Adri Nieuwhof

On 26 September 2005, the Palestinian Counseling Centre (the PCC) announced the results of a survey on the psychological implications of the construction of the wall on people from five villages in the Qalqilya district. In 2003, the PCC conducted a pilot study, which was followed by the survey from early 2004 to August 2005. The study showed a proportional relationship between exposure to the wall and the occurrence of nightmares and aggressive behaviour in adolescents and children. The PCC’s study makes it clear that the wall has an impact on the mental health of adults and children. According to the PCC, the wall can be seen as a construction meant to confine and isolate people, which are the key characteristics of a prison.

The University of Haifa has warned foreign students of the dangers of visiting Palestinians. This warning, which comes in the form of “Special Security Instructions for Students”, follows a decision by the University to establish a special education programme for soldiers who serve in the Israeli army. Such actions are patently discriminatory, offering fresh reasons for the University of Haifa to again be included in a list of Israeli universities being (re)considered for an academic boycott. This fall, the Department of Overseas Studies at the University of Haifa circulated these instructions for students. The students are advised “not to travel in the West Bank or the Gaza strip. Avoid Arab population centres within Israel as far as possible.

During the first week of January 2004, Israeli minister of Justice Yosef Lapid warned his country about an international boycott. He told Israeli radio: “There is a very serious risk the World Court (International Court of Justice in the Hague) will rule against us …. and this is liable to prompt the General Assembly into imposing all sorts of sanctions against us”. Despite this, Israel has continued its occupation, including the construction of the Wall and expansion of the settlements in Occupied Palestinian territories. Lapid was right, the voice for economic pressure on Israel is becoming louder, especially from the churches.

The world’s attention is focussed on the “plight” of settler-colonists from the Gaza Strip and some in the West Bank, who have to leave their homes. However, we have to remember that the settlements were illegally-constructed in the first place and that the settlers will receive substantial compensation. But without exception settlers knew that they were moving to an area that was conquered in war. In contracts for the sale or rental of land in the occupied territories there was a clause that explicitly stated their temporary nature. Jeff Handmaker and Adri Nieuwhof comment that, while US-taxpayers foot the bill for the so-called pull-out, virtually no attention is being paid to Palestinians whose property has been demolished over the years, not to mention those who were deprived of their homeland since 1948.

The trip to Tulkarem is not easy for our driver. He complains that the roads in the West Bank are changing fast. The Israeli regime is working full speed on the construction of the network of highways cutting right through the occupied Palestinian territories and incorporating parts of traditional Palestinian roads. Adri Nieuwhof and Bangani Ngeleza recently visited the occupied Palestinian territories. On a hot summer day, they travelled with a Palestinian guide from Ramallah to Jarushya, north of Tulkarem. The aim of the trip was to visit families that are affected by the Wall. The guide had contacted a leader of the community in Tulkarem and arranged for a meeting.

Haifa has attracted many Palestinians from the North, in addition to the residents that remained in Haifa after 1948. But, a considerable number of Haifa’s Palestinian residents had lived in Haifa for decades without having been defined as legal residents of Haifa in the population registry. The unofficial estimation of the Palestinian population in Haifa is around 30,000, leaving around 6,000 Palestinians officially unrecognised. Around 121,000 Palestinians were dispossessed from Haifa and from 58 surrounding villages. Adri Nieuwhof and Jeff Handmaker visited Haifa and give voice to those who remained and those dispossessed.

Governments should be allowing Palestinians the opportunity to claim political asylum, but they are failing to do so and mistreating Palestinians in the process. In this article, the writers consider international law in relation to this. They also examine the case of Khalil, who has — contrary to international law — not been given an effective opportunity to claim refugee status in the Netherlands and instead has been confined to a bureaucratic ‘no man’s land’, with severe personal consequences.

The official role of Israel as sole protector of the Jewish people through the so-called Israeli right of return (or Aliyah) is increasingly tested. The law of return is an exclusive law benefiting only Jews and allows any Jew to emigrate to Israel. This role of Israel, as sole protector of the Jewish people, is being increasingly tested by a large and growing number of émigrés from Israel to other countries around the world, matched by a diminishing number of new immigrants. Jeff Handmaker and Adri Nieuwhof argue that this creates serious problems for Israel in seeking to maintain the exclusively Jewish character of the Israeli state.

In early March 2005, the High Court of Australia made a unanimous decision to give refugee protection to a Russian Jewish doctor and his son. The Australian court determined that it could not “offload its responsibilities” to protect them by arguing Israel was a ‘safe third country’ on the basis of the so-called law of return or ‘Aliyah’. The decision has important implications as it directly challenges the notion held by Israel and its supporters that there must exist a ‘Jewish state’ for the exclusive protection of Jews. There are clear and growing signs that many Jews do not see Israel as a “safe haven” and therefore seek refuge elsewhere.

Sometimes the relevance of making comparisons between the liberation movements in South Africa and Palestine is questioned. Jeff Handmaker, Adri Nieuwhof and Bangani Ngeleza argue that, while the situations are by no means identical, sufficient similarities exist for Palestinians and their solidarity counterparts to draw relevant experiences and strategies that helped form the conditions for peace negotiations in South Africa. It is the massive land dispossession and disproportionate situation that has existed both for black South Africans and for Palestinians, reinforced by policies and actions designed to destroy their dignity, which have formed the primary motivators in both liberation struggles.