• NLG White Paper on Gaza
• Goldstone U.N. Report on Gaza
• Amnesty Int'l Gaza Report
• Fact Finding Committee Report on Gaza
• U.N. OCHA Report on Gaza
• Solution for Palestinian Refugees Report
• U.N. Special Rapporteurs Report on Gaza
• Harvard Law School Ring Road Report
• HSRC Report on Gaza
• Al-haq Report on Gaza
• PCATI Report

Posted January 11, 2010 by Seumas Milne

Terror is the price of support for despots and dictators

If an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor had gone on hunger strike in support of a besieged people in another part of the world, and hundreds of mostly western protesters had been stoned and beaten by police, you can be sure we'd have heard all about it. But because that is what's been happening in western-backed Egypt, rather than Iran, and the people the protesters are supporting are the Palestinians of Gaza instead of, say, Tibetans, most people in Europe and north America know nothing about it.

For the last fortnight, two groups of hundreds of activists have been battling with Egyptian police and officials to cross into the Gaza Strip to show solidarity with the blockaded population on the first anniversary of Israel's devastating onslaught. Last night, George Galloway's Viva Palestina 500-strong convoy of medical aid was finally allowed in, minus 50 of its 200 vehicles, after being repeatedly blocked, diverted and intimidated by Egyptian security ? including a violent assault in the Egyptian port of El Arish on Tuesday night which left dozens injured, despite the participation of one British and 10 Turkish MPs.

That followed an attempted "Gaza freedom march" by 1,400 protesters from more than 40 countries, only 84 of whom were allowed across the border - which is what led Hedy Epstein, both of whose parents died in Auschwitz, to refuse food in Cairo, as the group's demonstrations were violently broken up and Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu was feted nearby. Yesterday, demonstrations by Palestinians on the Gazan side of the border against the harassment of the aid convoy led to violent clashes with Egyptian security forces in which an Egyptian soldier was killed and many Palestinians injured.

But although the confrontation has been largely ignored in the west, it has been a major media event in the Middle East which has only damaged Egypt. And while the Egyptian government claims it is simply upholding its national sovereignty, the saga has instead starkly exposed its complicity in the US- and European-backed blockade of Gaza and the collective punishment of its one and a half million people.

The main protagonist of the siege, Israel, controls only three sides of the Strip. Without Egypt, which polices the fourth, it would be ineffective. But, having tolerated the tunnels that have saved Gazans from utter beggary, the Cairo regime is now building a deep underground steel wall ? known as the "wall of shame" to many Egyptians ? under close US supervision, to make the blockade complete.

That's partly because the ageing Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, fears cross-border contamination from Gaza's elected Hamas administration, whose ideological allies in the banned Muslim Brotherhood would be likely to win free elections in Egypt.

But two other factors seem to have been decisive in convincing Cairo to bend to American and Israeli pressure and close the vice on Gaza's Palestinians, along with those who support them. The first was a US threat to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of aid unless it cracked down on arms and other smuggling. The second is the need for US acquiescence in the widely expected hereditary succession of Mubarak's ex-banker son, Gamal, to the presidency. So, far from protecting its sovereignty, the Egyptian government has sold it for continued foreign subsidy and despotic dynastic rule, sacrificing any pretence to its historic role of Arab leadership in the process.

From the wider international perspective, it is precisely this western embrace of repressive and unrepresentative regimes such as Egypt's, along with unwavering backing for Israel's occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, that is at the heart of the crisis in the Middle East and Muslim world.

Decades of oil-hungry backing for despots, from Iran to Oman, Egypt to Saudi Arabia, along with the failure of Arab nationalism to complete the decolonisation of the region, fuelled first the rise of Islamism and then the eruption of al-Qaida-style terror more than a decade ago. But, far from addressing the natural hostility to foreign control of the area and its resources at the centre of the conflict, the disastrous US-led response was to expand the western presence still further, with new and yet more destructive invasions and occupations, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. And the Bush administration's brief flirtation with democratisation in client states such as Egypt was quickly abandoned once it became clear who was likely to be elected.

The poisonous logic of this imperial quagmire is now leading inexorably to the spread of war under Barack Obama. Following the failed bomb attack of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, the US president this week announced two new fronts in the war on terror, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown: Yemen, where the would-be bomber was allegedly trained; and Somalia, where al-Qaida has also put down roots in the swamp of chronic civil war and social disintegration.

Greater western military intervention in both countries will certainly make the problem worse. In Somalia, it has already done so, after the US-backed Ethiopian invasion of 2006 overthrew the relatively pragmatic Islamic Courts Union and spawned the more extreme, al-Qaida-linked Shabab movement, now in control of large parts of the country. Increased US backing for the unpopular Yemeni government, already facing armed rebellion in the north and the threat of secession from the restive south ? which only finally succeeded in forcing out British colonial rule in 1967 - is bound to throw petrol on the flames.

The British prime minister tried this week to claim that the growth of al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia showed western strategy was "working", because the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan had forced it to look for sanctuaries elsewhere. In reality, it is a measure of the grotesque failure of the entire war on terror. Since its launch in October 2001, al-Qaida has spread from the mountains of Afghanistan across the region, to Iraq, Pakistan, the horn of Africa, and far beyond.

Instead of scaling down the western support for dictatorship and occupation that fuels al-Qaida-style terror, and concentrating resources on police action to counter it, the US and its allies have been drawn inexorably into repeating and extending the monstrosities that sparked it in the first place. It's the recipe for a war on terror without end.

Posted January 10, 2010 by Audrey Bomse

Israel prevented 17 sight-impaired Gazans from leaving for cornea transplant operations on time

The Israeli authorities at Erez checkpoint this week prevented the exit of 17 sight-impaired patients, suffering from various eye diseases, from the Gaza Strip in order to undergo cornea transplants, a treatment that is not available in the Gaza health system. Because of this delay, the medical window of opportunity to perform the transplants for these patients was closed, because corneas can be transplanted only within the shortest time frame (24-48 hours after they are extracted from the donor's body). The patients from Gaza whose exit was prevented will therefore have to wait for another donation, which may or may not happen.

At the beginning of the week Physicians for Human Rights ? Israel (PHR-Israel) received an appeal from the Musallam Medical Center in Gaza. According to the appeal, a large group of 14 patients from Gaza, who were invited to Ramallah for cornea transplants from Sunday to Wednesday this week (January 3-5, 2010), did not reach their destination. Three other patients approached PHR-Israel separately. The group of patients includes some who were waiting weeks or even months for cornea transplants. The longest wait was 31-year-old S.A., who has been waiting for this operation for three years.

The main Musallam Medical Center in Ramallah this week received two deliveries from the US with dozens of corneas, donated by Tissue Bank International, an American organization that facilitates cornea and tissue transplants. Every year corneas are sent during Christmas break, during which such operations do not take place in the US, as a donation to the Palestinian health system, and dedicated especially to eye patients from Gaza.

The inquiry by the medical center in Ramallah raised the concern that the exit of the patients from Gaza was being prevented by the Israeli authorities, and accordingly PHR-Israel on Sunday made an urgent request to the DCO in Gaza, responsible for issuing exit permits to patients. In its appeal to the DCO, PHR warned that preventing the exit of the vision-impaired patients for eye operations this week will necessarily cause them to lose the opportunity for cornea transplants in the near future, if ever, because the corneas designated for the transplants have a very short expiration date.

Despite this request, the Israeli authorities prevented the exit of the 17 patients for the operation on time. Five patients were not given any answer; two patients were summoned to investigations by the General Security Service (GSS), scheduled for dates later than the cornea expiration dates; two requests were rejected; and eight requests were approved only after media intervention, but after the corneas had already expired.

This case, with its far-reaching consequences for the vision-impaired patients who now lost the opportunity to repair their eyesight, illustrates the many difficulties that face the residents of Gaza who need medical care that is not available in the Gaza Strip. The delays, apathy and rejection by the Israeli authorities, which every month curtail the access of dozens of patients to medical care, had particularly severe significance in this case, because prevention of these patients' exit from Gaza caused the loss of the corneas (which can be transplanted within no more than 48 hours from the moment of donation). Now the patients will have to wait for another cornea donation, at an unknown time and likelihood.

Therefore, PHR-Israel strongly protests the blatant disregard of the Erez checkpoint authorities for the medical urgency of allowing the exit of patients for cornea transplant operations.

Posted January 8, 2010 Via Ayman Quaider and Sameh Habeeb

Israeli F16s attack Northern, Western, Southern and Middle Gaza Now

A massive explosion took place few moments ago western Gaza City, in Tal Al Hawa neighborhood. Eyewitness reported that Israeli F16s launched an aerial attack midnight. The attack was followed by a series of air raids.

Palestine Telegraph reported that a number of air raids took place northern Gaza Strip while no new reported about the attacks yet. The attacks also targeted the southern and middle areas of Gaza Strip.

Medical sources reported no casualties till this moment while ambulances hurried to the targeted area.

A number of F16 can be heard at the moment and a case of panic and fear spread amongst the civilians who were in a sleep.

The attacks came amid a very densely populated area where around 150 thousands Palestinians live.

Israeli army launched a number of attacks last week killing a number of Palestinians.

Posted January 7, 2010 By Jonathan Cook

Israel's treatment of Ethiopians 'racist'

Health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug in what Israeli women's groups allege is a racist policy to reduce the number of black babies.

The contraceptive, known as Depo Provera, which is given by injection every three months, is considered by many doctors as a birth control method of last resort because of problems treating its side effects.

However, according to a report published last week, use of the contraceptive by Israeli doctors has risen threefold over the past few years. Figures show that 57 per cent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two per cent of the total population.

About 90,000 Ethiopians have been brought to Israel under the Law of Return since the 1980s, but their Jewishness has subsequently been questioned by some rabbis and is doubted by many ordinary Israelis.

Ethiopians are reported to face widespread discrimination in jobs, housing and education and it recently emerged that their blood donations were routinely discarded.

"This is about reducing the number of births in a community that is black and mostly poor," said Hedva Eyal, the author of the report by Woman to Woman, a feminist organisation based in Haifa, in northern Israel. "The unspoken policy is that only children who are white and Ashkenazi are wanted in Israel," she said, referring to the term for European Jews who founded Israel and continue to dominate its institutions.

Women's groups were alerted to the widespread use of Depo Provera in the Ethiopian community in 2008 when Rachel Mangoli, who runs a day care centre for 120 Ethiopian children in Bnei Braq, a suburb of Tel Aviv, observed that she had received only one new child in the previous three years.

"I started to think about how strange the situation was after I had to send back donated baby clothes because there was no one in the community to give them to," she said.

She approached a local health clinic serving the 55 Ethiopian families in Bnei Braq and was told by the clinic manager that they had been instructed to administer Depo Provera injections to the women of child-bearing age, though he refused to say who had issued the order.

Ms Mangoli, who interviewed the women, said: "They had not been told about alternative forms of contraception or about the side effects or given medical follow-ups." The women complained of a wide range of side effects associated with the drug, including headaches, abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea, loss of libido and general burning sensations.

Depo Provera is also known to decrease bone density, especially among dark-skinned women, which can lead to osteoporosis in later life. Doctors are concerned that it is difficult or impossible to help women who experience severe side effects because the drug is in their system for months after it is injected.

The contraceptive's reputation has also been tarnished by its association with South Africa, where the apartheid government had used it, often coercively, to limit the fertility of black women.

Traditionally, its main uses have been for women who are regarded as incapable of controlling their own reproduction or monitor other forms of birth control, and for women who suffer severe problems during menstruation.

Ms Eyal said she had been denied co-operation from government ministries, doctors and most of the health insurance companies while conducting her research.

Clalit, the largest health company, however, did provide figures showing that 57 per cent of its Depo Provera users were Ethiopian compared with a handful of women in other ethnic groups.

The health ministry was unavailable for comment.

When first questioned about Depo Provera in June 2008, the health minister of the time, Yaacov Ben Yezri, said the high number of Ethiopians in Israel using the drug reflected a "cultural preference" for injections among Ethiopians. In fact, according to figures of the World Health Organisation, three-quarters of women in Ethiopia using birth control take the oral pill.

wers we received from officials demonstrated overt racism," Ms Eyal said. "They suggested that Ethiopian women should be treated not as individuals but as a collective group whose reproduction needs controlling."

When Woman to Woman conducted an experiment by sending five non-Ethiopian women to doctors to ask for Depo Provera, all were told that it was prescribed only in highly unusual cases.

Ms Mangoli said it was extremely difficult to get immigrant Ethiopian families to speak out because they were afraid that their Jewishness was under suspicion and that they might be deported if they caused trouble.

However, women interviewed anonymously for the report stated that officials at absorption centres in Ethiopia advised them to take Depo Provera because there would be no funds to support their children if they got pregnant in Israel.

This policy appears to conflict with the stated goals of the country's Demography Council, a group of experts charged with devising ways to persuade Jewish women to have more babies.

The council was established in response to what is widely seen in Israel as a "demographic war" with Palestinians, or the need to maintain a Jewish majority in the region despite high Palestinian birth rates. In a speech marking the council's reconvening in 2002, the then social welfare minister, Shlomo Benizri, referred to "the beauty of the Jewish family that is blessed with many children".

Yali Hashash, a researcher at Haifa University, said attempts to restrict Ethiopian women's fertility echoed practices used against Jewish women who immigrated to Israel from such Arab countries as Iraq, Yemen and Morocco in the state's early years, in the 1950s and 1960s.

Many, she said, had been encouraged to fit IUDs when the device was still experimental because Israel's leading gynecologists regarded Arab Jews as "primitive" and incapable of acting "responsibly".

Allegations of official racism towards Ethiopians gained prominence in 2006 when it was admitted that for many years all their blood donations had been discarded for fear that they might be contaminated with diseases.

There have also been regular reports of Ethiopian children being denied places in schools or being forced to attend separate classes.

In November a survey of employers in the main professions showed that 53 per cent preferred not to hire an Ethiopian.

Ruth Sinai, an Israeli social affairs reporter for Haaretz newspaper, wrote recently that the discrimination faced by the country's 120,000 Ethiopians reflected in particular "doubts on the part of the country's religious establishment about their Jewishness".

Posted January 7, 2010 By Al Jazeera

Aid convoy breaks Gaza siege

A humanitarian aid convoy carrying food and medical supplies has arrived in the Gaza Strip nearly a month after it embarked from the UK.

Members of the much-delayed Viva Palestina convoy began passing through Egypt's Rafah border crossing into Gaza on Wednesday, waving Palestinian flags and raising their hands in peace signs.

Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Gaza, said the first wave of vehicles was greeted by Gaza's Hamas leaders as well as members of a Turkish humanitarian organisation that aided in bringing the convoy to the strip.

"We had been expecting the arrival of the convoy amid much fanfare but it almost caught the Palestinians here by surprise," he said.

"The doors suddenly flung open and within minutes the first batch of about 12 or so vehicles made their way from the Egyptian side to the Palestinians."

More than 100 vehicles followed the first batch into Gaza shortly afterward, he said.

Violent clashes

Participants of the convoy are expected to spend the next 48 hours distributing the aid supplies.

Viva Palestina's arrival in Gaza followed violent clashes between Egyptian security forces, Palestinians and members of the convoy.

In depth

Hours before the convoy's arrival, an Egyptian soldier was shot dead during a clash with Palestinian protesters who had gathered along the border to protest a delay in the convoy's arrival.

Egyptian forces opened fire to disperse the stone-throwing protesters, and at least 35 Palestinians were wounded in the ensuing clash, according to Hamas officials.

Late on Tuesday, more than 50 people were wounded during a clash between Egyptian authorities and international members of the convoy.

The protests were sparked by an Egyptian decision to allow 139 vehicles to enter Gaza through the Rafah crossing, but requiring a remaining 59 vehicles to pass via Israel.

Bitter disputes

The convoy, led by George Galloway, a British MP, had already been delayed by more than a week, after he and a delegation of Turkish MPs failed to persuade the Egyptians to change their mind.

The convoy of nearly 200 vehicles arrived in Egypt's port city of al-Arish on Monday after a dispute with Cairo on the route.

But the arrival came after a bitter dispute between its organisers and the government, which banned the convoy from entering Egypt's Sinai from Jordan by ferry, forcing it to drive north to the Syrian port of Lattakia.

Al Jazeera's Amr El Kahky, who has been travelling with the convoy, said Viva Palestina's organisers had hoped to reach Gaza by December 27.

"We're talking about an almost 10 day delay. The convoy members are happy to have reached their destination," he said.

"Many of them have taken time off from their jobs in Europe and other areas and that's why they're happy to deliver the aid and go back home to resume their normal lives. So their jubilation is justified."

Gaza blockade

Israel and Egypt have severely restricted travel to and from the Gaza Strip since Hamas seized power there in June 2007, after winning Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.

The blockade currently allows only very basic supplies into Gaza.

The siege has severely restricted essential supplies and placed Gazans in a dire situation, made worse by Israel's military assault last winter that reduced much of the territory to ruins.

Galloway, the convoy organiser, said the mission represents only "a drop in the ocean" as long as the siege on Gaza continues.

"No number of convoys is going to solve the problems here," he told Al Jazeera.

"So we're not only trying to bring in aid, we're trying to show the world there is a siege.

"If there is anyone who doubted there is a siege on Gaza, they certainly aren't doubting it now after the events of the last 31 days with this convoy."

Posted January 5, 2010 By Nadia Hijab

When Does It Become Genocide?

During a visit to Ramallah a year ago while the Israeli bombardment of Gaza was underway, I shared my fears with a close Palestinian friend. "It may sound insane, but I think the Israelis' real objective is to see them all dead."

My friend told me not to be silly, the assault was horrific, but it was not mass killing. I said that wasn't the issue: This was a population already very vulnerable to disease, ill-health, and malnutrition after years of siege, with its infrastructure rotted, its water and food contaminated. Israel's war would surely push the people over the brink, especially if the siege was maintained -- as it has been.

In other words, Israel would not directly kill tens of thousands of Palestinians, but it would create the conditions for tens of thousands to die. Any epidemic could finish the job. My friend fell silent at these words, but still shook his head in disbelief.

Two things have changed since last year: More people have started to apply the term "genocide" to what Israel is doing to Gaza. And not only is Israel being directly accused but also, increasingly, Egypt.

Is it genocide? "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" -- a clear, concise document adopted by the United Nations in December 1948 -- states that genocide is any of five acts committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

Three acts appear to apply to the situation in Gaza: "(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

Legal scholars disagree about how to interpret the Convention's articles and it has proven difficult, over the years, to define crimes as genocide, let alone to prevent or end them. In line with the Bosnia precedent -- the only authoritative legal treatment of genocide to date -- it would be necessary to establish deliberate intent for an accusation of genocide against Israel to stand up in court.

Israel's leadership has not, of course, issued a declaration of intent. However, many leading Israeli officials can be said to have done so. For example:
> Putting the Palestinians of Gaza "on a diet" -- Dov Weisglass, chief aide to Ariel Sharon, in 2006.
> Exposing them to "a bigger shoah (holocaust)" -- Matan Vilnai, former deputy defense minister, in 2008.
> Issuing religious edicts exhorting soldiers to show no mercy -- the Israeli army rabbinate during the actual conflict.

Such declarations echo at least three of the "8 stages of genocide" identified by Genocide Watch president Gregory Stanton in the 1990s after the Rwanda genocide: Classification, dehumanization, and polarization.

Then there is the deliberate destruction or barring of means of sustenance as Israel has done on land and at sea. Already, the Goldstone Report has said that depriving the Gaza Palestinians of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, freedom of movement, and access to a court of law, could amount to persecution.

Since the December-January assault, there have been many authoritative reports by human rights and environmental organizations on the impact of the war and the ongoing siege on the people, soil, air, and water, including the increase in cancers, deformed births, and preventable deaths. The death toll in Gaza from swine flu reached nine in mid-December and 13 a week later -- an epidemic in waiting.

The eighth stage of genocide Stanton identifies is denial by perpetrators "that they committed any crimes." Ironically, Stanton headed the International Association of Genocide Scholars during the conflict, which shut down discussion of Israel's actions despite protests by, among others, genocide scholar and author Adam Jones. Jones and 15 other scholars had posted a declaration stating that Israeli policies were "too alarmingly close" to genocide to ignore and calling for an end to the silence.

Alarmingly close is right. Here is how Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish legal scholar who pushed for the genocide convention, defined it in 1943: "genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation.... It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

It is hard to conceive of a better description of what is going on in Gaza.

All UN member states have the duty to prevent and stop acts of genocide. What is needed is a country brave enough to take the lead, before it is too late.

Posted January 4, 2010 By Larry Derfner

Rattling the Cage: A taboo question for Israelis

There's a question we Israelis won't ask ourselves about the Palestinians, especially not about Gaza. The question is taboo. Not only won't anyone ask it out loud, but very, very few people will dare ask it in the privacy of their own minds.

However, I think it's time we start asking it, privately and in public. If we don't, I think there's going to be Operation Cast Lead II, then Operation Cast Lead III, and each one is going to be worse than the last, and the consequences for Palestinians and Israelis are going to be unimaginable.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: If anybody treated us like we're treating the people in Gaza, what would we do?

We don't want to go there, do we? And because we don't, we make it our business not to see, hear or think about how, indeed, we are treating the people in Gaza.

All these shocked dignitaries, all these reports, these details, these numbers - thousands of destroyed this and tens of thousands of destroyed that. Rubble, sewage, malnutrition, crying babies, humanitarian crises - who can keep up? Who cares? They did it to themselves. Where to for lunch?

IT'S NOT that we can't imagine life in Gaza. It's that we are determined not to try to imagine. If we did, we might not stop there. Next we might try to imagine what it would be like if our country were in the condition in which we left Gaza. And sooner or later we might try to imagine what we would do if we were living over here like they're living over there.

Or not even what we would do, just what we would think - about the people, about the country, that did that to us and that wouldn't even allow us to begin to recover after the war was over. That blockaded our borders and allowed in only enough supplies to keep us at subsistence level, to prevent starvation and mass epidemics.

What would we think, what would we do, if somebody, some country, did that to us?

A lot of people here, I'm sure, would reply angrily: So why won't the Gazans try making peace?

But is that how we would react? Is that what Israelis would do if a foreign army did to this country what the IDF did to that one a year ago? If another country sent F-16s, Apache helicopters, white phosphorous, drones, tanks and battalions into Israel, if any nation bombed and killed over here like we bombed and killed in Gaza, then rubbed our noses in it afterward, would we want to make peace with them?

Forget we; does anyone know a single Israeli who would?

I'M SURE a lot of people would argue: What about Sderot? Didn't the terrorists in Gaza bomb and kill in Sderot? Let's the turn the question around: What would the Gazans have done if another country did to them what they did to the people in Sderot?

Fair enough. Yes, they would have hit back, too. They're not pacifists, either, to say the least. In fact, their elected leaders are fanatical, murderous Jew-haters sworn to Israel's destruction. That's extremely important to remember, and we do. But what we don't want to remember, what we make 100 percent sure to forget, is that we do all sorts of hateful things to Gaza that they don't do to us, and that this is the way it's been since 1967.

Aside from choking the flow of goods to Gaza by land, we blockade their entire coast. We don't allow ships to sail into Gaza or out. Does anyone stop ships from coming and going at the ports of Eilat, Ashdod or Haifa? What would Israel do if anyone tried? (Think of what Israel did two weeks after Egypt blockaded the port of Eilat in May 1967.)

We also blockade Gaza's airspace, preventing planes from flying in or out. Does anybody stop planes from flying in and out of Israel? Would we stand for it if someone did?

For 37 years, between 1967 and 2005, our soldiers and settlers were the overlords of the Gaza Strip. If foreign soldiers and settlers tried to come in and take over Israel, what would we do?

And regarding the years of rocket attacks on the people in Sderot, I've never been through such an ordeal, but I imagine it's hell. However, I've also never been through the ordeal that people in Gaza have gone through, and are still going through, yet I know - as everyone in the world knows, except Israelis - that life in Gaza is incomparably worse than life in Sderot ever was.

DURING THE 2008 US presidential campaign, Barack Obama visited Sderot, saying, "If missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that."

Absolutely right. I wonder, though, what sort of empathetic reaction he might have had if he'd also visited the Jabalya refugee camp that summer. I wonder how he'd react if he visited Jabalya now.

And how would we react? If we Israelis could go to Gaza and see in person what we've done to that place and its people, would we be capable of empathy? If we thought of our children living in a country that was just like postwar Gaza, would we allow ourselves to think what we might do?

We can't go to Gaza, but we have to start using our imagination. We have to dare to put ourselves in those people's place. And we have to stop doing to them what we would never allow anyone to do to us. Otherwise, we Israelis have no conscience, and little by little we become capable of anything.

Posted January 3, 2010 By DAN IZENBERG

A real threat of ICC prosecution

Despite an optimistic prognosis by the military advocate-general on the future of Israel's international position following the Goldstone Report, speakers at an Israel Bar forum on Thursday warned of severe measures that might be taken against Israel and its military and political leaders.

Daniel Reisner, former head of the IDF's international section, said that in the past he had not been concerned that the International Criminal Court (ICC) would accept a Palestinian complaint against Israel because the Palestinians did not represent a state. However, during the past year ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has not ruled out the possibility of investigating a Palestinian Authority complaint against Israel after reversing his own previous opinion that he was not authorized to do so.

"Suddenly, the ICC has turned into a potential threat," warned Reisner, who was one of the architects of Israel's policy not to have the military police investigate IDF soldiers suspected of involvement in the deaths of Palestinian civilians, a policy that has been in force since the beginning of the intifada in 2000. "If that happens, it will be a turning point in Israel's position in the world."

Earlier, Major-General Avihai Mandelblitt, the military advocate-general, told the audience of lawyers that he did not see a threat from the United Nations, even though the General Assembly is due in five weeks to hear a report on the progress Israel has made in investigating the war crime allegations included in the Goldstone Report.

Mandelblitt said that the army has investigated all of these incidents and will publish its findings soon. However, the Goldstone Committee has insisted that the investigations must not be carried out by the army.

Nevertheless, Mandelblitt said he believed that as Israel published its findings, pressure from the UN would decline.

"I think the danger will recede as the situation clarifies itself - and it will," he said.

Although Mandelblitt said he regarded the principle of universal jurisdiction - where Israelis can be tried in foreign courts for alleged war crimes - as more of a threat, he said this danger was also diminishing. He cited the decision of the Spanish court of appeals to close the case of a criminal complaint against Israeli officers involved in the targeted assassination of Izzedin El-Kassem leader Saleh Shehadeh in Gaza on the grounds that the matter had been dealt with in the Israeli courts.

But attorney Michael Sfard, a left-wing lawyer who has represented Palestinians in the Supreme Court, said Mandelblitt should not be so sanguine. After the initial complaint against the IDF officers had been lodged in Spain, Israel appointed a committee to investigate the assassination, in which at least 13 civilians were also killed and dozens wounded. Since then, Spain rejected the complaint and the Israeli-government appointed committee dissolved without reaching conclusions, after its chairman, attorney Zvi Inbar, died.

Now, said Sfard, there is an appeal in Spain against the decision to close the case and it is no longer certain that it will not be revived. "The danger still exists," he warned.

In his opening remarks, Mandelblitt charged that the true purpose of the Goldstone Report was not to attack Israel, "but against all countries fighting terrorism."

"The report is not aimed at Israel," he said. "It is aimed at the West, at any country fighting terrorism. It is meant to tie their hands and cause them to lose the wars."

This, he continued, was the main reason he opposed Goldstone's demand to conduct an independent investigation of the charges. He said that by refusing to comply, Israel was defending the West's war against terrorism.

Sfard said that what was new in the report was not the charge that Israel had committed war crimes. Such charges had been made in the past. What was new, he maintained, was that the report "asserts categorically that the IDF investigations are not investigations because they do not meet any of the standards demanded of investigations regarding war crimes allegations."

Sfard said he agreed that the field investigations conducted by officers without legal training - which do not question civilian witnesses and are meant primarily to study how operational mistakes were made - cannot be considered genuine investigations. He added, however, that he had confidence in criminal investigations carried out by the military police.

However, the military police could only investigate individual incidents, not policy decisions made by the high command, such as the use of phosphorous, the decision to bomb densely populated civilian areas, questions of proportionality and other matters involving international law.

Posted December 31, 2009 by PHILIP WEISS

Cairo meets the movement, with tears and chaos and exaltation

Today the Gaza Freedom March fragmented slightly when in the face of stern opposition from their fellows about 80 people headed off to Gaza on buses, the rest staying in Cairo.

But wait, weren't you trying to go to Gaza? Yes, but it has been quite a drama. How to state this clearly?

Over the last week, as the international marchers arrived in Egypt, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry made it very clear that it did not want them going into Gaza, and it would arrest them short of that goal. But these 1400 are not tourists or milquetoasts, they are activists; and they were not going to be stopped by any old Ministry, even the ministry of a police state. Many set out by bus and taxi to the Sinai desert, while the 300 members of the French group camped out in front of the French Embassy across from the Cairo Zoo, demanding to go even as they were ringed by riot police.

After hunger strikes and demos and international press, and supposedly too the intervention of the president's clement wife Suzanne Mubarak, the Egyptians relented yesterday and said, Well 100 of you can go in, two busfuls. I heard about this first as a rumor last night at an Egyptian-led rally at the Journalists Syndicate building in opposition to Bibi Netanyahu's visit to Hosni Mubarak (Down Down Hosni Mubarak!), and already many of us were wondering, who would get the call? Code Pink, the antiwar group that has led the organizing, claimed victory and sent out a bulletin to delegations to select the two or three members who could go. Some delegations duly nominated representatives. But the decision set off an angry and wrenching round of all-night meetings, some of them in hotel stairwells, with many coming out against the deal. Even the Gaza Freedom March steering committee voted against the slice of bread that was being offered, instead of the whole loaf.

Then, I gather, the Egyptians made the deal even more problematic by issuing a statement saying that the 100 peaceful people were being allowed to go to Gaza, implying that the rest of us were hooligans.

Still Code Pink went forward with its plan, and at 6:30 this morning the lucky few gathered on a sidewalk on Ramses Street near the bus station. Over the next 4 hours I witnessed agony and torment, and said a secret blessing that I had not tried to get on the buses last night. A crowd of those opposed to the 100 stood outside barricades set up around the buses and shouted "All or none!" and "Get off the Bus!" It turned out that they had many confederates among the 100 who boarded the buses? confederates who at a signal marched off the buses, some giving heroic speeches.

The people staying on the buses leaned out the doors to say that the Gazans wanted them to come so as to to join their march to the Israeli border on the 31st. But they wavered. Indeed, you saw some of the most resolute activists on the planet?Bernardine Dohrn, the law professor and former member of the Weather Underground; Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada; and Donna Mulhearn, an Australian woman who was a human shield during the beginning of he Iraq war, board the bus and get it off it, and then board it again and get off it, and on and on.

Abunimah, who had been roughed up by security at the American Embassy yesterday, told me it was the hardest decision he'd ever had to make. It was an individual decision, he had no clarity on it, and no one could tell you what to do, and he respected the decisions of all parties. Mulhearn said that going to Iraq in 2003 had been easy compared to this; for that choice was in the face of physical danger and she would take that any day, this was in the face of moral doubt. As for the Egyptian statement that only hooligans were staying behind in Cairo, she said it was a lie, she would say so on her blog, and the people who were against anyone going on that basis were giving the Egyptian security state power. Dohrn said that the principle of "All or none" was a miserable one for activist politics. You always took what you could get and kept fighting for more. A European man in a red keffiyeh screamed at her that she was serving the fascisti. Her partner Bill Ayers gently confronted him and asked him why he was so out of control. Between getting on and off the bus, Dohrn, who wore a flower in her hair, said that she didn't like the absolutist certainty of the people on the other side of the police barricades, and having been in the Weather Underground, she knew something about absolutist feeling.

In the end Dohrn and Abunimah got off the bus. Mulhearn stayed on, I heard. A big reason for them was a call that Abunimah had with leaders of civil society in Gaza, who said, if this is going to hurt the movement, don't come. We will march without you. (The message, from Haidar Eid and Omar Barghouti, says, "After a lot of hesitation and deliberation, we are writing to call on you to reject the ?deal' reached with the Egyptian authorities. This deal is bad for us and, we deeply feel, terrible for the solidarity movement.") Abunimah abided by that call (and later told me he had no regrets, he was clear now). I saw other friends sitting on the sidewalk crying, as they tried to figure out what to do.

No one had slept. Many were smoking (when in Rome?).

The argument for the majority went like this: We have come a long way with the support of an international community. We have come to march in Gaza to lift the siege against the people there. Many of us are walking our talk, by confronting the Egyptian power at the French Embassy. Now we are giving into the siege by accepting a piecemeal offering, when the core principle here is inarguable: the people of Gaza must have freedom of movement, freedom to come and go. We will show our power and solidarity not by acceding to the terms of a police state that is working with the U.S. and Israel, but by demanding our rights as a bloc here in Cairo. And by doing so, we will dramatize the Palestinian condition and serve the most important element of the struggle: activating an international movement.

I could see the other side, too. There is nothing like an actual trip to Gaza to politicize people, and having had that experience myself, I had urged some young people to have it. But I can see that I am a lousy movement person, and that the overall sense of the movement was clear and emphatic. We will work from Cairo to gain publicity for Palestinian oppression. Big deal we're not in Gaza, it's like being in Birmingham when the big march is going down in Selma.

By the way, the South African contingent, many of them veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle, were no-doubters on the question: we stay in Cairo.

I can see both sides, but it was a convulsive experience. People turned on one another, the Code Pink leadership was accused of being all hat and no saddle. Young people I saw last night walking around biting their lips in the hope that they might be chosen to get a seat on the bus were today enraged and vituperative at the idea that anyone was getting on the bus?a transformation out of As You Like It.

Yet I remind readers that good things are arising from this experience. The Americans, who are so conditioned to living with the Israel lobby, as an abused wife to her battering husband, are being exposed to a more adamant politics?we are having a rendezvous with the Freedom Riders. For another thing, our direct actions and demonstrations seem to be awaking Egypt, a little, and getting a lot of publicity. Helen Schiff told me that the front page of an official government newspaper today said, "Mubarak to Netanyahu: Lift the siege and end the suffering of the Palestinian people." We gave him that line! she said. A longtime civil rights activist, Helen told me it's "fabulous" what happened, we are achieving more in Cairo than we would if we had gotten into Gaza.

So there's a tumultuous and ascendant feeling here tonight, in the little hotels that we have to meet in to make our plans. I can feel the spirit of the Freedom Riders and of the abolitionists, who fought the limits on freedom of movement of black people for so long in my country. As for the divisions, and bitterness, I think they will go away. A European friend advised me tonight that those who take the Palestinian side will find that they share somewhat in the Palestinian experience. They will experience isolation, division, bitterness, failure, contempt, manipulation. Surely not on the scale of the Palestinians; still, they will experience some of those things, and they will grow from them.

Having weathered the storm, tomorrow this group has more action plans. I have to be quiet about them now, because I crunched into another stairwell tonight for a planning session. Still, it should be dramatic. The international street has come to the Arab street, and everyone is learning.

Posted December 27, 2009 By PCHR

6 Palestinians Killed by Israeli occupation forces

On Saturday morning, 26 December 2009, Israeli occupation forces killed 6 Palestinians in two separate attacks in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the northern Gaza Strip, Israeli occupation forces employed excessive lethal force and killed 3 Palestinians, and Israeli undercover units extra-judicially executed 3 members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (the armed wing of Fatah movement) in Nablus. The three victims in Nablus had been granted amnesty, in coordination with the Palestinian National Authority, and had been allowed to freely move and live normally. Israeli occupation forces claimed that undercover unit fired at the three victims "as they refused to surrender." However, investigations conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) conclude that the three victims were executed in cold blood.

PCHR strongly condemns these latest crimes, and reiterates the call for the international community to prosecute Israeli political and military officials suspected of committing such crimes. PCHR note that these latest crimes occurred on the eve of the first anniversary of Israel's offensive on the Gaza Strip. To date, none of those suspected of committing war crimes during the offensive have been prosecuted; this impunity serves to encourage further violations of international law. It is Palestinian civilians who suffer the consequences.

In the Gaza Strip, at approximately 00:30 on Saturday, 26 December 2009, Israeli troops stationed on observation towards along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel to the north of Beit Hanoun town in the northern Gaza Strip opened fire at a number of Palestinians who got close to the border. The Israeli gunfire lasted for approximately 20 minutes, after which an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at the Palestinians. As a result, 3 Palestinians were killed:

1. Basheer Suleiman Mousa Abu Duhail, 20;

2. Mahmoud Jom'a Ibrahim al-Sharat'ha, 19; and

3. Hani Salem Ibrahim Abu Ghazal, 20.

The victims are all from al-Nasser village (the Bedouin Village) to the north of Beit Lahia. They were unarmed and were apparently attempting to infiltrate into Israel to search for jobs. A fourth Palestinian survived the attack.

In the West Bank, at approximately 02:00 on Saturday, 26 December 2009, Israeli occupation forces, including undercover units, moved into Nablus. They positioned themselves near al-Nasser Mosque in the old town, where they surrounded and opened fire at a house belonging to the family of Ra'ed 'Abdul Jabbar Mohammed al-Sarkaji, 40. Using megaphones, they ordered al-Sarkaji out of the house. As soon as he opened the door, Israeli troops opened fired at him. He was hit by a gunshot to the forehead and fell down. Soon after, Israeli occupation forces fired at him from a very close range. He was killed by 6 gunshots to the head, the chest, the left forearm, the pelvis and the left leg. His wife, 32-year-old Tahani Farouq Ja'ara, was wounded by shrapnel to the leg.

At the same time, other Israeli units besieged a house belonging to the family of Ghassan Fat'hi Abu Sharekh, 38, near Qaderi fish market in the old town. Through megaphones they ordered residents of the house to get out. All the inhabitants left the building, Ghassan was the last to leave. Once he appeared, Israeli occupation forces opened fire at him. He was killed by 7 gunshots to the neck, the chest, the abdomen, the back and the left leg.

At approximately 02:30, Israeli occupation forces besieged Sobeh 5-storey apartment building in Kshaika Street in Ras al-'Ein neighborhood in the southeast of Nablus. They called through megaphones on 'Anan Suleiman Mustafa Sobeh, 36, who lives on the second floor to get out and surrender to them. They opened fire at the building. At approximately 08:00, Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the area, and residents of the area found 'Anan's body on the roof of a car washing yard near the building. He was hit by several gunshots to the chest, the right shoulder, the neck and the lower jaw.

Posted December 23, 2009 By Nadia Hijab

Cracking Down on Peace

I remember the day I first met Jamal Juma. He was speaking at a United Nations conference in 2003 about the damage being done by Israel's Wall. The audience was shocked: Many had heard that Israel had started carving a Wall in the West Bank in 2002, but they had no idea it could already be seen from outer space.

Yet this articulate, handsome Palestinian used facts and visual evidence to show how the Wall was expropriating yet more Palestinian land and separating Palestinian communities from each other.

One picture Jamal showed us still breaks my heart: A middle-aged Palestinian farmer with a tear trickling down his cheek. The olive grove he had inherited from his father had just been bulldozed to make way for the Wall. He had not only lost his livelihood; he had also been unable to protect his family's trust, the symbol of everything that had gone into making them Palestinian.

Now Jamal is in jail. Israel's occupation army detained him on December 16. After interrogating him, they brought him back home, handcuffed, and searched his house while his wife and three children watched. Then they took him off to prison.

Jamal has always combined strategic thinking with practical non-violent action to defend Palestinian rights. He founded the Stop the Wall Campaign, which tirelessly fought the Wall's encroachment alongside village-based movements like Bil'in and Ni'ilin. The Campaign has mobilized activists for justice within Palestine and across the world.

Jamal is the third anti-Wall activist to be arrested in the last few months. Their arrest is an Israeli acknowledgement of their success, at great personal cost.

Civil resistance has spread widely throughout the occupied territories, in spite of Israel's attempts to crush it. On November 9, the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, protestors managed for the first time to topple a few of the Wall's massive concrete panels. The movement has also imposed itself on the Palestinian Authority, which recently held a conference bringing together all the village civil resistance committees.

Moreover, the Stop the Wall Campaign made a strategic decision to link to the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The first Stop the Wall activist to be arrested was Mohammad Othman on his return from Norway, where his advocacy efforts contributed significantly to the Norwegian Pension Fund decision to divest from the Israeli military giant Elbit Systems.

Omar Barghouti, a founder of the academic boycott movement, says that Israeli analysis of the impact of BDS has changed after "academic and commercial organizations started feeling the heat and demanding action."

He sees Israel's latest arrests as a test. "Either we meet this challenge and the world supports our right to civil resistance, or they will intensify their repression of all human rights defenders. If they can get away with arresting civil society leaders that are clearly committed to non-violence, then everyone's at risk."

The world appears to be responding. Mohammad Othman's arrest sparked a flurry of protests by European officials and diplomats, including a letter from a British minister demanding that Othman be given the right to due process or released.

In the United States, Jewish Voice for Peace took up Othman's case. Its members sent some 10,000 letters to Barack Obama asking him to live up to his Cairo speech, which called on Palestinians to use non-violence.

JVP had already been supporting the Shministim, the young Israeli Jewish conscripts refusing to serve in the army of occupation. They took up Othman's case because "We wanted to show the Palestinian side," JVP campaigns director Sydney Levy explained. Of course it's much harder -- U.S. audiences assume that if a Palestinian is arrested they must have done something wrong. With Mohammad, you have a young man with a friendly smile, a Palestinian partner for peace committed to non-violence."

Israel has one prisoner in Palestinian hands, and everyone knows his name. Few know the names of between 9,000 and 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

Until now. Along with dozens of JVP activists, Levy called Hillary Clinton's office. He had just started speaking when the State Department official sighed and said, "Is this about Mohammad Othman?"

And now Jamal is imprisoned too. I once asked Jamal about the dangers of his work but he brushed the question aside: "People are being killed like flies. I'm no better than the next person."

Israel still believes it can act with impunity. It will only stop if there is a cost to its human rights violations. Appeals to the Israeli authorities to respect due process are not enough, as Omar Barghouti put it in a call to redouble efforts for BDS. Israel will only change if it "gets the message that its arrest of civil resistance leaders will only intensify the already massive BDS campaigns against it."

Posted December 23, 2009 By NEVE GORDON

Israel Has Categorized All Forms of Resistance as Insurgency

"Why," I have often been asked, "haven't the Palestinians established a peace movement like the Israeli Peace Now?"

The question itself is problematic, being based on many erroneous assumptions, such as the notion that there is symmetry between the two sides and that Peace Now has been a politically effective movement. Most important, though, is the false supposition that Palestinians have indeed failed to create a pro-peace popular movement.

In September 1967 - three months after the decisive war in which the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem were occupied - Palestinian leaders decided to launch a campaign against the introduction of new Israeli textbooks in Palestinian schools. They did not initiate terrorist attacks, as the prevailing narratives about Palestinian opposition would have one believe, but rather the Palestinian dissidents adopted Mahatma Gandhi-style methods and declared a general school strike: teachers did not show up for work, children took to the streets to protest against the occupation and many shopkeepers closed shop.

Israel's response to that first strike was immediate and severe: it issued military orders categorising all forms of resistance as insurgency ? including protests and political meetings, raising flags or other national symbols, publishing or distributing articles or pictures with political connotations, and even singing or listening to nationalist songs.

Moreover, it quickly deployed security forces to suppress opposition, launching a punitive campaign in Nablus, where the strike's leaders resided. As Major General Shlomo Gazit, the co-ordinator of activities in the occupied territories at the time, points out in his book The Carrot and the Stick, the message Israel wanted to convey was clear: any act of resistance would result in a disproportionate response, which would make the population suffer to such a degree that resistance would appear pointless.

After a few weeks of nightly curfews, cutting off telephone lines, detaining leaders, and increasing the level of harassment, Israel managed to break the strike.

While much water has passed under the bridge since that first attempt to resist using "civil disobedience" tactics, over the past five decades Palestinians have continuously deployed nonviolent forms of opposition to challenge the occupation. Israel, on the other hand, has, used violent measures to undermine all such efforts.

It is often forgotten that even the second intifada, which turned out to be extremely violent, began as a popular nonviolent uprising. Haaretz journalist Akiva Eldar revealed several years later that the top Israeli security echelons had decided to "fan the flames" during the uprising's first weeks. He cites Amos Malka, the military general in charge of intelligence at the time, saying that during the second intifada's first month, when it was still mostly characterised by nonviolent popular protests, the military fired 1.3m bullets in the West Bank and Gaza. The idea was to intensify the levels of violence, thinking that this would lead to a swift and decisive military victory and the successful suppression of the rebellion. And indeed the uprising and its suppression turned out to be extremely violent.

But over the past five years, Palestinians from scores of villages and towns such as Bil'in and Jayyous have developed new forms of pro-peace resistance that have attracted the attention of the international community. Even Palestinian Authority prime minister Salam Fayyad recently called on his constituents to adopt similar strategies. Israel, in turn, decided to find a way to end the protests once and for all and has begun a well-orchestrated campaign that targets the local leaders of such resistance.

One such leader is Abdallah Abu Rahmah, a high school teacher and the co-ordinator of Bil'in's Popular Committee Against the Wall, is one of many Palestinians who was on the military's wanted list. At 2am on 10 December (international Human Rights Day), nine military vehicles surrounded his home. Israeli soldiers broke the door down, and after allowing him to say goodbye to his wife Majida and three young children, blindfolded him and took him into custody. He is being charged with throwing stones, the possession of arms (namely gas canisters in the Bil'in museum) and inciting fellow Palestinians, which, translated, means organising demonstrations against the occupation.

The day before Abu Ramah was arrested, the Israeli military carried out a co-ordinated operation in the Nablus region, raiding houses of targeted grassroots activists who have been fighting against human rights abuses. Wa'el al-Faqeeh Abu as-Sabe, 45, is one of the nine people arrested. He was taken from his home at 1am and, like Abu Ramah, is being charged with incitement. Mayasar Itiany, who is known for her work with the Nablus Women's Union and is a campaigner for prisoners' rights was also taken into custody as was Mussa Salama, who is active in the Labour Committee of Medical Relief for Workers. Even Jamal Juma, the director of an NGO called Stop the Wall, is now behind bars.

Targeted night arrests of community leaders have become common practice across the West Bank, most notably in the village of Bil'in where, since June, 31 residents have been arrested for their involvement in the demonstrations against the wall. Among these is Adeeb Abu Rahmah, a prominent activist who has been held in detention for almost five months and is under threat of being imprisoned for up to 14 months.

Clearly, the strategy is to arrest all of the leaders and charge them with incitement, thus setting an extremely high "price tag" for organising protests against the subjugation of the Palestinian people. The objective is to put an end to the pro-peace popular resistance in the villages and to crush, once and for all, the Palestinian peace movement.

Thus, my answer to those who ask about a Palestinian "Peace Now" is that a peaceful grassroots movement has always existed. At Abdallah Abu Rahmah's trial next Tuesday one will be able to witness some of the legal methods.

Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel?s Occupation (University of California Press, 2008). County's Randall prioritizes keeping officers safe, he also focuses on using other means to do so. "There are a lot of times where using a Taser is justified, but if you don't have to use force at all, we're encouraging officers to do that," he said. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

Posted December 23, 2009 By PressTV

Israel threatens another large-scale Gaza war

Israel has threatened another massive war against the Gaza Strip as the impoverished enclave continues to suffer in the aftermath of the devastating January offensive.

Israeli planes have been dropping thousands of leaflets across Gaza, warning Palestinians against cooperating with the resistance fighters based in the coastal sliver.

The leaflets also threaten Gazans with a new attack just ahead of the first anniversary of Israel's 22-day onslaught against the Palestinian territory.

On December 2008, Tel Aviv launched an all-out military action against Gaza, killing 1,400 people, including a large number of women and children, killed and leaving thousands more injured.

The threats come despite the Israeli army's failure in its January operation to reach its strategic and military objectives ? above all its pledged overthrow of Israel's long-time arch foe, Hamas.

In July, the activist group Breaking the Silence released print and video testimony from some 30 soldiers who said they entered Gaza with firing guns upon a "permissive" guideline by commanders, urging to shoot first and worry later about distinguishing civilians from combatants.

The 112-page testimony also accused Israeli troops of using Palestinian civilians as human shields and charged Israel with dropping forbidden white phosphorus bombs indiscriminately into Gaza streets on the top of aerial bombardment and heavy artillery fire.

In April, former South African UN prosecutor Richard Goldstone led an independent fact-finding mission commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations during the Gaza war.

The committee's 575-page report mostly highlighted Israeli atrocities against the people in the beleaguered Gaza Strip and documented deliberate targeting of centers, such as schools and mosques, known to be holding civilians.

The document also filed complaints that the Israeli soldiers killed unarmed people on the run, saying some of the victims were even waving white flags.

In October, the damning report was put up for a vote in the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council and endorsed by an overwhelming majority of 114 countries while 18 opposed and 44 abstained.

The three-week Israeli land, sea and air offensive in the Gaza Strip also devastated a large part of the infrastructure in the impoverished coastal enclave, which remains under Tel Aviv's blockade despite international opposition.

Posted December 23, 2009 By Amira Hass

Danger: Popular struggle

There is an internal document that has not been leaked, or perhaps has not even been written, but all the forces are acting according to its inspiration: the Shin Bet, Israel Defense Forces, Border Police, police, and civil and military judges. They have found the true enemy who refuses to whither away: The popular struggle against the occupation.

Over the past few months, the efforts to suppress the struggle have increased. The target: Palestinians and Jewish Israelis unwilling to give up their right to resist reign of demographic separation and Jewish supremacy. The means: Dispersing demonstrations with live ammunition, late-night army raids and mass arrests. Since the beginning of the year, 29 Palestinians have been wounded by IDF snipers while demonstrating against the separation fence. The snipers fired expanding bullets, despite an explicit 2001 order from the Military Adjutant General not to use such ammunition to break up demonstrations. After soldiers killed A'kel Srour in June, the shooting stopped, but then resumed in November.

Since June, dozens of demonstrators have been arrested in a series of nighttime military raids. Most are from Na'alin and Bil'in, whose land has been stolen by the fence, and some are from the Nablus area, which is stricken by settlers' abuse. Military judges have handed down short prison terms for incitement, throwing stones and endangering security. One union activist from Nablus was sent to administrative detention - imprisonment without a trial - while another activist is still being interrogated.

For a few weeks now, the police have refused to approve demonstrations against the settlement in Sheikh Jarrah, an abomination approved by the courts. On each of the last two Fridays, police arrested more than 20 protesters for 24 hours. Ten were held for half an hour in a cell filled with vomit and diarrhea in the Russian Compound in Jerusalem.

Israel also recently arrested two main activists from the Palestinian organization Stop the Wall, which is involved in research and international activity which calls for the boycott of Israel and companies profiting from the occupation. Mohammad Othman was arrested three months ago. After two months of interrogation did not yield any information, he was sent to administrative detention. The organization's coordinator, Jamal Juma'a, a 47-year-old resident of Jerusalem, was arrested on December 15. His detention was extended two days ago for another four days, and not the 14 requested by the prosecutor.

The purpose of the coordinated oppression: To wear down the activists and deter others from joining the popular struggle, which has proven its efficacy in other countries at other times. What is dangerous about a popular struggle is that it is impossible to label it as terror and then use that as an excuse to strengthen the regime of privileges, as Israel has done for the past 20 years.

The popular struggle, even if it is limited, shows that the Palestinian public is learning from its past mistakes and from the use of arms, and is offering alternatives that even senior officials in the Palestinian Authority have been forced to support - at least on the level of public statements.

Yuval Diskin and Amos Yadlin, the respective heads of the Shin Bet security service and Military Intelligence, already have exposed their fears. During an intelligence briefing to the cabinet they said: "The Palestinians want to continue and build a state from the bottom up ... and force an agreement on Israel from above ... The quiet security [situation] in the West Bank and the fact that the [Palestinian] Authority is acting against terror in an efficient manner has caused the international community to turn to Israel and demand progress."

The brutal repression of the first intifada, and the suppression of the first unarmed demonstrations of the second intifada with live fire, have proved to Palestinians that the Israelis do not listen. The repression left a vacuum that was filled by those who sanctified the use of arms.

Is that what the security establishment and its political superiors are trying to achieve today, too, in order to relieve us of the burden of a popular uprising?

Posted December 18, 2009 By Anshel Pfeffer

"Battle (for Legitimacy) has been Lost"

I met this week a senior IDF general who had been intimately involved with the planning and execution of last year's Operation Cast Lead. I asked whether he was planning a trip to London any time soon. "I never went on vacation in Britain, even before the arrest warrants began," he answered half jokingly. "My parents were in the [pre-state underground militia] Etzel - MI5 still has a file on my family."

While I was busy chatting with the general, the biggest story of the week was staring me in the face and I missed it. It could have been mine days earlier; but instead, Al Jazeera was first.

A week earlier I had learned that Tzipi Livni would be speaking at a Jewish National Fund event in London, and then heard she had apparently canceled. It should have been obvious to me that some pro-Palestinian lawyer was going to try and slap her with an arrest warrant, and I probably could have confirmed this in a couple of phone calls to London. But somehow I missed it, my usually keen journalistic instincts somehow dulled by a backlog of work and other pressing tasks.

Another story that got away, only to scream its obviousness at me once it came out elsewhere. Obvious to me, that is.

What I still find very surprising about the Livni-war crimes-arrest warrant story is the number of Israelis, normally very aware and in touch with life outside the bubble, who were themselves surprised by the entire episode. They seemed to feel that the former foreign minister being threatened with arrest somehow moved the whole issue up a notch.

Why? Because she is a woman? Because according to Israeli politics, Kadima lead by Livni is pegged as a centrist, even centrist-left party? Does that make her any different from all the ex-generals who have so far been threatened with international jurisdiction and surprise arrests for war crimes? For god's sake, she was part of the innermost forum that decided on the exact dates and stages of Cast Lead, along with Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert (and according to some reports, of the three, she was most in favor of extending and prolonging the operation).

Ultimately, Livni is responsible for what at least one highly regarded international jurist claims was a series of war crimes. Why did anyone expect her to get preferential treatment? Why does anyone think she should somehow be exempt from responsibility, while for the last four years just about every senior Israel Defense Forces officer - in active service or the reserves - has been forced to give up shopping on Oxford Street and Knightsbridge? And Britain is just one country - the same is true of visits to many other western European nations. Scandinavia, Spain and Belgium are all off-limits to the entire senior class of IDF officers as well as a select group of politicians.

There is a much wider issue at stake here, beyond former ministers' and generals' lecture engagements and holiday plans. Those who say that this is Israel's battle for international legitimacy are only telling us part of the story. The reality is that in many countries, that battle is over, that battle has been lost. In some of the most "enlightened" nations of the Western world, identifying Israel as a racist, warmongering apartheid state is no longer a radical view, shared mainly by anti-Semites and "Arab lovers" - it has become the mainstream opinion.

Three years ago, then prime minister Tony Blair promised his Israeli counterparts that the legislation allowing private citizens in Britain to obtain arrest warrants for foreigners suspected of carrying out war crimes would be amended. And he meant it. No one had to point out to Mr. Blair that with the wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, he, his colleagues and the officers of the British Army and their American allies could also find themselves in the dock. Blair's successor Gordon Brown has also made similar promises.

So why was this amendment never put into effect? Not because the Labour government could not find the necessary majority in parliament. And the leaders of the Conservative Party have also privately assured the Israeli embassy in London that it would support such a motion. No, the British government hesitated and prevaricated because they knew full well just how downright unpopular such a move would be. They would have been eviscerated by the local press, by every single human-rights movement, by the Archbishops, the professors and by the great majority of their own grassroots memberships.

For a weak and deeply unpopular government, this was too much to contemplate. In other words, while Israel may be able to comfort itself with a degree of sympathy from Britain's political leadership, it has lost the understanding of the rest of the country's opinion makers.

Some of you may be asking, So what? Britain's days as a superpower are long over. True, but in the arena of international media and public opinion, Britain still punches way above its natural weight. The maiden speech given by Catherine Ashton - who is from Britain and the European Union's new high representative for foreign affairs and security policy - in which she roundly criticized Israeli policies is just the latest striking example. The response from Israeli politicians, a proposal to boycott British products, already signed by a third of the Knesset, is risible. Just as the connection Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman made between global anti-Semitism and the arrest warrants in his speech on Wednesday is pointless, neither is another round of moaning about Israel's "hasbara failure" going to get us anywhere. The point at which a change in PR tactics might have remedied Israel's international situation has long passed.

No amount of explanation as to why there is no room for comparison will help any more. As far as much of the world is concerned, Israel today is the South Africa of yesteryear. And as it was with the end of apartheid, the only remedy here is relinquishing control of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem and establishing a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is accepting our status as a pariah state.

I happened to be in Britain both during the opening week of the Second Lebanon War and the first days of Operation Cast Lead, and naturally I followed the media coverage closely. My unscientific observation was that in the second case, Israel's official spokesmen were actually given wider opportunity to explain its position than they had been two and a half years earlier, and on the whole, while still generally critical, the tone in the media seemed to be less anti-Israel during the Gaza operation.

Belatedly, I realized this wasn't a greater acceptance of Israel's actions, it was simply acceptance by the British reporters and broadcasters that Israel, as far as they are concerned, is a rogue nation - perpetually engaged in bloodshed, certainly no better than its Hamas adversary. We can continue to huff and puff as much as we like, but for the rest of the world, an arrest warrant against an Israeli politician isn't a shocking news story, it is simply a fact of life.

Posted December 15, 2009 By Bar Ben Ari and Or Hirshauga

Police shoot U.S. student's laptop upon entry to Israel

Israel Border Police officers shot at an American student's laptop as she entered Israel via Taba, Egypt, two weeks ago.

Lily Sussman, 21, wrote on her blog that border police subjected her to two hours of questioning and searches prior to shooting her Apple Macbook three times.

"They had pressed every sock and scarf with a security device, ripped open soap and had me strip extra layers. They asked me tons of questions?where are you going?" Sussman wrote, describing the experience.

"Who do you know? Do you have a boyfriend? Is he Arab, Egyptian, Palestinian? Why do you live in Egypt? Why not Israel? What do you know about the 'conflict' here? What do you think? They quizzed me on Judaism, which I know nothing about," she continued.

Sussman said that she then heard an announcement on the loudspeaker. "It was something along the lines of, 'Do not to be alarmed by gunshots because the Israeli security needs to blow up suspicious passenger luggage,'" she wrote on her blog.

Moments later a man came to her and introduced himself as the manager on duty. "I'm sorry but we had to blow up your laptop," Sussman said he told her.

"The security officers did not ask about my laptop prior to shooting it," Sussman told Daily News Egypt. "They used the word 'blew up' when they told me they destroyed my laptop. I don't know why they shot it."

Sussman said the guards also looked through the photos saved on her camera, flipped through her journal and asked her about a map a friend had drawn for her that pointed out a main street, central bus station and the hostel where she was planning on stayig in Jerusalem.

She added that she had also been carrying an Arabic phrasebook, stamps from Syria, Qatar and the UAE and a Palestinians in Palestine guidebook.

The Israel Airports Authority said in response to the story: "A check that the lady's luggage underwent raised an indication that required security figures to act according to procedures. A police, who carried out the stated operation, was called to the scene. We suggest that the Israel Police be approached for any additional information."

Sussman managed to salvage the hard and guards gave her an address where she would be reimbursed for her mangled laptop, she told Daily news Egypt. "I'm going through the process of compensation," she said. "It supposedly will take about one month to receive the money."

Posted December 11, 2009 By Jeff Gates

Nuke Gaza

Israeli officials are right to worry. Gazans too. Yet Americans should worry even more.

Israel's "legitimacy" will not last. That issue also is now called into question in light of the consistency of Israeli behavior over the past six decades. The emerging issues are these: When and how will the recognition of Israel's nation-state status be withdrawn? How will Tel Aviv behave in the interim?

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman may have tipped his Masada hand when he reportedly told Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan that Israel may use nuclear weapons against Gaza. The threat to Israel is not the 1.5 million Gazans who reside in the world's largest open-air prison. The threat is the fast-growing global outrage at the abuse inflicted on Palestinians, commencing with the ethnic cleansing of 400-plus villages six decades ago.

Not since 1948 has this enclave of extremists mounted such a public relations offensive. Christian Zionist President Harry Truman trusted Jewish Zionist lobbyists when he solicited assurances that they would not become what they immediately became: a racist theocratic state with an expansionist agenda destined to create serial crises in the region.

The merciless global agenda pursued by Colonial Zionists is the single greatest threat to world peace, as confirmed yet again by Lieberman's warning. As the primary remaining ally of these Jewish nationalists, the risks to the U.S. increase with each passing day as Tel Aviv works behind the scenes to catalyze yet another conflict.

This entangled alliance was destined to provoke resentments that would eventually endanger their super power ally and foremost arms provider. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the mass murder of 9-11, conceded that the motivation for that attack was to focus "the American people . . . on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab Muslim people."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Truman 61 years ago that this militant enclave meant to establish Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East. Familiar with the duplicity for which Israel has since become infamous, the Pentagon chiefs warned, "All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders."

Nuclear-armed fanatics

With each passing year, Tel Aviv adds a new chapter to the agent provocateur handbook on How To Succeed as a Victim. Israel's strategic success traces directly to its capacity to radicalize and enrage -- as those residing in the Occupied Territories endure a third generation of deprivation, degradation and periodic starvation. Thus the in-depth planning that preceded Israel's brutal "defensive" assault on Gaza between Christmas 2008 and the inauguration of Barack Obama, who said nothing about the attack throughout its 28-day duration.

That silence continues even now after Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist, issued a report describing dozens of Israeli war crimes and evidence of crimes against humanity. In the lead-up to the report's release, a U.S. president gave Tel Aviv a rhetorical gift when, in a U.N. speech, the nation's first black president used the code phrase "Jewish state" as an implied endorsement of the apartheid policies of this racist enclave. Even Truman did not go that far. But then his administration was not as thoroughly staffed with Zionists and pro-Israelis.

In addition to killing some 1,400 Palestinians, one-third of them women and children, Israel destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza, including farmlands, factories and schools as well as its water supply and sanitation works. The facts in the Goldstone Report were further confirmed by "Breaking the Silence" -- the personal testimony by 30 members of the Israel Defense Forces who described a murderous policy meant to teach the people of Gaza a lesson for their support of Hamas, which came to power in 2006 elections that were universally appraised as free and fair.

As Israel's protector and apologist, the U.S. bears the brunt of the anger as Israeli extremism continues to enrage Muslims and radicalize the Islamic body politic. A systematic assassination campaign ensured that Tel Aviv had "no one to talk to" except known collaborators with the occupation authorities in Tel Aviv and their arms suppliers in Washington. Meanwhile, the steady expansion of Israeli settlements made a Palestinian state impossible -- unless indigenous Arabs are happy to reside in an archipelago of isolated ghettos ringed by Israeli checkpoints.

To suggest that the U.S. is culpable only states the obvious. Yet Israeli extremism continues unabated even as Tel Aviv insists that its neighbors accept it as a "Jewish state" before its borders are fixed and resolution of the occupied territories is known. After six decades of nonstop deceit, Arab states are understandably reluctant to further appease this "state." For Americans endangered by the behavior of Jewish fanatics, the lesson is uncomfortable but inescapable: we enabled this.

By our continued appeasement, Barack Obama is inviting another violent reaction to Israel's serial provocations. By failing to endorse the Goldstone Report, our commander-in-chief is putting U.S. forces at risk. By implying that Israel is above the law, he only emboldens Tel Aviv. By suggesting that Israeli conduct is consistent with the values of a "Jewish state," he endangers the broader Jewish community. That includes those moderate Jews who anticipated this extremist behavior when, in May 1948, Truman overruled the strategic objections of Secretary of State George C. Marshall and enabled this fanaticism by extending nation-state recognition.

Small in numbers but large in ambition, this extremist enclave had no choice but to wage war by way of deception. The most insidious deceit was targeted, from within, at its purported ally to induce the U.S. military to lead an invasion of Iraq for its Greater Israel strategy. Absent an Israeli strategy able to sustain serial crises, a long-deceived public will awaken to the common source of the fixed intelligence that led us into the last war -- and now seeks to induce the next.

As Americans awaken to how this duplicity proceeds in plain sight, they will see for themselves who and why. That knowledge is the threat that Tel Aviv most fears. As the facts become known, Israeli legitimacy will no longer be an issue. The only issue will be how best to disarm these extremists and how to hold accountable those lawmakers who enable this ongoing treason.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See criminalstate.com.

Posted December 10, 2009 By International Solidarity Movement

Bil'in leader Abdallah Abu Rahmah arrested during military night raid

Abdallah Abu Rahmah (right) with Ela Bhatt, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Fernando H Cardoso, Mary Robinson and Gro Brundtland of the Elders during their visit to Bil'in

As part of a recent escalation of political arrests in Bil'in, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, a school teacher and coordinator of the Bil'in Popular Committee was arrested by Israeli soldiers

At exactly 2 AM last night, seven Israeli military jeeps pulled over at Abdallah Abu Rahmah's residence in the city of Ramallah. Soldiers raided the house and arrested Abu Rahmah from his bed in the presence of his wife and children. Abu Rahmah is a high school teacher in the Latin Patriarchate school in Birzeit near Ramallah and is the coordinator of the Bil'in Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements. A previous raid targeting Abu Rahmah was executed with such exceptional violence on 15 September 2009, that a soldier was subsequently indicted for assault.

Abu Rahmah's arrest is part of an escalation in Israeli military's attempts to break the spirit of the people of Bil'in, their popular leadership, and the popular struggle as a whole - aimed at crushing demonstrations against the Wall. Recently, Adv. Gaby Lasky, who represents many of Bil'in's detainees, was informed by the military prosecution that the army intends to use legal measures as a means of ending the demonstrations.

Following Abu Rahmah's arrest, Adv. Lasky, stated that "My client's arrest is another blatant illustration of the Israeli authorities' application of legal procedures for the political persecution of Bil'in residents. The Bil'in demonstrators are being systemically targeted while it is the State that is in contempt of a High Court of Justice ruling; a ruling which affirmed that the protesters have justice on their side and instructed 2 years ago that the route of the Wall in the area be changed, which has not been implemented to date."

Since 23 June 2009, 31 residents of Bil'in have been detained by the military. The Army has pursued Popular Committee members in its arrest operation, but all three detained members were released for lack of evidence. In the case of another member, Mohammed Khatib, the court even found some of the presented evidence to be falsified.

In addition to committee members, a leading Bil'in activist, Adeeb Abu Rahmah, who has been detained for over five months, is not suspected of committing any violence, but was indicted with a blanket charge of "incitement", which was very liberally interpreted in this case to include the organizing of grassroots demonstrations.

Posted December 2, 2009 By Public Committee Against Torture in Israel

Shift in IDF Combat Doctrine Resulted In Extensive Harm to Civilians

PCATI released today a new report which exposes the shifts in Israel's combat doctrine as evidenced in the prosecution of operation "Cast Lead" and from numerous public oral and written statements made by high ranking military officers and senior Israeli Government officials.

The report, "No Second Thoughts: Changes in the IDF's Combat Doctrine In Light Of Operation ?Cast Lead'," demonstrates Israel's application of a new combat doctrine during the hostilities in Gaza, which is based on two principles:

"Zero Casualties": The complete prioritization of avoiding IDF casualties while disregarding the increased risk to Palestinian civilians. The implementation of this policy is evident in the massive use of fire power, the use of white phosphorous weapons in densely populated areas, and in firing at Palestinians in the streets, with no discrimination between combatants and civilians, this even after the IDF would order the evacuation of residents from civilian homes.

"Dahiyah Doctrine:" named after the residential Dahiyah district in Beirut, where the Hezbollah enjoyed support and also had its headquarters. The district was massively bombed by the IDF during the Second Lebanon War. The doctrine promotes targeting civilian infrastructure in order to cause widespread destruction and suffering among the civilian population so as to foment popular opposition to Israel's opponents (namely Hamas and Hezbollah).

As a result of the implementation of these principles, the fighting in the Gaza Strip caused intentional and large-scale damage to civilian infrastructure as well as the killing of hundreds of non-combatant civilians (despite the absence of an official policy to intentionally kill civilians). Israel's actions directly contradict official statements claiming that the IDF acted in accordance with international humanitarian law and took every possible measure to avoid harming non-militant civilians.

This combat doctrine morally stains the citizens of Israel. It may lead to increased international isolation of Israel and to a situation where Israeli soldiers, officers and leaders will face arrest outside of Israel and be charged with war crimes. The writers of the report summarize: "So fundamental a shift in the IDF's combat doctrine, which has such a far-reaching impact, shouldn't be considered only in the closed forums of the General Headquarters and the Security Cabinet, but demands substantial public discussion."

Read the entire report here.

Posted November 26, 2009 By Saed Bannoura

Israeli forces racially profile, deny entry to former Black Panther leader from US

Dhoruba bin Wahad was a political prisoner in the US for 19 years - 7 of those years in solitary confinement. In 1990, he was cleared of all charges when a New York judge found that US Federal agents had fabricated evidence against him as part of the Counter-Intelligence Program, or Cointelpro, created by the US government to systematically attack and destroy movements for black, Latino and Native American Liberation. Today, bin Wahad is in Amman, Jordan after Israeli authorities denied him entry into the West Bank earlier this week.

Along with Washington DC based independent journalist Naji Mujahid, bin Wahad was detained at the Allenby bridge that crosses the River Jordan and marks the main border terminal between Jordan and the West Bank. Contrary to past signed agreements, however, Israeli forces control the border terminal, and arbitrarily detained the two men for over 11 hours before refusing them entry and forcing them to return to Jordan.

Mujahid told an IMEMC reporter, "As soon as we got off the bus, we were immediately singled out by the Israeli Defense Force soldiers that were there. There was a bus full of people, and this was before they even know who we were, our history, what we were there for, or anything. We believe they saw two black men and decided to single us out. They confiscated our cell phones, and took my media equipment and cameras."

He then described a grueling 11-hour interrogation in which the two men were separated from each other and strip searched, all of their luggage examined piece by piece. Both were separately asked the same questions about their religious and political beliefs, including whether they were Muslim, what type of Muslim, if they had been on a pilgrimage to Mecca, how they felt about the government of Saudi Arabia, and many more questions about their lives and political beliefs.

The two Americans had never been to the Palestinian Territories before, and were on their way to attend a conference in Jericho convened by the Palestinian Authority on the status of political detainees in Israel.

Israel's denial of entry to certain internationals based on their race, religion or political beliefs has become extremely commonplace since 2006. Although such racial and religious profiling is a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, no foreign government has taken Israel to the International Criminal Court for its actions

Posted November 25, 2009 By Robert J. Boyle

Israel Harasses African Americans Because they are Black

The New York City Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild condemns the actions of the Israeli government for its unlawful and racially motivated detention of two African-American political activists.

On November 23, 2009, Dhoruba Bin Wahad, a former U.S. political prisoner and leader of the Black Panther Party, and Naji Mujahid, a student-activist from Washington D.C. were on a tourist bus enroute from Amman, Jordan to the West Bank of occupied Palestine. Both had been invited to attend a conference on political detention in Jericho that was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority. As the bus crossed the King Hussein Bridge that connects Jordan with the Israeli-occupied West Bank, it stopped for a border inspection by Israeli officers. Of the numerous individuals on the bus, only Dhoruba and Naji were ordered to disembark. Significantly, both were the only Black people on the bus. Within a short time, the border officials searched under Dhoruba's name on the internet. They discovered that he is Muslim, a former Black Panther leader and someone who spent 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. (Dhoruba, a target of COINTELPRO, was arrested in 1971 and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was overturned in 1990). Both Dhoruba and Naji were interrogated, strip searched and their property confiscated and searched. Despite their cooperation and offer to return into Jordan, their detention continued for over 12 hours. They were ultimately released but denied permission to enter occupied Palestine and returned to Jordan.

The treatment accorded Dhoruba and Naji would be outrageous if it occurred to anyone. And as Naji Mujahid himself stated shortly after returning to Amman, "the humiliation and frustration that we endured was a small taste of what we can be sure the Palestinians go through on a daily basis." But the incident is rendered even more shameful because its genesis appears to have been racial profiling. Dhoruba and Naji were ordered off the bus before Israeli border officials had any idea of their country of origin or personal histories. They only knew that they were Black. Moreover, the incident occurred only days after it was reported that the South African government deported an Israeli official following allegations that a member of Shin Bet, the Israeli secret police, had infiltrated the airport in Johannesburg in an effort to get information on South African citizens, particularly Black and Muslim travelers (Reuters, November 22, 2009).

The New York City Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild calls upon the United States State Department to lodge a formal protest over the treatment of Dhoruba Bin Wahad and Naji Mujahid. We further call upon the Israeli government to end its racist and unjust detention and interrogation policies.

Posted November 25, 2009 By David Hosey

U.S. Must Hold Israel Accountable for Lack of Real Settlement Freeze

The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation welcomed today Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell's statement that Israel's partial settlement moratorium "falls short of a full settlement freeze."

Speaking at the State Department, Mitchell reiterated that "United States policy on settlements remains unaffected and unchanged. As the President has said, America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

According to Josh Ruebner, National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, "The United States must continue to push Israel for a complete freeze of settlements, including in East Jerusalem. All Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal and must be dismantled. The Obama Administration should counter Israel's intransigence on settlements by cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel at least until it complies with U.S. policy and international law."

While welcoming the Obama Administration's continued insistence on the illegitimacy of Israeli settlements, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation challenged its assertion that the partial settlement moratorium "is more than any Israeli Government has done before," noting that Israeli Prime Ministers and governments have pledged at least five times since 1978 to freeze settlements (see below for documentation).

According to David Hosey, National Media Coordinator of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, "Previous Israeli governments have often pledged to freeze settlement construction, yet they all have continued to expand them. Today's partial moratorium falls into this same pattern. Unless the United States puts its money where its mouth is by ending military aid to Israel there is no incentive for Israel to stop settlement construction."

Previous Israeli promises to freeze settlements include:

* As part of the 1978 Camp David Accords negotiating process, President Jimmy Carter stated that "Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed." Source: http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc137.html

* In July 1992, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared a settlement freeze. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/25/world/baker-hails-israeli-freeze-hints-at-approval-of-loan.html

* Israel accepted the Mitchell Report of April 2001, which stated "The GOI [Government of Israel] should freeze all settlement activity, including the "natural growth" of existing settlements." Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/mitchell_report.htm

* Israel agreed to the "road map" of April 2003, which stipulated that "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI [Government of Israel] freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2989783.stm

* At the Annapolis Conference in November 2007, Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed "to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, issued by the Quartet on 30 April 2003 -- this is called the road map." Source: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Statement_of_%22joint_understanding%22_released_after_Annapolis_Conference

Posted November 22, 2009 By Jonathan Cook

Racial Profiling by Israeli Shin Bet;
Israeli spies "infiltrate" Johannesburg airport

South Africa deported an Israeli airline official last week following allegations that Israel's secret police, the Shin Bet, had infiltrated Johannesburg international airport in an effort to gather information on South African citizens, particularly black and Muslim travellers.

The move by the South African government followed an investigation by local TV showing an undercover reporter being illegally interrogated by an official with El Al, Israel's national carrier, in a public area of Johannesburg's OR Tambo airport.

The programme also featured testimony from Jonathan Garb, a former El Al guard, who claimed that the airline company had been a front for the Shin Bet in South Africa for many years.

Of the footage of the undercover reporter's questioning, he commented: "Here is a secret service operating above the law in South Africa. We pull the wool over everyone's eyes. We do exactly what we want. The local authorities do not know what we are doing."

The Israeli foreign ministry is reported to have sent a team to South Africa to try to defuse the diplomatic crisis after the government in Johannesburg threatened to deport all of El Al's security staff.

Mr Garb's accusations have been supported by an investigation by the regulator for South Africa's private security industries.

They have also been confirmed by human rights groups in Israel, which report that Israeli security staff are carrying out racial profiling at many airports around the world, apparently out of sight of local authorities.

Concern in South Africa about the activities of El Al staff has been growing since August, when South Africa's leading investigative news show, Carte Blanche, went undercover to test Mr Garb's allegations.

A hidden camera captured an El Al official in the departure hall claiming to be from "airport security" and demanding that the undercover reporter hand over his passport or ID as part of "airport regulations". When the reporter protested that he was not flying but waiting for a friend, El Al's security manager, identified as Golan Rice, arrived to interrogate him further. Mr Rice then warned him that he was in a restricted area and must leave.

Mr Garb commented on the show: "What we are trained is to look for the immediate threat - the Muslim guy. You can think he is a suicide bomber, he is collecting information. The crazy thing is that we are profiling people racially, ethnically and even on religious grounds ? This is what we do."

Mr Garb and two other fired workers have told the South African media that Shin Bet agents routinely detain Muslim and black passengers, a claim that has ignited controversy in a society still suffering with the legacy of decades of apartheid rule.

Suspect individuals, the former workers say, are held in an annex room, where they are interrogated, often on matters unrelated to airport security, and can be subjected to strip searches while their luggage is taken apart. Clandestine searches of their belongings and laptops are also carried out to identify useful documents and information.

All of this is done in violation of South African law, which authorises only the police, armed forces or personnel appointed by the transport minister to carry out searches.

The former staff also accuse El Al of smuggling weapons - licensed to the local Israeli embassy - into the airport for use by the secret agents.

Mr Garb went public after he was dismissed over a campaign he led for better pay and medical benefits for El Al staff.

A South African Jew, he said he was recruited 19 years ago by the Shin Bet. "We were trained at a secret camp [in Israel] where they train Israeli special forces and they train you how to use handguns, submachine guns and in unarmed combat."

Mr Garb claimed to have profiled 40,000 people for Israel over the past 20 years, including recently Virginia Tilley, a Middle East expert who is the chief researcher at South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council. The think tank recently published a report accusing Israel of apartheid and colonialism in the Palestinian territories.

"The decision was she should be checked in the harshest way because of her connections," Mr Garb said.

Ms Tilley confirmed that she had been detained at the airport by El Al staff and separated from her luggage. Mr Garb said that during this period an agent "photo-copied all [her] documentation and then he forwarded it on to Israel" - Mr Garb believes for use by the Shin Bet.

Israeli officials have refused to comment on the allegations. A letter produced by Mr Garb - signed by Roz Bukris, El Al's general manager in South Africa - suggests that he was employed by the Shin Bet rather than the airline. Ms Bukris, according to the programme, refused to confirm or deny the letter's validity.

The Israeli Embassy in South Africa declined to discuss evidence that it, rather than El Al, had licensed guns issued to the airline's security managers. Questioned last week by Ynet, Israel's largest news website, about the deportation of the airline official, Yossi Levy, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman said he could not "comment on security matters".

A report published in 2007 by two Israeli human rights organisations, the Nazareth-based Arab Association for Human Rights and the Centre Against Racism, found that Israeli airline staff used racial profiling at most major airports around the world, subjecting Arab and Muslim passengers to discriminatory and degrading treatment in violation both of international law and the host country's laws.

"Our research showed that the checks conducted by El Al at foreign airports had all the hallmarks of Shin Bet interrogations," said Mohammed Zeidan, the director of the Human Rights Association. "Usually the questions were less about the safety of the flight and more aimed at gathering information on the political activities or sympathies of the passengers."

The human rights groups approached four international airports - in New York, Paris, Vienna and Geneva - where passengers said they had been subjected to discriminatory treatment, to ask under what authority the Israeli security services were operating. The first two airports refused to respond, while Vienna and Geneva said it was not possible to oversee El Al's procedures.

Posted November 18, 2009 By CPTnet

Israeli settlers threaten Palestinian family, beat and rob CPTers

[Note: According to the Geneva Conventions, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, and numerous United Nations resolutions, all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal. Most settlement outposts are considered illegal under Israeli law.]

On Tuesday, 17 November 2009, in the South Hebron Hills of the West Bank, five Israeli settlers harassed a Palestinian family walking home, then beat and robbed two Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT) members who were accompanying them.

The two young parents and their three small children were returning from the nearby city of Yatta to their home village of Tuba. At 11:00 a.m., they encountered CPTers just south of the village of At-Tuwani. After the CPTers warned the Palestinians about the settlers seen earlier in the morning, the family chose a longer path toward Tuba, accompanied by the CPTers.

As the group crossed Mashakha Hill, they saw four settler men on a ridge fifty meters above them. The settlers ran toward the Palestinians and began to circle them. A fifth settler, masked and hooded, appeared from the valley below. When the Palestinian man told them he was only trying to walk home, a settler shoved him.

As the CPTers attempted to step between the Palestinians and settlers, the settlers pushed them to the ground, hit and kicked them, and stole their two video cameras. The settlers then walked to the illegal settlement outpost of Havat Ma'on (Hill 833), where they disappeared among the trees twenty minutes later. The Palestinian family arrived home safely.

For decades, residents of Tuba Village had a direct road to the village of At-Tuwani, and onward to the regional economic hub of Yatta. The Israeli settlement of Ma'on and its neighboring outpost of Havat Ma'on were built directly on that road, blocking all Palestinian traffic and forcing villagers onto long dirt paths through the hills, taking them as much as two hours out of their way.

Posted November 16, 2009 By BUSINESS WIRE

Israeli embassy passed stolen classified US information to AIPAC

A FBI file reveals the Israeli embassy passed stolen classified US government information to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 1984 Israel and AIPAC jointly lobbied Congress to secure preferential Israeli access to the US market against widespread American industry opposition.

The declassified FBI report may be downloaded from the Israel Lobby Archive at:

http://www.irmep.org/ila/economy/03071986INTERVIEW.pdf

The FBI file, kept secret for 25 years, was recently released to the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The declassified files, their historical context, and long term impact on jobs and exports are detailed in the new book "Spy Trade: How Israel's Lobby Undermines America's Economy." "Spy Trade" also analyzes AIPAC's long history of guidance and material support from the Israeli government.

Under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) organizations acting as agents of foreign principals in a political capacity in the US must openly declare their relationships to the FARA registration unit of the Counterespionage Section of the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 1962, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy ordered AIPAC's parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC), to register as an Israeli foreign agent. The AZC had been found moving funding from the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem into lobbying startup groups across the US, as well as to AIPAC's founder, Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen. Kenen was briefly a registered foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs before moving to lobby for the AZC.

After the FARA order the AZC shut down and passed lobbying functions to its "Kenen committee" currently known as AIPAC.

According to IRmep research director Grant F. Smith, AIPAC FARA activity disclosures are long overdue. "Based on our research, AIPAC is simply the rebranded American Zionist Council. Today all American voters and industry groups should have access to nearly a hundred FARA activity reports detailing AIPAC's other secret activities on behalf of Israel. Americans are legally entitled to this information under FARA." The Israel Lobby Archive, http://IRmep.org/ila, is a unit of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington. The Archive digitizes declassified documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act filings with law enforcement and intelligence agencies. IRmep is a Washington-based nonprofit that studies U.S. Middle East policy formulation.

Posted November 16, 2009 By Sever Plocker

Israel in midst of freefall on global front

I've been invited to deliver a lecture about Israel's economy and society at Oxford University. As it is a short lecture, and a respectable forum, I gladly accepted the offer. The invitation was extended about six months ago. Yet now, as my trip approaches, I feel concern. I'm hesitating.

My acquaintances are warning me: Don't go. Hostile elements will cause disturbances, protest, shout and interfere. The atmosphere at British universities is anti-Israel to an extent unseen in the past. Israel is perceived as a thorn in the civilized world's side.

An Israeli professor who quietly left a prestigious British university told me: "My academic and social life there was intolerable. Colleagues stayed away from me as if I was a leper. I was not invited to meetings, which were shifted from university buildings to private residences in order to keep me out. The fact I openly expressed leftist views was to no avail. My objection to the occupation and endorsement of a return to the 1967 borders made no difference. In practice, I became ostracized."

"Today you are a welcome guest in the British and European academic world only if you reject the very existence of the colonialist and imperialistic creature that methodically commits war crimes, known as Israel," he said. "Today it isn't enough to condemn Bibi and Barak; in order to be accepted by academia outside of Israel one must condemn the Balfour Declaration."

British academia's radicalism highlights the accelerated deterioration in Israel's status and image. We are in the midst of a freefall on the foreign affairs front. The cold peace with three Muslim states ? Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey ? has turned into a cold war. Israelis are unwelcome guests in these and many other states, where in the past we were embraced.

Meanwhile, Israel failed in its efforts to isolate Ahmadinejad's Iran and disqualify it as a member of the family of nations. Ahmadinejad is having a grand time.

Bibi doesn't see the change

The intimate dialogue that in the past characterized the relationship between the US president and Israel's prime minister is paralyzed. The pipeline of dialogue is clogged. India and China, the two emerging powers, voted in favor of adopting the Goldstone Report at the UN's human rights commission. Ever since then, it has been etched on Israel's forehead as a Sign of Cain.

Friendly governments, such as France and Britain, are turning their backs on us while currying favor with local sentiments. Israel's membership in OECD, which was largely a done deal in the past, is distancing again ? because of the growing negativity vis-à-vis Israel and not because any technical dispute. By coincidence, or not, large foreign investors are pulling out of Israel.

Does everyone hate us? Possibly so, yet the fact is that up until six months ago Israel enjoyed an extraordinary boom on the foreign affairs front, both in terms of its foreign ties as well as in global public opinion. This fact points to one source for the deterioration we're seeing: The new government in Jerusalem.

Indeed, this is a government elected by the people and it reflects the preferences of voters, who wanted a coalition comprising Likud, Shas, and Yisrael Beiteinu. As such, Netanyahu appointed Lieberman foreign minister, did not agree to a government rotation with Kadima, was unable to arrange a work meeting with the Palestinian Authority president, and conveyed a message of indifference towards the peace process.

Yet worse than this, the 2009 Netanyahu does not understand the world, and he mostly fails to grasp the change taking place within conservative parties, which are close to his political positions. Today they are the source of harsh criticism against the Israeli government; Netanyahu's government.

The current anti-Israel wave is particularly dangerous especially because it is not limited to the media and to leftist groups that traditionally were classified as "Israel haters." This wave is rising, expending, drawing young people, and painting the perceptions of the well-established middle class and influential elites.

Israel's image has hit a nadir; it is isolated, unwanted, and perceived as bad. The world is telling us that should we continue along the same contemptible path, we will lose our legitimacy.

Yet we're preoccupied with nonsense.

Posted November 10, 2009 By Jimmy Leas and Noura Erakat

Delusional Self Defense, Delusional Congressional Vote

The 344-36 House vote last week condemning the Goldstone Report, which encourages Israel and Hamas to conduct "credible" independent investigations of war crimes committed in Gaza, may help Israeli leaders avoid prosecution in the short-term. However, the House vote and the negative US votes at the UN will have long-term detrimental effects both on Israel and on the U.S.'s moral authority.

Consider that within the General Assembly, 110 nations endorsed the Report, while the U.S. was among the minority of 18 nations that voted against the endorsement. The Congressional vote will increase the likelihood of a worldwide campaign to push the UN General Assembly, the International Criminal Court, or other countries, under universal jurisdiction, to hold Israel to account for war crimes committed in Gaza.

Self-defense is of utmost concern because self-defense was a central element of Israel's ongoing argument for the war and is the heart of the U.S.'s rejection of Goldstone. Israeli officials have featured that claim in every forum leading up to Operation Cast Lead's pummeling strikes. It was Israel's justification in its letter to the UN Secretary General when Israeli State officials announced the war on December 27, 2008. It was the main theme of Netanyahu's recent speeches to the General Assembly and to the Knesset. It was the main theme of the most recent House Resolution. It will be the U.S.'s main reason to veto the forthcoming Security Council vote. The self-defense claim is not just a matter of public relations; it is essential. Absent self-defense, political and military officials in Israel are subject to charges that go beyond those in the Goldstone Report, including, but not limited to, the crime of war of aggression.

However, the self-defense claim propagated by Israeli and U.S. politicians since the initiation of Operation Cast Lead is inconsistent with both the facts and the law. Within weeks of entering into the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire agreement, Hamas rocket fire had come to a halt. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ceasefire was so successful that it brought "normal life and "calm" back to Israeli towns near Gaza. In an article posted on July 27, 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs even lauds Hamas, stating:

Publicly, Hamas leaders have stated time and again that the lull is a Palestinian national interest. On several occasions, Hamas members have arrested Fatah operatives who were involved in firing at Israel and confiscated their arms.

Calm prevailed for four months until Israeli forces broke the ceasefire agreement on November 4, 2008. While the world's gaze turned to one of the U.S.'s most historic elections that day, Israel launched an armed incursion into Gaza, accompanied by aerial bombing, killing six Hamas members and catapulting the region into a renewed wave of violent hostilities. Hamas rocket fire immediately followed the Israeli attack. Two weeks later Israel's largest circulation paper quoted Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak admitting that "the recent waves of rocket attacks are a result of our operations, which have resulted in the killing of twenty Hamas gunmen." Barak's admission, consistent with the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire, makes Israel's self-defense claim baseless.

Still, Hamas offered to reinstate and extend the ceasefire a month later on December 23, 2008. Israel refused, ducking the chance to reach a diplomatic agreement that would have again ended rocket fire and brought the security desired by Israel. Instead, Israel chose massive escalation and four days later launched a gruesome aerial offensive against Gaza.

On the Offensive's 17th day, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni boasted that Israel was "going wild-and this is a good thing." The targeting of civilians described in the Goldstone Report seems to corroborate this Israeli attitude as Israeli forces attacked targets in Gaza that had nothing to do with Israel's stated military objective of stopping rocket fire. Israeli forces targeted schools, hospitals, factories, agricultural land, the only flour mill in Gaza, an egg farm, thousands of private homes, government buildings, and Palestinian civilians.

The Goldstone Report concluded:

While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.(Goldstone par. 1883)

A central element of the law of self-defense, as well as the laws regarding the conduct of war once started, is one unequivocal standard around which no controversy exists: the prohibition on targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. As demonstrated not only by the Goldstone Report, but also in reports by Israeli soldiers who participated in Operation Cast Lead and reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, and the National Lawyers Guild, Israeli forces directly targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure during its 22-day offensive. Even if Israel had not itself broken the ceasefire, its legal argument for self-defense would therefore be ineffective. Israel's only rebuttal to these charges was a military investigation conducted by the Israeli Army itself. But that self-serving investigation was nearly unanimously condemned as lacking independence and impartiality (see PDF).

Thus, neither the facts nor the law support an Israeli self-defense claim. Rather than condemn Israel's act of aggression and its ongoing occupation and blockade of the Gaza Strip, Congress added its name to a pungent piece of manipulative delusion: that Israel's onslaught of Gaza constituted an act of self-defense. The House is now on record disavowing international law and international accountability mechanisms. People around the world will be persuaded that protests, boycotts, and divestment campaigns are all the more necessary, and they will look to places outside the US political establishment for justice.

Posted November 6, 2009 By JIMMY CARTER

Goldstone and Gaza

Judge Richard Goldstone and the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict have issued a report about Gaza that is strongly critical of both Israel and Hamas for their violations of human rights. On Wednesday, a special meeting of the U.N. General Assembly began a debate on whether to refer the report to the Security Council.

In January 2009 rudimentary rockets had been launched from Gaza toward nearby Jewish communities, and Israel had wreaked havoc with bombs, missiles, and ground invading forces. Judge Goldstone's claim is that they are both guilty of "crimes against humanity." Predictably, both the accused parties have denounced the report as biased and inaccurate.

It is good to remember that Judge Goldstone, from South Africa, is one of the world's most widely respected jurists, with an impeccable record of wisdom, honesty and integrity. He is a devout Jew and has long been known as a fervent defender of Israel's right to peace and security.

In April 2008 I personally visited Sderot and Ashkelon, Israeli communities near enough to have been hit by rockets fired from within Gaza. While there, I condemned these indiscriminate attacks on civilians as acts of terrorism, and I consider their condemnation by Judge Goldstone to be justified.

A year later, after the Israeli attack on Gaza, I was able to examine the damage done to the small and heavily populated area, surrounded by an impenetrable wall, with its gates tightly controlled. Knowing of the ability of Israeli forces, often using U.S. weapons, to strike targets with pinpoint accuracy, it was difficult to understand or explain the destruction of hospitals, schools, prisons, United Nations facilities, small factories and repair shops, agricultural processing plants and almost 40,000 homes.

The Goldstone committee examined closely the cause of deaths of the 1,387 Palestinians who perished, and the degree of damage to the various areas. The conclusion was that the civilian areas were targeted and the devastation was deliberate. Again, the criticism of Israel in the Goldstone report is justified.

He has called on the United States, Israel and others who dispute the accuracy of the report to conduct an independent investigation of their own. Hamas leaders have announced that their investigation is under way, but Israel has rejected Judge Goldstone's request.

Putting this dispute aside, it is important to examine present circumstances and the need to prevent further suffering. The rocket fire from Gaza is now being severely restrained, perhaps because of the certainty of Israeli retaliation, but the punishment of the 1.5 million Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza continues. Now and for the past 10 months, Israel has not permitted cement, lumber, panes of glass, or other building materials to pass their entry points into Gaza. Several hundred thousand homeless people suffered through last winter in a few tents, under plastic sheets, or huddled in caves dug into the debris of their former homes. The weather was warmer when I was there several months later, but the description of suffering through the winter cold was heartbreaking.

Another winter is now approaching, and neither the Israelis nor the international community has taken steps to alleviate the Gazans' plight. United Nations agencies and leaders in the European community have offered to provide an avenue of channeling funds and building materials directly to the people in need, completely bypassing the Hamas political leaders. These officials, both in Gaza and in Damascus, have assured me that they would accept this arrangement.

There would be no chance for the misuse of such assistance for weapons, military fortifications, or other non-humanitarian purposes.

I was informed recently by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that he has pledged $1 billion, and other Arab leaders have added an additional $300 million for this purpose. There is little doubt that other nations would also be generous.

Without ascribing blame to either of the disputing parties, it is imperative that the United States and the international community take steps to assure that the rebuilding of Gaza be commenced, and without delay. The cries of homeless and freezing people demand relief.

Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and is a member of the Elders.

Posted November 2, 2009 By PBS

Bill Moyers interviews Richard Goldstone

BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal. There could not have been a more thankless job in the world this year than investigating allegations of war crimes between Israelis and Palestinians. You're about to meet the man who shouldered that task after others had turned it down. And sure enough, he is at the center now of a raging controversy.

Judge Richard Goldstone was born and raised in South Africa, where he came to prominence investigating the vicious behavior of white security forces during apartheid.

In 1994, the UN named him to lead its investigation of war crimes in what was once Yugoslavia, including ethnic cleansing, the deadliest violence in Europe since the Second World War. That same year he was asked to prosecute genocide in Rwanda, where almost a million people were slaughtered. Goldstone went on to uncover Nazi war criminals hiding in Argentina, and to lead an independent inquiry into war crimes in Kosovo.

Time and again he has placed himself in harm's way and smack in the middle of controversy, but a few months ago he took on what was to become the greatest challenge of his legal career.It came after years of Hamas militants firing their missiles from the Gaza strip into southern Israel. Israel retaliated last December with Operation Cast Lead: 22 days of military action targeting Gaza, those 139 square miles between Israel and Egypt that are recognized as Palestinian territory. More than twelve hundred Palestinians died. Three Israeli civilians were killed and 10 soldiers, four of them the result of friendly fire.When Israeli forces withdrew, Gaza was left devastated and reeling. Not only had military targets been destroyed but thousands of homes as well as hospitals, schools and mosques. The United Nations Human Rights Council called for an investigation. And Goldstone agreed to lead it, but only after expanding the fact-finding mission's mandate to include charges against Hamas as well as Israel.

Over the next several months, Judge Goldstone and his team would thread their way through a minefield of accusation and denial.

In September, he submitted their report, 574 pages, scorching in their detail. The report accused both the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. While condemning Palestinian rocket attacks, the report's harshest language was reserved for Israel's treatment of civilians in Gaza.

BILL MOYERS: These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment, and constitute war crimes. The government of Israel obviously has a duty to protect its own citizens. That in no way justifies a policy of collective punishment of a people under effective occupation, destroying their means to live a dignified life and the trauma caused by the kind of military intervention the Israeli government called Operation Cast Lead.

The report and the angry debate surrounding it have exposed Goldstone to strident and bitter criticism. Nonetheless, late last week, the UN's Human Rights Council officially endorsed his findings.Richard Goldstone joins me now. Currently a visiting professor at Fordham Law School in New York, last spring he received the prestigious MacArthur Foundation Award for International Justice. His books include "For Humanity: Reflections of a War Crimes Investigator."

Judge Richard Goldstone, welcome to the Journal.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Thank you very much.

BILL MOYERS: Let me put down a few basics first. Personally, do you have any doubt about Israel's right to self-defense?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely not. And our approach to our mission and in our report the right of Israel to defend its citizens is taken as a given.

BILL MOYERS: So the report in no way challenges Israel's right to self-defense-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Not at all. What we look at is how that right was used. We don't question the right.

BILL MOYERS: Do you consider Hamas an enemy of Israel?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, anybody who's firing many thousands of rockets and mortars into a country is, I think, in anybody's book, an enemy.

BILL MOYERS: Were those rocket attacks on Israel a threat to the civilians of Israel, to the population of Israel?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely. The people within the range of those rockets and mortars in southern Israel and Sderot and Ashkelon have been living under circumstances of tremendous terror. Schoolchildren in particular, people, women and men, have less than 45 seconds to seek shelter when the Israelis know that rockets are coming. And often, they don't. And the fact that the death toll in southern Israel wasn't higher, is really happenstance. It's remarkable that none of those rockets caused a great deal more death and injury than they did.

BILL MOYERS: And Israel, in your judgment, was justified in trying to put an end to those rocket attacks-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely. No country can be expected to accept that with equanimity.

BILL MOYERS: You're Jewish, and a Zionist as well. When you say, "I'm a Zionist," in your case, what does that mean?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, what it means, that I fully support Israel's right to exist. That's for the Jewish people to have their own national homeland, in Israel.

BILL MOYERS: So why, as a Jew and a Zionist, concerned for Israel's survival, did you agree to stand in judgment on Israel's action in Gaza?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well now, it was a question of conscience really. I've been involved in investigating very serious violations in my own country, South Africa, and I was castigated by many in the white community for doing that. I investigated serious war crimes in the Balkans and the Serbs hated me, hated me for that. And I was under serious death threat, both in South Africa and in respect of the Balkans. And then I went onto Rwanda, and many people hated me for doing that. I've been a co-chair of the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, and for the last five years, I've been sending letters of protest weekly to countries like China and Syria and you name it, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, complaining about violations of human rights. So I've been involved in this business for the last fifteen years or so, and it seemed to me that being Jewish was no reason to treat Israel exceptionally, and to say because I'm Jewish, it's all right for me to investigate everybody else, but not Israel.

BILL MOYERS: But you, you know, you have so many ties to Israel. You were on the board, I understand, of Hebrew University-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: I still am. That's correct.

BILL MOYERS: -and that's not, you still are then. I mean, you had to know you were going to antagonize a lot of your friends.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: That's correct, but I've also got the support of many of my friends. You know, it's something that goes both ways, but antagonizing friends was inevitable. Not only in respect of this investigation but in respect of previous investigations.

BILL MOYERS: Your report, as you know, basically accuses Israel of waging war on the entire population of Gaza.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: That's correct.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, there are allegations in here, some very tough allegations of Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed civilians who pose no threat, of shooting people whose hands were shackled behind them, of shooting two teenagers who'd been ordered off a tractor that they were driving, apparently carrying wounded civilians to a hospital, of homes, hundreds, maybe thousands of homes destroyed, left in rubble, of hospitals bombed. I mean there are some questions about one or two of your examples here, but it's a damning indictment of Israel's conduct in Gaza, right?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, it is outrageous, and there should have been an outrage. You know, the response has not been to deal with the substance of those allegations. I've really seen or read no detailed response in respect of the incidents on which we report.

BILL MOYERS: Why is that?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I don't know. I suppose people hate being attacked. There's a knee-jerk reaction to attack the messenger rather than the message. And I think this is typical of that. And of course, a lot of the allegations, I certainly don't claim anything like infallibility. But I would like to see a response to the substance, particularly the attack on the infrastructure of Gaza, which seems to me to be absolutely unjustifiable.

BILL MOYERS: What did you see with your own eyes when you went there?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I saw the destruction of the only flour-producing factory in Gaza. I saw fields plowed up by Israeli tank bulldozers. I saw chicken farms, for egg production, completely destroyed. Tens of thousands of chickens killed. I met with families who lost their loved ones in homes in which they were seeking shelter from the Israeli ground forces. I had to have the very emotional and difficult interviews with fathers whose little daughters were killed, whose family were killed. One family, over 21 members, killed by Israeli mortars. So, it was a very difficult investigation, which will give me nightmares for the rest of my life.

BILL MOYERS: Those particular incidents, what makes actions like that a crime in war? I mean, war is such a horrendous mess-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: What makes those acts war crimes, as you say?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, humanitarian law, really fundamentally is what's known as the "principle of distinction." It requires all people involved, commanders, troops, all people involved in making war, it requires them to distinguish between civilians and combatants. And then there's a question-

BILL MOYERS: Combatants, right?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: -and combatants. And then there's a question of proportionality. One can, in war, target a military target. And there can be what's euphemistically referred to as â??collateral damage,' but the â??collateral damage' must be proportionate to the military aim. If you can take out a munitions factory in an urban area with a loss of 100 lives, or you can use a bomb twice as large and take out the same factory and kill 2000 people, the latter would be a war crime, the former wouldn't.

BILL MOYERS: Who is to say that? Who is to make that distinction?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, that distinction must be made after the event. I think the military must be given a fairly wide margin of appreciation, in the sense that there must be room for mistakes, and ultimately, it's a question of looking at the intent, at the care, at any question of negligence on the people who take the decision.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote, quote, the military operation, this military operation in Gaza, was a result of the disrespect for the fundamental principle of â??distinction' in international humanitarian law. So in layman's language, the distinction between what and what?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Between combatants and innocent civilians.

BILL MOYERS: And you're saying Israel did not do that, in many of these incidents.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: That's correct.

BILL MOYERS: Did you find evidence that that is deliberate on their part?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, we did. We found evidence in statements made by present and former political and military leaders, who said, quite openly, that there's going to be a disproportionate attack. They said that if rockets are going to continue, we're going to hit back disproportionately. We're going to punish you for doing it. And that's not countenanced by the law of war.

BILL MOYERS: So they were doing, on the ground, what they had said earlier they intended to do.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: That's correct.

BILL MOYERS: -so there was intention.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, certainly. You know, one thing one can't say about the Israel Defense Forces is that they make too many mistakes. They're very, a sophisticated army. And if they attack a mosque or attack a factory, and over 200 factories were bombed, there's just no basis to ascribe that to error. That must be intentional.

BILL MOYERS: The Israelis admit that they bombed some of what you call civilian targets in your report, but they argue that because Hamas is the elected leadership in Gaza, some of those facilities are, in fact, part and parcel of the Hamas infrastructure.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Right. Well, there's certainly room for difference of opinion in respect of some of them. We had a look, for example, at the legislative assembly. Now the legislative assembly consists of members of Hamas in the majority, but also opposition parties. And certainly, as we understand international law, international humanitarian law, that to bomb the legislative assembly is unlawful. It's not a military target, it's a civilian target. I mean, to give an example closer to home, if the United States is at war it would be legitimate to bomb the Pentagon; I would suggest it would be illegitimate to bomb the Congress.

BILL MOYERS: But we did bomb the Bundestag in Germany, during World War II. The Allies did.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I think the standards of World War II are a little outdated. I think the, we've had since then, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 additional optional protocols to the Geneva Conventions, so the law has moved considerably. And I don't believe one can judge a war in 2008 and 2009 by the standards of the 1940s.

BILL MOYERS: But what about, for example, as you talk, you make me think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the United States deliberated incinerated two cities, with atomic bombs, knowing that tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children, would perish-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, times have changed, the law has changed. And I have little doubt that if a similar situation arose today, it's highly unlikely that there would be the use of nuclear power in respect of cities and having a civilian toll that one had in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

BILL MOYERS: What's the heart of the Geneva Convention and those protocols, as you see them, as an international lawyer?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Right. Well again, it's to give heightened protection to civilians, and not only in international armed conflict, but also in non-international armed conflict. So the whole topic has expanded considerably, really under the guidance and the guardianship of the International Committee of the Red Cross. And I think it's important to bear in mind that the 1949 Geneva Conventions is the first international instrument that's been ratified by every single member of the United Nations, so that's the law. It's not only treaty law, but it's become customary international law.

BILL MOYERS: Does it apply to a situation like Gaza?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely. And it applies, as we held in our report, it applies clearly to Israel as a state party to the Geneva Conventions, and it applies also to Hamas as a non-state party, under customary international law.

BILL MOYERS: Did you find war crimes by Hamas?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Oh, indeed.

BILL MOYERS: What were they?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: We found that the firing of many thousands of rockets and mortars at a civilian population to constitute a very serious war crime. And we said possibly crimes against humanity.

BILL MOYERS: But Hamas is not a party to the Geneva Convention, right? I mean, they are not law-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well it can't be, because it's not a state party.

BILL MOYERS: It's not-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: But it's bound by customary international law and by international human rights law, and that makes it equally a war crime to do what it's been doing.

BILL MOYERS: Yet critics say that by focusing more on the actions of the Israelis and, then on the Palestinians, you are, in essence making it clear whom you think is the more responsible party here.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: I suppose that's fair comment, Bill. I think it's difficult to deal equally with a state party, with a sophisticated army, with the sort of army Israel has, with an air force and a navy, and the most sophisticated weapons that are not only in the arsenal of Israel, but manufactured and exported by Israel, on the one hand, with Hamas using really improvised, imprecise armaments. So it's difficult to equate their power. But that having been said, one has to look at the actions of each. And one has to judge the criminality, or the alleged criminality, of each. And it's really, that the reason that we've, our main recommendation is to urge both sides to look at themselves, to have their own internal investigations to judge what each did. To have a criminal investigation and to prosecute and punish the people responsible.

BILL MOYERS: Was it possible, among the casualties in Gaza, to distinguish between militants and civilians?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Now, I can't believe that the Israel intelligence doesn't enable them to do it to, certainly to a higher degree. I'm not suggesting that there can be any infallibility. But, I'll give you an example. We spoke to the owner of a home in Gaza City. He said he looked out of his window and he saw some militants, whether Hamas or other Palestinian groups, setting up their mortar launchers in his yard. He ran out and said, "Get out of here. I don't want you doing this here. You're going to endanger my family, because they going to bomb. Get out." And in fact, they left. Whether that was typical or atypical, I don't know, we didn't, obviously, cover the field. But assuming they had disobeyed them, assuming they had launched the rockets from over the objections of the household owner, and his family, they launched the rockets and disappeared. It would be a war crime, as I understand it, for Israel to have bombed the home of that innocent household, who didn't want this to happen.

BILL MOYERS: But the Israelis would respond, I think, based on the evidence I've looked at, the record I've read of their response to your report, they would say that that was probably an exception, or could have been an exception, that many of those militants in Gaza were embedded in homes, embedded in hospitals, embedded in schools and the like.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, the investigations, and we didn't, as I said, we couldn't cover the field. There were really hundreds of incidents.

BILL MOYERS: You chose about 36 representative-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: We chose 36. And it could have been 3,600.

BILL MOYERS: Why those 36?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: We chose those 36 because they seemed to be, to represent the most serious, the highest death toll, the highest injury toll. And they appear to represent situations where there was little or no military justification for what happened. We didn't want to investigate situations where we would be called upon to second-guess decisions made by Israeli Defense Force leaders or soldiers, in what's called the â??fog of battle'. It's really unfair to do that, especially without hearing the other side. So we tried to concentrate on issues which seem to be less likely to be justifiable by applying those standards.

BILL MOYERS: Did you find evidence that Israel tried to avoid targeting civilians?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: In some cases, yes. I, you know, we gave Israel full credit for some of the leaflets that were dropped in the Rafah area, where they were specific. They said "During such-and-such a period, we're going to be bombing between X street and Y street, and A street and B street. Get out, for your own safety." And that saved a lot of innocent lives. But many hundreds of thousands of other leaflets were really unhelpful-

BILL MOYERS: Why?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: -dropped in many parts of Gaza, saying, warning, "We are going to be bombing. Get out of your homes." Didn't say when. Didn't say where. And also, it didn't, where could people go? It's such an overcrowded civilian area, one and a half million, in a tiny area, and with closed borders. There was little action families could take to react to that sort of warning.

BILL MOYERS: I didn't know until I read your report that the Israelis had actually called, 100,000 calls to telephones in Gaza and said, in effect, "Get out," right? They were intending to target, and they were giving the occupants a chance to move.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, first, move to where? And secondly, in consequence of the overwhelming majority of those warnings, there was no attack. So it was, it caused confusion and terror rather than saving lives.

BILL MOYERS: But confusion and terror are part of war, right?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well no, there shouldn't be confusion and terror applied to a civilian population. If you're going to give warnings, they should be specific.

BILL MOYERS: But when the terrorists, the militants, whatever one wants to call them, are known to be embedded in, as you say, those tight, complex, concentrated areas, what's the other army to do?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: It's for example, to launch commando actions, to get at the militants and not the innocent civilians. And there's an element of punishment, if one looks at the attacks on the infrastructure, on the food infrastructure, one sees a pattern of attacking all of the people of Gaza, not simply the militants.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you think they bombed the infrastructure so thoroughly?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, we've found that the only logical reason is collective punishment against the people of Gaza for voting into power Hamas, and a form of reprisal for the rocket attacks and mortar attacks on southern Israel.

BILL MOYERS: So that would be the explanation for why, if they were interested only in stopping the bombing, they didn't have to destroy the land.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No, this was a political this was a political decision, I think, and not a military one. I think they were telling the people of Gaza that if you support Hamas, this is what we're going to do to you.

BILL MOYERS: Talk a little more about that. Give me some more examples of what you see as a pattern in the destruction of the infrastructure.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Right. Well, I'd start with the bulldozing of agricultural fields, apparently pretty random. It wasn't as though these farms were owned by Hamas militants. That's, I haven't seen that allegation made. The bombing of some 200 industrial factories. As I mentioned, the only flour-producing factory, the water supply facilities of Gaza, the sanitation facilities, which caused an overflow of filth and muck into well over a square kilometer of land.

BILL MOYERS: Do you know if these were targeted, or were they the consequence of actions aimed at militants?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well clearly, there can be no question of militants running 200 factories. There can be no, we know, from our investigation, that the owner of the flour factory, in fact, had one of the rare documents the Israelis give which allowed the owner to go into Israel, he dealt with Israeli counterparts. He received, and it's an interesting case, he received a warning to evacuate. He evacuated his staff. Nothing happened. They went back, and he made inquiries through a friend in Israel, who contacted the Israel Defense Force and said, "Don't worry. They're not going to bomb your factory." They went back. A few days later, he gets another telephone call saying, "Evacuate." Doesn't come to him, it comes to their switchboard. He again makes inquiries. "Don't worry. We're not going to bomb." So they go back. Nothing happens. Third warning to evacuate. They evacuate and they bomb the factory. Now if there was any militants involved, firstly, the Israelis know who they're dealing with, they'd given him a document allowing him to go into Israel. It's that sort of conduct which indicates to us an intent to punish civilians in Gaza for what their leaders were complicit in doing.

BILL MOYERS: It's difficult for us, in this country, to understand this intimacy of self-destruction, you know, that you just described. A Gazan factory owner calls a friend in Israel, who calls the military, and then he calls back to the factory. I mean, that, just right across an invisible border, right?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: It's the sort of evidence which has some credibility to it. It's not the sort of evidence that this man is going to concoct.

BILL MOYERS: What were your standards of evidence, as you conducted these discussions, investigations and hearings in Gaza?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, we spoke to well over 100 witnesses. We didn't, obviously, take at face value everything we were told.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, one criticism was that those witnesses were supplied by Hamas militants.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, in fact, that's not correct. We made our own inquiries, and we decided who we would see. We weren't given a list by Hamas or anybody else. We chose incidents, 36 out of as I say, could have been hundreds. But we chose the people we wanted to see, and certainly, there was no Hamas presence anywhere near the vicinity of where we saw people. There were malicious statements to the effect that they were, but I can give you every assurance that it didn't happen. And I can assure you that if it did happen, I wouldn't have been prepared to continue to operate under those situations. I would have insisted that they leave. And if I couldn't achieve that, I would have abandoned the investigation.

BILL MOYERS: Was there a moment when you thought, why am I doing this?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Oh, there've been frequent moments-

BILL MOYERS: No, I mean, during the time you were conducting the investigation. I know since then, you might have had second thoughts.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: But even then, it was a very difficult, you know, I was, quite frankly, nervous going into Gaza. I had nightmares about being kidnapped. You know, it was very difficult, especially for a Jew, to go into an area controlled by Hamas. So I did. It was, you know, I went in with a certain amount of fear and trepidation.

BILL MOYERS: And were there moments when you were apprehensive, when you thought, perhaps-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No, no. On the contrary, I was struck by the warmth of the people, that we met and who we dealt with in Gaza. You know, my fears were put aside. When I went back for the second visit to Gaza, I went with a much more equanimity and level of acceptance.

BILL MOYERS: But since they knew you were coming to try to prove that Israel had committed war crimes, you would have expected some hospitality, right?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No, no. No, but there was criticism when my appointment was announced, there were some Hamas statements, objecting to a Jew being appointed and expecting a Jew to be even-handed. I was certainly very conscious of being Jewish, offering me no excuse to refuse to do it. You know, anymore than it would have- I could have lived with myself being a white South African looking into terrible violations committed by white South African.

BILL MOYERS: Were you frightened then?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Yes, I was. Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Your life was in danger then-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: It was. Very much so.

BILL MOYERS: You had to have-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: I had security.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah. And what about Rwanda, and the Balkans? Were you ever fearful in those other situations? You seem to keep walking into the heart of darkness, if I may say.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: You know, I went through some pretty difficult situations, especially flying into Sarajevo during the war, in helicopters, having flak jackets, flying into an airport that was under heavy attack by the Bosnian Serb forces. That was a hair-raising, probably one of the most nervous situations I've ever been in.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you do these things?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I think one accepts these duties and obligations, not knowing where they're going to lead. And then one has to do one's duty.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, but why do you have to do your duty? I mean, what made a Richard Goldstone?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I think it's one's experience. I've felt as I certainly I got involved in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa because of my anger and frustration at the unfairness of racial oppression. And I was privileged to be able to get involved and make a difference. And then I found myself really, as a result, solely of pressure from Nelson Mandela, getting involved in the war crimes tribunal in the Yugoslavia. I didn't want to do it. But he twisted my arm, and he's a very good arm-twister, and I found myself in Bosnia. Then the Security Council asked me to do Rwanda. The Swedish Prime Minister asked me to do Kosovo. Kofi Annan asked me to do Oil-for-Food. These are all, I mean, difficult, difficult inquiries. I think, I must confess, I've got a tremendous amount of satisfaction from doing that, which has put me into a position of working with absolutely outstanding people. So, really one thing leads to the other.

BILL MOYERS: But this is an occasion in which being a Jew, some right-wing Jews in Israel have accused you of betraying your people. This has never happened before, has it? Maybe the white South Africans accused you of betraying white South Africa, but this is different, isn't it?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, it's different, but it's symptomatic of the same disease.

BILL MOYERS: Which is?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Which is a form of racism. Why should my being Jewish stop me from investigating Israel? I just don't see it. I think a friend should be open to criticism from friends. I think it's more important. I think true friends criticize their friends when they do wrong things.

BILL MOYERS: Let me come back to some of that criticism, because I've tried to read as much as I can of the response to your report, as well as reading the report, which is compelling and terrifying, actually, but Israelis claim that if you hold them to this standard that you'd just described, that law prescribes for conflict, any democracy that's fighting terrorism is likely to find itself dragged into an international court of justice. I mean, do you consider that a valid concern?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No. Absolutely not. Take the United States fighting wars in Kosovo and Iraq and Afghanistan. They have certainly at a high level, gone to extremes to protect innocent civilians. Where they've made mistakes, and mistakes have been made, in Kosovo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, apologies have followed. The United States, in general, has accepted and tried its best, with the assistance of military lawyers, has tried its best to avoid violating international humanitarian law. So, it seems to me this is a smokescreen. I've got no doubt that the laws of war are sufficient to cover the situation of fighting what is now termed asymmetric war. It's not easy; I concede that. But there's a line over which you just don't transgress, without clearly violating the law.

BILL MOYERS: Many Israelis said that if they took your findings to heart, they would not be able to root out the terrorists that surround them, and Israel does live in a sea of animosity.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I just don't accept that. I don't accept that the destruction of the food infrastructure is necessary to fight terrorism from Gaza.

BILL MOYERS: Let me show you a clip from the speech made at the United Nations by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot. By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice... The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza, the same UN that promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us - my people, my country - of being war criminals? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. For acting in a way that any country would act. With a restraint unmatched by many. What a travesty. Ladies and gentlemen, Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report provides a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

BILL MOYERS: What were you thinking as you just listened to that?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: When I was thinking it's a complete misunderstanding, and lack of appreciation of what of what humanitarian law is all about. And again, it's no answer to say that there's a right of self-defense. As I say, I accept the right of Israel, absolutely, to defend itself. But let me give you an example. Assuming the United States fighting Taliban, started bombing the whole food infrastructure of the people in the area where Taliban are- plowing up fields, bombing food factories, I don't believe that this would be accepted as legitimate by the people of the United States.

BILL MOYERS: Do we need to change the rules of war in fighting terrorism?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Not at all, and you know, it struck me when I heard that Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested that the law of war needs to be changed. It seems to me to contain an implicit acceptance that they broke the law that now is, and that's why it needs to be changed.

BILL MOYERS: From the get-go, Israel refused to cooperate with you. Israel would not even let you in the country to conduct investigations. How could you expect to do a good job, then, with only one side of the story?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know I, naively, I must confess, with hindsight, believed that Israel would cooperate. I thought that I'd obtained an even-handed mandate, really for the first time, from the Human Rights Council. I really expected the Israeli government to seize this opportunity of using an even-handed mission to its advantage. And I pleaded with the Israeli government in one letter directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I said, "Please, meet with me. Tell me how you want us to implement the mandate. Tell- give us advice as to how we should go about it." I assume they'd do that.

BILL MOYERS: Did you hear from him?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: The final refusal came some two and a half months later, after we were busy involved. We were committed. It was really- it seems to me too late to withdraw at that stage.

BILL MOYERS: What is your judgment as to why Israel refused to cooperate?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, I don't know. I understand the objection to the Human Rights Council. I've been an outspoken critic of the Human Rights Council, acting exceptionally against Israel and giving it the overemphasis of the Middle East, and condemnation of Israel, on the agendas of the Human Rights Council.

BILL MOYERS: That's been a pattern, hasn't it? That the United Nations has focused far more on Israel as a target of challenges on human rights than anybody else.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely, and this is why I thought this was a new departure, which should be taken advantage of and used as a lever to stop this partiality in the future. And even though it wasn't accepted by Israel, certainly, I believe I hope not immodestly, that I'm now in a position to criticize the Human Rights Council if it continues to act in that unfair way.

BILL MOYERS: So you took this on, knowing the record of bias on the part of UN, the United Nations toward Israel, and-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Because you hope to change that?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Because I hope to change it, and I thought it was in the interest of Israel for me to do it.

BILL MOYERS: And you insisted, as I understand it, that the mandate be changed. I mean, let me read you from the original mandate from the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Quote, "...investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power, Israel, against the Palestinian people, throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip." Now that's pretty charged language, Judge. Not a single mention of Hamas or the other militants, who were firing thousands of rockets into Israel. Did that language set off an alarm for you?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No, it led to me refusing the invitation. I was invited on the basis of that, and I refused it. And I thought, that's the end of it.

BILL MOYERS: Because the language was charged.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Because it was stacked against Israel, and would have been a one-sided investigation, and I wasn't prepared, let alone as a Jew, but as a human being, to get involved in investigating under a one-sided mandate. And I refused. And I was then invited by the president of the Human Rights Council to visit with him. And he asked me what I thought would be an even-handed mandate, and I told him, and he said, "Write it out for me." And I wrote it out. And he said, "Well, that's the mandate that I'm giving you, if you're prepared to take it." Well, it was very difficult to refuse, in that situation, to get a mandate that I'd written for myself.

BILL MOYERS: What did you want it to say?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: That the mandate should cover all crimes committed by both sides, within the context of Operation Cast Lead, whether committed before, during or after the military operations.

BILL MOYERS: You wanted it directed not just at Israel, but at-

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: -the militants.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Correct. And it was impossible to do a full job without that, because clearly, the Israeli operations were directly linked to the rocket fire. I still, frankly, feared that the Human Rights Council might use our report as an a la carte menu, and use those parts against Israel and reject those parts against Hamas. But it didn't do that, at the meeting of the Human Rights Council last week. It adopted the whole report, which is the clearest ex post facto approval of the even-handed mandate we got. And then, even then, I complained when I was in Bern, Switzerland, last week, that the first draft resolution left Hamas out of the picture, because our report was buried in a whole lot of resolutions and paragraphs condemning Israel, and as a result of my complaint, not only, but certainly, I think it played an important role, a paragraph was added, condemning all targeting of civilians. And calling for accountability on all sides.

BILL MOYERS: Your report recommends that both Israel and Hamas conduct their own investigations, and that if there are war crimes alleged and proven, that those participants, those perpetrators, Israelis or Hamas, be taken to the International Criminal Court.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: No, that they should be punished in their own countries. Only if there are no investigations - the International Criminal Court is a court of last resort. If nations investigate their own war crimes in good faith, then the International Court has no jurisdiction. And that's the out Israel and Hamas have - if they have good faith investigations, that's the end of criminal investigations at the international level.

BILL MOYERS: So what are they afraid of, as you read Israel?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I can only assume they're afraid of an even-handed, good faith investigation, proving that serious war crimes were committed. And that they don't want.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think Hamas will likely call- do an investigation itself?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I think there'd be tremendous pressure on them to do that, if Israel did.

BILL MOYERS: You said recently that to understand international justice, you have to understand the politics of international justice. What do you mean by that?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, without the political will, we wouldn't have had an international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. That was a huge departure. If you think what's happened since 1993 and 2009, there's been a rapid development. Nobody anticipated a permanent international criminal court, now with 110 nations actively involved in it, every member of the European Union. Japan. One wouldn't have expected that. But none of that would have happened without the political will, and particularly, the political will of the United States. It was the Clinton administration, and particularly Madeleine Albright, who drove that whole policy. Without Madeleine Albright, I believe that there wouldn't have been a Yugoslavia tribunal, there wouldn't have been a Rwanda tribunal, and Kofi Annan wouldn't have been encouraged to call a diplomatic conference to set up an International Criminal Court. So it was political will on the part of the United States, perhaps ironically, in hindsight. But without that, these things wouldn't have happened.

BILL MOYERS: Why does the world need an International Court of Justice?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: It really is a question of principle. Until 1993, war criminals had literally impunity. They didn't have to fear justice at home, because at home, they were usually war heroes and not war criminals. And there wasn't a single international court with jurisdiction over them. There were no individual nations that were prepared to use universal jurisdiction against war criminals. That's changed. War criminals have trouble traveling around many countries of the world. One of the things worrying the Israeli government, that if they don't have their own investigation, they're going to face investigations in some of the European countries and some of the African countries, including my own country, South Africa. So there's a lot of political reasons that indicate that it's in their interest, and really, on what basis should they refuse, to have their own domestic investigation?

BILL MOYERS: Not everyone has been critical of your report, in fact, just this week, the "Financial Times," very respected British-based newspaper ran an editorial saying that: "Goldstone's Gaza report is balanced. Israel is not alone in the dock," it said, "it simply looms larger." So it's hard to understand why Israel is so vociferously opposed to what you say is a necessary act of justice.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: The only reason they've given has come, I really think from Defense Minister Barak, who says that an independent investigation will in some way downgrade the military investigating themselves. Well, that would be a good thing. I think one of the things that disturbs me about the internal military investigation- it's now, what, seven months since the end of the war. There's only been one successful prosecution against a soldier, who stole a credit card, which is really almost fodder for cartoonists, in the plethora of alleged war crimes. But what concerns me is, in those military investigations, as far as I've read, in only one cases have the military even approached the victims in Gaza. And obviously, to have a full investigation, one needs, as you say, to hear both sides.

BILL MOYERS: The Israelis say that there's no government better at investigating their own actions of the military, whether it's the two wars in Lebanon, or Bus 300, all of these incidents, Israel says, "We go out and hold our military accountable."

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, to do it in secrecy? And, you know, I always quote Justice Brandeis, who said, "The best disinfectant is sunlight." And this is happening in the dark. And even with the best good faith in the world on the part of the military investigators, the victims are not going to accept decisions that are taken in the dark, and don't involve them.

BILL MOYERS: But if you were an Israeli, would you not be fearful of a United Nations that historically has been biased against the country?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Yes, but I would go out of my way to meet that head on. And not to simply put one's head in the sand and say, "Well, the United Nations is biased; I'm going to ignore it." That's not the way one succeeds in the modern world.

BILL MOYERS: The "Financial Times" says it is your reputation, Judge Richard Goldstone's reputation, the Israeli government fears and not your methods. What do they have to be afraid of?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: The only thing they can be afraid of is the truth. And I think this is why they're attacking the messenger and not the message.

BILL MOYERS: What do you hope happens now?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I certainly hope that there'll be sufficient drive within Israel, within the government and in the general public to force the Israeli government to set up an independent, open inquiry. And it can do it. It's got a wonderful legal system, its got a great judicial system, its got retired judges who certainly, in my book, would earn the respect of the overwhelming number of people around the world, including the Arab world, who, if they held open, good faith inquiries, would put an end to this.

BILL MOYERS: But just this week, the Israeli defense minister said, we don't want any investigations. He says, "There's no need for a committee of inquiry. The Israeli military knows how to examine itself better than anyone else." And he blocked a meeting this week that was going to discuss whether or not Israel should launch an investigation.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well the question is whether he's going to succeed. You know, Ariel Sharon, when he was defense minister, did exactly the same blocking, unsuccessfully, in respect of Sabra and Shatila, and a very appropriate independent investigation was set up under judges and the then attorney general. And of course, they found Sharon guilty, and forced his dismissal as defense minister. So there's precedent both for the minister blocking it, and for his losing, and I hope that will happen here.

BILL MOYERS: The Israeli Cabinet this week set up a special cabinet lobbying group to urge the United States to use its veto power in the Security Council to prevent any legal action against the Israelis. What do you make of that?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, that's the sort of politics you and I were talking about, not too many minutes ago. That's using the political route rather than the legal route.

BILL MOYERS: Our state department has come right out and said, your findings are unfair toward Israel.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, you know, those are statements it's impossible to respond to, because there's no detail. They haven't said why it's unbalanced. They've said there are flaws in the report. And I really do hope and invite the administration to indicate where the report is flawed or unbalanced. And I certainly would welcome learning where we went wrong, and if and I'm easily- I would be easily convinced. And if we if we made mistakes in those are pointed out, I would be the first person to admit it.

BILL MOYERS: So you have Israel saying that your report is an impediment to peace, and you say that it is essential to peace. Why do you think a report like this is essential to the peace process?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, because certainly, it's been my experience in the countries in which I've been involved and many in which I haven't been involved, that in the aftermath of serious human rights violations, you cannot get enduring peace if you leave rancor and calls for revenge in the victim population. What victims need is acknowledgement. They need official acknowledgement of their victimization. And whether that's done by Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, as we did in South Africa, or through domestic prosecutions or international prosecutions, that official truth-telling is an essential building brick to lasting peace.

BILL MOYERS: Judge Richard Goldstone, thank you very much for being with me on the Journal.

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Pleasure.

Posted November 1, 2009 By Gideon Levy

America, stop sucking up to Israel

Barack Obama has been busy - offering the Jewish People blessings for Rosh Hashanah, and recording a flattering video for the President's Conference in Jerusalem and another for Yitzhak Rabin's memorial rally. Only Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah surpasses him in terms of sheer output of recorded remarks.

In all the videos, Obama heaps sticky-sweet praise on Israel, even though he has spent nearly a year fruitlessly lobbying for Israel to be so kind as to do something, anything - even just a temporary freeze on settlement building - to advance the peace process.

The president's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has also been busy, shuttling between a funeral (for IDF soldier Asaf Ramon, the son of Israel's first astronaut Ilan Ramon) and a memorial (for Rabin, though it was postponed until next week due to rain), in order to find favor with Israelis. Polls have shown that Obama is increasingly unpopular here, with an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent.

He decided to address Israelis by video, but a persuasive speech won't persuade anyone to end the occupation. He simply should have told the Israeli people the truth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived here last night, will certainly express similar sentiments: "commitment to Israel's security," "strategic alliance," "the need for peace," and so on .

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. Anwar Sadat may have been the last leader to win our hearts with optimistic, hope-igniting speeches. If he were to visit Israel today, he would be jeered off the stage. The Syrian president pleads for peace and Israel callously dismisses him, the United States begs for a settlement free ze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no consequences for Israel's inaction.

When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price.

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

Posted October 26, 2009 by Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

PCHR Condemns IOF's Raid of al-Aqsa Mosque

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) raid of the al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem on Sunday morning, 25 October 2009, and their use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians who attempted to stop the raid.

The raid and related incidents followed a call by extremist Jewish groups, particularly the "Organization for Human Rights on the Temple Mount," urging extremist Jews to break into the al-Aqsa Mosque and its yards to conduct Talmudic rituals to mark Rambam?s ascension. Since Saturday night, 24 October 2009, IOF have been intensively deployed throughout the Old City of Jerusalem. The al-Aqsa Mosque and worshippers had previously been subjected to a similar assault on 27 September 2009, when a number of Israeli settlers attempted to break into the yards of the Mosque.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 08:00 on Sunday, 25 October 2009, the Israeli police and "Border Guards" broke into the yards of the al-Aqsa Mosque in the old town of occupied East Jerusalem. Some police units closed all gates of the Mosque.

According to eyewitnesses, heavily armed Israeli forces broke into the yards of the al-Aqsa Mosque through the al-Maghariba Gate in the west side of the Mosque. IOF employed sound bombs and tear gas and chased and violently beat worshippers and other individuals in the yard, including women, children and elderly people. IOF also closed all the Mosque?s gates and arrested the guards. At least 200 worshippers were trapped inside the Mosque, as IOF closed the doors with iron chains and locks. IOF did not allow the entry of food and water to those who were held inside the Mosque. A number of worshippers suffered from tear gas inhalation. In the meantime, an Israeli police aircraft had been hovering over the area since the morning.

At approximately 10:00, IOF broke into the room designated for the Azan (the call for prayers) and damaged equipment; the Azan was not transmitted.

At approximately 11:00, the Israeli police dispersed a peaceful demonstration organized by women who were on their way from Bab Hatta area towards the al-Aqsa Mosque to express solidarity with those who were inside the Mosque.

At approximately 11:30, IOF allowed men aged over 50 to enter the al-Aqsa Mosque. However, less than half an hour later, IOF broke into the yards again and violently beat all those who were in the area, including two journalists and three paramedics. They also arrested a number of Palestinian civilians, including Hatem Abdul Qader, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, but released them later. IOF also besieged a number of worshippers in the Dome of the Rock Mosque and the Southern Mosque after locking the doors. IOF further prevented journalists and medical crews from entering the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Clashes between Palestinian civilians and the Israeli police continued until the afternoon. According to medical sources, 25 civilians, including 7 women, were injured. Most injuries resulted from violent beating, tear gas and shrapnel from sound bombs.

PCHR strongly condemns repeated attacks by IOF against the al-Aqsa Mosque, and stresses that:

1) East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian Territories that were occupied by Israel following the June 1967 war.

2) Measures taken by Israeli occupation authorities following the occupation of the city, in the foremost, the Israeli Knesset's decision on 28 June 1967 to annex the city, its decision on 30 July 1980 considering "complete and united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" and the decision to expand the municipal boundaries, a flagrant violation of international law and United Nations resolutions.

3) Measures and plans implemented by Israeli occupation authorities in occupied Jerusalem can never change its legal status.

4) Such actions are in violation of Article 53 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). Article 16 of Protocol I prohibits " any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.?

5) Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 prevents the Occupying Power from "deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

In light of the above:

1) PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, jointly or individually, to fulfill their legal and moral obligations to ensure Israel's respect for the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) according to Article 1 of the Convention, and believes that the international silence and inaction encourage Israel to act as a State above law and perpetrate more violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including efforts intended to establish a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem.

2) PCHR calls upon the international community to immediately act to force the Israeli government to stop all settlement activities in the OPT, especially in East Jerusalem, and to dismantle existing settlement, the existence of which constitute war crimes under international humanitarian law.

3) PCHR calls upon the European Union and/or its Member States to activate Article 2 of the Euro-Israeli Association Agreement, which links continuous economic cooperation between the two parties with Israel's respect for human rights, and to stop dealing with Israeli products, especially those produced in Israeli settlements in the OPT, including East Jerusalem.

Posted October 26, 2009 by James Marc Leas

National Lawyers Guild calls for urgent action on Goldstone recommendations

If US Vetoes NLG urges General Assembly to Act

The National Lawyers Guild calls on the United States not to block Security Council action on the Goldstone Report concerning war crimes and possible crimes against humanity committed in Gaza when it votes in the UN Security Council.

The Goldstone Report recommends that the Security Council require the Government of Israel to launch independent investigations ?into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the [Goldstone Fact Finding] Mission [paragraph 1969a]. The Goldstone Report also recommends that the Security Council "refer the situation in Gaza to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court" if Israeli authorities do not initiate "good-faith investigations that are independent and in conformity with international standards" [paragraph 1969c]. Hamas has agreed to initiate investigation but so far Israel has refused to launch an independent, impartial investigation.

Should the US veto Goldstone's recommendation to refer the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court, allowing the "culture of impunity" identified by Goldstone to continue, the National Lawyers Guild urges the General Assembly to itself implement this and other recommendations of the Goldstone Report.

1. The UN General Assembly can do the equivalent by establishing an Article 22 tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators. Article 22 of the UN Charter provides, "The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions."

2. Alternatively, the General Assembly can facilitate prosecution at the International Criminal Court by adopting a resolution accepting Palestine as a state for the purpose of ICC jurisdiction in that court, a suggestion made in a July 22, 2009 New York Times oped by John Dugard, a South African professor of international law who served as a judge on the International Court of Justice, as a special rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the former UN Commission on Human Rights, and as a member of the UN International Law Commission.

3. As recomended in the Goldstone Report [paragraph 1971a], the General Assembly can also take action under Uniting for Peace Resolution 377, which states that "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. . . the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures. . . to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Responding to the US opposition to the Goldstone Report, Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated, "Accountability for breaches of international humanitarian law and for human rights violations, as well as respect for human rights, are not obstacles to peace, but rather the preconditions on which trust and, ultimately, a durable peace can be built."

The Goldstone Report recognized the ongoing blockade of Gaza by Israel and noted that "Israeli incursions and military operations in the Gaza Strip did not stop after the end of the military operations of December - January." [paragraph 1915] Action is especially urgent because the blockade and military incursions continue.

NLG President David Gespass said, "The current US position is incompatible with any standard of justice. It is incompatible with President Obama's speech to the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2009, when he said 'The world must stand together. We must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise.' The Israeli officials who planned and committed the war crimes and crimes against humanity identified by the United Nations Fact Finding Mission remain in power in Israel to this day, they continue the illegal blockade of Gaza, and they continue planning and executing military operations there and in the occupied West Bank. If the US position prevails the culture of impunity will continue. The US must not be allowed to obstruct justice. If Israel continues to refuse to launch an independent investigation, and if action by the UN Security Council is blocked by a US veto, the UN General Assembly should act. Justice delayed is justice denied."

Posted October 26, 2009 by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

A British Jew Committed to Prosecuting Israeli Leaders

Attorney Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, chairwoman of the Shurat Hadin legal advocacy organization, told Arutz Sheva Radio on Thursday who exactly is behind the effort to prosecute former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon and other IDF commanders. He is Daniel Machover - a British lawyer who is also a former Israeli.

Machover, a co-founder of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, represents the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, based in the Hamas-run Gaza half of the Palestinian Authority. According to Leitner, Machover has dedicated his life to collecting evidence against IDF officers and political leaders in an effort to charge them with war crimes in Europe. He and the center he represents prepare legal ambushes for Israeli military and civilian leaders who visit European countries, hoping to bring about their arrest and prosecution.

"Attorney Daniel Machover is an expatriate Israeli, son of a Communist family that emigrated to England after the Six Day War," Leitner said. The family left Israel because of what they saw as "the suffering of the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation. The family distanced itself from anything related to Jews and Israel and became close to the Palestinians," Leitner continued.

According to the Shurat Hadin chairwoman, Machover has been trying to bring about the prosecution of Israeli officers long before the recent Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. "We have been following his activities for several years," Leitner said. "Thank God, thus far he has not seen the fruits of his efforts and we hope that it will continue to be possible to foil his despicable efforts."

The British Jewish lawyer Machover is one of a string of "former Israelis who hold hard Left opinions" who have set themselves up as enemies of Israel, Leitner explained. "The goal of people such as him is to undermine the Jewish identity and the Jewish people."

Last year, for example, Machover took part in the the International Jewish Solidarity (later, Anti-Zionist) Network's conference under the heading, "International Resistance to Zionism: In solidarity with 60-plus years of Palestinian resistance to the founding of Israel".

"I can only be saddened that that man calls himself an international human rights attorney, because he cares only for Palestinian human rights and doesn't care about Jewish blood [that is s. If human rights are important to him, then let him worry about the rights of both sides," Attorney Leitner added.

Leitner's organization is attempting to fight back against all the hostile elements currently active in the courts. "We are engaged on several fronts," she detailed. "First of all, in assisting with the filing of counterclaims of war crimes by Israel's enemies, despite the fact that in this way we are in effect recognizing the jurisdiction of foreign courts; however, if that is the field our enemies are playing in, then we too will compete in the same arena, with the same tools. And then we can perhaps prove who the real war criminals are."

Leitner told Arutz Sheva about several successes. "In Spain, they wanted to file charges against Israeli officers who were involved in the elimination of [Hamas mastermi Saleh Shehadeh. We also turned to a Spanish attorney and requested to initiate a similar investigation of Javier Solana, who was the head of NATO forces during the war in Kosovo, responsible for the accidental bombing of a hospital, leading to the deaths of children. After a short time, it was decided in Spain to end the investigation of the Shehadeh incident and we were informed that our counter-investigation caused the Spanish legal system to understand that there is no place for investigations in Spain of actions carried out in other countries."

Posted October 26, 2009 By Anshel Pfeffer

EU lawyers: We've got names of IDF officers suspected of war crimes

Human rights lawyers and pro-Palestinian activists in a number of European countries hold lists with names of Israel Defense Forces soldiers allegedly linked to war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. Existing legislation enables arrest warrants to be issued against these officers if they enter those countries.

Lawyers in Britain and other European countries have been collecting testimonies of Palestinians and other data from Gaza since January, which they maintain proves that war crimes were committed by the IDF during the offensive. The evidence is linked to IDF officers holding ranks of battalion commander and higher, who were in command during various stages of Cast Lead.

The other nations who have lawyers collecting information on the matter include the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Norway, whose laws, as well as Britain's, allow the issuance of arrest warrants against foreign citizens suspected of war crimes.

Attorney Daniel Makover from London is coordinating the efforts in Britain. One of his colleagues visited the Gaza Strip several weeks after the fighting in order to collect testimonies. Palestinians civilians also gave the legal assistant their approval, and asked that he file the suits in their name, in line with British law.

Speaking to Haaretz, Makover refused to offer details on the identity of the IDF officers or how many were listed, but said that much depends on the specific details of each case. Makover said that anyone who was involved in an incident may face criminal charges. The attorney added that there are officers who are obviously candidates for charges, and others who are less obvious, but emphasized that it depends on the facts collected on the ground.

Makover said that the Goldstone report on the fighting in the Gaza Strip will bolster the efforts of the activists, and said that some of the instances mentioned in the report were already known to the attorneys. Makover is part of an unofficial network of attorneys operating in various countries in Europe, exchanging and sharing information so that suspected officers may be arrested in those countries.

The information is often received from pro-Palestinian activists who follow Jewish or pro-Israel groups that invite IDF officers to deliver lectures. In some instances, this information is relayed to border controls. Makover said that a small number of names of IDF officers is already on a British police watch list, and that when they arrive in Britain the authorities will issue an arrest warrant that will lead to their possible detention.

A number of human rights groups are busy working to create an international organization that would enable closer surveillance of those they suspect of war crimes and torture, as well as seek warrants for their arrest.

The IDF did not wish to specify the instructions it has given to officers before they travel abroad. In practice, many of the officers who participated in the Gaza operation have been asked to consult with legal experts at the Foreign Ministry, where they are instructed how to behave abroad and where they need to lower the profile of their identity; in some cases they are advised not to visit certain countries.

The Foreign Ministry released a statement saying: "The ministry is aware of efforts undertaken by Palestinian groups and their supporters to harm IDF officers through legal and public relations means, and is working to prevent such efforts."

Posted October 23, 2009 By YAAKOV LAPPIN

Israel may help Jewish groups sue Palestinians

The Israeli defense establishment is weighing the possibility of providing assistance to Jewish organizations abroad who wish to sue Palestinian terrorists for war crimes against Israeli civilians, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Faced with an international legal campaign by Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists who seek to file lawsuits against senior visiting Israeli military officials, defense chiefs have long been considering fighting fire with fire.

But a security source warned that reservations about legitimizing universal jurisdiction for foreign courts not recognized by Israel have kept a lid on such ideas up to now.

While direct Israeli legal engagement would "encourage others on the other side to do the same," the source said, helping Jewish organizations abroad lead the legal counterattack was being viewed more positively.

One possible drawback in providing assistance to Jewish organizations involved the risk of exposing intelligence sources, who feed the defense establishment with information on the activities of senior Palestinian terrorists.

Potential future lawsuits would need to prove that individual terrorists gave direct orders for war crimes to be committed, and much of that evidence comes from electronic eavesdropping and classified intelligence sources.

Still, the security source said, there was a great deal of available evidence against senior terrorists that could be made public without jeopardizing the intelligence sources.

In the meantime, countries whose courts were being exploited to wage legal war on Israel were embarrassed by the situation, the source argued, adding that "no one can assure the British, French or Belgians that their military officials will not face a war crimes lawsuit. Every country has its weaknesses."

Alan Baker, Israel's former ambassador to Canada, who has served as a legal adviser to the foreign minister, said it would be advisable for Israel to refrain from directly suing terrorists abroad, but concurred with the security chief that allowing Jewish organizations to lead the way would be a positive development. "For years, the American Jewish Committee has been considering the possibility of instituting prosecution against Palestinian terrorists in US courts," said Baker.

But even if Jewish organizations form the vanguard for a counter-legal war, the dilemma of creating an endless tit-for-tat international legal battle remained, he warned.

Posted October 23, 2009 By HERB KEINON

Netanyahu: Change the laws of war to deal with terrorism

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu directed the relevant ministries on Tuesday to look into ways of launching an international initiative to change the laws of war to deal with the modern-day scourge of terrorism.

This new initiative comes fast on the heels of the Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war crimes for its military operation in the Gaza Strip against Hamas earlier this year.

At a meeting of the security cabinet that focused on the report and its ramifications, Netanyahu said Israel's challenge was "to delegitimize the continuous attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel."

"The most important arena where we need to act in this context is in the arena of public opinion, which is crucial in the democratic world. We must continue to debunk this lie that is spreading with the help of the Goldstone report," Netanyahu said.

"In Lebanon, in Gaza and in other places, weapons are being piled up around us with the sole aim of firing them at the citizens of the State of Israel," he continued. "I want to make it clear to everyone: No one will undermine our ability and right to defend our children, our citizens and our communities."

Netanyahu said that such a new initiative was necessary to keep up with the spread of terrorism throughout the world, according to a statement put out by the Prime Minister's Office.

In addition, the security cabinet instructed the Justice Ministry to establish a unit to handle legal proceedings taking place overseas against the State of Israel or its citizens. The new unit will be established in the Justice Ministry in coordination with the attorney-general and the state attorney.

The security cabinet was briefed by Foreign Ministry, Military Intelligence and National Security Council representatives on the Goldstone Report.

One issue critical to Israel's dealing with the Goldstone report was not discussed on Tuesday, but is likely to be discussed at the security cabinet's next meeting: whether Israel should set up a judicial commission to look into various allegations stemming from Operation Cast Lead.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, however, is adamantly opposed to such a committee, and reportedly blocked attempts by Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz to bring the matter to the security cabinet on Tuesday. Barak reportedly said in the cabinet meeting that such a body was not needed, since the IDF was capable of investigating itself.

Those in favor of setting up such a body maintain that by doing so, Israel would prevent itself from possibly being hauled before the International Criminal Court in The Hague on war crimes charges, since the ICC does not take up cases where credible and independent investigations are being conducted by the countries involved.

Because of the sensitivity of the matter, it was impossible Tuesday to get any of the 15 members of the security cabinet to come out openly and say whether or not they supported establishing an independent committee. Sources close to the prime minister said that he had not yet formulated an opinion on the matter.

In a related development, the committee declared 50 organizations to be terror organizations, according to the statement from the Prime Minister's Office.

The statement said that the organizations, the names of which were not immediately publicized, "are active all over the world and direct their activities toward various targets in the West and not necessarily against Israel. Almost all of these organizations are connected to al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden or the Taliban."

According to the statement, "declaring these organizations as terrorist organizations is a significant step in the international struggle against financing terrorism. This announcement is designed to align Israel with Western countries, in particular the United States, which combat terrorism by locating funds intended to finance terrorism. Once this declaration is passed, banks and Israeli financial institutions will be obligated to examine their accounts and financial activities and report any suspicious activities connected to these organizations to the Israel Money Laundering and Terror Financing Prohibition Authority."

Posted October 23, 2009 By Uri Yacobi Keller

Academic Boycott and the Complicity of Israeli Academic Institutions in Occupation of Palestinian Territories

Through this report, we aim to inform and empower the debate on an academic boycott by giving information not on Israeli violence and violations of international law and human rights, but on the part played in the Israeli occupation by the very academic institutions in question. The report demonstrates that Israeli academic institutions have not opted to take a neutral, apolitical position toward the Israeli occupation but to fully support the Israeli security forces and policies toward the Palestinians.

Introduction

The idea of an academic boycott of Israel first emerged in 2002 as part of the growing boycott and divestment campaign against Israel, itself a part of the struggle against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the violation of Palestinian human and national rights. Compared to other types of boycott, the academic boycott has gathered a relative amount of widespread support amongst academic unions and organizations, primarily in Great Britain. Not surprisingly, this relative success has stirred a public debate and opposition to the boycott, mostly by pro-Israeli organizations and academics. The campaign for academic boycott has wavered under these pressures and various degrees and measures of boycott have since been approved and then often canceled by academic organizations. The arguments in favor of this kind of boycott have relied largely on the facts of the Israeli occupation and the idea of pressuring Israel through its academic world; often, they have not utilised details relating to the specific academic institutions that they call to boycott. Through this report, however, the Alternative Information Center (AIC) aims to inform and empower the debate on an academic boycott by giving information not on Israeli violence and violations of international law and human rights, but on the part played in the Israeli occupation by the very academic institutions in question. The report demonstrates that Israeli academic institutions have not opted to take a neutral, apolitical position toward the Israeli occupation but to fully support the Israeli security forces and policies toward the Palestinians, despite the serious suspicions of crimes and atrocities hovering over them. Any who argue either for or against an academic boycott against Israeli institutions, we believe, should know and consider not only facts regarding the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), but also the ways in which the Israeli academic institutions make political choices and actively take sides in the ongoing conflict.

This report deals with relevant facts about the connections between Israeli academic institutions and the occupation. It is doubtful that in the process of researching this report all facts relevant to the subject were uncovered, especially since some of the economic connections between academic institutions and private companies are actively hidden by the parties involved. The involvement of Israeli academic institutions in the occupation takes many forms and scopes, and not all Israeli academic institutions can be said to be involved on the same scale. However, all main Israeli academic institutions are involved in the occupation. Indeed, all major Israeli academic institutions, certainly the ones with the strongest international connections, were found to provide unquestionable support to Israel?s occupation. Some of the details depicted in this report are evidence of blunt and direct support to the occupation while others are more minor details, which, nonetheless, provide a clear indication of the political stance taken by academic institutions.

It should be noted that the Israeli security forces are the prime proponents of the occupation and therefore any aid given to them is considered here as support for the occupation. It is probable that universities in other countries may also occasionally support the local security forces. However the situation of the Israeli army is unlike that of other armies around the world and no support given to the Israeli security agencies can be defined as "neutral."

Posted October 23, 2009 By Alison Weir

Obama Administration Takes from American Farmers, Gives to Israel

At a time of financial crisis in the United States in which thousands of Americans have lost their jobs and homes, an Israeli news service reports that President Obama has just signed a presidential memo eliminating a tariff on Israel that protected American dairy farmers and that raised money for the American economy.

In addition, according to the Israeli report, US trade authorities have ordered the return of $17,000 to an Israeli export agent for a levy paid for butter produced by an Israeli company.

The move comes at a time when American dairy farmers have been facing what industry representatives call a "crisis." According to the National Milk Producers Federation website, "U.S. dairy producers have been facing unprecedented losses over the past year due to low milk prices and high input costs. The dire economic straits have forced many dairy farmers to exit the industry, oftentimes having to sell their herds or farms."2

According to the news report by Israeli wire service Ynet, the Obama memo, which was signed several days ago, removed the import subcharge on dairy products from Israel.

The report noted that such levies are important for protecting local production against competing imports, "which put the local production at risk." The levy is required from most countries that export dairy products to the U.S.

According to Ynet, Israeli agricultural attaché Yaakov Poleg was able to convince the US that "the trade agreement between Israel and the US prohibits placing taxes on exports from Israel."

However, this tax was required under previous American administrations.

The Ynet report quotes Israeli export agent Dudu Buch, whose company is to receive the $17,000, as taking credit for obtaining this change in US policy.

Buch states: "My American colleague was under a lot of pressure and almost gave up, saying that if the American system imposed a protection levy it would last forever."

Buch goes on to say, "I told him that we Israelis can think differently. I turned to the Agriculture Ministry's representative at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and the matter was dealt with quickly."

Israel's attaché was particularly pleased that this change was made through a presidential memo, rather than through normal channels, stating "... in light of the fact that Israel was removed from the list through a presidential declaration, there is no fear that it will be placed on us again in the future."

According to Ynet, Israeli dairy exports to the US are "constantly on the rise," a situation that could hurt US dairy farmers.

The Obama memo would seem to hinder what the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) described in July as a broad effort, which included the US Department of Agriculture, "to reverse the current dairy crisis."

The DFA emphasized: "Every initiative we can successfully implement to bolster milk prices makes a vital difference to the dairy farmers who are fighting hard to maintain their livelihoods."

Yesterday the organization mailed out a special cash payment to dairy farmers around the country to help "bridge the gap" to a full recovery, stating that it recognized "that our members have a long road ahead as they heal from this difficult year. Our intent is that this special cash payment will help these dedicated farmers hang on until recovery is in full swing and positive cash flows return."4

No one at the US Department of Agriculture contacted for information about this policy change had been aware that it had been implemented. Some suggested that it might be related to a free trade agreement with Israel signed in 1995, but had no information as to why an ongoing US policy had been modified by presidential order.

Council for the National Interest President Eugene Bird objected to the change: "Once again we see Israel receiving special treatment, at the cost to Americans. Even American citizens who oppose protective tariffs want to see a fair and equitable policy. Instead we have a policy change -- implemented without public input or debate -- that benefits one of the richest nations on earth, and a nation that consistently flouts US laws and policies."

Israel is generally rated as having the 17th wealthiest population in the world.

Bird also noted that Israel, in violation of US trade agreements, has been blocking some American products entirely. "A serious look should be taken at how Israel has prevented certain American products from being imported into Israel," Bird said, "for example orange juice."

In addition, Bird pointed out that for decades Israeli policies have prevented Palestinian exports, creating extreme financial hardship that has escalated in recent years. Numerous Palestinian farmers have lost their livelihoods, and unemployment and malnutrition are being seen in Gaza at what the Red Cross has called "devastating" levels.

Posted October 5, 2009 By James M Leas

Israeli Government Contradicts its Own Self-Defense Argument

Information on the Israeli Governments own web site shows that its self-defense argument for its military operations in Gaza is flawed

Amazingly, the Israeli Governments attack on the [45]Goldstone Report and its longstanding claim that it was acting in self-defense against Hamas rocket fire is flatly contradicted by evidence provided by the Israeli government itself on its own web site. The web site dramatically shows that the Israeli government had already effectively stopped rocket fire long before Israeli forces launched their initial attack on Gaza on November 4, 2008.

Yet, Israeli government spokesmen endlessly repeat the self-defense claim. In [46]an article in the New Republic on 6 October, 2009, for example, Israels ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, stated that Israel's military action in Gaza was an operation launched in response to the firing of more than 7,000 Hamas missiles at Israeli towns since Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Strip. He then states, The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but of the right to defend themselves.

After years of such abject failure of military methods Israel finally hit upon a technique that successfully ended Hamas rocket fire on June 19, 2008. Israel accomplished this feat without dropping a single bomb on Gaza and without sending a single soldier into Gaza: [47]Israel announced an Egyptian brokered six month ceasefire that began on June 19, 2008. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website that ceasefire was so successful that it brought "calm" to towns near Gaza. In an article titled, [48]"One Month of Calm Along the Israel-Gaza Border," posted on July 27, 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website states: More than one month has passed since the calm agreement went into effect, with only sporadic violations by the terrorist organizations. Signs of normal life can be seen in towns on both sides of the Israel-Gaza Strip border. The same site goes on to quote extensively from a report issued by a pro-Israeli government research organization, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC): During its first month, the lull arrangement resulted in a significant drop in rocket and mortar fire at Israel. A relative calm has settled over Sderot and Israeli population centers near the Gaza Strip, occasionally broken by rockets and mortar bombs fired by terrorist organizations which oppose the lull (mostly local Fatah networks, with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad violating the lull only on one occasion). The web site includes the following graph demonstrating the success of the lull arrangement.

Rocket and mortar fire during the lull compared to the months preceding it

The graph reads from right to left and shows an average of 413 rockets and mortars fired each month from January 1 to June 18. The number fired declined to 8 for the rest of June and 12 for almost all of July.

The IICC report continues: The cessation of the intensive fighting which had been going on before the lull has allowed the residents of Sderot and of western Negev population centers, as well as Gaza Strip residents, to return to normal life.

The IICC report then goes on to state, Publicly, Hamas leaders have stated time and again that the lull is a Palestinian national interest. On several occasions, Hamas members have arrested Fatah operatives who were involved in firing at Israel and confiscated their arms.

This authoritative report on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website demonstrates Israeli government satisfaction after only 5 weeks that its ceasefire had substantially ended Hamas rocket fire--and more than that: Hamas was working to eliminate rocket fire from other groups, especially Fatah, the main group running the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.

The rocket and mortar fire from such dissident groups in the Gaza strip declined further over the next few months--down to only 1 rocket and 3 mortars in September and 1 rocket and 1 mortar in October, as shown by the graph on page 10 of the December 2008 [49]"Six Months of the Lull Arrangement" report from the IICC and in an independent report, [50]The War between Israel and Hamas, Facts & Data on Rocket Firing before, during & after the Cease-Fire.

Rocket and mortar fire from Gaza into Israel January 1 through December 16, 2008

WHY ROCKET FIRE RESUMED ON NOVEMBER 5

Just as rocket fire steadily dropped to its lowest point in October, the Israeli Government sent soldiers into Gaza and launched an airstrike on Gaza on November 4, killing 6 Hamas members, as described in the six month IICC report and in a New York Times article, [51]"Israeli Strike is First in Gaza Since Start of Cease Fire," by Isabel Kershner, 4 November 2008. According to the Times article Israel claimed that it attacked to destroy a tunnel Hamas was digging some 270 yards inside Gaza.

November 4 was a day the world's attention was focused on the presidential elections in the US and the historic victory by Barack Obama. November 4 was a day Israel's violation of the ceasefire would very likely be crowded out of front page coverage.

After Israel's November 4 attack Hamas responded with a barrage of rocket and mortar fire. According to the six month IICC report 46 rockets and 16 mortars were launched from Gaza on November 5. During the rest of November and December Israeli forces invaded Gaza nine more times, about once a week, according to [52]the weekly reports of the Palestine Center for Human Rights. Israel's incursions were each accompanied by airstrikes on Gaza, killing dozens of residents. During that same period Hamas and other Palestinian groups launched a total of 193 rockets and mortars from Gaza in November and 98 in the first two weeks of December according to the IICC report, an average of 194 rockets per month. No Israelis were killed during this period.

Israeli Defense Minister Barak admits Hamas rockets are result of Israeli operations

Two weeks after Israels first strike that broke the ceasefire, the largest circulation daily Israeli newspaper reported in its web edition: Defense Minister Ehud Barak addressed the current situation in the region, saying the recent waves of rocket attacks are a result of our operations, which have resulted in the killing of 20 Hamas gunmen" [53](Ynet News November 20, 2008). Defense Minister Ehud Barak is a former Israeli Prime Minister. Thus, one of the highest officials of the Israeli government admitted that its military operations were responsible for the rocket fire. This admission is consistent with the facts about the Israeli governments lethal attack that broke the otherwise successful cease fire sixteen days earlier, on November 4, and its continuing military operations after that date. This means that the statement quoted above from Israels ambassador to the UN that Israel was acting in self-defense is untrue.

It wasnt just the Israeli ambassador being easy with the facts. In his [54]speech at the United Nations on 24 September 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu referred to the Goldstone report, saying: The jurys still out on the United Nations and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here in the United Nations have condemned their victims. This is exactly what a recent U.N. report on Gaza did, falsely equating terrorists with those they targeted. Netanyahu further said: The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty! Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? Contrary to Netanyahus assertions, the Goldstone Report did not challenge Israels right to defend itself. In fact, as Professor Richard Falk points out in a 23 September 2009 article, [55]The Goldstone Report and the Battle for Legitimacy, the [Goldstone] report takes for granted the dubious proposition that Israel was entitled to act against Gaza in self-defense, thereby excluding inquiry into whether crimes against the peace in the form of aggression had taken place by the launching of the attack. In this respect, although the report takes notice of the temporary ceasefire that had cut the rocket fire directed at Israel practically to zero in the months preceding the attacks, it seems to avoid drawing any legal conclusions as to the bearing of this context in which the Gaza war was initiated. The report also ignores Hamas' repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza. Israel disregarded this seemingly available diplomatic alternative to war to achieve security on its borders. Recourse to war, even if the facts were to justify self-defense, is according to international law, a last resort. By ignoring Israel's initiation of a one-sided war the Goldstone report implicitly accepts the dubious central premise of Operation Cast Lead, and avoids making a finding of aggression.

Thus, Israeli government officials have twice incorrectly used the self-defense argument. First, as their central justification for their military operations--in contradiction to the evidence the Israeli government itself provides on its own web site showing that Israel had a successful ceasefire in place and initiated a lethal attack anyway. And now self-defense is their central line of attack on the Goldstone Report--even though that report takes Israels self-defense argument for granted.

Rocket Fire Increased when Israel Escalated its Attack

Rather than defending Israel from the rockets, the Israeli military operations that began on November 4 actually resulted in an increase in rocket fire. When Israeli officials vastly escalated their attack on December 27 the number of rockets fired from Gaza vastly escalated too. [56]According to the Israeli Government Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, 571 rockets and 205 mortar shells landed on Israeli territory during the period of Israels assault from December 27 to January 18, a rate of 1046 per month. It was during this period that three Israelis were killed by rocket fire.

Thus, during the 23 days of Israels Operation Cast Lead, rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza at more than twice the rate they were fired during the peak period in 2008 and five hundred times the rate they were fired during October, just before Israels first attack. The new cease fire on January 18 again sharply reduced the rocket and mortar fire, to an average of 21 per month during the 9 months since the assault ended, according to [57]data provided by the IICC, while Israeli forces continued bombing tunnels and other targets and continued its illegal blockade of Gaza.

Conclusion

Based on facts from Israels own web site, the assertion by Israeli government officials that Israel was acting in furtherance of its right of self-defense or that Israel was responding to rocket fire when it launched its initial attack on Gaza is flawed. Israel had an effective and satisfactory ceasefire in place and launched a lethal attack on November 4 anyway, provoking rocket fire. The facts also show that Israeli military action not only did not work to stop rockets, it actually increased the number of rockets fired. The facts also show that when Israel stopped military action and observed a cease fire with Hamas in June, rocket fire from Hamas stopped and Hamas policed the other groups to get them to stop too. And perhaps most damaging of all to Israels self-defense claim is the admission by Defense Minister Ehud Barak on November 20, 2008 that Hamas rocket fire was a result of our operations.

As Israeli government officials actually do not have a credible self-defense argument for their attack on Gaza, in addition to liability for war crimes and crimes against humanity described in the Goldstone Report, Israeli military and political officials should also be held liable for the crime of aggression for initiating the attack on November 4 and then escalating on December 27. James Marc Leas is a Vermont patent attorney and was a member of the [58]National Lawyers Guild delegation to Gaza in February 2009. This article includes information NLG President Marjorie Cohn sent in a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on May 28, 2009.

Posted October 8, 2009 By Whatreallyhappened.com

What Really Happened

Germany 1940         Israel 2009

Posted October 5, 2009 By PIC

Sarraj calls for removing Abbas from office

Head of the national reconciliation campaign Eyad Al-Sarraj on Sunday called for conducting an investigation with Mahmoud Abbas and removing him from office because of his decision to delay taking action on the UN report about Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

"What happened in Geneva, regardless of the justifications, was a big unforgivable crime against the Palestinian people," Sarraj stressed.

He also described Abbas as a traitor and unfit to be in his post as the chief of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

In a related context, 35 Palestinian organizations in Europe also called for removing Abbas from office and interrogating him before an independent Arab legal committee.

In a joint statement, they said that Abbas's position towards the report gave Israel a cover-up for its war crimes and represented a precedent not less dangerous than the atrocities committed in Gaza nine months ago.

The organizations which signed this statement include the Palestinian assembly in Italy, the cultural society in Poland, the association of Palestinian rights in Ireland, the Palestinian forum of rights and solidarity in Netherlands, the Palestinian forum in Denmark and the Palestinian assembly in Berlin.

For his part, first deputy speaker of the Palestinian legislative council (PLC) Dr. Ahmed Bahar stated Sunday that the Palestinian cause is facing a critical juncture because of the settlement project led by Abbas who dragged it into dark horizons, stressing the future is definitely in favor of the resistance project.

Dr. Bahar added that what happened to the report is a conspiracy against the Palestinian people and their national cause and a crime committed by the PA in Ramallah to cover up for Israel's atrocities in Gaza.

Posted October 5, 2009 By Jack Khoury and Avi Issacharoff

Israeli Arab party urges Abbas to quit over Goldstone report

For the first time in history, an Israeli Arab political party challenged the Palestinian leadership on Tuesday, calling for the immediate dismissal of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Balad party, headed by Jamal Zahalka, was planning to officially call for Abbas' resignation at a conference convened especially for that purpose, scheduled for Saturday.

Abbas has faced harsh criticism over recent days following his decision not to ask the United Nations Human Right Council to vote on the findings of the Goldstone report, which concludes that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during Israel's offensive in Gaza last winter.

The UNHRC has delayed its vote on the report, as per Abbas' request.

Palestinian sources told Haaretz that Abbas made the decision to delay the vote immediately after meeting with the U.S. Consul General last Thursday, without the knowledge of the PLO leadership or the government of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and without any consultation.

Many believe that it was American pressure that led to Abbas' decision not to pursue a discussion of the report in the UN as well as at the International Criminal Court in Hague, as was previously planned.

Members of Fatah, Abbas' own party, have also unofficially asked the Palestinian President to do what must be done to prevent this move from harming the party's standing among the Palestinian public.

The head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Ahmed Jibril, openly called on Abbas to "go home," on Monday. The council of Palestinian organizations in Europe also issued a call for Abbas to step down in light of the damage to the Palestinian public's interests he had caused.

Commentators in the Palestinian Authority have said that Abbas' status has weakened greatly in the wake of his decision regarding the Goldstone report, as well as his willingness to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hamas' recent release of a videotape of captive Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for the release of 20 female Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, also served to weaken Abbas, as his rival party gained popularity.

In addition, Syria announced Monday that Abbas' planned visit to Damascus had been canceled, apparently due to the decision on the Goldstone report.

On top of all that, the Palestinian government of Salam Fayyad convened on Monday and issued a statement containing veiled criticism of Abbas. The statement said that "we mustn't give up the opportunity to go after those who committed war crimes during Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip."

However, only several hundred people attended a rally held in Ramallah on Monday against Abbas' decision, and no calls were made on the Palestinian president to resign.

The criticism that Abbas' decision stirred in the West Bank among the members of the Palestinian Authority was nothing in comparison to the virtual attack it sparked in the Gaza Strip. During a meeting of Hamas' parliament faction in Gaza, senior faction official Mahmoud Zahar called for stripping Abbas of his Palestinian citizenship and putting him, and everyone else responsible for the delay of the UNHRC vote, on trial.

Hamas leader in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh said that the PLO's decision to appoint an investigation committee was unnecessary. "The circumstances here are clear," he said. "Abu Mazen [Abbas] gave the order to his representative. An investigation is only necessary when the circumstances are not clear."

Posted October 5, 2009 By Norman G. Finkelstein

The Abu Mazen Tapes, the Goldstone Report and the Israeli Blackmail

Palestinian press agency claims that the surprising decision by Palestinian Authority officials to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone report in the UN Human Rights Council is the result of an Israeli threat. According to a report by Shihab, the Palestinian Authority refused Israel's demand that it withdraw its support for the harsh report, which Israel considered one-sided. Following this, Israeli figures showed the PA a series of tapes in which Palestinian Authority officials could be heard urging Israel to continue the operation in Gaza. Israel threatened to reveal the material to media outlets as well as to the UN and this, in turn, resulted in the Palestinian retreat.

It was further claimed that the Palestinians were shown footage showing a meeting between Abu Mazen, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and then foreign minister Tzippi Livni. In the course of the meeting, according to the report, Abu Mazen attempted to convince Barak to continue the operation. Barak appeared hesitant whereas Abu Mazen was enthusiastic. In addition, a telephone conversation recording between Abed Al-Rahim, secretary general of the Palestinian Authority and director of Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi's bureau was presented.

The Palestinian senior official can be heard saying that now is the time to bring ground forces into the Jabalya and Shati refugee camps. "The fall of these two camps will bring about the fall of the Hamas regime in Gaza, and will cause them to wave a white flag," says Abed Al-Rahim. According to the report, Dov Weissglas told Abed Al-Rahim that such a move could result in the deaths of thousands of civilians. "They all voted for Hamas," says Abed Al-Rahim, "they chose their fate, not us. " Following Hamas's allegations against him, Abu Mazen ordered the establishment of an investigative committee to examine the cause for the postponement of the discussion of the Goldstone report, which sparked a furor and much criticism in the Palestinian street. Officially, Israel argues that Abu Mazen withdrew his request for the discussion as a result of Netanyahu making it clear that such a move would greatly harm the peace process. Moreover, Israel prefers to keep quiet since it has no desire to harm Abu Mazen any more than he has already been harmed and thus play into Hamas's hands.

"Abu Mazen did the correct thing on his part," says a political source. "Had he insisted on pushing through the proposal, he would have badly harmed the peace process." In addition, the Palestinian Authority has attempted over the last year to establish an additional cellular network in the West Bank-Wataniya, to be directed by Abu Mazen's son.

"The IDF had opposed the new cellular network, claiming that this would clash with its frequencies, and it was proposed to the Palestinians the minimum frequency allocation, which the Palestinians did not accept," explained a senior security source. "It would be fairly correct to state that it was hinted to Palestinian senior officials that if they would withdraw their endorsement of the Goldstone report, they would get help in promoting their interests to form a second cellular network in the West Bank."

Posted October 4, 2009 By Gilad Atzmon

The Pathology of Evil

Israeli PM Netanyahu's speech at the UN is a major insight into the Israeli's mentality, psyche and logic. In his speech Netanyahu, a prolific and charismatic speaker, gives air to his genocidal inclinations, he brings to light the Israeli supremacy but he also allows us to detect some shaky and vulnerable spots at the heart of the Jewish national narrative. Reading Netanyahu's speech makes it very clear that both the Zionist Shoa and the ?promised land' narratives are on the verge of collapse. It seems as if the ?discredited' Iranian president Ahmadinejad has managed to succeed after all.

Don't You Mess With Our Shoa

Israelis love their Shoa, for the Shoa is no doubt their best selling Hasbara (propaganda) product. It somehow allows them to kill en masse and to do it indistinguishably while insisting that it is they who happen to be the victims.

"I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee." Said Netanyahu. "There, on January 20,1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people."

PM Netanyahu, if you are genuinely interested in ?extermination plans' you do not have to travel to Wannsee, Berlin. All you have to do is visit your IDF's headquarters in Tel Aviv. Your chief commanders will guide you through their IDF ?solutions' for the Palestinians. At the end of the day, it is your army that surrounds Palestinians with barbed-wire, it is you who keep civilian populations in a siege with inadequate food supplies and medicine. It is your army that poured WMD over the most densely populated neighbourhoods on this planet. While the real meaning of the ?Nazi Final Solution' (Die Endlösung) is still discussed by historians who fail to agree between themselves what it really meant, the true reality of the Israeli murderous solution has been seen by us all.

However, it is almost amusing to see PM Netanyahu rushing to defend the Zionist holocaust narrative. Looking at Netanyahu presenting the protocol of the Wannsee conference to the UN assembly gives a clear impression that the Israeli PM believes that the Shoa needs an urgent pump of credibility. For the first time, the Shoa is on the defence.

"Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?" asks the Israeli PM.

PM Netanyahu, may I suggest to you that not a single humanist cares about the exact numbers: whether it was one or four millions Jews who died in Auschwitz, no one doubts that the camp was a horrible place. Yet, two questions must be answered once and for all: how is it that the Jews, who suffered so much during that war, managed to get themselves involved in a colossal racist crime against the Palestinians (1948 Nakba) just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz? How is it that the Israeli leadership, that happens to be so sensitive to Jewish suffering, manages to neglect the pain they inflict on millions of Palestinians?

Supremacy and Beyond

As a National movement, Zionism fails to respect other national and popular movements. Seemingly Netanyahu fails to respect the Iranian people and their regime. "Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated." Netanyahu, must know that the Judaic law is not very different from Islam on these matters. He must also remember that it is in his country that gays were murdered in the street just a month ago. It is almost amusing that Netanyahu chooses to equate Iran with Barbarism and the Middle Ages for its treatment of minorities. As far as minorities are concerned, the Jewish state is actually the darkest place on this planet. In Netanyahu's promised land half of the population cannot participate in the democratic game just for failing to be Jewish.

Israel according to Netanyahu is the embodiment of Western modernity.

"We (the Westerners) will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet. I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances." I must admit that I am not at all overwhelmed by Israeli scientific or technological achievements. Nor have I ever seen any evidence of Israeli attempts to save humanity or even the planet. In fact all I see is quite the opposite. However, if Netanyahu welcomes scientific progress, he should be the first to rally for the Iranian nuclear project. As we all know, this doesn't seem to be the case. He, for some reason, thinks that, at least regionally, nuclear energy and weapons must remain Jew only property.

Netanyahu argues that "if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time." Netanyahu may well be correct but one should point out to him that the above applies to Israel more than any other country, state or society. For the time being it is the Jewish State that has been caught pouring WMD on its imprisoned civilian population. It is the Jewish State that is dragging us all into an ?eye for an eye' primitive Biblical fanaticism. As if this is not enough, it is also America and Britain that launched illegal wars orchestrated by Zionist led Neocons and fundraisers. This war has cost more than one million lives so far.

However, for once I agree with Netanyhau:

"The greatest threat facing the world today", he says, "is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction."

In fact, no one could describe the danger posed by the Jewish state and Zionism any better. Israel is indeed a deadly marriage between Old Testament gross genocidal barbarism, Zionist fanaticism and a huge arsenal of WMD, chemical, biological and nuclear that has already been partially put into action.

Sabbath Goyim

Like other Zionist operations around the world, Netanyahu is convinced that the Goyim should fight the Jewish wars. "Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?" I actually would like to stress that PM Netanyahu is all wrong here. If the United Nation is interested in bringing peace to this region and the world, it is of the essence to help Iran to develop its nuclear project and even its military nuclear capacity. This seems to be the only thing that may curb the English Speaking Empire's lethal expansionist enthusiasm as performed recently in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It will surely stop the Zionists from celebrating their symptoms at the expense of their neighbours.

Following the successful transformation of the American and British armies into an Israeli subservient mission force, Netanyahu seems to expect the UN to follow and to fulfil the very same role. "Hamas", he says, "fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks." I guess that someone should remind the Israeli PM that the dispute between Hamas and Israel is not exactly an international quarrel, for Palestine is not a sovereign state and Gaza is nothing less than an Israeli-run concentration camp. In other words, the practicality of the matter is simple. The UN should only deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel, its leadership and its army. It is not down to the UN to pass any kind of judgment on the oppressed.

Mass Murder Fantasies

It doesn't take long before Netanyahu lists his ideological mentors and the core of his lethal inspiration "When the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II?" Actually the allies levelled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of victims? By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice. Delegates of the United Nations, will you accept this farce?"

Netanyahu is almost correct. In his recounting of the 2nd WW he surely admits here that Israel follows Roosevelt's and Churchill's mass murder tactics. But he surely fails to realise that if it was indeed down to ethics and Justice (rather than the usual dirty politics) Roosevelt and Churchill would have been charged with war crimes on a most severe scale. Shockingly enough, Netanyahu falls into the most obvious legal trap equating Israeli activity with acts of carpet bombardment on a huge scale. For those who fail to see it all, this is a rapidly blinking red light hazard. In Netanyahu's perception of reality nuking countries and flattening towns is a justifiable act. Roosevelt and Churchill seem to be his moral entitlement. In fact these statements are enough to make it clear to every reasonable human being that Israel is a genocidal entity that is capable of bringing our civilisation to a devastating end.

This is a wake up call: it is not just the Palestinians or the Iranians. It is actually all of us.

Bibi* the Peace Maker

By now, the Israeli PM is ready to state his Judeo centric peace mantra. "Ladies and Gentlemen, all of Israel wants peace". Yet as far as statistics are concerned, we have recently learned that 94% of the Israeli Jews also approved the carpet bombardment of their next door neighbours. It is impossible not to see a clear discrepancy between the ?peace loving' verbalism and the murderous reality.

"We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state." Once again, I happen to agree with PM Netanyahu. The Palestinian may as well say YES to a Jewish state, but not in Palestine or in the Middle East. If Obama, Brown, Merkel or any other deluded world leader who is still insisting to approve the validity or necessity of a racially orientated ?Jewish national homeland', he or she is more than welcome to allocate land to such a project within his or her own territory. Palestinians should say NO to a Jewish state in the Holy Land or in the region. Palestinians should never agree to the existence of a Jewish state on their land. In fact the UN must follow this line and do whatever it can to dismantle this evil apartheid regime.

Khazarian United

To a certain extent, Netanyahu's UN speech expresses some deep concerns Jews tend to keep to themselves. At the end of the day, the Israelis and Ashkenazi Israelis in particular know pretty well that Palestine is not exactly the land of their ancestors. If the Israeli Ashkenazi Jews, including Netanyahu, do want to find their roots, Khazaria is the place to start. However, Netanyahu tries to defuse these historical facts. "The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers? We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland" says Netanyahu with total conviction.

PM Netanyahu, I will make it plain and clear. Not only are you foreign to the land, you are also foreign to almost every possible understanding of the notion of humanity. In fact, the Separation Wall that is going to be left after the inevitable disappearance of your ?Jew only democracy' will serve generations to come with an astonishing historical monument of Jewish national identity estranged from ethics, universalism and human brotherhood. The crime against humanity committed by the Jewish state in the name of the Jewish people is not something that will be wiped out from the history text books in a short time. Quite the opposite; it will stand as another mythological chapter in this never-ending saga of supremacist compulsive pathological self-loving.

"We must have security" says Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as he ends his speech. And I am here to disappoint him. Israel will never be secured. It was born in a sin, and its existence surpasses any notion of ethics or human existence. The Jewish state has passed the ?no return zone'. It is doomed to vanish. We can only hope that once this happens the process of Jewish assimilation and integration into humanity will re-embark. At the end of the day Jewish Nationalism both left, right and centre was there to keep Jews apart. The history of the 20th century teaches us that this tendency to segregate oneself is bad for humanity and it is also devastating for the Jews.

* Netanyahu's nickname is Bibi

Posted October 4, 2009 By John Pilger

The lying game: how we are prepared for another war of aggression

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger compares the current drum-beating for war against Iran, based on a fake "nuclear threat", with the manufacture of a sense of false crisis that led to invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1.3 million people.

In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an "Iraqi connection" to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media "revelations", the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. "Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant", declared the Guardian on 26 September. "Showdown" is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has "put paid to the Bush years". An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: "Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq". Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian "plan" to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year ? a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is "psy-ops", the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its "nuclear threat": a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran's "nuclear status" had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with "high confidence" that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda-as-news derives from Obama's announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia's border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the "redundant" missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. "President Bush was right," said Obama, "that Iran's ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US]." That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world's superpower virtually ensconced on Iran's borders.

Iran's crime is its independence. Having thrown out America's favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a "right to exist"in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the region on Washington's behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear "deterrence", it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel "deplores" UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Obama's "showdown" with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America's NBC. The goal is control of the "strategic prize" of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran ? in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing "us" that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal's spurious claim that Iran "is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups" is as desperate as Brown's pathetic echo of "a line in the sand".

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a "first-strike" doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama's media rhetoric about "a world without nuclear weapons". In fact, he is the Pentagon's most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush's secretary of "defence" and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with escalated wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush's America, Obama's America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

Posted October 2, 2009 By Eli Lake

Obama Agrees to Keep Israel's Nukes Secret

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.

"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document]."

The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear program, said the accord amounts to "the United States passively accepting Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon."

There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating U.S. policy on the issue. That memo says, "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact."

Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of "don't ask, don't tell."

The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the U.S. of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel's arsenal.

Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that "it appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding. It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner in Israel's policy of nuclear opacity."

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.

The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration's goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could impinge on U.S. efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that U.S. administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past. They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for weapons.

A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, "What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel's nuclear program. However, it calls into question virtually every part of the president's nonproliferation agenda.The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get out of jail free card."

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the step was less injurious to U.S. policy.

"I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings between their governments on this issue," he said.

However Mr. Kimball added, "I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Netanyahu. President Obama's speech and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret understandings between the U.S. and Israel. A world without nuclear weapons is consistent with Israel's stated goal of achieving a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama's message is that the same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to all states and not just a few."

Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as "the long corridor." Under it, Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an existential guarantee in a hostile environment.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not concede too much to Israel.

"One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone," he said. "Otherwise, the Obama administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of nuclear weapons."

Posted October 2, 2009 By Harvard Law School Clinic

On The Illegality of The Eastern Ring Road

The Eastern Ring Road, by itself and in conjunction with a prohibitive system of checkpoints and permit requirements, restrictive zoning laws and house demolitions, the Separation Wall, and other bypass roads, violates the substantive rights held by occupied Palestinians under international humanitarian and human rights law. Besides isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and cutting the city off from surrounding villages, the Road will divide contiguous lands and peoples, demolish some homes and other structures, and expropriate or destroy agricultural lands.

The Eastern Ring Road and its peer civil planning initiatives severely restrict the mobility of the Palestinian population, constrain their ability to develop their lands to meet the growing needs of their communities, and obstruct their access to valuable healthcare and educational resources, religious and cultural sites, and sources of livelihood. In doing so, the Eastern Ring Road project disproportionately infringes on well-established rights to property, mobility, health, education, religion, and nondiscriminatory treatment. Failure to meet the legal justification under international law of military necessity or promotion of the general welfare of the Palestinians and the standards of proportionality deny Israel, as an Occupying Power, the benefit of legal bases to the construction of the Road. According to applicable international law in the OPT, Israel, as Occupying Power, must desist in its plans for the Eastern Ring Road and take steps to comply with the international legal standards.

Read the entire report here.

Posted October 2, 2009 By The Canadian Charger

A third intifada coming, says Boyle

The prospect for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is "dead as a doornail," said Francis Boyle in an interview with the Canadian Charger on September 25.

That is "because Obama sided with Binyamin Netanyahu," at the UN meeting of the General Assembly.

Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois and was legal advisor to the Palestinian delegation at the peace negotiations that culminated in the Oslo agreement.

According to Boyle, former senator George Mitchell "is running a dog and pony show" in his scampering around the Middle East.

"Because of his accomplishments in Northern Ireland, I had given him the benefit of the doubt, but not with what happened at the UN. Now it is clear that Mitchell's mission is just a public relations exercise to delude the Arab and Muslim world into believing that the Obama administration is going to do something while in fact they are pushing their agenda against Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan."

"At the UN," he said, "the entire world saw Obama personally get steamrollered by Netanyahu. Obama was humiliated in front of the entire world which saw him as a pusillanimous and feckless leader."

The US continues to fund Israel to the tune of $4 billion a year but will not insist on peace measures such as a halt to settlement construction.

Boyle believes that the current situation will inevitably lead to a third intifada, which will "sweep aside the geriatric leadership of Fatah."

As for Gaza, "most of their leaders have been killed by Israel." And as for Israel, it "never wanted peace. It always wanted more land, a greater Israel."

He found that Israel has "an attitude like the Nazis toward the Slavs. The Nazis," he explained, "saw the lands of the Slavs as German lebensraum, just like Israel and Palestine."

"Israel could have had peace with Syria," according to Boyle, peace that Syria wanted, but "Rabin was killed to prevent it." Yitzhak Rabin was the Israeli Prime Minster when the Labour government was in power at the time.

Even Rabin was not interested in real peace with the Palestinians, Boyle argued.

The only kind of Palestine Israel wants is a Bantustan with virtually no power, like an Indian reservation.

"Arafat agreed to a Bantustan at Oslo," he noted, "but just for five years. Israel would like that as a permanent arrangement."

"Arafat was the only one who could possibly make peace. He was poisoned by Israel with Bush's approval. Everyone agrees to that," he noted.

In considering the intifadas, Boyle describes the first one as a spontaneous uprising. The second he finds to have been "deliberately provoked by Israel to prevent peace."

He thinks that a third one will be more violent. In the meantime, Israel is "starving 1.5 million Palestinians to death in Gaza."

He finds the Canadian government to be giving "full support to Israel. It has almost as reprehensible a role as the US."

Boyle believes that the activities of "the Zionist lobby" are responsible for Canada's actions, in both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

Back in November, 2007, he gave the Bertrand Russell Peace Lecture at McMaster University. At that time, he said that he started the DBS movement-divestment, boycott, and sanctions against Israel.

Francis Anthony Boyle (born 1950) is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law

Posted October 2, 2009 By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

Palestinians Halt Push on War Report

In a startling shift, the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council dropped its efforts to forward a report accusing Israel of possible war crimes to the Security Council, under pressure from the United States, diplomats said Thursday.

The Americans argued that pushing the report now would derail the Middle East peace process that they are trying to revive, diplomats said.

"We don't want to create an obstacle for them," Ibrahim Khraishi, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said by telephone from Geneva, where the Human Rights Council is based. "We want to get a strong resolution to deal with the report in a good manner to get a benefit from it."

The report - produced by a panel of investigators led by an internationally respected jurist, Richard Goldstone - found extensive evidence that both Israel and Palestinian militant groups took actions amounting to war crimes during the Gaza war last winter. Israel says that it acted only to halt missile fire from Gaza that terrorized Israeli civilians.

The position of the United States since the Goldstone report was released in early September has been that the Human Rights Council alone should deal with it. But in a compromise, the body is expected to pass a resolution Friday presented by the bloc of Arab and Muslim states that any action will be delayed until the next meeting in March.

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, warned the Palestinians and international powers earlier Thursday that any action to advance the report would be a denial of Israel's "right to self-defense" and would kill any chance of peace talks.

Mr. Netanyahu, speaking during a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, said that any international endorsement of the report would "strike a severe blow to the war against terrorism."

But most immediately, he said, it would "strike a fatal blow to the peace process, because Israel will no longer be able to take additional steps and take risks for peace if its right to self-defense is denied."

Diplomats said that the Americans took their position that the report would delay the peace process before Mr. Netanyahu made his remarks. Michael Posner, the new assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, would not comment Thursday about the negotiations.

In a speech to the council this week, however, Mr. Posner called the report "deeply flawed" and criticized the council for what he called a fixation with Israel. But he concluded by saying that fair reviews on both sides would build confidence.

Israel says that it has a serious inquiry under way, with 100 complaints from Gaza already examined and 23 cases still pending court action. It says that about a third of the 36 incidents in the Goldstone report are already under investigation by the military, while others have been referred for investigation.

The Israeli government mounted a concerted diplomatic effort over the past few days against the resolution to forward the report. But there has been a growing debate within Israel itself, with some human rights organizations and academics calling for an independent, nonmilitary review of the Gaza conflict.

Mr. Khraishi, the Palestinian ambassador, said that if a resolution were passed now insisting that the General Assembly or the Security Council deal with the matter, as the report itself recommends, it would most likely face an American veto. A delay gives the Israelis and Palestinians time to take up another recommendation in the report: that both sides set up independent investigation panels to look into possible war crimes.

"I don't think that the Americans or the Israelis or anybody can escape from the realities that Goldstone collected - not Hamas either," Mr. Khraishi said, referring to the Islamist group that controls Gaza. He said that he had the support of at least 33 members of the 47-member council - but not that of the United States, European Union members or Japan.

"There was a tremendous amount of pressure on all members by the Americans," said an Arab diplomat, who requested anonymity according to diplomatic protocol. "The Americans wanted something to finish it; the compromise is to defer it, which means it is still alive."

Posted 9/30/2009 by UPI

HRW slams the U.S., EU over Gaza report

Human Rights Watch slammed the United States and European Union for failing to endorse a U.N. report on Israel's offensive in Gaza.

The failure of the United States and EU to endorse the report on the Israeli military offensive in Gaza shows war violations will be treated with kid gloves, the HRW report published Wednesday said.

South African Judge Richard Goldstone presented his report on the conflict in Gaza to the United Nations Human Rights Council Tuesday.

Goldstone, HRW said, demanded the report's recommendations be endorsed, " including those designed to ensure accountability for serious violations of the laws of war during the Gaza conflict by involving the stature and the clout of the U.N. Security Council," the report said.

The human rights group said while the United States called the report "unbalanced," and "deeply flawed," it failed to provide facts to support its stand.

HRW noted the Swedish ambassador on behalf of the European Union recognized the seriousness of the report but also failed to endorse its conclusions.

Other European countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany withheld comment, the rights group said.

Copyright 2009 by United Press International

Posted 9/28/2009 by Larry Derfner

Rattling the Cage: Played for a sucker

It's been a terrible week for tough love. One of the worst. First the Goldstone report was left to twist in the wind by the Obama administration, by Europe, by J Street and by the ghost of the Israeli peace camp. Then, at Tuesday's 'summit' in New York, President Barack Obama gave his clearest signal yet that he was caving in to the Netanyahu government on the peace process, dropping the idea of a 'freeze' on settlements for the softer, kinder call for 'restraint.'

This has been a great week for Israeli war-lovers and settlers and an atrocious one for Palestinians, peaceniks and human rights advocates. And the person to blame, above all, is Obama.

I'm worried about this guy. He has wonderful goals, but he doesn't seem to have a clue as to how to achieve them. When somebody tells him 'no,' he's stumped. His instinct is to retreat into his Ivy League professor's mode, turn up his nose, say to himself, 'I'm not going to sink to that level,' walk away and go on thinking his deep thoughts.

That's fine for a professor, but not for a leader. In a leader, that translates as an unwillingness to fight. It translates as weakness. And the worst reputation a leader can get, the one that can destroy him like no other, is one for weakness.

THAT'S THE reputation Obama is getting - especially in Israel. We're laughing at this guy now. Look, Binyamin Netanyahu stared down the president of the United States! The settlers have stopped worrying. All is well again in our little 'villa in the jungle,' as Ehud Barak, the government's man of the Left, likes to describe this country.

And if Israel is happy - 21st century Israel, that is, Israel the right-wing monolith - then the Republican Party is happy, too. We're allies, Israelis and Republicans. If we stare down Obama, the Republicans are encouraged, and vice versa.

In the campaign to cripple the Obama administration, to destroy his presidency, Israel is doing much, much more than its share. As noted, this past week has been especially fruitful. We lobbied the US State Department into shooting down the Goldstone report, and now the Obama administration is effectively an apologist for alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. We wore down Middle East envoy George Mitchell on the settlement freeze, and now it may only be a matter of time before we see 'hilltop youth' building a new outpost called Havat Obama.

We're making the president of the United States look pathetic. He's becoming a national joke. And the Republicans are laughing along with us.

THIS CANNOT go on. Obama, for the sake of his presidency, cannot allow this to go on.

Which is why I'm optimistic that he won't. Obama didn't come this far and didn't set such lofty goals to be hamstrung, to become a lame duck, so soon after entering the White House. He may not be a gut fighter, but he's too ambitious, too smart, and he's surrounded himself with too many barracudas to let the likes of Likud, Israel Beiteinu, Shas and the settlers do him in.

The spin around here is that he's learned his lesson. He's learned that it was a mistake to insist on a total settlement freeze, a mistake to think he could dictate terms to us, a mistake to think he could change the Middle East with the force of his personality. From now on, goes the local consensus wisdom, Obama will be more patient, he'll go along to get along; after all, if he doesn't, Bibi and Co. will teach him another lesson.

I also believe Obama has learned something from this bruising experience, but not what Israelis think. Instead, he's learned that there is no meeting point between him and the Israeli government on the peace process, that one of them is going to have to give in, and God help him if he's the one. Obama's learning that if he allows the most right-wing government in Israeli history to dictate his Middle East policy, that policy will fail utterly and his presidency will suffer the most devastating blow.

He's learning that at some point in the not-too-distant future, he's going to have to either bend Israel to his will or admit defeat in the Middle East and get blamed for the next war.

There are lots of ways he can bend Israel to his will. George Bush the Elder did it with money - by holding back $10 billion in loan guarantees as a penalty for settlement construction, then releasing the money after settlement construction was frozen. I'm sure Rahm Emanuel can think of dozens of ways to squeeze the eminently squeezable Bibi Netanyahu. All that's required is Obama's go-ahead.

He's not there yet. But he's getting there. He'll have no choice.

SO AS disappointed as I am in Obama, I'm not giving up on him by any means. He's still new in the job, and he has certain strengths that should serve his purposes well. He's a quick study, especially when it comes to learning from his mistakes. He rebounds from adversity. He's patient.

True, it's been a miserable week. It's been a miserable year, in fact. But from a strictly realpolitik view of US-Israeli relations, I still think there's a decent chance that in the end, tough love will conquer all.

Posted 9/28/2009 by Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff

Israel demands PA drop war crimes suit at The Hague

Tensions are mounting between Israel and the Palestinian Authority following Ramallah's call on the International Court at The Hague to examine claims of "war crimes" that the IDF allegedly committed during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. The issue is already weighing in on the relations between the leadership of Israel's defense and security establishment with their counterparts in the West Bank, and is part of a growing list of Israeli complaints about the behavior of PA officials.

Meanwhile, Israel has warned the Palestinian Authority that it would condition permission for a second cellular telephone provider to operate in the West Bank - an economic issue of critical importance to the PA leadership - on the Palestinians withdrawing their request at the International Court.

The issue of a second cellular provider is at the center of talks between the PA, the international Quartet, and Israel, and has been ongoing for some months. Currently the sole provider is Pal-Tel, and the PA prime minister, Salam Fayyad, considers the introduction of another carrier as an important step in improving the civilian infrastructure in the West Bank. The project is central to Watanya, the company that is set to serve as the second provider, and profits are expected to be substantial

However, if the project is not approved by October 15, the PA will be forced to pay a penalty estimated at $300 million, the sum that has already been invested in licensing and infrastructure.

Western diplomats, including the Quartet's envoy to the region, former British prime minister Tony Blair, and the U.S. ambassador to Israel, James Cunningham, have made it clear to senior Israeli officials that time is running out, and have urged them to allow for the establishment of a second provider to go forward.

Israel's objections begin with the issue of transmission frequencies. The frequencies that the Palestinians want the new company to use are very close to ones used by the Israel Defense Forces in some of its most sensitive activities.

"Israel is making it difficult for us on many levels," complains Mohammed Mustafa, economic adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas. "They now want us to pressure Pal-Tel to release some of its frequencies, so that they can be used by Watanya."

However, another, more substantive issue was recently added, when the Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Criminal Court. Security sources told Haaretz that this move, which was authorized by Fayyad and Abbas, incensed senior officials of the defense establishment, especially army Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

Ashkenazi has been kept busy by involvement in a holding action against the threat that Israeli officers would be brought before the court as a result of charges that the IDF committed war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Concern has intensified following the grave report that the Goldstone Commission released two weeks ago on behalf of the United Nations.

In Israel the argument is that the PA is being unfair, and that at the time of the operation in the Gaza Strip, last winter, its senior officials encouraged their Israeli counterparts to step up the pressure on Hamas, and even to attempt to bring its rule in the territory to the point of collapse. However, at a latter stage they joined those decrying Israel and its alleged actions in the Strip.

In light of this tension, the chief of staff conditioned his approval of a second cellular provider to the Palestinians' withdrawing their appeal to the court.

"The PA has reached the point where it has to decide whether it is working with us or against us," senior figures in the defense establishment have said. At the PA it is being said, in response to the Israeli demands, that Abbas and Fayyad will water down their appeal to the ICJ, though they will refuse to promise that it will rescinded entirely.

During the past year Israel defense officials have often praised the Palestinians on improving their contribution to securing the West Bank, and of the decisive character of the leadership under Fayyad. However, in recent weeks there have been increasing claims that even as the Authority is being praised by Israel and the international community, it is behaving irresponsibly by violating agreements between the two sides.

The Israeli claims focus on the growing presence of Palestinian security personnel in civilian clothing in East Jerusalem, contrary to the obligations of the PA. The security personnel participate in prayers at Al-Aqsa mosque, and at other sites in the city, and have stepped up their presence in the Jerusalem's medical and educational facilities. Moreover, they have also been involved in the abduction of Palestinians suspected of selling property to Jews.

Posted 9/28/2009 by NEVE GORDON

On Palestinian Civil Disobedience

Sometime in 1846, Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail because he refused to pay his taxes. This was his way of opposing the Mexican-American War as well as the institution of slavery. A few years later he published the essay Civil Disobedience, which has since been read by millions of people, including many Israelis and Palestinians.

Kobi Snitz read the book. He is an Israeli anarchist who is currently serving a 20 day sentence for refusing to pay a 2,000 shekel fine.

Thirty-eight year-old Snitz was arrested with other activists in the small Palestinian village of Kharbatha back in 2004 while trying to prevent the demolition of the home of a prominent member of the local popular committee. The demolition, so it seems, was carried out both to intimidate and punish the local leader who had, just a couple of weeks earlier, began organizing weekly demonstrations against the annexation wall. Both the demonstrations and the attempt to stop the demolition were acts of civil disobedience.

In a letter sent to friends the night before his incarceration, Snitz writes that "I and the others who were arrested with me are guilty of nothing except not doing more to oppose the state's truly criminal policies." Snitz also explains that paying the fine is an acknowledgment of guilt which he finds demeaning. Finally, he concludes his epistle by insisting that his punishment is trivial when compared to the punishment meted out to Palestinian teenagers who have resisted the occupation. These thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and sixteen year olds, he claims, are often detained for 20 days before the legal process even begins.

Snitz is not exaggerating.

In a recent report, the Palestinian human rights organizations Stop the Wall and Addameer document the forms of repression Israel has deployed against villages that have resisted the annexation of their land. The two rights groups show that once a village decides to struggle against the annexation barrier the entire community is punished. In addition to home demolitions, curfews and other forms of movement restriction, the Israeli military forces consistently uses violence against the protestors?and most often targets the youth-- beating, tear-gassing as well as deploying both lethal and "non-lethal" ammunition against them.

Since 2004, nineteen people, about half of them children, have been killed in protests against the barrier. The rights groups found that in four small Palestinian villages -- Bil'in, Ni'lin, Ma'sara and Jayyous -- 1,566 Palestinians have been injured in demonstrations against the wall. In five villages alone, 176 Palestinians have been arrested for protesting against the annexation, with children and youth specifically targeted during these arrest campaigns. The actual numbers of those who were injured and arrested are no doubt greater considering that these are just the incidents that took place in a few villages.

Each number has a name and a story. Consider, for example, the arrest of sixteen year-old Mohammed Amar Hussan Nofal who was detained along with about 65 other people from his village Jayyous on February 18, 2009. According to his testimony, he was initially interrogated for two and a half hours in the village school.

"They asked me why I participated in the demonstrations, but I tried to deny [that I had]. Then they asked me why I threw a Molotov cocktail [at] them. I said I never had, which was true. My parents were there and witnessed [what happened]. They can confirm I never [threw a Molotov cocktail]. I later confessed to [having been at] demonstrations, but not [to having] thrown a Molotov cocktail."

After being beaten for refusing to hold up a paper with numbers and Hebrew words on it in order to be photographed, Nofal was sent to Kedumim and was interrogated for several more hours. During this interrogation Captain Faisal (a pseudonym of a secret service officer) tried to recruit the teenager to become a collaborator.

"The Captain threatened that he would arrest my parents and my whole family if I did not collaborate. I said they could arrest [my family] any time, [but] it would be worse to become a spy. He then said they would confiscate my family's permits so they could not pick olives."

Nofal's only crime was protesting against the expropriation of his ancestral lands. He spent three months in prison, during which time the Civil Administration decided to punish his family as well and refused to renew their permits to work in Israel.

When compared to Nofal and thousands of other Palestinians, Kobi Snitz is indeed paying a small price. But his act is symbolically important, not only due to his solidarity with his Palestinian partners, but also because he, like thousands of Palestinians, has decided to follow the lead of Henry David Thoreau and to commit acts of civil disobedience in order to resist Israel's immoral policies and the subjugation of a whole people.

The problem is that the world knows very little about these acts. A simple google search with the words "Palestinian violence" yields over 86,000 pages, while a search with the words "Palestinian civil disobedience" generates only 47 pages - this despite the fact that for several years now Palestinians have been carrying out daily acts of civil disobedience against the Israeli occupation.

Thoreau, I believe, would have been proud of Nofal, Snitz and their fellow activists. It is crucial that the media and international community recognize their heroism as well.

Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel's Occupation (University of California Press, 2008).

Posted 9/24/2009 by Yotam Feldman

After Goldstone / Int'l court may try S. African-born IDF officer

A senior prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague said Monday that he is considering opening an investigation into whether Lt. Col. David Benjamin, an Israel Defense Forces reserve officer, allowed war crimes to be committed during the IDF's three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip this winter.

The officer - a dual citizen of Israel and South Africa, where he was born - served in the Military Advocate General's international law department, which authorized which targets troops would strike before and during the operation.

Newsweek magazine released an interview Monday with ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina in which he said he is convinced his office has the authority to launch an investigation into Benjamin's actions.

The ICC has until now refrained from trying IDF officers, as it lacks authority to do so, since Israel is not a signatory to the 2002 Rome Treaty that founded the court. South Africa, however, did sign the treaty, so the ICC is authorized to indict its citizens.

Moreno-Ocampo's remarks are in line with the recommendations of a UN fact-finding commission on the Gaza war headed by South African justice Richard Goldstone. Last week, that panel urged the UN Security Council to refer both Israel and the Hamas leadership in Gaza for prosecution in the ICC unless both launched fully independent investigations into alleged war crimes by the end of this year.

The ICC began looking into Benjamin's case after receiving material from pro-Palestinian organizations in South Africa. The material included a transcript of an interview Benjamin gave to the web site Bloomberg.com, in which the officer recounted his involvement in legal consultations with the IDF ahead of army operations.

"We were intimately involved in planning," Benjamin said, including "authorizing the targets that could be struck, war materiel - everything passed by us."

Benjamin served for many years as legal adviser to the GOC Southern Command, and later headed the Military Advocate General's department on international law.

In August, he visited South Africa to attend a conference organized by the local Jewish community on international law during wartime, with special reference to the Gaza war. Benjamin later described the trip as a "personal hasbara [public diplomacy] trip."

The pro-Palestinian organizations promptly asked South African state prosecutors to open an investigation into suspicions that Benjamin had committed war crimes in Gaza. To avoid a potential confrontation with local authorities, Benjamin left South Africa several days earlier than he had planned.

At the conference, Benjamin rejected claims that the IDF committed war crimes in Gaza, as well as demands that Israel's wartime conduct be subject to an external investigation.

Dennis Davis - a South African district court judge and international law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, who directed the conference - said he firmly opposed the remarks delivered by Benjamin, who was once his law student. Davis added that were Benjamin still his student, he would "fail him."

Benjamin resigned from the IDF in late January of this year, though his official retirement vacation began in November 2008. When the Gaza operation began, however, he returned to his former position in the Military Advocate General's office.

But Benjamin says he was not directly involved in planning operations during the war. He told Haaretz yesterday that during the Bloomberg interview, he was speaking not of himself personally, but of the army, and the Military Advocate General's office, as a whole.

"I spoke in the name of the army, and of the Military Advocate General, so I told them what we're like in the collective sense," he said. "We authorized and we carried out, but I wasn't [directly] involved in Gaza."

"What's important is that the State of Israel doesn't need Goldstone to tell it what needs to be done," he added. "There is a human rights agenda in the world, but those who work with this agenda have the luxury of not needing to balance human rights needs and security needs, and we do need to have that balance."

"Presumably the military advocate general, who personally authorized the IDF's actions, will himself be investigated?" he continued. "There is a supervisory mechanism - the attorney general is above the military advocate general, and he can intervene. The High Court of Justice can also intervene."

The IDF Spokesman's Office said yesterday that "Lt. Col. David Benjamin is a respected officer who served for many years in legal positions in the IDF, and assisted the military in managing its activities in accordance with the rules of international law."

"Although during Operation Cast Lead, Lt. Col. Benjamin was on retirement vacation abroad, he returned to Israel on his own initiative in order to aid the military in its public diplomacy efforts," it continued. "Any attempt to initiate legal proceedings, as described in the article, is perverse and driven by political motives, and ultimately [the allegations] will be revealed as baseless."

Col. (Res.) Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, who headed the Military Advocate General's international law department during the Gaza War, refused to comment on Moreno-Ocampo's remarks.

The ICC Office of the Prosecutor said officials had examined the material the court received as part of a preliminary investigation intended to determine whether it has the authority to hear cases on war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza.

Posted 9/24/2009 by United Nations

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967

Summary

The present report examines the observance of international humanitarian and international human rights standards in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 during the period from December 2008 to July 2009. The report takes note of the continuing unlawful non-cooperation of the Government of Israel with the mandate holder. It pays particular attention to the Gaza Strip after the Israeli military operation ?Operation Cast Lead?, noting the continuation of the blockade that jeopardizes fundamental human rights, hinders reconstruction and repair of vital civilian infrastructure.

The report reviews alleged war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead and the issue of accountability. It considers available information regarding attacks on United Nations facilities and the civilian population and provides an analysis of their legal merit. The report comments on the testimony of combat soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead, which gives evidence of consistent reliance on loose rules of engagement and widespread destruction of targets that could not be justified from a military or security perspective.

The report discusses the issue of Israeli settlements, noting that recent discussions of a freeze on settlements have been made as political steps and not with reference to Palestinian rights under international humanitarian law. Finally, the report discusses the issue of the continued construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories and Israeli non-compliance with the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which it considers to be damaging to international law, to the International Court of Justice and to the United Nations generally.

The report ends with recommendations that the General Assembly should request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the obligations and duties of Member States to cooperate with the Organization and its representatives; that Members of the United Nations should be encouraged to use national means, including courts, with respect to implementing international criminal law as pertains to the occupied Palestinian Territory; that Israeli respect for international law and Palestinian rights should henceforth be an integral element in future peace negotiations; and that consideration should be given to imposing limits on the supply of arms to the parties to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Posted 9/17/2009 by Palistine Solidarity Campaign

Britain's unions commit to a mass boycott movement of Israeli goods

In a landmark decision, Britain's trade unions have voted overwhelmingly to commit to build a mass boycott movement, disinvestment and sanctions on Israel for a negotiated settlement based on justice for Palestinians.

The motion was passed at the 2009 TUC Annual Congress in Liverpool today (17 September), by unions representing 6.5 million workers across the UK.

Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: "This motion is the culmination of a wave of motions passed at union conferences this year, following outrage at Israel's brutal war on Gaza, and reflects the massive growth in support for Palestinian rights. We will be working with the TUC to develop a mass campaign to boycott Israeli goods, especially agricultural products that have been produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank."

The motion additionally called for the TUC General Council to put pressure on the British government to end all arms trading with Israel and support moves to suspend the EU-Israel trade agreement. Unions are also encouraged to disinvest from companies which profit from Israel's illegal 42-year occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

The motion was tabled by the Fire Brigades Union. The biggest unions in the UK, including Unite, the public sector union, and UNISON, which represents health service workers, voted in favour of the motion.

The motion also condemned the Israeli trade union Histadrut's statement supporting Israel's war on Gaza, which killed 1,450 Palestinians in three weeks, and called for a review of the TUC's relationship with Histadrut.

Britain's trade unions join those of South Africa and Ireland in voting to use a mass boycott campaign as a tool to bring Israel into line with international law, and pressure it to comply with UN resolutions that encourage justice and equality for the Palestinian people..

Posted 9/16/2009 by United Nations

Solution to the Problem of Palestinian Refugees

1. Background and Objectives

1) The objective of this document is to recommend a mechanism for a full and permanent solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, within the framework of a permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

2) This document is based on the principles of Section 7 of the Geneva Accord, according to which:

a. Refugees shall be entitled to choose their place of permanent residence from the following options: The State of Palestine; Israeli territories that shall be transferred to the State of Palestine within the framework of land swap; third countries, according to their sovereign discretion; current host countries, according to their sovereign discretion; the State of Israel, according to its sovereign discretion.

b. Funds shall be allocated for community rehabilitation and development at locations of permanent residence of the refugees.

c. Refugees shall be entitled to compensation for refugeehood and for loss of property.

d. An international commission shall be established that shall be responsible for implementing all aspects of the agreement regarding the refugees.

e. This agreement implements UN resolutions No. 194 and 242, and provides a permanent and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

f. This agreement provides for the permanent and complete resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. No claims may be raised except for those related to the implementation of this agreement

g. After implementation of the agreement UNRWA's activities shall be terminated.

Click here for the full report.

Posted 9/16/2009 by NEIL MacFARQUHAR

Inquiry Finds Gaza War Crimes

A United Nations fact-finding mission investigating the three-week war in Gaza last winter issued a highly critical report on Tuesday detailing what it called extensive evidence that both Israel and Palestinian militant groups took actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

While the long-anticipated, 575-page report condemned rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians, it reserved its harshest language for Israel's treatment of the civilian Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, both during the war and through the longer-term blockade of the territory.

The report called Israel's military assault on Gaza "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability."

The mission - led by Richard Goldstone, a respected South African judge and once the lead war crimes prosecutor for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda ? did not attempt an exhaustive look at the war, instead focusing on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags."

In all but one of these civilian attacks, the report said, "the facts indicate no justifiable military objective" for them.

The report cited other possible crimes by the Israelis, including "wantonly" destroying food production, water and sewerage facilities; striking areas, in an effort to kill a small number of combatants, where significant numbers of civilians were gathered; using Palestinians as human shields; and detaining men, women and children in sand pits. It also called Israel's use of weapons like white phosphorus "systematically reckless," and called for banning it in urban areas.

On the Palestinian side, the report said that firing rockets that either deliberately were aimed at Israeli civilians or were so inaccurate as to risk hitting civilians caused widespread trauma and constituted a war crime. It also singled out Palestinian actions within Gaza, including killings and other abuse of members of the rival Fatah political movement as a "serious violation of human rights."

The four members of the fact-finding mission called on both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to carry out serious, independent investigations. If that did not occur within the next six months, the mission said, the United Nations Security Council should refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.

The Israeli government said it was studying the report, but Gabriela Shalev, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, quickly rejected it, saying it failed to take into account that the operation was in "self-defense."

In a statement, the Foreign Ministry said it had refused to co-operate with the mission, calling it biased from the start.

In Gaza, a spokesman for Hamas said it fired the rockets at Israel to try to defend itself. "We did not intentionally target civilians," said Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas adviser. "We were targeting military bases, but the primitive weapons make mistakes."

Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8,000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001. During the conflict, the report said, they killed 3 Israeli civilians and a soldier, and injured over 900 people.

But the report did not take a position on the number of Palestinian casualties, noting that they ranged from the Israeli government figure of 1,166 to the Hamas number of 1,444, without saying how many were civilians.

Israel had tried to discredit the mission from the start, saying that the United Nations Human Rights Council has a long record of bashing Israel. The report was released Tuesday to give members of the council time to study it before the panel formally presents it on Sept. 29, said Doune Porter, a spokeswoman for the fact-finding mission, calling it a standard procedure.

The United States recently joined the council. Ian Kelly, a State Department spokesman, said officials were reviewing the report.

Judge Goldstone said the panel heard extensive testimony, conducting 188 interviews and reviewing 10,000 pages of documents and 1,200 photographs. After Israel refused to allow the investigators into the country, the Human Rights Council paid for Israeli witnesses, including the mayor of Ashkelon and Israeli victims, to give testimony in Geneva.

The panel rejected the Israeli version of events surrounding several of the most contentious episodes of the war.

Israel's mortar shelling near a United Nations-run school in the Jabaliya refugee camp, which was sheltering some 1,300 people, killed 35 and wounded up to 40 people, the report said.

The investigation did not exclude the possibility that Israeli forces were responding to fire from an armed Palestinian group, as Israel claimed, but said that this and similar attacks "cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought."

Israel repeatedly accused Hamas of using mosques to shelter armed men or munitions, and a report by Israel said an attack against the Maqadmah mosque in Jabaliya had killed six known militants.

But the Human Rights Council report said the attack came during evening prayers, when some 300 men and women were in the mosque, and killed 15 people. There were no secondary explosions to indicate the presence of an arms cache.

If Israel wanted to destroy a mosque suspected as an arms cache, it should have done so in the middle of the night, Mr. Goldstone said.

The report also noted that some 10 Israeli shells, including white phosphorus, hit the main Gaza City compound of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency while up to 700 civilians were sheltered there. The compound contained a huge fuel depot, but the shells kept coming, it said, though United Nations officials spoke to their Israeli military liaison repeatedly.

In another episode, the report said the destruction of a house in which nearly two dozen relatives died, appeared to be "the result of deliberate demolition and not of combat."

Asked about accusations that he was anti-Israel, Judge Goldstone acknowledged he was Jewish and said, "It is grossly wrong to label a mission or to label a report critical of Israel as being anti-Israel."

Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem, and Taghreed El-Khodary from Gaza.

Posted 9/15/2009 by United Nations

United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict; calls for end to impunity

The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.

The four members of the Mission* were appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council in April with a mandate to "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

In compiling the 574- page report, which contains detailed analysis of 36 specific incidents in Gaza, as well as a number of others in the West Bank and Israel, the Mission conducted 188 individual interviews, reviewed more 10,000 pages of documentation, and viewed some 1,200 photographs, including satellite imagery, as well as 30 videos. The mission heard 38 testimonies during two separate public hearings held in Gaza and Geneva, which were webcast in their entirety. The decision to hear participants from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva rather than in situ was taken after Israel denied the Mission access to both locations. Israel also failed to respond to a comprehensive list of questions posed to it by the Mission. Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated with the Mission.

The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip. During the Israeli military operation, code-named "Operation Cast Lead," houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were destroyed. Families are still living amid the rubble of their former homes long after the attacks ended, as reconstruction has been impossible due to the continuing blockade. More than 1,400 people were killed during the military operation.

Significant trauma, both immediate and long-term, has been suffered by the population of Gaza. The Report notes signs of profound depression, insomnia and effects such as bed-wetting among children. The effects on children who witnessed killings and violence, who had thought they were facing death, and who lost family members would be long lasting, the Mission found, noting in its Report that some 30 per cent of children screened at UNRWA schools suffered mental health problems.

The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.

The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.

The report underlines that in most of the incidents investigated by it, and described in the report, loss of life and destruction caused by Israeli forces during the military operation was a result of disrespect for the fundamental principle of "distinction" in international humanitarian law that requires military forces to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects at all times. The report states that "Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, the Mission finds that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions."

For example, Chapter XI of the report describes a number of specific incidents in which Israeli forces launched "direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome." These are, it says, cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack and concludes they amount to war crimes. The incidents described include:

· Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;

· Seven incidents concerning "the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so;"

· The targeting of a mosque at prayer time, resulting in the death of 15 people.

A number of other incidents the Report concludes may constitute war crimes include a direct and intentional attack on the Al Quds Hospital and an adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza City.

The Report also covers violations arising from Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators, sometimes resulting in deaths, increased closures, restriction of movement and house demolitions. The detention of Palestinian Legislative Council members, the Report says, effectively paralyzed political life in the OPT.

The Mission found that through activities such as the interrogation of political activists and repression of criticism of its military actions, the Israeli Government contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent was not tolerated.

The Fact-Finding Mission also found that the repeated acts of firing rockets and mortars into Southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups "constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity," by failing to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population. "The launching of rockets and mortars which cannot be aimed with sufficient precisions at military targets breaches the fundamental principle of distinction," the report says. "Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population."

The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks "have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel," as well as "loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property, thereby eroding the economic and cultural life of the affected communities and severely affecting the economic and social rights of the population."

The Mission urges the Palestinian armed groups holding the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to release him on humanitarian grounds, and, pending his release, give him the full rights accorded to a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions including visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Report also notes serious human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial executions of Palestinians, by the authorities in Gaza and by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action, the Report says. The Mission found the Government of Israel had not carried out any credible investigations into alleged violations. It recommended that the UN Security Council require Israel to report to it, within six months, on investigations and prosecutions it should carry out with regard to the violations identified in its Report. The Mission further recommends that the Security Council set up a body of independent experts to report to it on the progress of the Israeli investigations and prosecutions. If the experts' reports do not indicate within six months that good faith, independent proceedings are taking place, the Security Council should refer the situation in Gaza to the ICC Prosecutor. The Mission recommends that the same independent expert body also report to the Security Council on proceedings undertaken by the relevant Gaza authorities with regard to crimes committed by the Palestinian side. As in the case of Israel, if within six months there are no good faith independent proceedings conforming to international standards in place, the Council should refer the situation to the ICC Prosecutor.

* The members of the Fact Finding Mission are:

Justice Richard Goldstone, Head of Mission; former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa; former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science; member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun (2008). Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders; member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004). Colonel Desmond Travers, former Officer in Ireland's Defence Forces; member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

Posted 9/14/2009 by Charlotte Kates

US Palestinians: Dayton and Mercenaries out of Palestine

The U.S. Palestinian Community Network is appalled that the government ofthe United States not only continues its unconditional support for Israel,but has engaged in establishing a Palestinian contra forces in the WestBank, aimed at deepening Palestinian internal division and engaging inarbitrary arrests and assassinations of political activists. We demand animmediate end to all such programs and the immediate withdrawal of U.S. Lt.Gen. Keith Dayton and his mercenaries from Palestine!

U.S. Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the U.S. Security Coordinator forIsrael and the Palestinian Authority, has overseen the creation of aparamilitary force serving the occupation under the title of PalestinianAuthority "security forces." While Israeli occupation soldiers regularlyabduct, injure and kill Palestinians, Dayton's contras have engaged in acampaign of intimidation against the Palestinian populace, includingarbitrary arrests, raids on charitable institutions and non-governmentalorganizations, assassinations, and torture of political opponents of thePalestinian Authority.

Furthermore, the focus on "security" comes at the expense of the Palestinianpeople's real needs. While Palestinians continue to organize to resistoccupation and strengthen their communities by building schools, hospitalsand community-centered institutions that support the steadfastness of thePalestinian people, the U.S. has poured money, arms and resources into"security forces" that? provide no security for Palestinians who face dailythreats from settlers and occupying forces, but instead act as threatsagainst Palestinians on the ground.

The actions of these squads are fully coordinated with the Israeli militaryoccupation. They carry out arrests, abductions and raids at the direction ofIsraeli military forces and provide the occupation forces with informationabout the location of Palestinian activists. Israeli officials have braggedabout the success of these paramilitary forces in repressing Palestinianresistance.

In addition, this force is designed to prop up a subservient andcollaborationist Palestinian authority. The training for these forces isprovided by a number of repressive Arab regimes, who themselves maintaintheir power due to U.S. funding and support.

These paramilitary squads are not an internal Palestinian question alone. Astaxpayers and residents of the United States, we demand that the U.S. ceasesits funding and training of Dayton's mercenaries. U.S. involvement inparamilitary death and terror squads is nothing new - from Colombia, to thePhilippines, to El Salvador, to Nicaragua, to Angola and Mozambique, theU.S. has funded trained and armed paramilitary forces to serve U.S.interests and/or support reactionary local rulers.

Posted 9/13/2009 by Sorcha Faal

Israel Warns Russia "We'll Bring Whole World Down With Us"

Grim reports circulating in the Kremlin today are stating that during a "shouting match" between President Medvedev and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [photo left], the leader of the Jewish Nation warned "We'll bring the whole World down with us if we have to" after his, Netanyahu, being "told with all authority" by Medvedev that Russia would not sanction Israel's planned nuclear bombing of Iran and would "very likely" retaliate if Netanyahu carries out his threat.

In what Russian Foreign Ministry Officials are saying was an "unprecedented breech on International protocol", Netanyahu secreted himself to Moscow this week aboard an Israeli registered private jet that reported its destination as being the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi, which Israel had previously armed for that Nations brutal assault upon South Ossetia which Russian forces were able to successfully repel during last years war.

However, upon the Israeli plane nearing Russian airspace, these reports continue, an "urgent" request to deviate from its original flight plan and fly to Moscow was received by Russian Military air controllers who were "stunned" when informed by the pilot that Netanyahu was aboard whereupon permission was granted for the flight to land at the Kubinka air base in Moscow Oblast where it was met by FSB forces, Russian and Israeli diplomatic officials.

Medvedev, when informed of Netanyahu's surprise visit was rushed by his Security personal to Kubinka where according to these reports he was met by an "enraged" Netanyahu, Israeli Military Affairs Secretary General Meir Kalifi and Israeli National Security Advisor Uzi Arad who all then demanded the "immediate return" of "all documents, equipment and Mossad agents" captured by Russian and US commandos who took back control from the Israeli and rogue CIA commandos the hijacked ship Arctic Sea.

[Note: We had previously reported on the Arctic Sea hijacking in our reports: "Russia "Alarmed" After Nuclear Warheads Go Missing In Atlantic" and "Russian And US Forces Retake Missing Nukes From Rogue CIA "Terrorists"]

[Note: Western propaganda media sources are currently reporting the absurd notion that the Arctic Sea "may have" contained Russian missiles bound for Iran, which as anyone who knows this region is aware that all sea traffic between Russia and Iran is done on the waters of the Caspian Sea that both countries have ports on and is never conducted on Atlantic or Mediterranean sea lanes.]

Medvedev, when faced with Netanyahu's "outburst", was reported to have responded (Medvedev and Netanyahu both spoke in English which they are both fluent in) that as the facts into the Arctic Sea hijacking was still being investigated Russia was "not prepared" to release any of the "evidence" to anyone.

Netanyahu then issued his threatening words to Medvedev along with a further threat that Russia "should watch its own back" and not to be surprised when "mushroom clouds start appearing over Tehran" whereupon he re-boarded his plane with his military and intelligence entourage for his return flight back to Israel and leaving "everyone shocked" as to what all of the events meant.

Upon Netanyahu's return to Israel their media reported that he, at first, attempted to deny his secret trip to Russia, but which was subsequently confirmed by a "senior Jerusalem official".

An FSB addendum to these reports state that Israeli National Security Advisor Uzi Arad, who was the former director of intelligence for Israel's Mossad and banned from the United States in 2004, was "most assuredly" the "mastermind" behind the hijacking of the Arctic Sea for a planned attack upon the US as Russian Intelligence Officials have long suspected him of being one of the "main perpetrators" of the September 11, 2001 attacks upon America.

Arad is also believed by Russian Military Analysts to be the main instigator for an immediate nuclear attack upon Iran's atomic facilities as he his Nation's destruction of the Persian Nation as an "existential imperative" for Israel if it is to survive.

Further threatening Israel was Netanyahu's defiance of President Obama in ordering an expansion of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory that the US, EU, Russia and China had warned him not to do.

Russian Foreign Ministry Officials state grimly in these reports that unless Israel returns to a more "sane" government headed by the highly respected opposition chairwoman Tzipi Livni the "only outcome" will be "Total Global Warfare" which Netanyahu and his radical right-wing allies (who stole the Israeli election from Livni) are intent upon starting as they see a "great conflict" as being the only means viable for keeping all of the land they say is theirs by "birthright", but which millions of Palestinians strongly disagree.

And to how radical Netanyahu's government has become we can see evidenced in his ordering his government to begin running television advertisements warning Israelis not to marry non-Jews, and as we can read:

"The Israeli government has launched a television and Internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews. The advertisements, employing what the Israeli media described as "scare tactics," are designed to stop assimilation through intermarriage among young Diaspora Jews by encouraging their move to Israel."

To what the final outcome of these events will be can be gleaned from these reports, but which due to the constraints placed upon us in receiving this information in the first place we can only strongly advise that the next 8-weeks may well be the defining period of time for this entire century.

Posted 9/08/2009 by The Palestinian Center for Human Rights

Israel 'Targeted Civilians'

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) today published 'Targeted Civilians' a comprehensive report on the latest Israeli military offensive against the Gaza Strip (27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009). The report is the result of extensive investigations, and documents numerous war crimes committed by Israeli occupation forces (IOF) over the course of the offensive.

PCHR has already published a number of reports on war crimes committed by IOF against Palestinian civilians and their property. On 14 July 2009, PCHR published "Impacts of the Israeli Military Offensive on Water and Sewage Services in the Gaza Strip. On 14 May 2009, PCHR published, "War Crimes against Children: Report on the 313 Children Killed during Gaza Offensive." During the period of the offensive, PCHR published two reports: "The Aggravation of Humanitarian Crisis in the Gaza strip as IOF Offensive Continues," published on 3 January 2009; and "Report on Attacks by IOF against Palestinian Medical Personnel during the Military Offensive against the Gaza Strip," published on 13 January 2009. PCHR is currently finalizing a report on the gender-specific impact and consequences of the offensive.

According to PCHR's documentation, 1,419 Palestinians were killed during the Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip. This number includes 1,167 non-combatants (82.2%) and 252 resistance activists (17.8%). The non-combatants include civilians and civil police officers who were not involved in hostilities, the protected persons of international humanitarian law. Investigations conducted by PCHR indicate that 918 civilians were killed (64.7% of the total number of victims). The civilian victims include 318 children (22.4 % of the total number of victims and 34.7% of the number of civilian victims) and 111 women (7.8% of the total number of victims and 12.1% of the number of civilian victims). According to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, at least 5,300 Palestinian were wounded during the offensive. This number includes at least 1,600 children (30%) and 830 women (15.6%); at least 2,430 children and women were wounded, 45.6% of the total wounded.

According to PCHR's documentation, IOF completely destroyed 2,114 houses (2864 housing units) affecting 3,314 families (19,592 individuals). They also partially destroyed 3,242 houses, (5,014 housing units) affecting 5,470 families (32,250 individuals). A further 16,000 houses at least sustained various degrees of damages as a result of bombardment and destruction, including the burning of dozens of houses in different areas. Approximately 51,453 individuals were made homeless.

The latest offensive was the most violent, brutal and bloodiest since the beginning of Israeli occupation in 1967. It resulted in large scale loss of life and destruction to property, and decimated the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip.

PCHR emphasizes that Israel's conduct of hostilities in the Gaza Strip violated the principles of distinction and proportionality. As detailed in the report, IOF launched indiscriminate attacks against densely-populated areas. PCHR affirms that such acts constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and war crimes. Additionally, the widespread and systematic nature of Israeli-perpetrated violations of international law indicates that crimes against humanity may have been committed in the Gaza Strip.

The report consists of 5 sections. The first section surveys the sequence of events over the course of the offensive. The second section addresses crimes committed by IOF from the perspective of international law. The third section highlights in details and statistics willful killings and other violation of the right to life and personal security. The fourth section focuses on destruction of civilian property, including houses and agricultural lands. The last section highlights the humanitarian crisis during the offensive against the Gaza Strip, including the displacement of thousands of Palestinian families and the denial of entry of medical supplies.

Conclusion and Recommendations

PCHR strongly condemns all war crimes perpetrated during the 23 day offensive. PCHR also condemns the international community's silence, including the failure of states and governments' political will, through the Security Council, to exert more pressure on Israel to bring an end to the violence and halt the commission of war crimes. PCHR believes that the Member States of the United Nations, should uphold their legal and ethical responsibilities to maintain international peace and security, obligations enshrined in the UN Charter. As a key regional player, the European Union also had a significant role to play.

The Member States of the United Nations also have a responsibility to uphold the numerous Security Council Resolutions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For six decades, Palestinians have suffered continuous violations of their fundamental rights, mainly the right of self-determination which is considered to constitute the core component of international human rights law.

In light of IOF war crimes and potential crimes against humanity, civilians and civil objects during the latest offensive against Gaza Strip, PCHR calls upon the Security Council

1. To hold Israel accountable for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip; Israel must not be allowed to continue acting with impunity; the illegal closure regime must be lifted.

2. To effectively investigate all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This must necessarily include the prosecution of alleged war criminal. In accordance with the principle of command responsibility, all levels of the Israeli political and military administration must be held to account.

3. To immediately and effectively intervene to prevent impunity, in all its forms.

4. To force all States and companies to halt the supply of all types of weapons and ammunition which were used to commit wide-scale violations of IHL during the offensive against the Gaza Strip.

5. To immediately and effectively intervene to force the Israeli authorities to put an end to the extensive and illegal closure of the Gaza Strip that hinders the movement of people and goods. The illegal closure is a form of collective punishment directed against the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip.

6. The High Contracting Parties to the Geneva convection should fulfill their obligations according to article 1 of The Fourth Geneva Convection to respect and ensure respect for the convection in all circumstances. High Contracting Parties must also comply with their obligations under articles 146 and147 of the Fourth Geneva Convection for 1949, which require the prosecution of individuals responsible for committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

7. To exert all pressure to guarantee Israel's commitment, as the Occupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to abide by and uphold its legal obligations towards the Palestinian civilians, including guarantee civilians' safety and welfare.

8. To widely disseminate the results of the United Nations investigations into the Israeli offensive against the Gaza Strip and to take all recommended actions.

9. To exert pressure on the Israeli occupation government to fulfill its legal responsibilities as regards its actions during the latest offensive.

10. To exert pressure on the Israeli occupation government to immediately open all Gaza's borders and to cancel all imposed restrictions. These restrictions constitute serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

11. To exert pressure on Israel to remove all imposed restrictions on food, medical and humanitarian aid, supervised by international humanitarian organizations, and to facilitate the supply of civilians who are suffering from the offensive.

12. To exert pressure on Israel to lift the blockade and to immediately allow the import of all necessary reconstruction materials, especially the raw materials needed for the reconstruction and renovation of property and civilian objects which were widely damaged during the offensive.

13. To exert all possible pressure on Israel to uphold its responsibilities to protect Palestinian civilians in all conditions and circumstances, in accordance with its obligations under IHL. Israel must distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and combatants and military objectives in order to ensure the protection of civilian populations and their property.

Posted 9/07/2009 by Jonathan Cook

Israel Gets Tough on Intermarriage

The Israeli government has launched a television and internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews.

The advertisements, employing what the Israeli media described as "scare tactics", are designed to stop assimilation through intermarriage among young diaspora Jews by encouraging their move to Israel.

The campaign, which cost $800,000, was created in response to reports that half of all Jews outside Israel marry non-Jews. It is just one of several initiatives by the Israeli state and private organisations to try to increase the size of Israel's Jewish population.

According to one ad, voiced over by one of the country's leading news anchors, assimilation is "a strategic national threat", warning: "More than 50 per cent of diaspora youth assimilate and are lost to us."

Adam Keller, of Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group, said this was a reference both to a general fear in Israel that the Jewish people may one day disappear through assimilation and to a more specific concern that, if it is to survive, Israel must recruit more Jews to its "demographic war" against Palestinians.

The issue of assimilation has been thrust into the limelight by a series of surveys over several years carried out by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a think-tank established in Jerusalem in 2002 comprising leading Israeli and diaspora officials.

The institute's research has shown that Israel is the only country in the world with a significant Jewish population not decreasing in size. The decline elsewhere is ascribed both to low birth rates and to widespread intermarriage.

According to the institute, about half of all Jews in western Europe and the United States assimilate by intermarrying, while the figure for the former Soviet Jewry is reported to reach 80 per cent.

Israel, whose Jewish population of 5.6 million accounts for 41 per cent of worldwide Jewry, has obstructed intermarriage between its Jewish and Arab citizens by refusing to recognise such marriages unless they are performed abroad.

The advertising campaign is directed particularly at Jews in the United States and Canada, whose combined 5.7 million Jews constitute the world's largest Jewish population. Most belong to the liberal Reform stream of Judaism that, unlike Orthodoxy, does not oppose intermarriage.

One-third of Jews in the diaspora are believed to have relatives in Israel.

According to the campaign's organisers, more than 200 Israelis rang a hotline to report names of Jews living abroad after the first TV advertisement was run on Wednesday. Callers left details of email addresses and Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The 30-second clip featured a series of missing-person posters on street corners, in subways and on telephone boxes showing images of Jewish youths above the word "Lost" in different languages. A voiceover asks anyone who "knows a young Jew living abroad" to call the hotline. "Together, we will strengthen their connection to Israel, so that we don't lose them."

The campaign supports a government-backed programme, Masa, that subsidises stays and courses in Israel of up to one year in a bid to persuade Jews to immigrate and become citizens. About 8,000 diaspora Jews attend its programme each year.

The government has been trying to develop Masa alongside a rival programme, Birthright Israel, which brings nearly 20,000 diaspora youngsters to Israel each year on sponsored 10-day trips to meet Israeli soldiers and visit sites in Israel and the West Bank promoted as important to the Jewish people.

Although Birthright is regarded as useful in encouraging a positive image of Israel, officials fear it has only a limited effect on attracting its mainly North American participants to move to Israel. Many regard it as an all-paid holiday.

Differences in the approach of the two programmes were underlined in July when a Birthright director, Shlomo Lifshittz, resigned and moved to Masa after telling the Israeli media he had been forbidden from urging Birthright participants to migrate to Israel and shun intermarriage.

In launching the campaign, Masa's chief executive, Ayelet Shilo-Tamir, warned that assimilation worldwide was putting Jews "on the verge of negative growth".

Masa officials said young Jews who participate in their projects strengthened their Jewish identity and were more likely to become politically and socially active on behalf of Israel-related issues.

The campaign quickly provoked a storm of debate on Jewish blog sites, especially in the United States, with some terming it "divisive" and an insult to Jewish offspring of intermarriage. A link to Masa's "Lost" campaign had been dropped from the front page of its website yesterday, possibly in response to the backlash.

The campaign will probably strike a chord in Israel, however, where a poll in 2007 found that 46 per cent of Israeli Jews believed all Jews should live in Israel because it was "the only way Israel and the Jewish people will be strengthened".

That position has been echoed by Israel's leaders, though most have been careful not to upset the delicate balance of relations with diaspora communities.

Former prime minister Ariel Sharon was widely regarded as having overstepped those bounds in 2004 during a visit to France when he urged French Jews to come to Israel because France was experiencing "the spread of the wildest anti-semitism".

Sharon had been outspoken in wanting one million Jews to immigrate to Israel to counter a "demographic threat" from the rapid growth of the Palestinian populations in both Israel and the occupied territories. Numerical parity between Jews and Palestinians living in the region is expected to be reached within a decade.

That theme has been picked up by his successors, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu.

There is growing concern in Israel that immigration rates have steadily declined since a large wave of one million Jews arrived from the former Soviet Union through the 1990s. The absorption figure for last year ? at 16,500 ? was the lowest since the 1980s. It is also believed that there is a growing trend of better-off Jews leaving Israel to live abroad, though figures are not publicised.

Mr Keller, of Gush Shalom, said few Jews in the United States or Europe, the main target of the campaign, needed to come to Israel for material reasons. "They come from ideological motives, and many of them are right-wing nationalists who can be encouraged to settle in the West Bank."

The Israeli government and various organisations subsidise the immigration of diaspora Jews to Israel.

Last year the Jewish Agency handed over responsibility for locating new immigrants to Nefesh B'Nefesh, a private organisation that promotes a dozen settlements in the West Bank on its website, including hardline communities such as Kedumim, near Nablus, and Efrat, near Bethlehem.

"Last week Israeli TV showed a group of immigrants arriving in Israel to go to Efrat," said Mr Keller. "They were shown being greeted at the airport by a large clapping crowds of Israelis waving flags in support."

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

Posted 9/03/2009 by John Wheat Gibson

The Facts of the Abed Rabbo Case

According to the investigation conducted by Adalah, Al-Haq and Al Mezan into the incident, on 7 January 2009 Israeli soldiers operating in the Ezbet Abed-Rabbo neighborhood, located east of Jabalia town in the north of the Gaza Strip, used loudspeakers to order local residents to evacuate their houses. Mr. Khalid Abed-Rabbo, who lived with his extended family in a four-story house in the neighborhood, left his house with his mother, his wife and his three daughters, Amal, Su'ad and Samar (two and a half, four, and nine respectively). The family was carrying white flags. They stood in front of the door of the house for about ten minutes. There were two Israeli tanks stationed nearby, one of which was about 15 meters away from the family. Two Israeli soldiers were sitting on top of the tank eating snacks. A third soldier appeared from the tank's hatch and opened fire directly at the family. The shooting lasted for about one minute. Khalid Abed Rabbo initially thought that the soldier was aiming at the ground and firing warning shots. However, he then saw that his mother, Su'ad, and his three daughters, Amal, Su'ad and Samar (two and a half, four, and nine respectively) were shot. The family managed to pull the girls inside the house. Su'ad had ran back to the house and fallen in the entrance of the house.

One of the family's neighbors, Mr. Sameeh Al-Sheikh, who works as an ambulance driver, heard the shots and the family screaming. He got into his ambulance, which was parked in his garage, and drove towards the Abed-Rabbo house with his son. Israeli soldiers in the second tank obstructed the ambulance and ordered the two men to walk west and leave the neighborhood.

The three injured girls and Khalid's mother remained in the house. They bled from their injuries for about two hours, during which time two of the little girls bled to death. Around two hours after the shooting, Khalid's father, Mr. Mohammed Muneeb, carried one of the girls out of the house. Israeli soldiers informed him that he and his family were allowed to leave the neighborhood on foot. With help from their neighbors, the men carried the girls in their arms and Su'ad, the grandmother, on a bed from the house and headed out of the Ezbet Abed-Rabbo neighbourhood. They walked for about two kilometers before being collected by an ambulance and other cars passing by, and taken to hospital.

A group of women who were walking in front of the men outside the neighborhood came across a man on a horse-drawn cart in which Mr. Zakaria Suleiman Khalil Naseir (57), his son Musa (18) and another relative, Mr. Adham Khamis Mohammad Naseir (37) were riding. Naseir steered the cart towards the injured. When it drew close to them, Israeli soldiers stationed in the Red Crescent Emergency Centre, which is located at the entrance of the Ezbet Abed-Rabbo neighborhood's Al Quds Street, opened fire on the cart, shooting Adham in the neck. The witnesses to the incident called an ambulance, but it was unable to get close to Adham because the medics were met with heavy fire every time they attempted to approach him. Later on, Adham was taken to the hospital. Due to the severity of his condition, Adham was transferred for treatment abroad and later died from his injuries.

When the Abed-Rabbo family survivors returned to their home on 18 January 2009, the first day of the ceasefire after the end of Operation Cast Lead, they found their house destroyed. Evidence at the scene showed that the house had been brought down with explosives. Another 178 houses in the neighborhood were completely destroyed and 129 were partially destroyed. The vast majority of the destruction took place after 7 January, when the neighborhood was under the effective control of the Israeli army.

Khalid's surviving daughter was hospitalized in Gaza for a few days before being transferred to a hospital in Belgium due to the severity of her injuries. She remains there with her mother and two brothers. She is paralyzed in her lower limbs. Around eight months after her injury, her father remains unable to visit her, as he is unable to obtain a visa to enter Belgium.

Posted 9/01/2009 by Omar Karmi

Not one penny has reached Gaza

It has been six months since the international community pledged nearly US$5 billion (Dh18bn) in aid to the Palestinian people, chiefly for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip after Israel's devastating offensive there this year.

None of this aid has reached Gaza and no reconstruction has started.

Although Israel is slowly easing its restrictions on the flow of basic humanitarian goods to Gaza, including food and medicine, construction materials remain prohibited from entering, institutions and homes still lie in rubble, and critically needed projects to repair and upgrade Gaza's power plant and tottering sewage network lie dormant.

The situation is frustrating to development agencies and experts. Two weeks ago, the UN was forced to issue another emergency appeal for funds for Gazans. The UN's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides aid and education to Palestinian refugees, decried the condition of Gaza's refugees as "shameful". Numbering one million, refugees make up about 70 per cent of the total population in Gaza; and UNRWA asked for $181 million to help it through the rest of the year in a special Ramadan appeal.

Of the billions of dollars pledged for reconstruction by the international community, UNRWA noted in a press release on August 17, "not one penny" has reached Gaza, and reconstruction has proven to be a "mirage". The humanitarian situation in Gaza, according to the UN, "remains precarious".

That such serious humanitarian disasters as a cholera epidemic did not emerge in Gaza, said William Corcoran, the president of the American Near East Refugee Aid agency, (Anera) is partly down to "dumb luck".

"We expected more serious health scares but thankfully they haven't occurred," Mr Corcoran said in an interview last week."This is partly because sewage pipes have not yet burst into the streets. But they are at the stage where that can happen at any moment."

In Gaza, Anera is a partner to USAID, the official US aid agency, and is supposed to repair and upgrade most of Gaza's aged and faulty sewage system. That project - like all the projects, including construction of a seaport and the reopening of the airport, agreed to in the US-brokered 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access - has yet to get off the ground.

Mr Corcoran was keen to highlight the projects Anera has been able to implement in Gaza, including food and medicine deliveries, a programme to provide fresh milk to Gazan preschoolers and the reconstruction of 18 preschools using materials recycled from the destruction wrought in the Gaza war, but he admitted to frustration at the kind of projects Anera is now pursuing.

In the West Bank, he said, Anera helped establish four IT institutes affiliated to four different universities. In Gaza, while plans have been laid for a similar project, Anera's newest project involved buying shoes for children. "We are forced to lower our expectations for what we can do."

At heart, the problem is political. The expertise is there, whether with such agencies as the UN and Anera, or with local NGOs affiliated to those international bodies. The money has been pledged even if it has yet to be delivered. The statement from UNRWA noted that, pledges apart, the largest Arab donation to date had been a $34m contribution from the emir of Kuwait.

But what Mr Corcoran calls the "political stalemate" - whether in international efforts to pressure Israel to lift its siege on Gaza, which has been in place for more than two years, or in Palestinian reconciliation efforts - has stymied efforts to begin reconstruction in Gaza.

The latter is crucial in establishing a mechanism for distributing aid to Gaza. International sanctions on official contacts with Hamas tie the hands of agencies dealing with Gaza authorities. International funding, under the current proscriptions, cannot end up in the hands of Hamas, and even a clear commitment by Hamas, offered repeatedly over the past months, will not dissuade the international community from this stance.

The result is that international aid efforts are being channelled through the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas. As emphasised yesterday by Nabil Shaath, a senior aide to Mr Abbas, in a press conference in Ramallah, there will be no reconstruction of the Gaza Strip until there is a unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.

Even then, however, the international community must still pressure Israel to lift the siege, aid organisations said. The destruction of the war in January aside, the greatest damage has been done not by bombs but by isolation. Unable to rebuild or improve, two years of sanctions have undermined the economy and infrastructure. According to a July survey by the Palestine Trade Centre, 95 per cent of industries in Gaza have had to shut as a result of sanctions and 120,000 private sector employees have been laid off.

Posted 9/01/2009 by PressTV

Israelis kill Palestinian teenager in WB

Israeli soldiers have shot dead a Palestinian teenager and wounded two others including an ambulance driver who was providing first aid to another victim in the occupied West Bank.

Palestinian medical sources reported Monday night that one Palestinian teenager was killed and two others were wounded by Israeli military fire near the road that separates between Al Jalazoun refugee camp and Beit El settlement, east of the central West Bank city of Ramallah.

The 17-year old youth, Mohammad Nayef, was seriously wounded and was moved to Hadassah hospital in al-Quds. He died of his wounds several hours later, the sources said.

Mohammad is the son of Riyadh Nayef, a Palestinian security official who was assassinated by the Israeli army several years ago.

The Israeli army claims the boy was hurling fire-bombs outside the settlement.

The two other wounded Palestinians are Ali Al Qaisi, shot in his arm, and ambulance driver, Osama Al Najjar, who was wounded in his leg while providing first aid to Mohammad Nayef.

In addition to this incident, according to Palestinian sources Israeli troops kidnapped several Palestinian youth and took them to an unknown destination.

Posted 8/28/2009 by Salim Nazzal

Will the UN investigate the Zionist body snatchers?

It is time for the international community to intervene and expresses its outrage and disgust at Israeli murder for the purpose of bodysnatching. Palestinians are extremely outraged by the news which many of them had heard of previously, but which has now been confirmed by a neutral Swedish paper about the Israeli policy of deliberately murdering Palestinians to steal their internal organs.

This was revealed only few weeks after the arrests in the United States of several prominent Jewish figures, including rabbis, who were caught dealing in the gruesome 'business' of buying human body parts from Israel and selling them in the USA.

The Palestinian Association in Sweden which represents more than 30,000 Swedish Palestinians has sent a letter to the Aftonbladet newspaper, expressing their appreciation of its brave reporters' efforts in revealing yet another dark face of the Jewish fascist state.

The association also voiced its appreciation of the Swedish government's brave position in standing up against the standard Zionist blackmail tactics, which have seen Sweden accused of anti-Semitism; this is a ploy used by Zionists for several decades now, but one which fortunately no longer works.

According to the Swedish paper svenska Dagebladet 65 percent of the Swedes rejects that Sweden apologize to Israel. Sweden made it clear that the report which revealed the macabre Jewish enterprise in Palestine is part of the press freedom of Sweden. It must be remembered that Sweden was the first European country targeted by Jewish state terrorism which killed Kunt Bernadotte the member of the Swedish royal family and the head of the UN delegation to Palestine in 1948.

Confirming the reports carried in Aftonbladet, Palestinian researcher Al-Farawne said that the murder of Palestinians by Israelis in order to steal their organs has been going on for decades. Al Farawne also revealed that hundreds of Palestinians' bodies were returned to their families days, months and some times over a year after being murdered. When the bodies were returned, however, they were discovered to be missing vital internal organs.

The lack of morality in these crimes, as in all the crimes against humanity which Israel commits against Palestine, is obvious. Such crimes are in concord with the Zionist culture which assumes that Jews are more worthy than non-Jews. This is the rationale which allows Zionists to commit such crimes without any feelings of guilt. This fits within the framework of Rabbi Abraham Koch's directives which state that non-Jews living under Jewish law in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) must either be enslaved as water carriers and wood hewers, or banished, or exterminated)

Arab Knesset Member Muhammad Baraka revealed that there are more than 600 killed Palestinians' bodies buried in what Israel calls 'the number graveyards', which were created for freedom fighters Palestinians killed in combat with the Israeli army. Baraka has demanded that Israel return the bodies to their families, but Palestinian sources expressed profound skepticism that Israel would return any of the bodies before they were entirely decomposed, since doing so before then might reveal the Israelis' crimes in stealing body parts from them.

In the view of the Palestinian politicians and intellectuals whom I spoke to about these crimes, it is difficult to imagine that such atrocities could take place without the consent of the higher authorities in the Zionist state. In these prominent Palestinian officials' and thinkers' views, there must be cooperation between doctors, hospitals, transport and high-ranking military officers to carry out such acts, suggesting that such incidents are not isolated since this would involve many sectors. If Israel thinks that these are just allegations, then it must accept an international investigation into these crimes.

Those who I spoke to, however, expressed major doubts that Israel would allow any international committee to investigate these crimes. Precisely because of Israel's reluctance to allow any inquiry into these despicable acts, several Palestinian human rights organizations are demanding an immediate international investigation into this new crime.

Palestinians fear that Israel will reject any international investigation committee, just as it did in its crimes against Jenin and Gaza when it, yet again, went against international wishes in flatly rejecting any inquiry.

I asked one Palestinian politician whether Palestinians would be satisfied with an Israeli investigation. His answer was an emphatic No. This is a form of cannibalism and the highest form of terror. There is no Palestinian who trusts Israel and leaving the investigation to it is like giving a murderer the right to investigate his crime. Zionists will hide and deny it as they have with 60 years of systematic crimes they committed in Palestine. We need the UN to investigate it before it is forgotten, the politician said, not hiding his disgust at this crime.

The reason that Israel continues committing crimes against humanity is because it knows that it can escape the international pressure that would be put on other nations for doing the same thing. The more it evades justice, the more it murders, knowing that it will go unpunished. Therefore the UN must send a strong message to the Zionist State that the age of Burke and Hare murder and bodysnatching is over.

Note: William Burke and William Hare are 19th century Scots murderers who killed people to sell their bodies to hospitals.

Posted 8/26/2009 by Palestine Media Center

Israel Declares Shooting Of American An "Act Of War" To Avoid Compensation

Israel has declared the shooting of unarmed American demonstrator Tristan Anderson in the West Bank to be an "act of war" in a bid to avoid compensating his family. The Israeli Army Ministry sent a letter containing this declaration to the Anderson family's lawyers, according to attorney Leah Tsemel who is perusing a civil suit against the Israeli government.

Anderson was critically injured on 13 March 2009 when Israeli soldiers shot him in the forehead with a high velocity tear gas canister during a demonstration against the separation wall in the West Bank village of Ni'lin. He remains unconscious in Tel Aviv's Tel Hashomer Hospital, where he recently underwent another surgery to reattach part of his skull that was removed during life-saving surgery five months ago. Prospects for his recovery remain unclear.

Tsemel, the civil suit attorney told Ma'an that the "act of war" designation automatically releases the government from paying compensation under a recently-amended tort law. Israel makes this designation "all the time," in tort cases involving Palestinian victims, she said. She also said the Andersons' lawyers would "exhaust all possibilities in Israeli courts," and in international courts if necessary, to hold the government accountable. A court date has not yet been set.

Tsemel also reiterated that overwhelming evidence shows that Anderson was not a combatant and presented no threat to the Israeli soldiers. In an eventual court proceeding, she said, Anderson's lawyers would present eyewitnesses, videotape, a medical report, and even the Israeli soldier's own reports to prove this.

"If a process by which unarmed civilian demonstration is classified by Israel as an 'act of war,' then clearly Israel admits that it is at war with civilians," said Attorney Michael Sfard, who is handling the criminal side of the Anderson case, in a statement circulated by the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).

Anderson was shot at a distance of 60 meters while standing with a group of Palestinians and international activists, hours after the demonstration had been dispersed from the construction site of the Wall.

Posted 8/23/2009 by irin

ISRAEL-OPT: UN report details grim effects of Israeli blockade on Gaza

A new UN report describes the devastating humanitarian impact of two years of Israel's "unprecedented blockade on all border crossings in and out of the Gaza Strip".

Released in August by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Jerusalem, the report details the rapid deterioration of livelihoods, food security, education, health, shelter, energy and water and sanitation inside Gaza.

"The blockade has 'locked in' 1.5 million people in what is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, triggering a protracted human dignity crisis with negative humanitarian consequences," said the report.

Following the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel closed all Gaza's border crossings, and imposed import and export restrictions and a travel ban to and from Gaza.

Israel's 23-day military offensive in Gaza, which ended on 18 January 2009, as well as internal conflicts between Fatah and Hamas, have compounded the suffering of the population, said the report.

'Blockade' or 'sanctions'?

Israel objects to the use of the word 'blockade' and has said its policy is to make sure the people of Gaza receive humanitarian support.

"We have imposed sanctions on the Gaza Strip; 'blockade' is an incorrect term since every day scores of trucks are entering Gaza and the pipelines that bring fuel and water into the Gaza Strip from Israel are open," Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister's office, told IRIN.

Attorney Sharhabeel al-Zaeem, a legal consultant in Gaza for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), said sanctions are generally "approved and imposed by the UN Security Council" and that a "blockade is when one entity blocks the borders of another entity; it is an action outside of international law".

Borders closed

According to OCHA, Karni, the largest and best equipped commercial crossing between Israel and Gaza, has been closed since June 2007, with the exception of a conveyor belt that only transfers grains.

Of Gaza's other four main crossings, Kerem Shalom opens six days a week for limited movement of authorized goods, Rafah border with Egypt opens on an ad hoc basis, Nahal Oz partially opens five days a week for limited types of fuels and Erez opens six days a week for international aid workers and medical and humanitarian cases.

"The lack of essential imports, including raw materials, coupled with the ban on exports, has decimated economic activity in the private sector and resulted in the loss of approximately 120,000 jobs," said the report, adding that about 75 percent of Gaza's population is food insecure due to soaring food prices, poverty and destruction of agricultural areas.

Lengthy inspection procedures at border crossings have also delayed the entry of many vital goods and led to some going to waste. The OCHA report says there are currently an estimated 1,700 commercial containers with imported goods on hold in warehouses in the West Bank and Israel, causing an estimated loss of US$10 million.

According to Regev, the Israeli government's criteria to lift the 'sanctions' are the release of a captured Israeli soldier; the halting of sporadic rocket-fire from Gaza into Israel; and the acceptance by Hamas of three principles: renunciation of violence, recognition of Israel and respect for existing peace agreements.

"The regime in Gaza is stuck in an extremist theology and has declared war on Israel," said Regev. The Israeli government has no direct communication with the Hamas government, he added.

Mahmoud Zahar, one the most senior Hamas leaders, told IRIN in Gaza City: "The Hamas government in Gaza has stopped all rocket-fire into Israel since January 2009."

Posted 8/14/2009 by Al-Haq

Al-Haq Report on the Israeli Assault on Gaza

On the morning of 27 December 2008, the Israeli occupying forces launched 'Operation Cast Lead,' a wide-ranging military offensive against the Gaza Strip. 80 warplanes carried out a devastating surprise airstrike campaign whose scale and intensity signalled Israel's intention to inflict widespread destruction throughout the Gaza Strip.

After 22 days of unrelenting aerial attacks coupled with an intensive ground invasion that began on 3 January 2009, the death toll exceeded 1,400 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians including women and children. Over 5,000 more were wounded. Excessive civilian casualties were compounded by the unprecedented destruction of civilian infrastructure across the Gaza Strip including hospitals, schools, mosques, civilian homes, police stations and United Nations compounds.

Read the entire report here.

Posted 8/5/2009 by IAfrica

NPA roped into Gaza saga?

Two non-profit organisations have approached the National Prosecuting Authority to take action against Israel for war crimes committed in Gaza, and against South Africans who participated in the war late last year.

Former intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils said at a press briefing in Newtown, Johannesburg, on Wednesday: "The request appeals to the authorities to investigate and if appropriate prosecute in South Africa individuals involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity during Israel's Operation Cast Lead."

The Palestinian Solidarity Alliance and the Media Review Network are listed as complainants in an affidavit handed to the NPA.

Kasrils was speaking in support of the initiative at the briefing hosted by the Media Review Network.

The two organisations are also calling for the immediate arrest of Lieutenant David Benjamin, who is currently in South Africa.

The organisations' legal teams have already made three requests to the NPA for the South African-born Israeli soldier's arrest.

Kasrils said the request to file charges was made in terms of Section Five of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act.

It is supported by approximately 3500 pages of evidence, including evidence by Human Rights Watch on the "brutal military onslaught on Gaza by the Israeli Defence Force". Around 70 South Africans are listed in the affidavit for prosecution as they had served in the Israeli army. Their names were withheld due to the fact that they were suspects.

"Evidence collected from eyewitnesses and those injured as well as United Nations and other investigative reports... provide compelling proof that suggests Israelis have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity," Kasrils said.

He added that it was South Africans' duty and responsibility to take actions against the "apartheid state of Israel". He said there was sufficient evidence in the affidavit to the NPA to justify a full and proper investigation into the perpetrators of alleged war crimes.

Posted 8/4/2009 by AL-HAQ

Impunity for settlers, prosecution for Palestinians

As a Palestinian human rights organisation committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Al-Haq strongly condemns the decision of Israeli State Prosecutors to drop all charges against an Israeli settler who shot and wounded two Palestinians in the West Bank city of Hebron in December 2008.

Ze'ev Braude, a resident of the Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arba', was caught on film as he shot at two members of a Palestinian family while Israeli occupation forces evacuated settlers from a nearby house. During the evacuation, 50 settlers from Kiryat Arba' gathered in an area bordering the Palestinian family's land. Braude and another settler crossed onto the family's property, and Braude, carrying a pistol, attempted to climb onto a balcony where the family had gathered to watch the evacuation. Braude proceeded to fire shots at members of the family when they attempted to prevent him from reaching the balcony. The incident was videotaped by one of the family members, and Israeli human rights group B'Tselem later released the footage to Israeli police and security forces as evidence to support Braude's prosecution.

Braude was formally charged with two counts of intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Following the indictment, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak authorised a certificate of priviledge for evidence included in the prosecution's investigation material, effectively denying Braude access to information that could aid in his defense. Braude's lawyer successfully petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to declassify the evidence and provide it to his client. In his ruling, Justice Elyakim Rubinstein held that in this instance, the right of the accused to a fair trial outweighed the harm to national security. Subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision, the State prosecution declared that it would drop the indictment against Braude, stating that the protection of classified information for national security reasons outweighed the benefit of proceeding with the prosecution.

This incident highlights a troubling example of the impunity enjoyed by settlers with respect to their violent actions against Palestinian civilians and their property. It also correlates to a broader policy of impunity regarding the settlers' presence in the OPT. The movement of Israeli settlers into the OPT, and the establishment of settlements on occupied territory, violates customary international humanitarian law. The rule, which is codified in Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibits the transfer of the Occupying Power's civilian population into the territory it occupies.

In addition to the unlawful presence of settlers in the OPT, Israel has failed to fulfil its international legal obligation to prosecute criminal acts committed by settlers. As the Occupying Power, Israel has a duty under customary international law, specifically Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, to ensure public order and safety in the territory it occupies. This case is especially significant because, despite the existence of videotaped evidence of the settler's alleged crime, State prosecutors used their discretion in employing national security claims to drop all charges against the accused. The Prosecution's decision to completely circumvent a criminal trial without exploring other procedural legal avenues demonstrates the State's unwillingness to bring settlers to justice for violent actions against Palestinians in the OPT. Such failure to hold settlers to account creates an atmosphere of impunity, which encourages increased settler violence.

This case also illustrates the discriminatory elements of the Israeli justice system, particularly the courts' inconsistent treatment in balancing the State's right to keep information privileged with an individual's right to a fair trial. Under international human rights law, Israel is obliged, according to Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to ensure that all persons are entitled, without discrimination on any ground, to equal protection before the law. In this particular case, the Israeli Supreme Court found that the accused settler's right to a fair trial trumped the State's right to safeguard secret information for the benefit of national security.

By contrast, human rights groups have consistently documented cases where Israeli courts have allowed prosecutions of Palestinian defendants to proceed on the basis of secret evidence, thereby denying their right to due process. Israel's practice of administrative detention in the OPT has meant that Palestinians are routinely arrested and held without charge or prosecuted on the basis of secret evidence that is not disclosed to them. The detainees have no legal recourse within the Israeli legal system to challenge the evidence against them.

The Israeli judiciary's decisions permitting the State's use of secret evidence in support of its interests has even extended to allowing arguments about the constitutionality of particular laws to be argued by the State ex parte. In March 2009, three Israeli human rights organizations withdrew their petition to challenge the constitutionality of an Israeli criminal procedure order from the Supreme Court. The petition was withdrawn in protest over the Supreme Court's decision to allow the General Security Service to present information pertaining to the constitutionality of the law exclusively to the Court in the absence of the petitioners, thereby denying the petitioners the right to examine and question the evidence presented.

These cases demonstrate a troubling trend within the Israeli justice system, namely the system's failure to provide Palestinians with an effective means of legal recourse to challenge the system to which they are subject, thereby denying equal protection under the law.

Al-Haq strongly condemns the Israeli government for failing to fulfil its international legal obligations, including its failure to reverse its illegal population transfer policy in the OPT and its failure to effectively prosecute settlers who engage in criminal activity so that they are held to account under the full extent of the applicable law.

Al-Haq urges the international community to take urgent and effective measures to ensure that Israel abides by its legal responsibilities to remove the illegal settlements in the OPT and to adequately protect the occupied population, including duly punishing Israeli settlers responsible for assaulting Palestinians.

Posted 8/3/2009 by International Solidarity Movement

Take action against suppression of Palestinian non-violent resistance in Bil'in

At around 3am on Monday morning, a large military force wearing combat paint and masks invaded the West Bank village of Bil'in. Israeli soldiers raided several homes, arresting 2 Palestinian children, 5 Palestinian adults including Mohammad Khatib of the Bil'in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. The home of another member of the Popular Committee was raided, but soldiers could not arrest him because he was not present at home.

Also arrested were the three brothers Khaled Shawkat Abd-Alrazic al- Khateeb (age 23), Mustafa Shawkat Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age18), and Mohammed Show gut Abd-Alrazic al-Khateeb (age 16); Abdullah Ahmad Yassen (age 18); Abdullah Mohammed Ali Yassen (age 16); Issa Mahmoud Issa Abu Rahma (age 40); This brings to 19 the number of Biliner's currently in custody.

Monday's raid is another in a series of many that Israeli forces have carried out in Bil'in since June 29 June 2009, Israeli forces have arrested 25 people (most are under 18). Israeli forces have been using interrogation techniques to pressure the arrested youth to give statements against Bil'in community leaders.

Abdullah Abu Rahme, coordinator of the popular committee stated, "Mohmmad Khatib and Adib Abu Rahme along with other leaders of the Palestinian popular struggle are being targeted because the mobilize Palestinians to resist non- violently. The fact is that the Apartheid Wall and the settlements built on Palestinian land are illegal under international law, in the case of our village even the biased Israeli court declared the route illegal. Yet Israel is prosecuting us as criminals because we struggle nonviolently for our freedom."

What you can do?

Attempts to criminalize the leadership of non-violent protests where curbed in the past with the help of an outpouring of support from people committed to justice from all over the world.

1. Many of you have met Mohammad Khatib and perhaps one of the others mentioned above. We need you now to personally testify about your knowledge of them and their commitment to non-violence. Write a letter to the Israeli military judge and please send to bilinlegal@gmail.com.

2. Please Protest by contacting your political representatives, as well as you consuls and ambassadors to Israel to demand the release of Mohammad Khatib, Adib Abu Rahme and all Bil'in prisoners.

3. The Popular committee of Bil'in is in desperate need for legal funds in order to pay legal fees and Bail. Please donate to the Bil'in legal fund by paypal click http://tinyurl.com/lcr6rg . If you would like to make a tax deductible donation in the US or Canada contact: bilinlegal@gmail.com.

The Bil'in Popular Committee against the Wall and Settlements

Background:

The Palestinian village of Bil'in has become an international symbol of the Palestinian popular struggle. For almost 5 years, its residents have been continuously struggling against the de facto annexation of more then 50% of their farmlands the construction of the apartheid wall on it. In a celebrated decision, the Israeli Supreme court ruled on the 4 September 2007 that the current route of the wall in Bil'in was illegal and needs to be dismantled; the ruling however has not been implemented. The struggle of the village to liberate its lands and stop the illegal settlements has been internationally recognized and has earned the popular committee in Bil'in the Carl von Ossietzky Meda. http://tinyurl.com/nfmsvm

On 21 July 2009, a military judge decided to hold Adeeb Abu Rahma, a leading non-violent activist that was arrested from a demonstration against the barrier that took place in Bil'in village on 10 of July (see video at: http://palsolidarity.org/2009/07/7652), until the end of proceedings against him. This could mean months or a year in military prison for Adeeb, who is being charged with incitement to violence and rioting. He is the sole provider for his family of 9 children, wife and mother.

One demonstrator, Basem Abu Rahma, was killed at a demonstration as he was attempting to speak with the soldiers. (Video can be seen on http://palsolidarity.org/2009/04/6185)

Posted 8/1/2009 by Meredith Aby

Minnesota activists jailed in Israel

We have just learned that Israeli security forces have refused entry to three U.S. activists attempting to visit the Palestinian Territories. One of them, Karen Sullivan, is being sent home on a flight tonight, and two others, Sarah Martin and Katrina Plotz have refused to leave, and are being taken into custody. They are being treated as criminals, while their only goal was to learn about the reality of life for the Palestinian people. All three should be allowed to enter the country, as millions of tourists do every year.

Given the special relationship that the U.S. has with Israel, it is no surprise that U.S. citizens would want to travel there, and see how our tax dollars are spent. In spite of its special relationship with the U.S., the Israeli government showed no regard for the rights of American visitors, whose only crime was to express solidarity with the people of occupied Palestine.

Palestinians experience repression every day. There is no way to travel to Palestinian cities, or from one Palestinian city to another, without passing through Israeli military checkpoints. Palestinian refugees who live outside the territories, have a legal right to return home, but face the same obstacles that stopped Karen, Katrina and Sarah at the Tel Aviv airport today.

Katrina and Sarah have refused to cooperate in the face of this injustice, and have been sent to an Israeli jail. They have been told they will not be allowed to enter the country, and instead will be handcuffed and forced onto a departing plane.

We urge everyone to call, write and fax the officials below to demand the immediate release for Katrina Plotz and Sarah Martin, and to urge Israeli authorities to allow both women into the country to witness the reality of life inside the Palestinian Territories, where they have been invited and are welcome.

Contact the following right away:

U.S. State Department202-647-4000

Minister of Interior Mr. Eli YishaiIsraeli Ministry of the InteriorTel. 011-972-2-670-1411 / 011-972-2-629-4722Fax: 011- 972-2-670-1628 SAR@moin.gov.il and pniot@moin.gov.il

MN Senator Al Franken (202) 224-5641 E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov

MN Senator Amy Klobuchar (202) 224-3244 Web Form: klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm fax: 202-228-2186 Main Line: 612-727-5220Main Fax: 612-727-5223

Posted 8/1/2009 by JAY SOLOMON and JULIEN BARNES-DACEY

Hamas Chief Outlines Terms for Talks on Arab-Israeli Peace

The chief of Palestinian militant group Hamas said his organization is prepared to cooperate with the U.S. in promoting a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the White House can secure an Israeli settlement freeze and a lifting of the economic and military blockade of the Gaza Strip.

.Khaled Meshaal, 53 years old, said in a 90-minute interview at Hamas's Syrian headquarters that his political party and military wing would commit to an immediate reciprocal cease-fire with Israel, as well as a prisoner swap that would return Hamas fighters for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

He also said his organization would accept and respect a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders as part of a broader peace agreement with Israel-provided Israeli negotiators accept the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and the establishment of a capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem.

That pledge falls short of recognizing Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks, but many Middle East diplomats said it could mark an important step toward that goal.

"Hamas and other Palestinian groups are ready to cooperate with any American, international or regional effort to find a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to end the Israeli occupation and to grant the Palestinian people their right of self-determination," Mr. Meshaal said.

A senior White House official said Mr. Obama's administration wouldn't respond to Mr. Meshaal's comments. Mr. Obama has said the U.S. would only hold direct talks with Hamas if it formally renounces terrorism and violence and recognizes the state of Israel. U.S. officials say that to engage directly with Mr. Meshaal would undermine the Palestinian Authority.

A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday dismissed Mr. Meshaal's comments. "Anyone who has been following Khaled Meshaal's comments over the last few months sees clearly that despite some attempts to play with language in a cosmetic way to give the impression of possible policy moderation, he remains rooted in an extremist theology which fundamentally opposes peace and reconciliation," said the spokesman, Mark Regev.

Hamas in 2006 was elected to rule the Palestinian territories, but a global boycott, Israeli arrests and a 2007 civil war left the group in charge only of the Gaza Strip. Fatah maintains control of the West Bank, leaving the territories bitterly divided.

Mr. Meshaal said his movement is waiting for Mr. Obama and his special Middle East negotiator, George Mitchell, to present a broader outline for conducting Middle East peace talks.

Mr. Mitchell has focused on securing an Israeli settlement freeze in disputed areas in return for Arab states beginning to normalize their relations with Israel, such as establishing trade and telecommunications links.

"If Israel doesn't accept a halt to stop building settlements, what then?" Mr. Meshaal said, seated under photos honoring fallen Hamas leaders and Jerusalem's al Aqsa mosque. "The end of the settlements is a necessary step, but it's not the solution itself."

Mr. Meshaal's conciliatory positions toward Washington come amid significant political shifts in the region that are affecting Hamas's principal allies.

This week, Mr. Mitchell met Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus and agreed to begin easing U.S. sanctions as part of a growing diplomatic rapprochement between the two rivals. In June, Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party and militia, failed in its bid to gain political power through elections in Beirut. And Iran's government-Hamas's chief arms supplier and financier-has been subsumed in a post-election struggle that could lessen Tehran's ability and willingness to project itself into the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Some Middle East analysts and Western diplomats said these events could be feeding into Hamas's conciliatory line.

Syrian officials said this week that they've been advising Hamas to play a more constructive role in Arab-Israeli talks. They specifically cite Hamas's recent offer to enter into a long-term truce with Israel. "We believe Hamas has evolved," Syria's deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekded, said Monday. "They are for building and developing a Palestinian state."

A number of Middle East experts say Hamas's willingness to accept the 1967 borders represents a quasi-recognition of the state of Israel, though the militant group hasn't formally taken this step.

Hamas's 1988 political charter formally calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state on the lands that currently make up the Palestinian territories and Israel. The organization is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., Israel and the European Union because of its use of suicide bombers against Israeli citizens and military personnel.

The "Quartet" of bodies seeking to broker Arab-Israeli peace talks, which includes the U.S., EU, United Nations and Russia, has refused to collectively engage Hamas in the process until it formally recognizes Israel's right to exist, and renounces terrorism and violence. Russia has been holding bilateral talks with Hamas.

Mr. Meshaal's conflict with Israeli authorities is also personal. In 1997, Mr. Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Mr. Meshaal in Jordan and Mossad agents sprayed a lethal toxin into the Hamas official's ear that began shutting down his respiratory system. The late Jordanian monarch, King Hussein, intervened and forced Mr. Netanyahu to dispatch an antidote by threatening to end Jordan's peace treaty with Israel.

In the interview, Mr. Meshaal offered both conciliation toward the U.S. and the West, and enmity toward Israel and its leadership. "I don't care about Israel-it is our enemy and our occupier and it commits crimes against our people," he said. "Don't ask me about Israel, Israel can talk for itself."

In recent months, a number of leading European politicians and U.S. foreign-policy luminaries, including former U.S. national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, have called on Hamas to be formally brought into the peace process.

Critics of engaging Hamas, including senior members of the Obama administration, are wary of Mr. Meshaal's statements of accepting a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders.

Palestinian Authority leaders attacked Mr. Meshaal Thursday, saying Hamas was moving arms into the West Bank and trying to launch a "coup" in the territory.

Mr. Meshaal said Hamas wouldn't be an obstacle to peace. "We along with other Palestinian factions in consensus agreed upon accepting a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines," Mr. Meshaal said. This is the national program. This is our program. This is a position we stand by and respect."

-Joshua Mitnick contributed to this article

Posted 7/28/2009 by Ilan Pappe

Disarm Israel

Whenever the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state is mentioned by Israeli politicians, they take for granted that their interlocutors understand that the future state would have to be demilitarized and disarmed, if an Israeli consent for its existence is to be gained. Recently, this precondition was mentioned by the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in response to President Barrack Obama's two states' vision presented to the world at large in his Cairo Speech in this June. Nentanyahu made this precondition first and foremost for domestic consumption: whoever has referred in the past to the creation of an independent state alongside Israel, and whoever does so toady in Israel envisage a fully armed Israel next to a totally disarmed Palestine. But there was another reason why Netanyahu stressed the demilitarization of Palestine as a condito sin qua non: he knew perfectly well that there was no danger that even the most moderate Palestinian leader would accept such a caveat from the strongest military power in the Middle East.

In Israel, as in the West, the vision of a demilitarized Palestine is accepted as feasible scenario where it would be regarded as totally insane and unhelpful to imagine a peace based on the demilitarization of Israel as well. This disparity in the attributes of statehood is part of a much larger imbalance in the international community perception of, and attitude towards, Israel and Palestine.

For most Israelis it would seem sheer lunacy to contemplate any future without the army playing a dominant and supreme role in the lives. Not for nothing, do scholars regard Israel not as a state with an army, but an army with a state. The state appears in the works some brave critical Israeli sociologists as a prime case study for a modern day militarized society; namely one in which the army affects deeply every sphere of life.[i] Imagining an Israel without such influence is more than a utopian vision, it is really an end of time scenario.

And yet demilitarizing both Israel and Palestine in the long run maybe the only way of ensuring normal and peaceful life for everyone who lives there and everyone who ought live there like the millions of Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homelands in 1948 and ever since. But this article does not evolve around one meaning of the verb Disarm, it is based on a wider, and admittedly a more fluid, interpretation of the verb. The more extended definition, it will be argued here, turns the idea of Disarming Israel into a more concrete political plan rather than a utopian scenario for a very distant future when the peace of the prophets would prevail.

Long before one can contemplate any significant reduction of arms, let alone disarmament of anyone involved in the Palestine issue, there is a need for a very different kind of disarmament as a pre condition for any successful reconciliation in Israel and Palestine. The wider context of disarmament is focused on Israel and less on Palestine, at least in its initial stages. There in no other current political, economic and military imbalances as the ones that exist between Israel and the few hundred Palestinian fighters (even the term fighters for these Palestinians begs some stretching of our imagination). As these imbalances were there ever since 1948, it stands to reason that only a transformative processes in the attitude and nature of the stronger party in the equilibrium will kick off any significant reconciliation on the ground. Throughout the one hundred years or so of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Zionist movement and later the state of Israel were the stronger party and its policies towards the indigenous population of Palestine changed very little at that period.

This article is written under the premise that only a fundamental change in the basic Israeli policies towards the Palestinian and Palestine can lead to a change of attitude towards the Jewish settler community that came to Palestine in the late 19th century and colonised the land. Contrary to the conventional Israeli and Zionist narrative, still trumpeted proudly in the West today, the harsh anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian policies of the Jewish state are not a reaction to Palestinian hostility or general Arab animosity; these very policies are the cause of the regional antagonism towards Israel and the Palestinian enmity to it. And hence, disarming here is a search for a way of exposing what lies behind the Israeli policies against the Palestinians since they are the source of the conflict and the reason for its persistence. Since these policies have by now triggered the introduction of nuclear weapons to the region, the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, thousands of people in the neighbouring Arab countries, almost twenty thousand Jews in Israel, inflamed a new wave of anti-Semitism as well of Islamophobia and finally strained unnecessarily the relationship of the West with the Muslim world, these policies are a deadly weapon and as such should be disarmed.

These policies are the product of a certain ideology, Zionism, or to be more precise of a certain interpretation of the Zionist ideology. And hence disarming here means first and foremost persuading Israeli Jews that arming themselves with this ideological spectacles harms not only their Palestinian victims, but disables them from leading normal, quiet and secure life in the country they have chosen in the end of the nineteenth century as their homeland.

The Production of the Weapon

The Zionist movement appeared in central and eastern Europe in the late nineteenth century as a movement propelled by two noble impulses. The first was a search by Jewish political leaders for a safe haven for a community that was exposed increasingly to a hostile environment and anti-Semitic ideologies and which had the potential in escalating to something worse - as indeed it did in the genocide of the European Jews in the Second World War. The second impulse was a wish to redefine Judaism, the religion, in a new secular form, inspired by the spring of nations around them when so many cultural, religious and ethnic groups redefined themselves in the new intoxicating way of nationalism. As mentioned the search for security and new self determination was noble and normal at the time. However, the moment these impulses were territorialized, namely gravitated towards a specific piece of land, the national project of Zionism became a colonialist one. This was also normal at the times, when Europeans, for a plethora of reasons migrated to non-European lands, colonised for them by force of expulsion and genocide by their greed governments. But noble it was not. Where genocide occurred alas there was no way back, but where colonization did not deteriorate to such criminality, which was the norm, the settlers went back to their countries of origins and the colonised became independent. The territory coveted by the Zionist movement was Palestine, after other territorial options were examined, and in it lived the Palestinian people for hundreds of years.

The first sellers arrived in the 1880s without declaring openly their dream of taking over the land and without disclosing openly their desire to cleanse the land from its indigenous population. Until the 1930s, the leaders of the settler community was preoccupied with gaining international support and legitimacy which the British Empire gave them with the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 and with grounding a foothold as a state within a state, which the British mandatory government allowed them. In that period their main predicament was that the Jews in the world did not fancy Palestine either as their salvation or destination. It was only with the rise of Nazism and Fascism in Europe that the validity of Palestine as a safe haven for the Jewish people made sense and the community of settlers grew in numbers. Still until the end of the British mandate, it consisted only one third of the overall population and possessed less than ten percents of the land.

It is in the 1930s that the ideological weaponry, soon to be translated into real arms of destruction, was forged. A formula emerged which became consensual and almost sacred to those who led the Zionist movement then and those who lead the state of Israel today: The formula was simple: for the Zionist project in Palestine to succeed, the movement had to take over as much of the land of Palestine and make sure that as few Palestinians as possible remain on it. This was - as cynical as it may sound - due to a desire to build a democratic state. The hope was to maintain eternally a Jewish majority that would democratically decid and vote for keeping the country Jewish. In the 1930s, an additional recognition sprang: there was no hope that then, or in the future, the indigenous people of Palestine would either diminish by numbers, or give up their natural right to live on their land as a free people. Thus for the 'existential' formula to succeed you needed military power of enforcement. This did not only mean building an army, but granting the military a prominent role and domination over any other aspects of life in Palestine as a Jewish community. Critical Israeli sociologists followed with astonishment how systematic and ever expanding was the process ever since the conscious decision to militarise Zionism was taken in the 1930s.[ii] Political leadership, economic captainship even social and cultural prominence are all won and gained due to a military background or a career in the security octopus that runs Israel. Moreove r, the major decisions on foreign and defence policy - especially towards the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular - were taken ever since the 1930s by generals. The end result is only too visible today in Israel: the budget and the economy as a whole, as well as the socialization process and educational system, are all geared to service the army.

An Army with A State

Thus the process of militarization of the Israeli society was intense and exponential. Israel indeed became an army with a state. Two aspects are in particular worth stressing in this context. The first is the militarization of the educational system. Since this part of the reality ensures the a militarised view perception on life is reproduced again and again with each new generation of young men and women who will only able to view the reality through the perspective of an armed conflict, military values and wars. The second is the prominent economic role the arms industry in Israel plays in the state's national product and in particular who crucial it is for its trade balance and export. Israel is the fifth largest exporter of military arms in the world and hence any anti-militarised discourse, let alone action and activity, can also be easily portrayed as undermining the very survival of the Israeli industry and economy.

This paramount position would not have been won without an occasional proof that the military force was badly needed. There were two types of military action: one was a cyclic confrontation with regular Arab armies, not always initiated by Israel - the 1973 was an Egyptian-Syrian initiative, but all could have been avoided had not the Israeli army wished to be engaged in the battlefield for the sake of its own moral, its status and the its dire need to experiment with weapons and exercise its soldiers. More importantly, each war enabled Israel to extend its territory in a never ending quest for a living space. The last round of this kind of military competition was in 1973 and despite an Israeli attempt to engage the Syrian army twice in 1982 and 2006; the Israeli army did not fight a war against a conventional army in the last thirty five years. Most of its weaponry, the most sophisticated and updated one in the world, was produced for huge land and air campaigns between mammoth regular armies, but instead it has been used in the last thirty five years mainly against unarmed civilians and guerrilla fighters. The collateral damage is unavoidable as are the doubts about the Israeli ability to engage in a genuine conventional war.

The second use of the military power was for implementing the Zionist ideal and the formula upholding it and mentioned above - namely the need to maintain a hold over most of Palestine with as little Palestinians in it, if the Zionist project were to survive.

It began with a carefully planned scheme of ethnically cleansing as many Palestinians as possible in 1948 when the British mandate came to an end. The British government decided in February 1947 after thirty years of rule to leave the question of Palestine in the hands of the UN with a genuine hope not to be involved any more in a country they developed on the one hand but helped to destroy by their pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian policy, on the other. After the tribulations of the Second World war, the demise of British power in the world, a devastating economic crisis and loss of men on the ground, London had enough.

[iii]

The Palestinian political elite and the Arab neighbouring countries hoped the UN would deliberate long on what to do with a minority of settlers living amidst an indigenous majority, but they were wrong. The UN was quick to decide on granting more than half of the country20to that minority. The world was looking of a quick way out of the Holocaust and forcing the Palestinian to give up half of their homeland seemed a very convenient and low price to pay. No wonder, the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League rejected p ublicly the UN plan. This plan was articulated in a UN General Assembly resolution in November 1947 offering the Palestinian mere 45% of their home land. The Zionist leadership although unhappy of being granted only 55% of the land, nonetheless realised that the resolution accorded them a historical international recognition in the right of dispossessing Palestine. The UN, on top of it, due to the Zionist acceptance and the Palestinian rejection rebuked the Palestinians, praised the Israelis and ignored the fact that on the ground Jewish forces began to evict by force the Palestinians from their homeland.

In February 1948, Within a year from the British decision to leave Palestine, the Zionist leadership began ethnically cleansing Palestine. Three months later when the British left, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were already refugees, pressuring the Arab world to take action. Which it did on 15 May 1948, but the limited number of troops it sent to Palestine were no match for the efficient Jewish forces and they were defeated. The ethnic cleansing continued and at the end of it almost a million Palestinians became refugees (half of Palestine's population) and with them disappeared half of the country's villages and towns, erased from upon the earth by the Jewish forces.[iv]

The use of force against the Palestinians as means of achieving control over territory and containment of population continued after 1948. It was used in 1956 to massacre Palestinian villagers who were part of the small minority of Palestinians who survived the 1948 ethnic cleansing and became Israeli citizens. Every now and then, but not too often, that minority would protest against its oppression and would be met by the powerful hand of the Israeli military and police authorities.

It was then used, and this time frequently, in the areas Israel occupied in June 1967: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Whenever, the Palestinians under occupation protested and struggled against the occupation, the Israeli military responded with all its firepower. Hence, tanks, aircrafts, navy destroyers and all the other weaponry used in conventional war theatre against armies of similar might were mercilessly employed against the urban and rural areas of the dense West Bank and the Gaza Strip, wreaking havoc and destruction of unimaginable proportions. Similarly in two onslaughts on Lebanon in 1982 and 2006 similar force was used to devastate the Lebanese urban and rural spaces.

Three chronological junctures are particularly worth mentioning in this respect in order to illustrate the ferocity of armaments when it is employed in order to implement a century old colonialist ideology. In October 2000, a frustrated Israeli army just forced to withdraw from southern Lebanon by the Hezbollah responded with its entire sophisticated armoury against a fresh Palestinian attempt to resist the occupation. For the first time F-16s and the mighty Merkava Tanks were used in an urbicide to subdue the rebellion.[v] This same military might, but with more collateral damage and cluster bombs was used against Lebanon in 2006 after the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah. Finally, as is only too familiar by now the Israeli army experimented with the most lethal updated weapons, such as phosphorous bombs and fibber glass shells that surgically amputate the victims, in order to quell a rebellious Gaza strip suffering under the yoke of closure and starvation for more than eight years.

If one adds to the deadly arsenal Israel possess and which it had used in its sixty years of existence to the counter armament of its Arab neighbours, always engaged in a crazy arms race, first fed by the cold war then by the military industry in the world, one can see how any step towards defusing the ideological urge to use power could contribute to peace and reconciliation. Moreover, one has to consider the nuclear power Israel has which has not been used, although there are so far unfounded repo rts of the use of tactical nuclear weapons on several occasions. Atom bombs are still considered in Israel as a dooms day weapon to be used in case of an imminent defeat of the Jewish state. But I feel this is no more the main scenario in the political and military elite of the state. It is seen as the main factor enhancing the myth of Israeli invincibility, and hence the desperate attempt of Arab regimes such as in Syria and Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East, Iran, to follow suit; all leading to an ever growing firepower keg that can explode at any given moment.

All this armament and its frequent use as noted is mainly, not exclusively, the product of an ideological paradigm. The paradigm assumes that a Jewish colonization of part of the Arab world was an inevitable and existential act for the Jewish people and could only be assumed by building formidable military power so as to gain full control of the land and reduce as much as possible the number of indigenous people on it. The arms amassed and their frequent use is not only a menace to the Palestinians, they prevent the Jews in Israel from leading a normal life and they pose a threat to the stability of the region, and quite probably beyond it. While defusing literally the arms, the arms industry and their employment is an impossible dream, and quite frankly a dangerous one as the Israeli aggression bred counter Arab aggression and armament that can end in a bloodbath of the people who live in Israel, if only one side is disarmed, diffusing of the ideology is feasible, reliable and peaceful.

Diffuse and Disarm: Past Attempts and A Future Road Map

In the 1980s, Israeli intellectuals, academics, playwrights, musicians, journalists and educators developed second thoughts about the validity of the Zionist ideology as their taken for granted reality. They were called for want of better term, post-Zionists; not anti-Zionists as their critique on Zionism varied in its intensity and severity. But all in all, their understanding of Zionism was very different from the way it was interpreted by the vast majority of Jews in Israel: in their depiction Zionism was and remained a settler colonialist movement, a militarised society and nearly an apartheid system. This post Zionist critique entered for a while into the public sphere and influenced, albeit in a very limited way, the educational curricula, some of the documentary films on Television and the general discourse. This new thinking was there for about a decade, during the 1990s. Then came the second Intifada, uprising, and the urge for openness subsided and almost totally disappeared.[vi]

The Jewish society in Israel in the beginning of the 21st century has closed the door it prised slightly in the 1990s. Today, it became even more rigid in its ideological convictions and intransigence. Hence, all the factors mentioned above about militarism and armament are still relevant in this time and age. But it is this exposure of a harsh ideological society that may harness the seeds for a future change. The logic of the present ideological realities, and their military implications, are that one cannot hope for a change from within in the near future. Without this change, arms production, their leathal employment and their deadly impact will continue unabated. So it is urgent to look for alternative ways of changing a public mind and a political system, with the realization that a change from within is right now impossible.

In the face of more than a century of dispossession and forty years of occupation the Palestinian national movement and activists were looking for the appropriate response to the devastating policies implemented against them. They have tried it all, armed struggle, guerrilla warfare, terrorism and diplomacy: nothing worked. And yet they are not giving up and now they are proposing a nonviolent strategy -- that of boycott, sanctions and divestment. With these means they wish to persuade Western governments to sav e not only them, but ironically also the Jews in Israel from an imminent catastrophe and bloodshed. This strategy bred the call for cultural boycott of Israel. This demand is voiced by every part of the Palestinian existence: by the civil society under occupation and by Palestinians in Israel. It is supported by the Palestinian refugees and is led by members of the Palestinian exile communities.

This became a valid option because of a fundamental shift in public opinion in the West. And indeed if there is anything new in the never-ending sad story of Palestine it is the clear shift in public opinion in the West. Britain is a case in point. I remember coming to these isles in 1980 when supporting the Palestinian cause was confined to the left and in it to a very particular section and ideological stream. The post-Holocaust trauma and guilt complex, military and economic interests and the charade of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East all played a role in providing immunity for the State of Israel. Very few were moved, so it seems, by a state that had dispossessed half of Palestine's native population, demolished half of their villages and towns, discriminated against the minority among them who lived within its borders through an apartheid system and divided into enclaves two million and a half of them in a harsh and oppressive military occupation.

Almost 30 years later it seems that all these filters and cataracts have been removed. The magnitude of the ethnic cleansing of 1948 is well known, the suffering of the people in the occupied territories recorded and described even by the US president as unbearable and inhuman. In a similar way, the destruction and depopulation of the greater Jerusalem area is noted daily and the racist nature of the policies towards the Palestinians in Israel are frequently rebuked and condemned.

The reality today in 2009 is described by the UN as 'a human catastrophe'. The conscious and conscientious sections of British society know very well who caused and who produced this catastrophe. This is not related any more to elusive circumstances, or to the 'conflict' - it is seen clearly as the outcome of Israeli policies throughout the years. When Archbishop Desmond Tutu was asked for his reaction to what he saw in the occupied territories, he noted sadly that it was worse than apartheid. He should know.

This qualitative change in public opinion and mood is visible in other Western countries; needless to say that in the vast world this has the been the case for years now. Similar mood prevailed at the hey day of Apartheid in South Africa. The reality there, then, and the reality in Palestine, now, prods decent people, either as individuals or as members of organizations, to voice their outrage against the continued oppression, colonization, ethnic cleansing and starvation in Palestine. They are looking for ways of showing their protest and some even hope to convince their governments to change their old policy of indifference and inaction in the face of the continued destruction of Palestine and the Palestinians. Many among them are Jews, as these atrocities are done in their name according to the logic of the Zionist ideology, and quite a few among them are veterans of previous civil struggles in this country for similar causes all over the world. They are not confined any more to one political party and they come from all walks of life.

So far the British government, and the other Western governments, are not moved. They was also passive when the anti-apartheid movement in Britain demanded of its government to impose sanctions on South Africa. It took several decades for that activism from below to reach the political top. It takes longer in the case of Palestine: guilt about the Holocaust, distorted historical narratives and contemporary misrepresentation of Israel as a democracy seeking peace and the Palestinians20as eternal Islamic terrorists blocked the flow of the popular impulse . But it is beginning to find its way and presence, despite the continued accusation of any such demand as being anti-Semitic and the demonization of Islam and Arabs. The third sector, that important link between civilians and government agencies, has shown us the way. One trade union after the other, one professional group after the other, have all sent recently a clear message: enough is enough. It is done in the name of decency, human morality and basic civil commitment not to remain idle in the face of atrocities of the kind Israel has and still is committing against the Palestinian people.

The validity of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions option is a first step in triggering a process of disarming Israel from its lethal ideology and its practical and real arms. Boycotts and outside pressure have never been attempted in the case of Israel, a state that wishes to be included in the civilised democratic world. Israel has indeed enjoyed such a status since its creation in 1948 and, therefore, succeeded in fending off the many United Nations' resolutions that condemned its policies and, moreover, managed to obtain a preferential status in the European Union. Israeli academia's elevated position in the global scholarly community epitomises this western support for Israel as the 'only democracy' in the Middle East. Shielded by this particular support for academia, and other cultural media, the Israeli army and security services can go on, and will go on, demolishing houses, expelling families, abusing citizens and killing, almost every day, children and women without being accountable regionally and globally for their crimes.

Military and financial support to Israel is significant in enabling the Jewish state to pursue the policies it does. Any possible measure of decreasing such aid is most welcome in the struggle for peace and justice in the Middle East. But the cultural image in Israel feeds the political decision in the west to support unconditionally the Israeli destructio n of Palestine and the Palestinians. The message that will be directed specifically against those who represent offiiccally the Israeli culture (spearhead by the state's academic institutes which have been particularly culpable in sustaining the oppression since 1948 and the occupation since 1967), can be a start for a successful campaign for disarming the state from its ideological constraints(as similar acts at the time had activated the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa).

Outside pressure is effective in a state in which people want to be regarded as part of the civilized world, but their government, with their explicit and implicit help, pursues policies which violate every known human and civil right. Neither the UN, nor the US and European governments, and societies, have sent a message to Israel that these policies are unacceptable and have to be stopped. It is up to the civil societies to send messages to Israeli academics, businessmen, artists, hi-tech industrialists and every other section in that society, that there is a price tag attached to such policies

There are encouraging signs that the civil society, and particular professional unions, is willing to expand their pressure. The achievements are symbolic in legitimizing a demand for disarming the state from its practices and ideological prejudices.

Pressure is not enough if an effective diffusion of the ideology that produces the weaponry is desired. It should be complimented by a process of re-education in Israel itself. As noted in the beginning of this article, the chances for a change from within in Israel are very slim. A pressure from the outside is called for because there is an urgent need to prevent the continued destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people. However that does not mean that one should give up the attempt to diffuse the ideological weapon by education and dissemination of alternative knowledge and understanding. The two are actually interlinked. Those very few, and brave, ones w ho toil relentlessly in Israel to re-educate their society from a pacifist, humanist and non Zionist perspective, are empowered by those who pressure the state to act along these lines and leave behind the old habits of aggression and militarization.

I would like to mention in this respect one particular group 'New Profile'.[vii] It is committed to introduce to, and disseminate among, the younger Israelis the idea of pacifism. They are the ones who inform young recruits that even according to the Israeli law you are allowed to declare conscientious objection from serving in the IDF on pacifist grounds. They produce educational material to counter the militarized educational system and take part in debating these issues. They became potentially so successful that the Israeli security service declared them a menace and a threat to national security. Their pure, simple message of the sanctity of life, the stupidity of war and militarism, is not yet connected to a more mature political deconstruction of the reality in Israel and Palestine, but it will be one day and could serve a potent transformative agent. And maybe because it is so pure it is so effective.

The Palestinians of course have an agency in this as well. Non-violence, rather than violence, has less immediate effect on alleviating an oppressive reality, but has long term dividends. But on one can interfere at this stage in the liberation movement torn by different visions and haunted by years of defeat. What is important is ask for a Palestinian contributing to a post-conflictual vision free of retribution and revenge. A non militarised vision for both Jews and Arabs, if transformed from the realm of utopia and hallucination into a concrete political plan can help enormously together with the outside pressure and the educational process from within in disarming ideologically the state of Israel.

Finally, the Jewish communities in the world, and in particular Western world, have a crucial role to play in this disarmament. Their moral and material support for Israel indicates endorsement of the ideology behind the state. Thus it is not surprising that in the last few years a voice of the non-Zionist Jews is increasingly heard under the slogan 'not in my name'. The main weapon official Israel uses against the outside pressure or any criticism for that matter is that any such stance is anti-Semitic. The presence of Jewish voices in the call for peace and reconciliation accentuates the illogical way in which the state of Israel tries to justify the crimes against the Palestinians in the name of the crimes perpetrated in Europe against the Jews.

Conclusions

The project of disarming Israel is thus presented here as an ideological diffusion. It begins with asking people concerned with the realities in Palestine and Israel, for whatever reason, to learn the history of the Zionist project, to understand its raison d'être and its long term impact on the indigenous people of Palestine. Hopefully such knowledge about the history would associate the violence raging in that land with the historical roots and the ideological background of Zionism as it developed throughout the years.

The recognition of the past and present role of the ideology that necessitated the building of a fortress with one of the most formidable armies in the world, and one of the most flourishing arms production industry, enables activists to tackle tangible goals in the struggle for peace and reconciliation in Israel and Palestine, and in the general struggle for disarmament in the world

An efficient process of ideological diffusion should avoid unnecessary demonization, a clear distinction between political systems and 'people' as such, a good understanding of knowledge production, of information manipulation as well recognition in how educational systems are indoctrinated and who governments engage with conjuring up a world distorted representations and demonised images. This is an essence a strategy of activism that would begin a a very tough dialogue with a state and a society that wishes to be part of the 'civilized' world, while remaining racist and supremacist. In it lives a society that does not wish, or is unable, to see that its ideological nature and its policies locate it within the group of rouge states of this world. For good or for worse, what academics in the West would teach about Israel, what journalists would report about it, what conscious and conscientious people would think about it and what eventually politicians would decide to do about it, is a key for a drastic change in the horrific reality on the ground in Israel and Palestine. This dismal reality has repercussion not only to peace in the Middle East but in the world as a whole. But it is not a lost case, and now is the time to act.

[i] Uri Ben Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.

[ii] Henry Rosenfeld and Shulamit Karmi, 'The Emergence of Militaristic Nationalism in Israel', International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 3:1 (Fall 1989), pp. 30-45.

[iii] See Ilan Pappe, Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-1951, London: MacMillan, 1988.

[iv] See Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006.

[v] The wish to use as fierce military power as possible in order to regain the power of deterrence in admitted by the most senior military generals in the book Boomerang written by two senior Israeli journalists. See Raviv Druker and Offer Shelach, Boomerang, Tel-Aviv: Keter, 2005.

[vi] See Ilan Pappe, 'The Post-Zionist Discourse in Israel', Holy Land Studies, 1:1 (2002), pp. 3-20.

[vii] See their website www.newprofile.org

Contribution to the Reimagining Society Project hosted by ZCommunications.http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22146Posted on 28-07-2009

Posted 7/15/2009 by Donald Macintyre

Israeli Soldiers Reveal the Brutal Truth of Gaza Attack

Troops' testimonies disclose loose rules of engagement and use of civilians as human shields. Palestinian houses were systematically destroyed by 'insane artillery firepower'

The first eye-witness accounts of the attack on Gaza by serving Israeli reservists and conscripts describes the Israeli use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields". They detail the killing of at least two civilians, the vandalism, looting and wholesale destruction of Palestinian houses, the use of deadly white phosphorus, bellicose religious advice from army rabbis and what another battalion commander described to his troops as "insane firepower with artillery and air force". The reports amount to the most formidable challenge by Israelis since the Gaza war to the military's own considered view that it conducted the operation according to international law and made "an enormous effort to focus its fire only against the terrorists whilst doing the utmost to avoid harming uninvolved civilians".

They are contained in testimonies from about 30 soldiers that were collected by Breaking the Silence, an army veterans organisation that seeks to "expose the Israeli public to the routine situations of everyday life in the occupied territories". Although the organisation has collected hundreds of testimonies from ex-soldiers before, this is the first time that it has done so from serving soldiers so soon after the events they describe.

They tell how:

* Unprecedentedly loose rules of engagement were put in place to protect Israeli troops. One soldier said his brigade commander and other officers made it clear that "any movement must entail gunfire". He added: "I don't remember if the brigade commander said this or someone else. I' m not sure. No one is supposed to be there. If you see any signs of movement at all, you shoot. These, essentially, were the rules of engagement. Shoot if you like if you are afraid or you see someone, shoot." Another soldier said his battalion commander had said the operation was not "a limited confrontation such as in Hebron, and not to hesitate if we suspected someone nor feel bad about destruction because it is all done for the safety of our own soldiers... if we see something suspect and shoot, better hit an innocent than hesitate to target an enemy". One soldier said the "awareness of each soldier going in is simply... a light finger on the trigger. You see something and you're not quite sure? You shoot".

* Houses were systematically demolished. Despite official accounts that homes were only destroyed for strictly "operational" reasons, one reservist, a veteran of the conflict in Gaza since before 2005, said "I never knew such fire power" used by tanks and helicopters for the "constant destruction" of houses. The soldier said that some houses had been destroyed for normal operational reasons, such as because they had been booby trapped or used by militants to fire from, or had contained tunnel openings. But he said others were destroyed for the "day after" - to make a "very large" area "sterile", to allow better "firing capacity, good visibility and control" once the operation was over. This meant, demolishing houses "not implicated in any way, whose single sin is that it is situated on a hill in the Gaza strip" .

* A civilian man between 50 and 60 who was unarmed but carrying a torch was shot dead after the unit's commander ordered his soldiers not to fire warning shots but to hold their fire until he was 50m away. The soldier said the company commander announced over the radio after the incident: "Here's an opener for tonight". The soldier said that the commander was challenged over why he had not authorised deterrent fire when the man was further away: "He didn't agree and couldn't give a damn, and finally the guys felt that even if they could take this up with the higher echelons it wouldn't be effective." Another soldier said his unit commander shot dead an old man hiding with his family under the stairs of a house. While the soldier said that the killing of the man was a mistake, it had happened as the unit entered the house using live fire.

* Palestinian human shields - or "johnnies" as they were termed by soldiers on the ground - were suborned to enter surrounded houses ahead of troops, including houses known to contain armed militants. One account corroborates the story of one such human shield that was exposed in The Independent, that of Majdi Abed Rabbo in Jabalya in northern Gaza, who was ordered three times to enter a house to report on the condition of three armed Hamas militants inside.

* Military rabbis prepared troops for battle. One soldier said an army rabbi had "aimed at inspiring the men with courage, cruelty aggressiveness, expressions as 'no pity. God protects you. Everything you do is sanctified'... there were specific scenarios discussed... but from the context it was pretty obvious he came to tell us how aggressive and determined we need to be, that we must win because this is a holy war". Leaflets distributed at military synagogues had stated that "the Palestinians are like the Philistines of old, newcomers who do not belong in the land, aliens planted on the soil which should clearly return to us".

* Mortars - rarely if ever used in Gaza before - were widely deployed. They included 120mm mortars of the sort that killed up to 40 civilians outside the UN el-Fakhoura school in Jabalya which was being used as a shelter, and in a nearby house. One soldier explained that while "with light arms you've got an 80 per cent chance of hitting the target with your first shot, with mortars it is much less". Another said: "I finally understood. We were firing at launcher crews in open spaces. But it didn't take much to aim at schools, hospitals and such. So I see I'm firing literally into a built-up area. I don't know to what degree it was still inhabited because the army made considerable attempts to get people to leave. But I understand that... [tails off]."

The testimonies appear to reinforce evidence from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and journalists who visited battle zones just after the war in January that white phosphorus was used for purposes other than "marking", "range-finding" and "smoke screening". Those purposes included to ignite homes suspected of being booby trapped.

Houses that troops occupied were vandalised. One testimony stated: "One of the soldiers... opened the child's bag... he took out notebooks and ripped them. One guy smashed cupboards for kicks out of boredom. There were guys arguing with the platoon commander before we left the house why he wouldn't let them smash the picture hanging there..." A reservist soldier said that there was a "big difference between the way we treated the contents of the house and the way the regulars did. The regulars wouldn't take care even of the most basic sanitary stuff like going to the toilet, basic hygiene. I mean you could see that they had defecated anywhere and left the stuff lying round".

A spokeswoman for the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), Lieutenant-Colonel Avital Leibovitz, sought to challenge the motives and credibility of the report. She said "more than a dozen" military police investigations were under way into incidents that took place during Operation Cast Lead. While the IDF continued to operate according to "uncompromising ethical values", it was ready to investigate allegations of misconduct but not on the basis of anonymous testimonies which she could not be sure were from soldiers.

The Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard said the report showed that the Gaza operation violated the "number one principle in international laws of war": that of distinguishing between the civilian population and combatants.

Yehuda Shaul, a founder of Breaking the Silence, said the group had names and details for all the testimonies - all of which had been taped - and that anonymity was to protect the testifiers from any disciplinary or criminal proceedings. The army already knew the name of at least one, he said.

Gaza invasion: Witnesses on the front line

On military briefings ahead of the invasion

"We talked about practical matters... but the basic approach to war was very brutal, that was my impression... He said something along the lines of 'don't let morality become an issue. That will come up later'. He had this strange language: 'Leave the nightmares and horrors that will come up for later, now just shoot'... The basic approach was that there were no chances taken. If you face an area that is hidden by a building, you take down the building. Questions such as 'who lives in the building?' are not asked."

On problems with identifying targets for bombing

"It got to the point where we would try to report to field intelligence about a figure sticking out its head or a rocket being launched, and the girl [at field intelligence] would ask, 'Is it near this or that house?' We'd look at the aerial photo and say, 'Yes, but the house is no longer there'. 'Wait, is it facing a square?' 'No more square.'... Later I went in to the look-out war-room and asked how things worked, and the girl-soldiers there, the look-outs, resented the fact that they had no way to direct the planes, because all their reference points were razed... It's highly possible that now the pilot will bomb the wrong house."

On the rules of engagement

"[The Brigade commander] went so far as to say this was war and in war, no consideration of civilians was to be taken. You shoot anyone you see. I'm paraphrasing here, not literally quoting, but the gist of the matter was very clear."

On the rabbinate's role in the conflict

"The rabbi said we are actually conducting the war of 'the sons of light' against 'the sons of darkness'. This is in fact a statement with highly messianic language... It turns the other side as a generality into 'sons of darkness' while we become 'sons of light'. There is no differentiation which we would expect to find between civilians and others. Here is one people fighting another people, with all the messianic implications. But that's the point: this is also religious propaganda. In other words, the army is not a revival meeting. They do not put on a uniform in order to be Judaized."

On soldiers' responsibility

"Anything we did there, we'd answer ourselves: there's no other choice, but this is how we shirk our responsibility. You bring yourself to this kind of deterministic situation, a moment that I have not chosen, where I no longer have any responsibility for my own actions. Even if your choice is the right one, you must admit you chose it. You have to admit you chose to go into Gaza. As soon as you did, you've brought people into a moral twilight zone, you've forced them to handle dilemmas and part of that confrontation failed. As soon as you say 'there is no other choice', you're shirking your responsibility. Then you don't need to investigate, to look into things."

Posted 7/13/2009 by Radhika Sainath

Is Israel guilty of piracy?

When the Israeli navy seized a small humanitarian boat flying under the Greek flag on Tuesday, 30 June, did the commandos commit acts of piracy when they forced the crew and 21 passengers -- including a former US Congresswoman and Nobel Laureate -- to port in Israel? May Israeli officials be prosecuted, and if so where?

On the morning of 29 June, the Spirit of Humanity set sail from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip carrying approximately three tons of medical aid, olive saplings, children's toys and other humanitarian items for the area's 1.5 million residents. The Spirit traveled through international waters when, at approximately 1:30am, several Israeli gunships surrounded the boat, jammed its GPS, navigation and radar systems and threatened to open fire. Heavily-armed Israeli naval commandos boarded the boat, ordered the Spirit's passengers to lie face down, roughed up several, and ultimately forced the humanitarian volunteers to Israel where they were held for days in hot, crowded, cells before all but two (both Israeli citizens) were ultimately deported.

The Israeli navy routinely harasses Palestinian fishing boats off the coast of Gaza, and has on occasion seized boats and detained their crews , just as it did with the Spirit of Humanity.

An act of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, includes illegal acts of violence or detention committed on the high seas or outside the jurisdiction of any state. While today piracy often conjures up ideas of buried treasure, sunken ships and Johnny Depp at his best; olden-day pirates instilled a sense of terror in seafarers traveling in no-man's zones, outside the protection of any state.

Israel's commandeering of the Spirit last week shares a lot in common with these traditional acts of piracy: the Spirit's unarmed passengers traveled on the high seas, vulnerable, uncertain if they would live or die when the Israeli navy surrounded them and took them prisoners. But do Israel's actions constitute piracy? The answer is: Yes.

Israel committed clear acts of violence and detention against the Spirit's passengers, acts, which, under the UN Convention on the High Seas, are unlawful. A warship may legitimately board a foreign ship on the high seas in only three circumstances: there is reason to believe the boat was engaged in piracy, the slave trade or the boat -- despite its flag -- is really of the same nationality as the warship. None of these circumstances apply here.

According to a 1 July press release from the Free Gaza Movement, the Spirit of Humanity was in international waters when the Israeli navy captured it. However, even if the boat was in Gazan waters, the above acts still constitute piracy because Gazan waters are outside the jurisdiction of any state -- and certainly outside Israel's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, it should be noted, is different from control. While Israel exercises de facto control over Gaza, it has no legal de jure jurisdiction over Gaza.

Furthermore, while piracy has traditionally been defined as a private act, there is no reason why Israel's seizure of the Spirit, its passengers and its humanitarian cargo should not be considered an act of state or state-sponsored piracy.

Israel committed an act of piracy by hijacking the Spirit, forcing its passengers to Israel, imprisoning them and taking their cargo and personal items. But why is it important that Israel be charged with piracy, especially when it already faces a host of new war crimes accusations?

The law of nations has long upheld the principle that pirates are "hostis humani generis" -- an "enemy of all mankind." In the 18th century, nations reached a consensus that piracy was universally wrong and every nation has a right to prosecute pirates of any nationality. In United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153 (1820), the US Supreme Court held that the principle of universal jurisdiction applies to punishing all persons, whether "natives or foreigners, who have committed [piracy] against any persons whatsoever ...."

In other words, piracy was one of the first criminal acts recognized by international law. Today, international law confers on piracy, along with slavery and genocide, the status of a jus cogens -- a norm or a right that can never be derogated. This means a state is bound by a jus cogens norm whether or not it consents to its application. As an example, a country may not engage in slavery simply because it has enacted laws making it permissible to do so.

Filing indictments against Israeli government officials and senior army commanders for crimes related to piracy is important not only because the perpetrators of the 30 June hijacking must be brought to justice, but also to reinforce the legitimacy of international law, which is increasingly viewed as being selectively used by rich countries as a tool to oppress poorer ones. The War on Piracy has been highlighted most recently by UN Security Resolution 1851, initiated by the US, which calls on all states to actively take part in the fight against piracy off the coast of Somalia, and even authorizes states to take measures inside Somalia.

The laws of piracy should not be selectively applied to poor Africans who hijack huge tankers belonging to rich corporations. Just as US prosecutors in the Southern District of New York indicted a Somali national on ten counts including piracy and hijacking, similar charges should be brought against the Israelis who committed, aided and abetted in the 30 June act of piracy and any others against Palestinian vessels. But more importantly, governments and international civil society must do all they can to pull Israel back into the bounds of international law and truly support the self-determination and human rights of all peoples, including Palestinians.

Radhika Sainath is a Los Angeles-based civil rights attorney. She recently returned from a National Lawyers Guild fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip and is an editor and author of Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement.

Posted 7/11/2009 by International Action Center

Viva Palestina US update

The largest ever US humanitarian aid convoy is now gathering in Egypt to head across the border into Gaza on Monday, July 13.

Vehicles are coming from Alexandria, the medical supplies from Cairo and the advanced party of nearly 100 US citizens is heading for the staging post of Al Arish, just before the border with Gaza.

That group, of four buses, has, however, been stopped from crossing over the Suez Canal and into the Sinai region, which leads to Gaza.

The buses, carrying people, medical aid and bearing US, Egyptian and Palestinian flags in a spirit of international cooperation, have been held at a security checkpoint and given various, conflicting reasons for why they cannot proceed to their destination at Al Arish.

New York Councilman Charles Barron is leading the group and is negotiating with security officials to resolve the situation. He has contacted Washington and other elected officials in an effort to clarify the reasons for the delay and address any concerns as efficiently as possible.

Former US Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will join the convoy on Sunday, July 12, and British Member of Parliament George Galloway will also be heading to meet up with Councilman Barron and the advance group.

He and the rest of the advance group of the convoy, however, are insisting on their right to travel with their supplies to Al Arish, where the rest of the convoy is to rendezvous with them before heading for the border crossing into Gaza.

This medical convoy is on the way to Gaza a month after US President Barack Obama described the situation in Gaza as a "humanitarian crisis."

"Our convoy is on an aid mission," says Galloway, "We come in peace; but we will not be stopped."

Viva Palestina Convoy, July 12, 2009, 2:45 am Cairo

Update #2

The 100 Viva Palestina humanitarian volunteers have decided to stay the night in their buses at the Mubarak Peace Bridge over the Suez Canal despite pressure from the Egyptian security officials to return to Cairo.

The official reason given at the checkpoint for refusing to allow them to cross is that the officials there did not have a list of the names of the members of the convoy. Such a list was, however, at the request of the Egyptian authorities before any of the convoy members set foot in Egypt sent to the Egyptian ambassadors to Washington, D.C., and London.

The US Embassy in Cairo has now stepped in to forward a newly provided list of those convoy members aboard the buses at the bridge to the Egyptian foreign ministry to clear the way for the convoy's passage.

Nancy Mansour Leigh, a spokeswoman for the Viva Palestina delegation at the Suez crossing, says, "It's going to be an uncomfortable night, but it's nothing compared with what the people of Gaza must live through every day. We've already succeeded in securing internet access and are negotiating other necessary facilities. But whatever facilities are provided or not, our determination will see us through the night and all the way to Gaza."

New York City Councilman Charles Barron is on the scene at the Suez Canal and acting as chief negotiator with Egyptian security officials. "The Viva Palestina movement has had a great success this morning with our stand at the Suez crossing. We've now got an agreement for us to stay until the list of our convoy members reaches the foreign ministry. It shows what can be achieved with the determination and commitment of a collective body of people. We are determined to cross onto Gaza, and no matter what happens next, out of this first small confrontation, we've achieved a success for the movement in support of the Palestinian people. The convoy is going to move on, and we ain't gonna let nobody turn us around."

British Member of Parliament George Galloway offered these words of encouragement for the delegation being held up at the crossing:"This is an American convoy. And Americans are used to refusing to give up seats on buses in the struggle for justice. I regard everyone who's putting themselves on the line tonight at the Suez Canal for the success of this humanitarian mission as nothing short of a hero."

Kevin Ovenden
Viva Palestina coordinator

Report from John Parker, West Coast Coordinator of the International Action Center. Parker is one of four IAC activists participating in the Viva Palestina delegation to Gaza.

A delegation of about 200 people left for Cairo, Egypt from July 4th to July 7th, en route to Gaza to make the political demand of breaking and defying Israel's illegal and genocidal siege of Gaza and to provide much-needed humanitarian aid to the people--wheelchairs, walkers and medical supplies.

We are currently split up into two groups. One group is made up of the drivers of the vehicles that will transport some of the aid from Alexandria, Egypt, through the border of Gaza. I am part of this group. The other group is gathering and organizing other medical supplies in Cairo, and they will meet up with us at the border.

New York City Councilmember Charles Barron has already joined the group in Cairo and will also be at the border for the crossing. Former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney will also be joining us at the border of Gaza before we cross. McKinney was released only a few days ago from an Israeli jail, where she and 20 other activists were held after being abducted by the Israeli navy from the Spirit of Humanity boat which was carrying aid to Gaza.

I am proud to be a part of building and participating in this tremendous effort to expose the horror of Israel's war against the Palestinian people, which the media tries to hide from the world. As Ron Kovic, one of the initiators of this campaign in the U.S., along with British MP George Galloway said, "We are going there to offer a hand of friendship and solidarity, not bombs and terror."

Israel's bombing of Gaza for 23 days starting last December caused an immense and terrifying amount of damage. At least 20 percent of the children there suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the bombing. Half of the hospitals in Gaza and 47,000 homes were damaged.

However, one thing wasn't damaged--the will of the people of Gaza to survive and to strongly demand self-determination. This is what inspires us to do all we can.

Judging from the reaction we receive here in Egypt from people who see our Viva Palestina USA T-shirts, many of the Egyptian people are proud and inspired by the courageous people of Gaza. For example, a young woman who spoke English asked Judy Greenspan, another IAC organizer on the trip, what her T-shirt meant. After Judy told her, she replied that a family member of hers works in a pharmacy and she wanted to donate medical supplies for the convoy.

This delegation is the second such convoy initiated by British MP George Galloway. He organized the first in the UK. The second one, which left from the U.S., was organized in collaboration with Vietnam veteran and anti-war activist Ron Kovic, author of "Born on the Fourth of July."

However, in the U.S., this effort is the result of the work of many in the Arab community, in the Mosques, in organizations like Al-Awda and others, in addition to anti-war and social justice organizations. On the delegation are members of CAIR, Middle East Childrens Alliance, Cuba Coalition, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, MECHA, International Action Center, International Socialist Organization, Workers World Party, ANSWER Coalition and many more. All of the organizations participated in making this campaign possible. However, along with the UK team of Viva Palestine, the lion's share of the credit must go to the Arab and Muslim communities in the U.S., which raised much of the funding for this effort.

Media coverage of our trip has been good. Photographs here are from the most recent press conference in Cairo. The press conference held on July 9 was covered by Al Jazeera and by one of the largest media outlets in Egupt. In addition, there have been many interviews of individuals on the trip. With Cynthia McKinney joining us at the border and the presence of Councilmember Charles Barron, that coverage will increase.

I should also mention the very impressive showing of support by members of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement represented by four Black youth. One of them, Brandon, is shown here holding a red, black and green African Liberation flag. He began his remarks at the press conference by giving a "shout out" to the people of Africa on the continent and referenced the people of Africa on the U.S. delegation, who were showing their solidarity with Palestine. He made the links between the racism and repression faced by Palestinian people and the occupation of Gaza with the repression faced by Black people in the U.S. by police brutality and occupation of their neighborhoods. He said he was inspired to come on the delegation by the actions of Cynthia McKinney.

Delegates here in Alexandria are anxiously waiting to load up and decorate the vehicles and begin their journey to Gaza. These vehicles will be donated to the people of Gaza.

Posted 7/10/2009 by Amnesty International

New Report Critical of Operation Cast Lead

Read it here.

Posted 7/7/2009 by Ramzi Kysia

Free Gaza Movement to Israel: We Will Return!

We in the Free Gaza Movement have been overwhelmed with the goodwishes, support, and offers to help that we have received from allover the world ever since our small boat, theSPIRIT OF HUMANITY, was high-jacked by the Israeli Navy and itspassengers forcibly abducted to Israel. Thank you for your support.

We need your continuing help. If you wish to volunteer with Free Gaza,doing research, writing, or translation, or helping with communityorganizing in your region, please contact us atvolunteer[at]freegaza.org. If you'd like to make a much neededdonation, please visit our website at[3]http://www.FreeGaza.org/Donate.

We've been asked what our plans are for the future, given that IsraeliOccupation Forces physically rammed one of our civilian ships inDecember, threatened to open fire on another inJanuary and have now confiscated the SPIRIT, arresting and deportingthe human rights workers and journalists aboard.

Our answer is that we will return. We have successfully reached Gazaon five separate occasions, and we will do so again. We will neversurrender this struggle.

In the midst of one of the most brutal times in history, working forjustice is a constant challenge. We are out-gunned. Our opponents inIsrael, and elsewhere, have much greater access tofunds and resources, much greater influence in the mainstream media,and have repeatedly shown their willingness to use absolutely obscenelevels of violence against even unarmedresistance.

It doesn't matter. The advantage of civil resistance, of non-violentdirect action, is that in the end there is no way to oppose it.

The risks we voluntarily accept as internationals in this struggle aresignificantly less than the risks that are involuntarily imposed uponmillions of our Palestinian sisters and brothers livingevery day under brutal Occupation. We did not seek confrontation withthe Israeli Navy. Our greatest desire was and is simply to reach Gaza,to break the illegal siege, to visit our friendsand family, and to deliver much needed humanitarian and reconstructionsupplies to the people of Gaza. We deplore Israel's use of violentconfrontation in order to stop our peaceful missions.Violence depends on our consent or, at the least, on our acceptance.We will not accept Israel's violence.

Israel's over-reaction to our mission has helped to raise awareness ofthe Gaza crisis all over the world. Over 40,000 news stories, essays,blog entries, action alerts, and radio and televisionsegments have been done on the plight of the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY andits civilian crew. We have done our best to contextualize thesereports, and make clear that the injustice done to our21 campaigners is greatly overshadowed by the injustice imposed uponPalestinians each and every day. The ordeal of 21 internationals palesin comparison to the 11,000 Palestinianpolitical prisoners held in Israeli prisons. The seizure of our smallcargo of 3 tons of medical aid and reconstruction kits isinsignificant in light of the $4 billion (USD) of aid promised to Gaza-aid that has not and will not be delivered because of the Israeliblockade.

40,000 reports have been written, highlighting our small attempt tobreak the Israeli siege. Demonstrations have been held across theworld protesting what has happened. Embassies andgovernments have been mobilized to protect their nationals, and therehave been dozens of statements from parliamentarians across the world.

Despite having no diplomatic relationship with Israel and refusing torecognize the legitimacy of Israel's government - the King of Bahrainpersonally & successfully intervened to force Israel toimmediately release the 5 Bahraini prisoners kidnapped from theSPIRIT. The General Secretary of the Arab League issued a statement.The Greek government formally intervened with Israelon our behalf. Miche?l Martin, Ireland's foreign minister, issued astatement calling both for the release of the prisoners as well as foran immediate end to the continuing Israeli blockade of Gaza.Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the OPT, issueda formal statement calling the seizure of the SPIRIT "unlawful," andre-iterating the need to end the Israeli blockade.The British parliament has scheduled a formal debate on Israel'sunlawful abduction of our passengers. And H.E. Dr. Mahathir binMohamad, the respected former prime minister of Malaysia,issued a statement calling on both the Israeli and Americangovernments to release the prisoners and uphold international law byending the Gaza siege.

These are just a few of the positive results of our last mission toGaza. History demonstrates that the greatest of injustices can crumblein the blink of an eye when confronted with awell-organized and determined resistance. We will sail again, and weare absolutely determined to reach the Gaza Strip on our next voyage.

Let this short note serve as an official notification to thegovernment of Israel: We will return to Gaza. Israel's unjust siegewill end.

We are organizing to send another mission within the next 6-12 weeks,and we intend to non-violently escalate our response. We will not useviolence under any circumstances, but we willnot be deterred. By sending more boats on our next voyage, we willsignificantly escalate the logistical difficulties Israel faces shouldthey decide to violently attack us again. By sending evenmore parliamentarians, dignitaries, journalists, and humanitarian andhuman rights workers to accompany the voyage, we will significantlyescalate the political difficulties Israel faces shouldthey decide to violently attack us again.

Please support this important work by visiting our website,[4]www.FreeGaza.org, and consider making a donation or volunteeringwith our movement.

Israel can threaten our boats and passengers - we will keep coming.Israel can illegally disrupt our communications and navigation systems- we will keep coming. Israel can open fire aroundour boats, or attempt to ram and sink them. Israel can choose toforcibly board and highjack our boats, and abduct the passengers.

We will keep coming. We will sail to Gaza again and again and again,until the Israeli siege is forever shattered and the Palestinianpeople enjoy the same free access to the rest of the worldthat is the birthright of all peoples.

Free Gaza! Free Palestine!

Posted 7/7/2009 by The Free Gaza Team

Gaza 21 Freed

Many of you have been asking us what has happened to the kidnapped passengers and our boat, The SPIRIT OF HUMANITY. Here then is our current update.

All 21 passengers have now left. Huwaida and Lubna were freed right away, because they hold Israeli citizenship.

Many passengers did not get all of their belongings back, many computers were stolen, some that were returned had their hard drives completely erased. Many of the pieces of camera equipment were not given back as well, and, of course, none of the tapes of the boarding, roughing up or incarceration of the 21 people who have been returned.

However, all passengers are already in their country or origin or are returning tonight. The London 6 had a press conference last night, the Bahraini 5 had a press conference in Bahrain over the weekend, and the Irish 2 are being feted tonight with a massive rally at Dublin airport. There will be a big reception and press conference there.

The two men from Al Jazeera have both been returned to Jordan through the Allenby bridge.

That leaves the three Americans... Cynthia McKinney, Kathy Sheetz and Adam Shapiro. We hear little from the American media about these three brave passengers, and it will be up to the Americans to express their outrage over their treatment. If they had been kidnapped by the military from Irah or Venezuela, their stories would have been all over the media. Because they were kidnapped by a 'friendly' nation, few in the U.S. have opened their mouths.

As far as Israel is concerned, we will demand that our boat be returned, that our equipment and tapes be returned, and they cease and desist their interference with our human rights trips to Gaza. Because we are going back. Israel can ram our boat, threaten us with bodily harm, shoot at us, board and confiscate the boat, shuttle us off to prison, and we will still return.

The outrage in many countries over what happened is muted by the fact that 11,000 Palestinians remain in Israeli jails, many without benefit of trial, many languishing for years without being able to see their families.

And this fact is something we must all remember. We came from countries around the world. We attempted to break Israel's draconian siege of 1.5 million Palestinians. Even when arrested, the Israelis treated us with kid gloves, afraid of the consequences from governments, activists and human rights organizations. Who will stand up for the Palestinians and do the same thing?

Posted 7/6/2009 by Gideon Levy

Our IDF

Combat is the best, my brother, as the famous bumper sticker reads. It's a good thing we have Shayetet 13. Operating at the crack of dawn - or was it before nightfall? - the daring naval commandos fearlessly took control of a rusty, rickety, unarmed boat bobbing in the middle of the sea. That's exactly why we have a naval commando force - to take control of ships offering humanitarian aid. Behold, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps. The military correspondents reported on the incident with an amazement that only they can muster. But even they could not provide a fig leaf for the operation: The Israel Defense Forces has once again used its power to overcome the weak; the navy has once again acted like pirates. The Arion was abducted in the framework of protecting Israel's security for all eternity, blah, blah, blah.

Soldiers, journalists and news consumers automatically refrain from asking questions. The navy captured another ship carrying symbolic aid, as if its passengers were Somali pirates. These were people of conscience from various countries carrying toys and medicine.

This was not the navy's first daring operation of this kind, nor will it be the last. When there are no hostile aid ships on the horizon, the navy takes control of wretched Gazan boats, using water hoses or firing at its passengers - poor fishermen who only want to make a living at sea. This is the main activity unfolding off Gaza's shores. A navy outfitted with the best arsenal in the world is hunting surfboards. One of the best-armed forces in the world is chasing children, examining old people's documents and entering bedrooms to make arrests.

We ought to pay close attention to what preoccupies our military. While defense officials hold discussions on buying the F-35 combat jet at $200 million per plane, the IDF is mostly busy with miserable, pointless police work that befits an occupation army. It is engaged in ludicrous and useless policing in a "war" against people equipped with some of the most primitive weapons in the world.

In the dead of night, soldiers in elite and not-so-elite units break into the homes of Palestinians, some of whom are guilty of no crime, and needlessly awaken and frighten women and children. Their comrades spend their service standing at checkpoints, occasionally shooting and killing needlessly. Other soldiers chase after children throwing stones or Molotov cocktails and shoot at them. "A huge terrorist attack" that was thwarted near the security fence in Gaza a month ago was to be carried out by "a force" that numbered eight Palestinians, some of them mounted on mules. The mule-rider's brigade - these are the forces against us.

We saw it, of course, during Operation Cast Lead, the war that provoked almost no opposition. As reported last week by the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, our drones bombed helpless Gaza residents, killing a few dozen, including children. Our jets and helicopters, among the most sophisticated in the world, are bombing residential neighborhoods. They may be preparing for an operation that fires the imagination in Iran, but meanwhile they are circling the Gaza sky as if it belonged to them.

If that were not enough, we now have the most advanced system of all: female soldiers who are lookouts trained to shoot live fire after completing "precedent-setting training." The army newspaper Bamahane reported it with great enthusiasm: "This is the first time female soldiers will shoot automatic gunfire from within a W.R., noted the C.O. of the T.B," whatever those initials mean. In simpler language, it means that 19-year-old girls are playing with joysticks in an air-conditioned room and "taking down" people.

This then is the great progress of the "people's army" to train women to kill, while their comrades, soldiers and Border Police, are routinely sent to shoot live fire at unarmed demonstrators at Bil'in and Na'alin. This, for the most part, is the IDF's balance sheet. This is what largely preoccupies the best, most moral army in the world. Pilots who have never fought in an air battle and soldiers with no army against them now spend most of their time maintaining the occupation in a kind of pathetic combat, and they are our protective shield. When the day of reckoning comes, we will remember this.

Posted 7/3/2009 by United Nations

UN Expert denounces Israeli kidnapping

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk, denounced the unlawful naval seizure by an Israeli gunboat on the high seas of a ship carrying medicine and reconstruction material to blockaded people of Gaza.

"This Israeli action implements its cruel blockade of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibits any form of collective punishment directed at an occupied people", said the human rights expert.

Mr. Falk pointed to a recent report on the impact on health resulting from the two year blockade, issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross, stressing that Israeli actions not only restrict such vital supplies as food, medicine, and fuel to bare subsistence levels, but has in unprecedented fashion, disallowed the entry to Gaza of building materials and spare parts needed for repairing some of the widespread damage caused by its attacks on the Strip that took place for 22 days starting on December 27, 2008.

"Such a pattern of continuing blockade under these conditions amounts to such a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions as to constitute a continuing crime against humanity", added the independent human rights expert.

The boat in question had been inspected in response to Israeli demands before departure by the port authorities in Cyprus to determine whether there were weapons on board. None were found, and Israeli authorities were so informed.

Nonetheless, the 21 peace activists on the boat were arrested, held in captivity, and have been charged with 'illegal entry' to Israel even though they had no intention of going to Israel. The group included such prominent figures as the Irish winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mairead Maguire, and the former American congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

Posted 7/3/2009 by Cynthia McKinney

Letter from an Israeli Jail

This is Cynthia McKinney and I'm speaking from an Israeli prison cellblock in Ramle. [I am one of] the Free Gaza 21, human rightsactivists currently imprisoned for trying to take medical supplies toGaza, building supplies - and even crayons for children, I had asuitcase full of crayons for children. While we were on our way toGaza the Israelis threatened to fire on our boat, but we did not turnaround. The Israelis high-jacked and arrested us because we wanted togive crayons to the children in Gaza. We have been detained, and we want the people of the world to see how we have been treated justbecause we wanted to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people ofGaza.

At the outbreak of Israel's Operation `Cast Lead' [in December 2008],I boarded a Free Gaza boat with one day's notice and tried, as the US representative in a multi-national delegation, to deliver 3 tons ofmedical supplies to an already besieged and ravaged Gaza.

During Operation Cast Lead, U.S.-supplied F-16's rained hellfire on atrapped people. Ethnic cleansing became full scale outright genocide. U.S.-supplied white phosphorus, depleted uranium, robotic technology, DIME weapons, and cluster bombs - new weapons creating injuries never treated before by Jordanian and Norwegian doctors. I was later told by doctors who were there in Gaza during Israel's onslaught that Gaza hadbecome Israel's veritable weapons testing laboratory, people used totest and improve the kill ratio of their weapons.

The world saw Israel's despicable violence thanks to al-Jazeera Arabicand Press TV that broadcast in English. I saw those broadcasts liveand around the clock, not from the USA but from Lebanon, where my first attempt to get into Gaza had ended because the Israeli military rammed the boat I was on in international water ... It's a miraclethat I'm even here to write about my second encounter with the Israelimilitary, again a humanitarian mission aborted by the Israelimilitary.

The Israeli authorities have tried to get us to confess that wecommitted a crime ... I am now known as Israeli prisoner number 88794. How can I be in prison for collecting crayons to kids?

Zionism has surely run out of its last legitimacy if this is what itdoes to people who believe so deeply in human rights for all that theyput their own lives on the line for someone else's children. Israel isthe fullest expression of Zionism, but if Israel fears for its security because Gaza's children have crayons then not only has Israellost its last shred of legitimacy, but Israel must be declared afailed state.

I am facing deportation from the state that brought me here atgunpoint after commandeering our boat. I was brought to Israel againstmy will. I am being held in this prison because I had a dream thatGaza's children could color & paint, that Gaza's wounded could behealed, and that Gaza's bombed-out houses could be rebuilt.

But I've learned an interesting thing by being inside this prison.First of all, it's incredibly black: populated mostly by Ethiopianswho also had a dream ... like my cellmates, one who is pregnant. They are all are in their twenties. They thought they were coming to the Holy Land. They had a dream that their lives would be better ... Theonce proud, never colonized Ethiopia [has been thrown into] the backpocket of the United States, and become a place of torture, rendition,and occupation. Ethiopians must free their country because superpowerpolitics [have] become more important than human rights and self-determination.

My cellmates came to the Holy Land so they could be free from theexigencies of superpower politics. They committed no crime except tohave a dream. They came to Israel because they thought that Israelheld promise for them. Their journey to Israel through Sudan and Egyptwas arduous. I can only imagine what it must have been like for them.And it wasn't cheap. Many of them represent their family's bestcollective efforts for self-fulfilment. They made their way to theUnited Nations High Commission for Refugees. They got their yellowpaper of identification. They got their certificate for policeprotection. They are refugees from tragedy, and they made it to Israelonly after they arrived Israel told them "there is no UN in Israel."

The police here have license to pick them up & suck them into theblack hole of a farce for a justice system. These beautiful, industrious and proud women represent the hopes of entire families.The idea of Israel tricked them and the rest of us. In a widelypropagandized slick marketing campaign, Israel represented itself as aplace of refuge and safety for the world's first Jews and Christian. I too believed that marketing and failed to look deeper.

The truth is that Israel lied to the world. Israel lied to the families of these young women. Israel lied to the women themselves who are now trapped in Ramle's detention facility. And what are we to do? One of my cellmates cried today. She has been here for 6 months. As an American, crying with them is not enough. The policy of the United States must be better, and while we watch President Obama give 12.8 trillion dollars to the financial elite of the United States it ought now be clear that hope, change, and `yes we can' were powerfully presented images of dignity and self-fulfilment, individually andnationally, that besieged people everywhere truly believed in.

It was a slick marketing campaign as slickly put to the world and tothe voters of America as was Israel's marketing to the world. It tricked all of us but, more tragically, these young women.

We must cast an informed vote about better candidates seeking torepresent us. I have read and re-read Dr. Martin Luther King Junior's letter from a Birmingham jail. Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that I too would one day have to do so. It is clear that taxpayers in Europe and the U.S. have a lot to at one for, for what they've done to others around the world.

What an irony! My son begins his law school program without me becauseI am in prison, in my own way trying to do my best, again, for other people's children. Forgive me, my son. I guess I'm experiencing theharsh reality which is why people need dreams. [But] I'm lucky. I will leave this place. Has Israel become the place where dreams die?

Ask the people of Palestine. Ask the stream of black and Asian men whom I see being processed at Ramle. Ask the women on my cellblock. [Ask yourself:] what are you willing to do?

Let's change the world together & reclaim what we all need as human beings: Dignity. I appeal to the United Nations to get these women ofRamle, who have done nothing wrong other than to believe in Israel asthe guardian of the Holy Land, resettled in safe homes. I appeal tothe United State's Department of State to include the plight ofdetained UNHCR-certified refugees in the Israel country report in itsannual human rights report. I appeal once again to President Obama togo to Gaza: send your special envoy, George Mitchell there, and to engage Hamas as the elected choice of the Palestinian people.

I dedicate this message to those who struggle to achieve a freePalestine, and to the women I've met at Ramle. This is CynthiaMcKinney, July 2nd 2009, also known as Ramle prisoner number 88794.

Posted 7/4/2009 by DAMIEN HENDERSON

Scots activist tells of tough conditions in Israeli prison

A Scottish activist detained by Israeli authorities after being arrested aboard a ship carrying humanitarian aid from Cyprus to Gaza, told yesterday of the conditions under which she and other prisoners are being held.

Theresa McDermott, 42, a postal worker from Pilrig, Edinburgh, along with other crew members from Spirit of Humanity are being held in Ramla jail near Tel Aviv.

According to McDermott the ship was seized in international waters, off the Israeli coastal town of Haifa on Tuesday. It was overtaken by eight Israeli navy warships that threatened to fire on the boat, which identified itself as a civilian ship bringing supplies to the Gaza Strip, and noted they had been cleared for sail by Cyprus customs authorities. The ship was nonetheless boarded and taken over, then brought to the Israeli port of Ashdod where activists were taken to prison facilities.

Twenty-one peace activists were on board, among them the Irish winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mairead Maguire, and former US congress-woman Cynthia McKinney. There were six Britons, as well as activists from Denmark and the Middle East.

All were charged with illegal entry to Israel even though they had no intention of going to Israel, and were bound for the port of Gaza with a cargo of aid including medical supplies and books.

McDermott said Israeli officials had confiscated all their personal electronic items including laptops and mobile phones.

"Those of us still being held, can come together during the day but are separated into cells at night," she said, confirming that the activists had refused to be deported until the Israeli authorities guaranteed the safe return of their personal items, and released five Bahraini activists who were among those also taken into custody. The Bahrainis were kept in a separate facility from the other imprisoned solidarity and Free Gaza movement activists.

Yesterday, the Israelis released the five, and according to McDermott, they were flown out of Israel on a private jet provided by the King of Bahrain. Coordinator of the Palestinian International Campaign to Lift the Siege Amjad Ash-Shawa confirmed that one of the Bahraini nationals was a reporter for the Al-Jazeera network.

Two Palestin