 
targets. 

The drone's camera showed no such crowd, but the camera's lens 
might not see everything happening on the ground around the target. 

But anyone who thinks it is possible to lie in a bulletin sent to every 
unit of the IAF and not be caught does not know the air force. Any lie
or distortion would quickly be noticed - and leaked. 

The bulletin was sent out on Tuesday in response to plea by two IAF 
base commanders who, having heard the media reports, wanted to 
know what really happened. It was drafted by the head of the 
operations division, with the approval of IAF Commander-in-Chief Major 
General Dan Halutz. The following are excerpts from the text. The full 
text, minus a few operational details having mainly to do with munitions,
appears in today's Hebrew Haaretz; details omitted even in the Hebrew 
are marked here by ellipses: 

"The following document briefly describes yesterday's [i.e., Monday's] 
operational activity. The document is being sent so that you will know 
the facts ... 

I. The IAF conducted five strikes against terrorist organizations in the 
Gaza Strip yesterday ... 

III. Following are the operations and the main results, in chronological 
order: 

A. An attack on a plant for manufacturing explosives: ... Moderate 
damage was caused to the building. 

B. An attack on a car carrying weapons: Two missiles were fired, 
which hit the car directly. 

C. An attack on a munitions warehouse: 1. One missile was fired, 
which destroyed the building. 2. The building blew up, indicating
the presence of munitions. 

D. An attack on a car carrying suicide terrorists: Two missiles were 
fired, which hit the car and killed the two suicide terrorists inside it. 

E. Another attack on the explosives manufacturing plant (the plant 
attacked in item

A): 
1. It was attacked with ... to minimize collateral damage. 
2. The result was ... and the building was seriously damaged. 
3. The attack was halted because people approached. 

IV. Main points: ... 

C. All the targets were targets belonging to terrorist organizations 
engaged in producing arms or organizing attacks. 

D. In the planning and execution, maximum efforts were made not to 
hurt uninvolved persons. Despite this, when [there is] fighting
against terrorists who deliberately live among a civilian population, 
uninvolved persons are sometimes hurt. 

E. With respect to the media reports of a missile that went astray and 
massive injury to uninvolved persons, it is important that you know the 
facts: 

1. All the munitions struck their targets exactly. 

2. In every attack, at the time the munitions were fired, neither the 
operational nor the video films showed any uninvolved persons. 

3. There was no firing of munitions into a crowd. 

4. In the attack on the car carrying the suicide terrorists, the second 
missile was fired about a minute after the first missile struck. At the
time the missile was fired, no uninvolved persons were spotted, but by 
the time the missile hit, a small number of people had apparently 
already arrived at the scene. In any event, according to the films, there 
was no massive injury to uninvolved persons and there was no firing 
into a crowd. 

V. Summary 

A. The results were very good. 

B. Planned terror attacks were prevented and many armaments were 
assaulted. 

C. Maximum precautions were taken, in both planning and execution, 
to avoid harming uninvolved persons." 

The above document reflects what the IAF knew, but it does not offer a 
full explanation for the large number of Palestinian casualties. In any 
event, air force policy on the conflict with the Palestinians remains 
unchanged, so this is probably not the last time such operational-
ethical questions will arise.
						***
  

See the attachments for:
--Appeal from Australia to counter the anti-Ashrawi hate campaign
--Hans Lebrecht reports on attempt at the life of MK Issam Mahoul
--the latest ISM report


Please, sign the international petition being organized by the 
Stop the Wall movement at the following link:
http://stopthewall.org.il/mashacamp/petition/index.html

>From Hawaiian Gardens to Jerusalem: 
about how to stop Irving Moskovitz
http://www.stopmoskowitz.org/

Online support for the pilot's letter;
http://www.tayasim.org.il/support.asp?

--
http://www.gush-shalom.org/ (òáøéú)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html (English)

with
\\photos - of actions or otherwise informative 
\\the weekly Gush Shalom ad - in Hebrew and English 
\\the columns of Uri Avnery - in Hebrew, Arab and English
\\position papers & analysis (in "documents")
\\and a lot more

N.B.: 
On the Gush Shalom website links for:
Articles and documents in German, French and Spanish

In order to receive our Hebrew-language 
press releases [mostly WORD documents - 
not always same as English] mail to:
gush-shalom-heb-request at mailman.gush-shalom.org 
+ NB: write the word "subscribe" in the subject line.

If you want to support Gush Shalom's activities you can 
send a cheque or cash, wrapped well in an extra piece 
of paper to: 

Gush Shalom
pob 3322
Tel-Aviv 61033
Israel

or ask us for charities in your country which receive 
donations on behalf of Gush Shalom

Please, add your email address where to send our 
confirmation of receipt. More official receipts at 
request only.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Mahoul.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 23040 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.gush-shalom.org/pipermail/gush-shalom-intl/attachments/20031027/f9234576/Mahoul.obj
-------------- next part --------------
-----Original Message-----
From: vivienne Porzsolt [mailto:porzsoltv at optusnet.com.au]
Subject: Campaign against Hanan Ashrawi


Dear friends
 
You may not know that Hanan Ashrawi has been awarded the Sydney Peace Prize for 
2003 awarded by the Sydney Peace Foundation.  Hanan Ashrawi has been subject to 
an unprecedented campaign of vilification and disinformation by the Zionist 
Establishment.  There is an international campaign  to have Carr and the 
University of Sydney dissassociate itself from the award.  
 
The University has already withdrawn the use of its Great Hall for the 
presentation, despite it having been available for previous awards.  The Premier 
of NSW Bob Carr is presenting the prize 6 November.  He has so far resisted the 
pressure to withdraw.  
 
The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Lucy Turnbull has caved in to the pressure and has 
disassociated the City of Sydney, a sponsor of the prize, from the presentation 
this year.  
 
A factor is that Turnbull's husband, Malcolm Turnbull, is a very wealthy 
merchant banker now trying to bulldoze his way into a nomination for a 
parliamentary seat.
 
This may seem a storm in a teacup for you as someone far from the parochial 
squabbles of Sydney.  But with the intervention of Associate Professor Gerald 
Steinberg of Bar Ilan University with an international petition now said to 
number 10,000, this is an international attack on the standing and credibility 
of a key Palestinian leader.  It is an attack on the Palestinian national 
movement.
 
The article below by Alan Ramsay, a Sydney journalist reveals in fascinating 
detail a verbatim report of the kinds of pressures which are being brought to 
bear on the Sydney Peace Foundation.
 
What you can do:
 
Write to:
 
 Australian Jewish News valhadeff at jewishnews.net.au 
Sydney Morning Herald letters at smh.com.au 
Premier Bob Carr bob.carr at www.nsw.gov.au 
 
Shalom
 
Vivienne Porzsolt
Jews Against the Occupation Sydney
 
[Alan Ramsey is a senior columnist and reporter with the Sydney Morning Herald]
 
 
 


 
Here's Lucy, caving in, taking flight 
By Alan Ramsey 
October 25, 2003 
Dr Hanan Mikhail Ashrawi is a woman, a professor of English, an international 
human rights activist, and a politician. A year ago she was chosen, unanimously, 
to receive the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. The Premier, Bob Carr, will present 
Ashrawi with her award at State Parliament in 12 days. The first four recipients 
of the annual prize were honoured at functions in the Great Hall of Sydney 
University. They included South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999), East 
Timor's President Xanana Gusmao (2000) and Australia's Sir William Deane (2001). 
However, for Ashrawi, the Great Hall is out of bounds.
This is not because Ashrawi is either a woman, an academic or a political 
activist. It is because she is a Palestinian. That is enough to ensure a 
virulent campaign of distortion and ridicule by Jewish critics to brutalise her 
image and try to have Carr renege on Ashrawi's presentation and the award taken 
from her. So far Carr has refused to buckle. Not so Sydney University.
Earlier this year the university's chancellor, Justice Kim Santow of the NSW 
Supreme Court, made it known to Professor Stuart Rees, director of the Sydney 
Peace Foundation, and to Kathryn Greiner, the foundation's chairwoman at the 
time, that the Great Hall would be closed to Ashrawi. Rees and an academic 
colleague, Ken McNabb, took the matter to Sydney's vice-chancellor, Gavin Brown. 
In what was called a "difficult and shameful" meeting, Brown confirmed the 
decision. The campaign now is about maximum political pressure for other 
corporate and civic sponsors to abandon Ashrawi and intimidate Carr.
Lucy Turnbull, Sydney's Lord Mayor since Frank Sartor joined Carr's ministry 
after the NSW elections in March, is the latest to fold her tent and take 
flight. Sartor, as lord mayor, had earlier arranged for the City of Sydney to be 
a $30,000 annual sponsor, for five years, of the Peace Foundation lecture, which 
is always given, in a separate function, by the peace prize winner the night 
before the award ceremony on the first Thursday in November.
On Tuesday this week, in a brief "Dear Professor Rees" letter dated October 20, 
Turnbull told Rees the Sydney City Council "will be unable to participate in 
this year's Peace Prize events". That is, the council was blackballing both the 
lecture and the award ceremony. Turnbull's reasons for doing so were a travesty: 
the usual ignorant mishmash of allegations forever trotted out by the usual 
suspects against any Palestinian with international credibility and standing in 
the peace process.
Lucy Turnbull should read the letter from a Jewish academic at Oxford University 
published in the Herald yesterday. Then she should go hide her head in shame. 
The letter responded to Tony Stephens's story in the Herald two days earlier 
about Turnbull's craven cave-in to the anti-Ashrawi campaign. It said: 
"Opposition to awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi has so far 
been based on historical ignorance, ideological blindness, wilful malevolence or 
provincial political opportunism." (Are you listening, Malcolm?)
The letter continued: "Dr Ashrawi has been a rare and precious voice of reason 
in the peace process and her commitment to a just solution has been exemplary. 
She has consistently encouraged Palestinians to reject violence, despite 
continuing Israeli territorial expansion and systemic political oppression." 
(signed) Ben Saul, Tutor in International Law, Magdalen College, University of 
Oxford, England.
And what does Rees think of Lucy's white feather? He said yesterday: "When I 
negotiated the sponsorship contract with the City of Sydney, I did so with Frank 
Sartor, not Lucy Turnbull. She's an interesting person. I've had face-to-face 
communications with all the major corporate sponsors who support us over this 
issue. I even flew down to Melbourne to talk to Rio Tinto. But Lucy Turnbull and 
co are like the Medicis of the Town Hall. She never talks to me. All I got was 
this summary note a couple of days ago in which, for her own purposes, she 
completely misinterprets Ashrawi's public statements and says she won't publicly 
support us this year.
"In other words, she won't be seen in the same company as Ashrawi. She doesn't 
even want to be seen in the lecture theatre. Apparently it's more than her 
husband's political life is worth."
Ah, yes, of course - Malcolm Turnbull's much publicised stalking of the 
Liberals' Peter King in his pursuit of the eastern suburbs' federal seat of 
Wentworth. Lucy Turnbull has gone to ground since her "Dear John" letter to Rees 
this week. But a senior business figure phoned Rees on Tuesday to tell him of a 
conversation he'd overheard at a function the previous night. It apparently 
included Lucy being told something like: "That wretched King is going around 
saying you support the Palestinians because you're a party to this peace prize."
Rees commented: "So Hanan Ashrawi gets her name sullied and ridiculed because 
the Turnbulls want to be more important that they already are."
And Kathryn Greiner? Greiner was chairwoman of the Sydney Peace Foundation for 
four years until her resignation this year over an issue of solidarity involving 
her husband, Nick, against the Senate of Sydney University and unconnected with 
the peace prize bitchiness. She was one of the jury of six who selected Ashrawi 
unanimously in September last year as this year's recipient (the other five: 
Rees; social researcher Hugh Mackay; Dr Jane Fulton from University management; 
Stella Cornelius, Sydney's 83-year-old grand dame of conflict mediation; James 
McLachlan, a director of Kerry Packer's PBL).
Greiner remains a non-voting member in support of Rees. But two weeks ago, on 
October 9, she phoned Rees to talk frankly about her concerns with an 
accelerating campaign against Ashrawi. A file note of their conversation reads: 
KG: "I have to speak logically. It is either Hanan Ashrawi or the Peace 
Foundation. That's our choice, Stuart. My distinct impression is that if you 
persist in having her here, they'll destroy you. Rob Thomas of City Group is in 
trouble for supporting us. I think he must have had a phone call from New York. 
And you know Danny Gilbert [partner in the law firm, Gilbert and Tobin] has 
already been warned off."
SR: "You must be joking. We've been over this a hundred times. We consulted 
widely. We agreed the jury's decision, made over a year ago, was not only 
unanimous but that we would support it, together."
KG: "But listen, I'm trying to present the logic of this. They'll destroy what 
you've worked for. They are determined to show we made a bad choice. I think 
it's Frank Lowy's money. You don't understand just how much opposition there is. 
We cannot go ahead. If only there was progress in the Middle East, this would 
not be such a bad time."
SR: "I won't be subject to bullying and intimidation. We are being threatened by 
members of a powerful group who think they have an entitlement to tell others 
what to do. This opposition is orchestrated. The arguments are all the same - 
that Hanan Ashrawi has not condemned violence sufficiently, that she was highly 
critical of Israel in her address to the UN's Johannesburg Conference on racism, 
and wilder accusations that do not bear repetition."
KG: "But you're not listening to the logic. The Commonwealth Bank - I was at a 
reception last night - is highly critical. We could not approach them for 
financial help for the Schools Peace Prize. We'll get no support from them. The 
business world will close ranks. They're saying we are being one-sided, that 
we've only supported Palestine."
SR: "Kathryn, we need to avoid the trap of even using the language of 'one 
side'. That's not the issue. We are being bullied and intimidated and you are 
asking that we give way to it. The letter writers and the phone callers who this 
group encourage have spent weeks bullying a 25-year-old colleague of mine who 
handles the foundation's administration. You are asking me to collude with 
bullying."
KG: "I'll tell you how serious this is. Bob Carr won't come to the dinner. He'll 
flick the responsibility to [his deputy, Andrew] Refshauge at the last minute. 
And you won't get the Town Hall. It is more than Lucy's life is worth. They will 
desert us as well."
SR: "I've never given way to bullying. Public life is too much characterised by 
cowardice. If we give way I'd be so ashamed I couldn't face myself. The image of 
the Peace Foundation would be shameful. Our reputation would count for nothing."
KG: "My friend, I am telling you what the reality is. The foundation will be 
destroyed. I'd hate to see its work come to nothing over this. Our critics are 
saying it's an awful choice."
SR: "These critics are 'they' and 'them', invisible but powerful people. They 
stay powerful because they are invisible. They bully and intimidate in the same 
breath they behave as unblemished pillars of the community. Do you mean to say 
that in cautious, often gutless Australia we are not going to follow through on 
this? No. I remain completely committed to our decision."
Watch this space.
This story was found at: 
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066974313719.html 
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: from_ISM.txt
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6300 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.gush-shalom.org/pipermail/gush-shalom-intl/attachments/20031027/f9234576/from_ISM.obj