Mostrando postagens com marcador occupied territories. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador occupied territories. Mostrar todas as postagens

quinta-feira, 1 de novembro de 2012

U.N. envoy calls for boycotting companies benefiting from settlements


28 october 2012, The Israeli Communist Party http://www. maki.org.il
 
United Nations Special Rapporteur on humanitarian affairs in the occupied Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, called for boycotting all firms that benefit from Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and stated that this ban should be submitted to the UN General Assembly Thursday.
 
Falk said that businesses named in his report that was submitted to the General Assembly, and many other business that profit from Israel’s settlement enterprise, must be boycotted until they comply with the standards of international human rights and humanitarian law. His report is titled “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories since 1967”.

(Palestinian protesters together with International and Israeli peace activists break into Rami Levi supermarket, located in the Sha'ar Binyamin settlement, to protest against the Israeli occupation and to call to a boycott on Israeli settlement, October 24, 2012 (Photo: Activestills)

The report names Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett Packard in the United States, in addition to Veolia Environment of France, G4S in Britain, Volvo Group and Assa Abloy in Sweden, Ahava, Elbit System and Mehadrin in Israel, Dexia in Belgium, Cemex of Mexico and Riwal Holding Group in Holland.

In his report, Falk states that Caterpillar provides Israel with equipment, bulldozers and construction devices that are used by Israel in demolishing Palestinian homes, schools and in uprooting Palestinian orchards. He said that companies that are invested in the Israeli occupation of Palestine, especially in Israel’s settlements, are in direct violation of international law standards, and human rights treaties, including the UN Global Compact and the Guiding Principles of the UN on Businesses and Human rights.

Falk added that the International Community must take legal and political actions against companies that are involved in businesses that benefit from the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, especially in Israel’s illegal settlements.

The United States slammed the report as its Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, claimed that this report “poisons the environment for peace”. Israel also denounced the report and said that it is “biased”, and called for replacing Professor Falk.

Israel's settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under International Law and the Fourth Geneva Convention; they are built on privately-owned Palestinian lands, and on "state lands" located in the occupied West Bank, and Israel as a power that runs and maintains an illegal occupation of Palestine, has no right to build on these lands.

sexta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2012

I SUPPORT THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA) DIVESTMENT RESOLUTION -- Rabbi Brant Rosen

22 February 2012, Shalom Rav http://rabbibrant.com (USA)

A Blog by Rabbi Brant Rosen

As a Jew, a rabbi and a person of conscience, I am voicing my support of the divestment resolution being brought to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) this June.

This resolution, which has been a point of divisive contention between the PC (USA) and some American Jewish organizations for many years, endorses a recommendation of divestment from Caterpillar, Motorola and Hewlett-Packard. It was put forth by the church's committee on Mission Responsibility Through Investment that recommended divestment of companies engaged in "non-peaceful pursuits in Israel/Palestine."

There is a long and tumultuous history to this resolution - here's a basic outline:

- In 1971 and 1976 the Presbyterian Church stated that it had a responsibility to ensure that its funds be invested responsibly and consistent with the church's mission.

- In 1986, the PC (USA) formed the Committee for Mission Responsibility Through Investing (MRTI) in 1986. The MRTI Committee carried out the General Assembly's wish to engage in shareholder activism and as a last resort, divest itself of companies which contravened the GA's position. Divestment would follow a phased process starting with attempted dialogue and shareholder resolutions and ultimately the total sale of and future ban on the church's holdings in a company.

- In June 2004, the PC (USA) General Assembly adopted by a vote of 431-62 a resolution that called on the MRTI Committee "to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel." The resolution expressed the church's support of the Geneva Accord, said that "the occupation . . . has proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict," that "the security of Israel and the Israeli people is inexorably dependent on making peace with their Palestinian neighbors", that "horrific acts of violence and deadly attacks on innocent people, whether carried out by Palestinian suicide bombers or by the Israeli military, are abhorrent and inexcusable by all measures, and are a dead-end alternative to a negotiated settlement," and that the United States government needed to be "honest, even-handed broker for peace."

- In 2005, MRTI Committee named five US-based companies - Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup, ITT Industries, Motorola and United Technologies - for initial focus and that it would engage in "progressive engagement" with the companies' management.

- In 2006, following an uproar of criticism from American Jewish organizations, the PC (USA) General Assembly overwhelmingly (483-28) replaced language adopted in 2004 that focused the "phased, selective divestment" specifically on companies working in Israel. It now called for investment in Israel, the Gaza Strip, eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank "in only peaceful pursuits." The new resolution also required the consideration of "practical realities," a "commitment to positive outcomes" and an awareness of the potential impact of strategies on "both the Israeli and Palestinian economies." The 2006 resolution also recognized Israel’s right to build a security barrier along its pre-1967 boundaries. The GA acknowledged the "hurt and misunderstanding among many members of the Jewish community and within our Presbyterian communion" that resulted from the 2004 resolution and stated that the Assembly was "grieved by the pain that this has caused, accept responsibility for the flaws in our process, and ask for a new season of mutual understanding and dialogue."


The most recent resolution is the result of this new process and now focuses on three of the original six companies under consideration. From the PC (USA) website:

The General Assembly Mission Council (GAMC) is recommending that the upcoming 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) divest the church of its stock in three companies “until they have ceased profiting from non-peaceful activities in Israel-Palestine.”

The three companies are Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett-Packard.

At issue are their participation in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the construction of the “security barrier” between Israel and Palestinian territory, and the destruction of Palestinian homes, roads and fields to make way for the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which have been declared illegal under international law.

“We have run out of hope that these companies are willing to change their corporate practices [in Israel-Palestine],” said the Rev. Brian Ellison, a Kansas City pastor and chair of the denomination’s Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI). “We have made diligent effort to engage in conversation. We’d like to do more, to make progress, but substantial change does not seem possible.”


As stated above, I support this resolution without reservation and urge other Jewish leaders and community members to do so as well. I am deeply dismayed that along every step of this process, Jewish community organizations (among them, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jewish Council on Public Affairs) that purport to speak for the consensus of a diverse constituency have been intimidating and emotionally blackmailing the Presbyterian Church as they attempt to forge their ethical investment strategy in good faith.

It is extremely important to be clear about what is at stake here. First of all, this is not a resolution that seeks to boycott or single out Israel. Divestment does not target countries - it targets companies. In this regard speaking, the PC (USA)'s ethical investment process seeks to divest from specific "military-related companies" it deems are engaged in "non-peaceful" pursuits.

We'd be hard-pressed indeed to make the case that the Israeli government is engaged in "non-peaceful pursuits" in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem. I won't go into detail here because I've been writing about this tragic issue for many years: the increasing of illegal Jewish settlements with impunity, the forced evictions and home demolitions, the uprooting of Palestinian orchards, the separation wall that chokes off Palestinians from their lands, the arbitrary administrative detentions, the brutal crushing of non-violent protest, etc, etc.

All of us - Jews and non-Jews alike - have cause for deep moral concern over these issues. Moreover, we have cause for dismay that own government tacitly supports these actions. At the very least, we certainly have the right to make sure that our own investments do not support companies that profit from what we believe to be immoral acts committed in furtherance of Israel's occupation.

As the co-chair of the Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council, I am proud that JVP has initiated its own divestment campaign which targets the TIAA-CREF pension fund, urging it to divest from companies that profit from Israel's occupation. Among these are two of the three companies currently under consideration by PC (USA): Motorola and Caterpillar.

Why the concern over these specific companies? Because they are indisputably and directing aiding and profiting the oppression of Palestinians on the ground. Caterpillar profits from the destruction of Palestinian homes and the uprooting of Palestinian orchards by supplying the armor-plated and weaponized bulldozers that are used for such demolition work. Motorola profits from Israel’s control of the Palestinian population by providing surveillance systems around Israeli settlements, checkpoints, and military camps in the West Bank, as well as communication systems to the Israeli army and West Bank settlers.

And why is Hewlett-Packard under consideration for divestment by the PC (USA)? HP owns Electronic Data Systems, which heads a consortium providing monitoring of checkpoints, including several built inside the West Bank in violation of international law. The Israeli Navy, which regularly attacks Gaza’s fishermen within Gaza’s own territorial waters and has often shelled civilian areas in the Gaza Strip, has chosen HP Israel to implement the outsourcing of its IT infrastructure. In addition, Hewlett Packard subsidiary HP Invent outsources IT services to a company called Matrix, which employs settlers in the illegal settlement of Modi’in Illit to do much of its IT work at low wages.

I repeat: by seeking to divest from these companies the PC (USA) is not singling out Israel as a nation. The Presbyterian has every right to - and in fact does - divest its funds from any number of companies that enable non-peaceful pursuits around the world. In this case specifically, the PC (USA) has reasonably determined it considers these particular "pursuits" aid a highly militarized, brutal and oppressive occupation - and it simply does not want to be complicit in supporting companies that enable it.

I am fully aware that there are several organizations in the Jewish community that are already gearing up a full court press to intimidate the PC (USA) from passing this resolution in June. JCPA President Rabbi Steve Gutow recently accused national Presbyterian leaders of "making the delegitimization of Israel a public witness of their church." The Simon Wiesenthal Center has called the resolution" poisonous," and that by considering it the PC (USA) is "showing its moral bankruptcy."

The sorts of statements do not speak for me nor, I am sure, do they speak for the wide, diverse spectrum of opinion on the issue in the American Jewish community. There is no place for public bullying in interfaith relations - I believe this kind of browbeating is decidedly counter to principles of honest, good faith dialogue. To our Presbyterian friends: please know there are many Jewish leaders who stand with you as you seek the cause of peace and justice in Israel/Palestine.

In a recent open letter to the PC (USA), Rabbi Margaret Holub, my colleague on the JVP Rabbinical Council expressed this sentiment eloquently with the following words:

Your Church has long been active in pursuing justice and peace by nonviolent means, including divestment, in many places around the world. As Christians, you have your own particular stake in the land to which both our traditions have long attachments of faith and history. We particularly acknowledge the oppression of Palestinian Christians under Israeli occupation and the justice of your efforts to relieve the oppression directed against your fellows.

To advocate for an end to an unjust policy is not anti-Semitic. To criticize Israel is not anti-Semitic. To invest your own resources in corporations which pursue your vision of a just and peaceful world, and to withdraw your resources from those which contradict this vision, is not anti-Semitic. There is a terrible history of actual anti-Semitism perpetrated by Christians at different times throughout the millennia and conscientious Christians today do bear a burden of conscience on that account. We can understand that, with your commitment to paths of peace and justice, it must be terribly painful and inhibiting to be accused of anti-Semitism.

In fact, many of us in the Jewish community recognize that the continuing occupation of Palestine itself presents a great danger to the safety of the Jewish people, not to mention oppressing our spirits and diminishing our honor in the world community. We appreciate the solidarity of people of conscience in pursuing conscientious nonviolent strategies, such as phased selective divestment, to end the occupation.


I am proud my name is under this letter, alongside many other members of our Rabbinical Council. If you stand with us, please join us in supporting the PC (USA) divestment resolution at their GA in Pittsburgh this summer.


segunda-feira, 20 de fevereiro de 2012

Israel's Civil Administration promoting legislation to let settlers build dirt roads without planning approval

20 February 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)

If approved, the new policy would substantially expand the ability of Jewish settlers in the West Bank to take control of additional land.

By Chaim Levinson

The Israel Defense Force’s Civil Administration in the West Bank is promoting legislation that would allow Jewish settlers to build new dirt roads without planning approval if their purpose is to protect state-owned land.

Currently the creation of any new road or even changing its route requires full approval of the planning authorities, including the National Planning and Building Council, and is followed by the issuance of individual building permits.

If approved, the new policy would substantially expand the ability of Jewish settlers in the West Bank to take control of additional land.

Under the new approach, no permits would be required for the construction of roads designed to “protect state lands” unless the roads were constructed from gravel or asphalt.

Construction of gravel and asphalt thoroughfares would still require the full planning approval process, but dirt roads accommodating all-terrain vehicles would no longer require approval.

Most West Bank settlements are surrounded by fencing, but lying beyond the fences there is often considerable state-owned land, and the shift in policy would enable the Civil Administration to keep Palestinians off this land by giving access to security vehicles from the settlements, in an effort to keep the West Bank’s Arab residents from encroaching on the land.

The proposed change in policy would not be required for dirt roads needed to maintain security in areas around West Bank settlements, as the IDF GOC Central Command already has authority to seize land for the construction of security roads around the settlements without a building permit.

If the change in policy is approved with regard to the protection of state land, as a practical matter it would significantly expand the amount of land around West Bank settlements that is off-limits to Palestinians.

In response, the Civil Administration issued a statement in which it said a question was put to the Justice Ministry, but it was not regarding the creation of roads but simply putting markers on the land itself to indicate where the boundaries of state land are located.

“The request did not deal with the paving of roads for vehicular traffic to preserve this land. Work at the headquarters on the issue has not yet been completed,” the Civil Administration said.

At a hearing last week at the Ofer military court, however, Lt. Col. Zvi Cohen testified regarding land beyond the security fence at the Nili settlement east of the Israeli city of Modi’in.

As the hearing progressed, legal questions were raised about roads on state lands. The Civil Administration advised the court that it would seek to amend the law and would seek approval from Deputy Attorney General Malkiel Balas for roads protecting state lands.


ISRAELI RIGHTS GROUP TO EHUD BARAK: PUT KHADER ADNAN ON TRIAL OR RELEASE HIM IMMEDIATELY

15 February 2012, Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net (USA)

by Adam Horowitz

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel sent the following letter to Ehud Barak yesterday:

14 February 2012
Mr. Ehud Barak
Minister of Defense
Re: Urgent Request to Release or Try Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa

Dear Mr. Minister:
I am writing to ask for your urgent intervention to ensure the immediate release of Khader Adnan, currently in administrative detention, who has been on a hunger strike for 60 days; or alternatively – if the evidence so warrants – to put him on trial.

Mr. Adnan was arrested on 17 December 2011 and has been in administrative detention since 8 January 2012; to this day, no charges have been filed against him and he has not been given the opportunity to address any claims in a fair trial. To protest the abuse and brutal treatment that Mr. Adnan says he experienced during his arrest and interrogation, and to protest his continued detention without trial, Mr. Adnan began a hunger strike. According to Israeli human rights organization Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-Israel), Mr. Adnan’s health has seriously deteriorated as a result of the hunger strike, and continuing it will endanger his life. Under these circumstances, denying Mr. Adnan his freedom without trial is particularly grave, and immediate measures should be taken to release him or give him a fair trial.

Administrative detention, which allows the denial of a person’s freedom for months without trial, severely harms basic human rights, above all the right to freedom and dignity. Although administrative detainees are brought before a judge for review of their detention, the preponderance of material on which the detention is based remains classified – hidden from the suspect and his attorney – hence the detainee has no real opportunity to defend himself or refute the accusations against him. Under these circumstances, judicial oversight is no real guarantee of the lawfulness of the detention, and even the fairest of judges cannot administer justice. Judicial oversight in this context lacks the minimal assurance of a proper judicial process, and can doubtfully be regarded as a fair judicial procedure.

Beyond the injury of administrative detention to a person’s elementary right to due process, such detention is not limited in time (since it can be extended indefinitely). Therefore the detainee is in an untenable situation of ongoing uncertainty about his future and the length of his incarceration. This can be a source of severe emotional strain and constitutes additional humiliation, as the individual lacks all tools to defend himself.

Despite the extreme nature of administrative detention, Israeli security forces have over the years made routine use of it in the Occupied Territories. On 31 December 2011, according to B’Tselem data, no fewer than 307 Palestinians were being held in administrative detention – and this number has shown a worrisome increase recently. Mr. Adnan’s hunger strike is yet another reminder of the severe violation of human rights caused by isolating someone from his environment and family with no manifest reason or proven basis.

According to the ruling by the Military Court of Appeals on 13 February 2012, the detention order against Mr. Adnan was issued because of “organizational activity” attributed to him in the Islamic Jihad organization. Clearly terrorist activity is completely unacceptable, and is itself a fatal blow to the most fundamental human rights, including the right to life. However, if a claim is being made that Mr. Adnan is involved in any unlawful activity, there is a basic obligation to inform him of the nature of the specific accusations against him, and to conduct a fair proceeding that allows for investigation of his guilt.

This case is particularly grave in light of the shocking reports of Mr. Adnan’s detention conditions. According to Physicians for Human Rights, he is handcuffed to his bed on both sides in Sieff Hospital in Safed – in contravention of procedures concerning the shackling of a detainee in a public place, medical ethics, and logic, as this would not be necessary to prevent the escape of someone in such poor physical health.

In light of the above, and considering the deteriorating state of Mr. Adnan’s health, I urgently appeal to you to ensure Mr. Adnan’s immediate release from administrative detention or that he be put on trial. Human morality, rational thinking, and concern for the democratic character of Israel obligate us to bring this terrible affair to an end.

Sami Michael, President
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)

quinta-feira, 8 de dezembro de 2011

“THIS IS APARTHEID” POSTER CONTEST

7 December 2011, It Is Apartheid http://www.itisapartheid.org (USA)

“THIS IS APARTHEID” POSTER CONTEST HELP FIGHT INJUSTICE, HELP THE WORLD UNDERSTAND ISRAELI APARTHEID. WE ARE CALLING ON ACTIVISTS AND ARTISTS TO SUBMIT A POSTER TO THE "THIS IS APARHTEID POSTER CONTEST." GO TO WWW.ITISAPARTHEID.INFO FOR MORE INFORMATION

Art has always been an important part of liberation struggles. It can inspire and convey concepts beyond words. www.itisapartheid.org and its primary partner, Lajee Center, are sponsoring a competition for artists and graphic designers who are invited to submit posters on the theme of “Israeli Apartheid.” These posters should reflect the nature, realities, and/or consequences of apartheid policies in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Posters will be judged by a panel of distinguished activists and artists. The winning entries will be featured in an online poster gallery and disseminated widely on the internet and various other venues. Youth from refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank will participate in the contest.

Prizes
• Expert Jury Prize made up of distinguished artists and activists: $400
• Global Jury Prize from global internet voting: $400
• Palestinian Prize (winner must be Palestinian): $300
• 6 Honorable Mention prizes: $50 each
* As we raise more funds we will raise monetary amount of prizes.
Deadline for submission of all posters is June 1, 2012

Guidelines for submissions
Work must be original for this contest. Submissions should not exceed 2MB. If your work is selected, you will be asked to provide a high resolution (minimum 300 dpi), print-ready digital file to a maximum size of 38” x25”.
All posters should include the phrase Endisraeliapartheid.com in a prominent location.

Use of the Posters
All posters will remain the property of the maker, but Itisapartheid retains the right to use, disseminate and/or display them in any way it deems appropriate.

Application
Posters must be accompanied by a statement from the maker including her/his name, contact information and any companies, organizations and/or agencies with which s/he is associated. Competitors must also include a statement acknowledging acceptance of the terms of use. Email: submissions to info@itisapartheid.org

Co-Sponsors:
Badil, Code Pink, Palestine Solidarity Committee of South Africa, Friends of Sabeel North America, American Muslims for Palestine, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Committee, Artists Against Apartheid International Alliance, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), Students Against Israeli Apartheid (Canada), Queers Against Israeli Apartheid , Palestine
freedom Project, Australians for Palestine, Palestinian Network for Children’s Rights, Pontifical Mission, the Papal Agency for Middle East, Relief and Development, The Alternative Information Center, Birzeit University, Defense for Children International, Palestine Section, Alhaq Organization, Defending Human Rights In Palestine, NGO Development Center, Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, Faculty 4 Palestine

THE KING’S SPEECH

3 December 2011, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)

Uri Avnery Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי

IN THE middle of the '80s, a German diplomat conveyed to me a surprising message. A member of the Jordanian Royal family would like to speak with me in Amman. At the time, Jordan was still officially at war with us.

IN THE middle of the '80s, a German diplomat conveyed to me a surprising message. A member of the Jordanian Royal family would like to speak with me in Amman. At the time, Jordan was still officially at war with us.

Somehow I obtained official permission from the Israeli government. The Germans generously provided me with a passport that was not strictly accurate, and so, with much turning of blind eyes, I arrived in Amman and was lodged in the best hotel.

The news of my presence spread quickly, and after some days it became an embarrassment to the Jordanian government. So I was politely asked to leave, and very quickly, please.

But before that, a high-ranking official invited me to dinner in a very elegant restaurant. He was a well educated, very cultured person, who spoke beautiful English. To my utter amazement, he told me that he was a Bedouin, a member of an important tribe. All my ideas about Bedouins were shattered in that moment.

This dinner stuck in my memory because, in (literally) ten minutes, I learned more about Jordan than in decades of reading. My host took a paper napkin and drew a rough map of Jordan. “Look at our neighbors,” he explained. “Here is Syria, a radical secular Ba’athist dictatorship. Then there is Iraq, with another Ba’athist regime that hates Syria. Next there is Saudi Arabia, a very conservative, orthodox country. Next is Egypt, with a pro-Western military dictator. Then there is Zionist Israel. In the occupied Palestinian territories, radical, revolutionary elements are in the ascent. And almost touching us, there is fragmented, unpredictable Lebanon.”

“From all these countries,” he continued, “refugees, agents and ideological influences stream into Jordan. We have to absorb all of them. We have to perform a very delicate balancing act. If we come too close to Israel, the next day we must appease Syria. If one day we embrace Saudi Arabia, we must kiss Iraq the next. We must not ally ourselves with any one.”

Another impression I took with me - the Palestinians in Jordan (excluding the refugees, whom I did not meet) are perfectly content with the status quo, dominating the economy, getting rich and praying for the stability of the regime.

I WISH that all influential Israelis had received such an eye-opening lesson, because in Israel, the most grotesque ideas about Jordan were – and still are - in vogue.

The general picture is that of a ridiculous little country, ruled by fierce and primitive Bedouin tribes, while the majority consists of Palestinians who are continually plotting to overthrow the monarchy and assume power.

(Which reminds me of another conversation – this time in Cairo with the – then - acting Foreign Minister, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a Copt and one of the most intelligent persons I’ve ever met. “Israeli experts in Arab affairs are among the best in the world,” he told me, “they have read everything, they know everything, and they understand nothing. That’s because they have never lived in an Arab country.”)

Until the Oslo agreement, the entire Israeli elite subscribed to the “Jordanian Option”. The idea was that only King Hussein was able and ready to make peace with us and that he would give us East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank as a present. Hiding behind this misconception was the traditional Zionist resolve to ignore the existence of the Palestinian people and to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state at all costs.

Another version of this idea rests on the slogan “Jordan is Palestine”. It was explained to me by Ariel Sharon, nine months before Lebanon War I. “We shall throw the Palestinians out of Lebanon into Syria. The Syrians will push them South into Jordan. There they shall overthrow the king and turn Jordan into Palestine. The Palestinian problem will disappear, and the remaining conflict will become a normal disagreement between two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine.”

“But what about the West Bank?” I queried.

“We shall achieve a compromise with Jordan,” he answered, “perhaps joint rule, perhaps some kind of functional division.”

This idea pops up time and again. This week one of the hyperactive and mentally handicapped right wing parliamentary thugs submitted another of those bills. It is called “Jordan – the Nation-State of the Palestinian People”.

Apart from the curiosity of one country enacting a law to define the character of another country, it was politically embarrassing. Yet instead of just throwing it out, it was transferred to a sub-committee where the deliberations, such as they are, are secret.

HIS MAJESTY, king Abdullah II, is worried. He has good reasons to be.

There is the democratic Arab Spring, which may spill over into his autocratic kingdom. There is the uprising in neighboring Syria, which may push refugees southwards. There is the growing influence of Shiite Iran, which does not look good for his stoutly Sunni monarchy.

But all this is nothing compared to the growing threat from radical, rightist Israel.

The most immediate danger, from his point of view, is the growing Israeli oppression and colonization of the West Bank. One of these days, it may push masses of Palestinian refugees to cross the Jordan into his kingdom, upsetting the strained demographic balance between locals and Palestinians in his country.

It was this fear that caused his father, King Hussein, during the first intifada, to cut all connections with the West Bank, which had been annexed by his grandfather after the 1948 war. (The very term “West Bank” is Jordanian, to distinguish it from the East Bank, the original Transjordanian territory of the kingdom.)

If “Jordan is Palestine”, then there is no reason for Israel not to annex the West Bank, expropriate Palestinian lands, enlarge the existing settlements and create new ones, and in general “convince” Palestinians to find a better life east of the river.

With this in mind, the king voiced his anxiety in a much-publicized interview this week. In it, he raised the possibility of a federation between Jordan and the (still occupied) State of Palestine in the West Bank, obviously to forestall Israeli designs. Perhaps he also wants to convince the Palestinians that such a move would help them to terminate the occupation, facilitate their application for UN membership and prevent a US veto. (I don’t believe this offer will find many Palestinian takers.)

THE INITIATORS of the Israeli bill make it clear that their main purpose is Hasbarah (“explaining”), the Hebrew euphemism for propaganda. Their idea, they believe, will put an end to the isolation and delegitimization of Israel. The world will accept that the State of Palestine already exists, beyond the Jordan, so that there is no need for a second one in the West Bank.

If His Majesty suspects that there is a much more sinister dimension to the propaganda ploy, he is quite right. Obviously he is thinking about much more profound long-term possibilities.

This goes back to the basic dilemma of the Israeli right, a dilemma that seems well-nigh insoluble.

The Israeli Right has never really given up the idea of a Greater Israel (which in Hebrew is called “the whole of Eretz-Israel”). This means the total rejection of the Two-State solution in all its forms and the creation of a Jewish state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

However, in such a state there would be living, as of today, some 6 million Israeli Jews and about 5.5 million Arab Palestinians (2.5 in the West Bank, 1.5 in the Gaza Strip, 1.5 in Israel proper.) Some demographers believe that the number is even larger.

According to all demographic forecasts, the Palestinians will quite soon constitute the majority in this geographic entity. What then?

Some idealists believe (or delude themselves) that, faced with stern international disapproval, Israel will have to grant citizenship to all the inhabitants, turning the entity into a bi-national or multi-national or non-national state. Without taking a survey one can say with certainty that 99.999% of Jewish Israelis would oppose this idea with all their strength. It is the total negation of everything Zionism stands for.

The other possibility would be that this entity would become an apartheid state, not only partly, not only in practice, but entirely and officially. The great majority of Jewish Israelis would not like that at all. This, too, is a negation of basic Zionist values.

There is no solution to this dilemma. Or is there?

THE KING seems to think that there is. It is, actually, implicit in the dream of a Greater Israel.

That solution is a repeat of 1948: a naqba of vastly larger dimensions, which Israelis euphemistically call “transfer”.

This means that at some time, when international conditions are opportune – some huge international disaster that rivets attention to some other part of the world, a big war, or such – the government will drive out the non-Jewish population. Where to? Geography dictates the answer: to Jordan. Or, rather, to the future State of Palestine in what was once Jordan.

I would suggest that almost every Israeli who supports the Greater Israel idea has this – at least unconsciously – in mind. Perhaps not as a plan for action in the near future, but certainly as the only solution in the long term.

MORE THAN 80 years ago, Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism and the spiritual forefather of Binjamin Netanyahu, wrote some verses that were sung by the Irgun (to which I belonged when I was very young.)

It is a nice song with a nice melody. The refrain goes like this: “The Jordan has two banks / The one belongs to us, the other one, too.”

Jabotinsky, an ardent admirer of the Italian 19th century risorgimento, was an ultra-nationalist and a sincere liberal. One verse of the poem says: “The son of Arabia, the son of Nazareth and my own son / Will find there happiness and plenty / Because my flag, a flag of purity and honesty / Will cleanse both sides of the Jordan.”

The official emblem of the Irgun consisted of a map that included Transjordan, with a rifle superimposed. This emblem was inherited by Menachem Begin’s Herut (“Freedom”) Party, the mother of the Likud.

This party has long since given up the ideal of the three sons, purity and honesty. The slogan “Jordan is Palestine” means that it has also given up the claim to the East bank of the Jordan.

Or has it?

WHAT US AID TO ISRAEL BUYS AND WHY THAT NEVER CHANGES

Jews for Justice for Palestinians http://jfjfp.com (Britain)

29 November 2011, Palestine Chronicle http://palestinechronicle.com (USA)

America’s Aid for Israel’s Political ‘Continuum’

By Clive Hambidge*, Palestine Chronicle

A Military Conquest

‘… We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours … When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry round like drugged roaches in a bottle.’ (Rafael Eitan)*

A ‘moral articulation’ by successive American administrations as to the primary reason for their unilateral support of 0.001% of the world’s population, namely Israel, is not standing up to international law or American scrutiny. The perpetuated myth of an Israel surrounded by mortal enemies, battling heroically for its democratic rights against all odds fades as the world of right mindedness recognises in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip the daily abuse and horror for Palestinians under illegal occupation in Israel’s ‘battlefield’ to test new weaponry. That abuse, brought into sharp focus by the U.S Department of State in early 2004, is systematic; perpetrated by Israel in 2011 and paid for by U.S tax payers’ dollars in the form of indiscriminate, unwise and illegal aid according to America’s own laws. The reason? Unquestioning support for Israel’s militarised political continuum, where de jure occupation became de facto annexation, and where, according to Special Rapporteur Falk “the unbridled assault upon Palestinian rights” continues.

If one consciously moves in time backward and forward, that is in American/Israeli time, one finds the same pattern no matter the date. There is no change no progress. It is like watching a film, a play no matter where you cut, what montage you see, what curtain is lifted and what scene you view, it is the same film, the same play, the same day, from the same violent script. It is a continuum of brutal actions designed to oppress Palestinians enough to make them leave their own land. Pick a date at random and one finds the paradox of continuum. Israel is waiting for Godot:

“Estragon: All the dead voices.
Vladimir: They make a noise like wings.”

Matt Bowles, writing for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, makes plain the facts: America for decades allowing Israel to place “US aid into its general fund, effectively eliminating any distinction between types of aid. [means] Therefore, U.S. tax-payers are helping to fund an illegal occupation, the expansion of colonial-settlements projects, and gross human rights violations against the Palestinian civilian population.” Facts continually denied by Israel, as it ruthlessly pursue ‘the doctrine of politics free from law’.

Israel’s persistent but illusory claim that its ‘international human rights treaty obligations do not apply in the OPT’ has been, according to Amnesty International, ‘rejected’ by the U.N Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Against Women, the Committee Against Torture, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the International Court of Justice’, and every conscionable citizen on the planet.

So to February 2004, the U.S Department of State in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices makes clear the egregious human rights violations and status of Israel in the OPT 2003, “The international community does not recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.” All accredited missions are to be found rightfully, and legally, in Tel Aviv. “Israel’s overall human rights record in the occupied territories remained poor and worsened in the treatment of foreign human rights activists.” These abuses came in a fiscal year 2003 where Israel received from the U.S “a foreign military financing grant of $3.1 billion and a $600 million grant for economic security.” (Jewish Voice for Peace – JVP); U.S dollars used in the advancing of Israel’s policy of ‘continuum’ namely the illegal colonisation of Palestinian lands, the tormenting of its people and those that would assist them. Lest we forget, it was in March 2003 that Rachel Corrie, an American citizen performing a fundamental rule of law principle by campaigning for human rights in the OPT, lost her life under the tracks of a caterpillar bulldozer: ‘Made in the U.S.A’.

The U.S Department of State found in the bloody year of 2003 that amongst other violations of international law:

• “Israeli soldiers placed civilians in danger by ordering them [Palestinians] to facilitate military operations.”

• “Israeli forces sometimes arbitrarily destroyed, damaged, or looted Palestinian property”.

• “Israeli security forces often impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians.”

• “Israeli security forces harassed and abused Palestinian pedestrians.”

• “Israel conducted mass, arbitrary arrests in the West Bank during military operations, summoning and detaining males between the ages of 15 and 45”

• “Israel carried out policies of demolitions, strict curfews, and closures that directly punished innocent civilians … Israel often demolished homes after suspects had already been killed or arrested.”

• Israel “maintained” according to the Department of State “that such punishment of innocents would serve as a deterrent against future terrorist attacks.”

These insidious patterns have been sustained by all Israeli administrations and represent a ‘continuum’: a calculated militaristic policy of intimidation and worse toward the innocent civilians of Palestine. This being so, I must add my concerns to the concerns of the Rachel Corrie Foundation that “the State Departments Country Reports on Human Rights systematically exclude the State Departments own analysis of Israel’s failure to perform a credible investigation into the killing of Rachel Corrie,” and further concerns that “reports generated by international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which noted a pattern of negligence in Israeli investigations into civilians killed by the IDF, were ignored in the creation of the Country Reports.”

In recognition of the illegality of American Aid to Israel, the Rachel Corrie Foundation in its submission to the U.N Universal Periodic Review called upon the U.S to “enforce 22 U.S.C. 2304 (1994), protocol on Human Rights and Security Assistance, and the “Leahy Amendments” to the Foreign Operations Appropriations and Defence Appropriations Acts (e.g. P.L. 105-118 570), which prohibit the provision of security assistance to countries and military units that engage in a pattern of gross violations of human rights.” Where, according to JVP, “Massive military aid promotes militarism, which has led to a reliance on military, rather than diplomatic means to work for a solution to this ongoing conflict.”. The planned aim of ‘continuum’.

The Continuum
“Zionism is a colonising adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. There is no other ethic” (Jabotinsky)

The U.N Mission Report (UNMR) on the Israeli operation in Gaza between December 27th 2008 and 18th January 2009 highlights that all Israel’s operations must be viewed not as isolated moments in history where Israel feels threatened and then responds but, operation[s] that decidedly fit “into a continuum of policies aimed at pursuing Israel’s political objectives with regard to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole.” Reel back, fast forward, press hold, you find ‘continuum’: “After we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a State, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” (Ben Gurion)

“The continuum is evident most immediately with the policy of blockade that preceded the operations [i.e Cast Lead] and that in the Mission’s view amounts to collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the Government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip.” (UNMR). Further, the Mission found “An analysis of the modalities and impact of the December-January military operations [also] sets them, in the Mission’s view, in a continuum with a number of other pre-existing Israel Policies with regard to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The progressive isolation and separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, a policy that began much earlier and which was consolidated in particular with the imposition of tight closures, restrictions on movement and eventually blockade, are among the most apparent.” ‘The plan that never changed’ is the continuum that ever is, until God forbid “There is no more Palestine. Finished . . .” (Moshe Dayan)

Nothing has changed since 2004, nothing has changed since 1948. And nothing has changed in 2011. Pick a date between 1948 and 2011 and one finds systematic abuse, atrocities, and deaths of Palestinian civilians. One might pick Operation ‘Defensive Shield’ 2002, Operation ‘Summer Rains’ 2006 or ‘Autumn Clouds’ November 2006, I have picked December 2008/January 2009 and ‘Cast Lead’ from Israel’s seasonal slaughter. Here’s a U.N Report of 2009.

The 2009 Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict concluded, “The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51 (2) and 75 of Additional Protocol 1, article 27 of the Four Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In some cases the Mission additionally concluded that the attack was also launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population.”

In addition, the Mission found all of this was planned meticulously by Israel, “legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission [concluded] that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was 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.”

One would remind Israel’s planners of Article 7 of the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), “The official position of an individual who commits a crime against the peace and security of mankind, even if he acted as head of State or Government, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment.” And of these compassionate words thundering through the centuries from Caliph Abu Bakr to “the first Moslem Arab Army invading Christian Syria:

‘Do not commit treachery, nor depart from the right path. You must not mutilate, neither kill a child or aged man or woman. Do not destroy a palm tree, nor burn it with fire and do not cut any fruitful tree.’” (634 A.D)

After Cast Lead, Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, reported that “During and after “Operation Cast lead”, human rights organizations asked the Attorney General (AG) to open an investigation based on prima-facie evidence of gross-violations of international law; the AG rejected our request. Previous requests to the Military Advocate General (MAG) to open investigations into numerous other cases were also denied.” Adalah further found “petitions filed to the Supreme Court against the MAG and AG’s policy of not opening criminal investigations into the killing of Palestinians remain pending years later. It also appears that the Supreme Court’s inaction has resulted in a brake on the submission of petitions by human rights organizations.”

“Israel cannot build a society based on the principles of democracy, human rights, and compliance with international law while brutally occupying another people and their land. The United States is currently paying for that occupation with its annual aid,” (JVP, Statement on Peace, U.S Military Aid and Israel, 2004.) and further, “When Palestinian doctors remove bullets from the bodies of Palestinian children, the bullets are typically stamped. Made in the U.S.A.” Nevertheless, and, in remorseless fashion the United States defies international opinion, its own law and international law in providing massive military aid to its client state Israel. America supplies the boots that fit the feet that press on the necks of Palestinians.

Massive Military Aid for Continuum
“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war” (Ben Gurion)

The Congressional Research Service Report (CRSR) of 16th September 2010 U.S Foreign Aid to Israel reported, “Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance.” The Bush Administration unsurprisingly sanctioned an increase of 6 billion dollars in U.S military assistance to Israel in August 2007. And the Obama Administration, also unsurprisingly, responded to the Bush Neo Con reverberation by requesting $3 billion U.S in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel for fiscal year of 2011. So, add those figures in your moral mind space to this cumulative ‘conservative estimate’ given by the U.S organisation ‘If Americans Knew’** of “total direct aid to Israel [1949 to 2008] of $113. 8554 Billion. Massive by any standards.

Decades of murder and mayhem began with a trade loan in 1949 of $100.000. God only knows when and how it will end. Today the billions of US taxpayers dollars that pour through the ‘aid funnel’ are used to buy arms and equipment such as caterpillar bulldozers made in the U.S; indeed a stipulation by the U.S is that Israel uses “75% of its military aid from the U.S. It funnels this money to more than 1,000 U.S arms suppliers, which in turn lobby for policies that benefit them at the expense of peace in the Middle East.” (JVP).

According to the CRSR, by giving unconditional aid to Israel, America seeks to and “maintains …[Israel’s] qualitative military edge over potential threats, and prevent[s] a shift in the security balance of the region.” in fact that aggressive ‘military edge’ keeps Palestinians locked down in interminable suffering and the region a tinderbox. And make no mistake the ‘qualitative military edge’ is not for Israel but for The United States of America and its continued hegemonic ambitions through its proxy, Israel.

U.S blood money was/is for “a militarized Israel that will serve the U.S. interest of controlling the Petroleum reserves of the Middle East … policy debate in elite circles takes for granted, on all sides, the goal of maintaining U.S. control over Middle East petroleum resources and the flow of petrodollars.” (Chomsky, Fateful Triangle). If we take a sordid trip down Israel’s blood soaked memory lane we find U.S Aid increasing in direct proportion to Israel’s military aggression, perceived success therefore usefulness to American interests. Israel’s continuum is vital for American control over the oil reserves of the region.

Stephen Zunes, The Strategic Functions of U.S. AID to Israel, *** shows how U.S Aid shoots up after Israeli military successes and its long term strategic cooperation with America. From the “spectacular victory” in the 1967 war, through the Civil War in Jordan 1970-71 and the countering of ‘attacking Arab armies’ in 1973, to the “fall of the Shah, election of the right wing Likud, and the ratification of the Camp David Treaty in 1979”, through the years 1983-84 “when the United States and Israel signed memoranda of understanding on strategic cooperation and military planning.” U.S Aid kept rising 450%, 800%, increasing, sevenfold, quadrupling, as did Israel’s aggression. America force feeding Israel with military aid through the ‘aid funnel,’ whilst Palestinian children can scarcely keep mind, spirit, and body together.

Then came Clinton, Bush, Obama, all maintaining Israel’s ‘qualitative edge’, all maintaining Israel’s brutal military occupation. All, letting down the Palestinians’ lawful drive for legitimate Statehood. All U.S Aid equated with destruction, acquainted with death. The long suffering Palestinians sold out with ‘no objections’ from the ‘liberal left of America.’

Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush “I’m doing it for my daddy” junior, and Obama, all preserving ‘Continuity Of Government’ (C.O.G.) indeed, all cogs in the all consuming gas guzzling American machine. It will all end in tears and it won’t be Palestinian tears, for they have wept too much and for too long for their lost freedom and their lost children.

O Captain My Captain
“Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.” (Moshe Dayan)

Questions are being asked of Captain America from unlikely and likely quarters. Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, “The question for the Obama administration, Congress and, in the end perhaps the American public, is given present economic problems, should the United States supply the money to make up for the reductions the Israelis are making in their own defence budget.” A financial question of course. A superior question, because a moral one, is if, the American public, who should be asked first, were informed of the extent, nature and illegality of U.S Aid to Israel, would the American public then sanction any military aid to Israel at all?

As Hassan Fouda of Northern California Friends of Sabeel reminds, “Congress is planning deep cuts in social security, unemployment compensation, educational grants and other programs that help vulnerable Americans. Transferring billions of taxpayer’s money to Israel now is immoral. Americans need to speak up and be heard.

Valuing Human Rights
Special Rapporteur [on Human Rights in the occupied territories] John Dugard stated, “It is pointless for the Special Rapporteur to recommend to the Government of Israel that it show respect for human rights and international humanitarian law … in these circumstances, the Special Rapporteur can only appeal to the wider international community to concern itself with the plight of the Palestinian people.” (2006). After the end of the Israeli military operation Cast Lead 2008-2009 in Gaza, John Ging the UNRWA Director of Operations recalled a discussion that he had with a teacher in Gaza about ‘strengthening human rights education in schools’. One would assume that the teacher had for obvious reasons a sceptical view of such an undertaking. In fact, recounts Ging “the teacher unhesitantly supported the resumption of human rights education.” She said, “This is a war of values, and we are not going to lose it.”

*Clive Hambidge is Human Development Director at Facilitate Global***. Contact him at:clive.hambidge@facilitateglobal.org.

This article was contributed to PalestineChronicle.com


* Rafael Eitan, former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces and later an MK and government minister

** If Americans Knew

*** The Strategic Functions of U.S. Aid to Israel

**** Facilitate Global

sexta-feira, 11 de novembro de 2011

‘International week against the Apartheid Wall’ seeks to rally the ‘global 99%’

10 november 2011, Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net (USA)

Anna Baltzer*

US Campaign National Organizer Anna Baltzer with #Occupy protesters

On October 25th at Oakland City Hall, barricades and riot police had replaced the hundreds of committed activists who had inhabited Oscar Grant Plaza since Occupy Oakland began. Helicopters swarmed above. The atmosphere was tense and thick with teargas. Earlier that day, Scott Olsen, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, had been shot in the head with a projectile and hospitalized.

Oakland native Tristan Anderson met a similar fate in 2009 when the Israeli military shot him in the head with a U.S.-made high-velocity tear gas canister while he nonviolently protested Israel's Apartheid Wall in the West Bank village of Ni'lin. Bassem Abu Rahmah was fatally wounded the following year when the Israeli army fired a tear gas canister at his chest as he protested the wall in the West Bank village of Bil'in. His sister Jawaher died in January after inhaling U.S.-made tear gas, which the Israeli military fired aggressively during a protest against the wall, which still annexes huge swaths of Bil'in's land.

The connections between the struggles of Palestinians and the #Occupy movement are unmistakable: the spotlight on privilege and inequality, the mass imprisonment, the police repression, and the people's steadfastness. As the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) wrote in a statement of unity with the "global 99%":

Our aspirations overlap; our struggles converge. Our oppressors, whether greedy corporations or military occupations, are united in profiting from wars, pillage, environmental destruction, repression and impoverishment. We must unite in our common quest for freedoms, equal rights, social and economic justice, environmental sanity, and world peace.

The 9th Annual International Week against the Apartheid Wall is November 9 - 16, 2011. What will you do to nonviolently bring down systems of oppression both here at home and in support of Palestinians struggling to bring down the Apartheid Wall?

The Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign is calling on people around the world to "Stand with the Palestinian popular resistance" and pressure our "governments, institutions and corporations to stop their support of Israeli apartheid" by organizing in four key areas. Below are ideas and resources for you to take action in your community.

Awareness-raising campaigns about the Wall and settlements
Action idea: Construct a "mock wall" on your campus, at your local city occupation, or elsewhere to educate passersby about the effects of Israel's Apartheid Wall and the connections between oppression of Palestinians and racist border practices targeting immigrants in the United States. Click here to see the new Mock Wall Campaign Toolkit created by students at the University of Arizona and Brown University.

Awareness-raising campaigns on Israel's repression of Palestinian popular resistance
Action idea: On November 15th, activists from the March 15th Palestinian Youth Movement will attempt to board segregated Jewish-only settler buses bound for Jerusalem as an act of civil disobedience. Worldwide activists are mobilizing to shine a light on Israel's repressive tactics and show solidarity for Palestinian popular resistance. Click here to sign up for information and a toolkit developed by coalition member group Jewish Voice for Peace to help local groups put together unique and exciting local actions in solidarity with the Palestinian Freedom Riders on November 15th.

Boycott and divestment campaigns against companies building the Apartheid Wall
Action idea: Hold a teach-in about boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) at your nearest city occupation, spotlighting Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons manufacturer, which produces the surveillance equipment and unmanned vehicles that monitor both the Israeli Apartheid Wall and the U.S./Mexico border. Click here to download member group Grassroots International’s fact sheet about Elbit's involvement in Israel’s oppressive policies targeting Palestinians and racist practices on the U.S.-Mexico border. Get TIAA-CREF to divest from Elbit and other corporations profiting from Israeli occupation by joining the growing "We Divest" Campaign.

To help build your case for local BDS campaigns, check out our BDS FAQs here.

Consider also distributing the BNC's moving statement of solidarity with the #Occupy movement. Click here to download the two-page handout.

Support the Palestinian call for a comprehensive and mandatory military embargo on Israel
Action Idea: Join our organizing campaign to end military aid to Israel by signing up to receive an organizing packet in the mail with fliers, fact sheets, postcards, and petitions. With this packet, you’ll have everything you’ll need to educate and organize people at your local #Occupy or other community event to end $30 billion in tax-payer funded weapons to Israel and redirect that money to unmet needs here at home.

Please email your planned events and actions to Mallory at Stop the Wall mallory@stopthewall.org. You can also read the call to action and find excellent resources on the Apartheid Wall here.

The night after Scott was shot, thousands of activists reclaimed Oakland’s public spaces for “the 99%” by breaking down the fences with which the city government had encircled the plaza, as Palestinians continue to struggle to tear down Israel's Apartheid Wall to reclaim their land and destinies.

As we struggle for justice here at home, let us remember that everyday Palestinians struggling under occupation are part of "the 99%." Join the International Week against the Apartheid Wall!

*Anna Baltzer is the National Organizer of US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation where is is crossposted.

domingo, 11 de setembro de 2011

MYTHS AND FACTS ON THE PALMER REPORT

8 September 2011, Gisha http://www.gisha.org גישה (Israel)

This week we address some common myths and misconceptions which have emerged over the past days following the release of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (in other words, the Palmer Report). These are myths which we identified in the report itself, in the Israeli and Turkish positions as they are summarized in the report, as well as in public debate (mainly in the media) sparked by the report.

Myth: The commission determined that Israel’s closure of Gaza is legal.

Fact: The commission determined that Israel’s naval blockade is legal. The commission argued that an assessment of the legality of the naval blockade can be conducted independently of the question of the legality of the overall closure policy. We disagree with this assessment and believe that restrictions on movement, whether by land, sea or air, constitute a single policy, the components of which cannot be reviewed independently. The legality of the overall closure policy was left as an open question by the panel, however, a recommendation was made to Israel that it continue easing restrictions on movement “with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population” in Gaza (par. 156).

Myth: The Palmer Commission was a formal panel of inquiry, charged with the authority to summon witnesses and whose findings can be considered thorough and binding by law.

Fact: The commission was established by the UN Secretary-General on August 2, 2010, to review the “circumstances and context” related to the May 2010 flotilla incident. The panel stressed in its report that it was not “acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability” (Summary, par. 1). Moreover, it states that, “its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities” much in the same way as the recommendations of the Goldstone report were not legally binding. The panel did not have a mandate to summon witnesses, it was meant to work by consensus and no live testimony was heard. The panel formed its report drawing from the information supplied from Turkish and Israeli domestic inquiries and representatives chosen by each country.

Myth: The maritime closure began in January 2009.

Fact: Israel did indeed declare a naval blockade in 2009, but it has blocked sea access to Gaza since 1967 by virtue of its authority as an occupying power. Gisha’s position is that the laws of occupation continue to apply to the Gaza Strip following the implementation of Israel’s Disengagement Plan in 2005, since Israel still controls key aspects of life in the area. The laws of occupation permit Israel to decide through which channels goods and people will enter and leave the Gaza Strip, however they also impose upon Israel an obligation to allow movement, subject to specific security inspections, and to facilitate normal life in the occupied territory.

Myth: “Israel is the Occupying Power in Gaza, and cannot blockade the borders of the territory it occupies” (Summary of the Interim and Final Reports of Turkey’s National Investigation, par. 23e).


Fact: Gisha’s position is that Israel has the authority (under the law of occupation and not the law of naval blockade!) to determine by which routes goods and people enter and leave the occupied territory, while at the same time bearing an obligation to allow movement and access in such a way that facilitates normal life.

Myth: Bringing in goods via the sea isn’t possible anyway because there is no deep sea port in Gaza, and therefore the naval blockade is not related to the restrictions on movement of civilians and civilian goods (see par.78).

Fact: While it’s true that there is currently no deep sea port, the report fails to note that Israel bombed the site of a planned seaport in September 2001, where construction had already begun. Since that time, and despite a promise made in the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, Israel has refused to provide guarantees to the international donors who wish to fund construction of a port that it will not bomb the site again, thus preventing it from being built. Blocking access via the sea is an inherent part of Israel’s overall closure policy.

Myth: “The blockade did not constitute collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip: there is no evidence that Israel deliberately imposed restrictions on bringing goods into Gaza with the sole or main purpose of denying them to the civilian population” (from the Summary of the Report of Israel’s National Investigation, par. 47e).


Fact: Sweeping restrictions on movement of people and goods to and from Gaza were imposed in June 2007 and articulated in a September 2007 decision by the Israeli Security Cabinet. The cabinet decision refers to a need to restrict movement in order to respond to Hamas’ rise to power in Gaza and the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, however the restrictions are not imposed in order to confront a concrete security threat but rather as a means to exert pressure on the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. The concept of using “economic warfare” as a means of pressure has been confirmed on numerous occasions in statements made by public officials, as well as by the Israeli Justice Ministry in a statement to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Israel’s closure of the Gaza Strip impacts each and every one of its residents, more than half of whom are children, regardless of whether they are personally involved in violent acts against Israel or not. For this reason, the closure constitutes collective punishment, in violation of international law.

Myth: Israel ended its closure of Gaza after the 2010 flotilla incident.

Fact: Some key aspects of Israel’s closure policy have been eased. In July 2010, Israel removed a ban on the entrance of consumer goods and raw materials, however, it continues to restrict export, entrance of construction materials and movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank. These restrictions continue to paralyze the economy of Gaza and cause substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, Israel continues to violate its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful. In order to bring its policy into compliance with international law – meaning that security interests are protected while obligations to civilians in Gaza are maintained – Israel must allow export, entrance of construction materials, and travel between Gaza and the West Bank, subject only to individual security checks.

terça-feira, 6 de setembro de 2011

IN OCCUPIED WEST BANK, JEWS AND ARABS SEE DIFFERENT SIDES OF JUSTICE

5 September 2011, Haaretz

The Israeli justice system in the occupied territories treats similar crimes committed by Jews and Arabs differently - impunity toward settlers, harsh repercussions for Arabs.

By Amira Hass

1. There is a law in Israel. It is the Dromi Law, named for the farmer Shai Dromi who in January 2007 shot to death Khaled el-Atrash, a Bedouin who broke into his farm in the Negev at night.

In June 2008, a law was passed that “a person will not bear criminal responsibility for an act that was required immediately in order to curb someone who breaks in, or tries to break in, in order to commit a crime.” The district court acquitted Dromi of manslaughter, however he was convicted of having an illegal weapon.

2. There is a judge in Israel. He is Colonel-Lieutenant Netanel Benishu, who is deputy president of the military appeals court in the occupied West Bank. He heard the case of three members of the Bedouin Ka’abneh family, who were arrested on July 19th of this year after Israelis attacked their tent encampment on the lands of the village of Mukhmas east of Ramallah.

No, we did not get this wrong. First the Israelis broke into the encampment and then some of its residents began throwing stones at them. And a clarification – the Bedouins did not use a gun. They also did not kill anyone.

The indictment states that one of the stones they threw hit a policeman in the chest and that an Israeli by the name of Harel Zand from the unauthorized outpost of Mitzpeh Danny was hurt in the leg.

The three Bedouin who were arrested are between the ages of 16 and 20. The military judge, Major Yehuda Lieblein, decided to leave the two older youths in detention and to release the youngest one on NIS 7,500 bail.

The military prosecution appealed the release of the minor. The defense attorney, Naji Amer, appealed the continued detention of the others. Benishu ruled that all three would remain in custody until the end of the proceedings.

3. There is a policeman in Israel’s police force at the Benjamin Station in the occupied West Bank. He is Sgt. Maj. Avi Ben Ami and he was present at the site when the Israelis broke into the encampment. He was in civvies. He said he happened to be on the spot because he had received a report that some of the residents of the settlement were planning to go to the encampment. He arrived and saw that they were arguing with the Ka'abneh family members. He says he immediately identified himself as a policeman.

However, the members of the encampment said they only realized he was not a civilian toward the end of the incident when he put a flashing blue light on his car.

His overt or covert presence did not prevent other settlers from arriving there and, according to his testimony, from shouting and starting to kick cans of milk. Then he also noticed the stone-throwers. He apparently did not see what happened then, according to the tent dwellers account to Haaretz. The Israelis began stoning them (one little girl was injured), threw a baby (wrapped in its blankets) out of a cradle and began overturning sacks of flour and rice

4. Benishu: "If we were dealing with throwing stones at civilians alone", he wrote in his ruling "it is doubtful in my eyes to what extent it would be necessary to instruct that the appellants be in the unique circumstances of the present case. No one would disagree that stone throwing is generally a crime that deserves detention because of the danger involved.”

“And indeed, from the point of view of the danger involved in releasing an accused, there is no resemblance between planned and intentional stone-throwing, and stone throwing that stems from tempers heating up during a fight to which the victim contributed quite a bit…However, the appellant deliberately harmed a policeman who was present at the scene and identified himself”

[Therefore] significant danger to the public is involved (in an act of that kind) … The stone throwing continued even after the settlers left the site … Now is the time to reject the defense attorney’s claims about the supposed discrimination that was created between the matter of the appellants and the matter of the settlers… It must be noted that an investigation has been opened against the settlers and some of them have been interrogated under caution as is required. In view of that, it is possible that action will be taken against them… Second, there is no evidence of stone throwing on the part of the settlers, and while every harmful act against property must be condemned, this cannot be compared with an act of bodily harm.”

5. A beheaded doll now lies on the land where the tent encampment of Ka'abneh once was. On July 25, its inhabitants dismantled it and left. Out of fear. That is what the inhabitants of three other nearby Bedouin encampments did as well. Had the law and order authorities defended us from attacks, they said, we would not have left.

6. Israel has a Torah. Bassam, aged 12, helps support his family by herding his relatives’ sheep in a tent encampment near the village of Jaba. He learned that the Jews’ Torah restricts their movement on the Sabbath and therefore, he thought that Saturday would be a good day to take the sheep a little further out, to the rich pasture at the Mukhmas junction. The Migron outpost overlooks the junction.

7. Thank God for security firms. On August 20, Bassam and a friend went out with the sheep at seven in the morning. It was Ramadan, and hot, and they dozed while the sheep pastured.

At around 12.30, Bassam awoke to the sound of desperate bleating from the flock. He left the cave where he had been resting and saw a group of young Israeli boys (and a few girls) attacking the sheep with stones and iron bars.

Two of the Israelis, he said, attacked him too and beat him on the head with the rods. He was also hit in the back by a stone that someone threw at him. His friend woke up and the two of them fled for their lives in the direction of Shaar Binyamin, a settlers’ services compound.

The police station is there but that is not what they were looking for. They hid and waited for a security guard whom they believe guards a wedding hall.

When he arrived, he called the police, an ambulance and a family member of the boys. He also administered first aid to Bassam whose head was bleeding. In the Ramallah hospital, doctors attended to three deep and long gashes on Bassam’s skull.

8. "Hava Nagilla” - let’s be merry. Bassam’s friend accompanied the soldiers and the policemen who went to look for the young attackers. He saw a group of young people sitting on the ground in a small stone building, clapping their hands and singing. Some of them (including some young women) left when they saw the police and army approaching. Most remained behind and continued singing. The boy saw the police arresting them.

9. At a line-up in the yard of the Beit El army base, Bassam identified three of the youths as those who had assaulted him. As far as we know at this moment, if there are suspects in the attack, they are free.

segunda-feira, 5 de setembro de 2011

HISTORIC DECLARATION BY PALESTINIANS, ISRAELIS IN SUPPORT OF ISRAELI SOCIAL PROTEST, ANTI-COLONIAL STRUGGLE

5 September 2011, Alternative Information Center (AIC) המרכז לאינפורמציה אלטרנטיבית
http://www.alternativenews.org (Israel)

Some 20 political parties and social movements from both sides of the Green Line issued an historic declaration in support of the social protests currently rocking Israel and their necessary linkage to the struggle against Israel’s occupation and colonial policies.

Together for putting an end to occupation and racism, in support of the struggle of the Palestinian people to attain their national rights and against national and social oppression.

Even in light of the encouraging developments in the Middle East, the wave of social protests and the awakening of the peoples’ struggles for freedoms and the right to live in dignity, the Palestinian people still live under the yoke of the Israeli occupation, despite their persistent and ongoing struggle for freedom. The international community, for its part, demonstrates its helplessness and does not lend a hand to support the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice.

The protest movements and the winds of change blowing in the Arab world have aroused excitement throughout the world amongst freedom seekers, encouraging many to adopt the model of popular struggle. These protest movements have had a deep impact on various groups in Israel, amongst both Jews and Palestinians, and made an important contribution to the rise of the popular protest movement within Israel for social justice.

Moved by our aspiration to attain a just and fair peace in the region, a peace that is truly essential for the peoples of the region and can assist in promoting the struggle for justice and progress for everyone, we – Palestinian and Israeli social and political forces, representatives of women’s associations and young people from both sides of the Green Line – emphasise the need for a joint struggle, with the goal of liberating the peoples of the region from colonialism and hegemony, particularly that of Zionism, halting the occupation and Israeli military aggression and supporting the just struggle of the Palestinian people for fulfillment of its right for self-determination in accordance with the decisions of the international community.

We look forward to the liberation of all the region’s peoples from dictatorship, ruling tyranny and from all forms of national, social and economic oppression. Therefore, we the signatories on this document, emphasise:

1. We support the Palestinian September initiative in the United Nations, the body which carries responsibility for laying the foundations of peace internationally, in order to demand full membership for Palestine in the UN and recognition of a Palestinian state in the borders of 4 June 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital, and to strengthen the efforts to end the occupation of the Palestinian people’s lands, with preservation of the right of the Palestinian people to oppose the occupation and the right of return of the refugees in accordance with United Nations Resolution 194. In this context, we emphasise that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, deriving its legitimacy both from the Palestinian people in the homeland and exile and from the recognition it received from the Arab League and the United Nations.

The UN initiative is a legitimate step. The United Nations must fulfill its responsibility to realize its responsibility to establish peace and justice on the international level. This is a step that strengthens the rights of the Palestinian people and in no way represents a threat to Israel, despite the great efforts of the Israeli government to present this step to the Israeli people as a declaration of war or harming the legitimacy of the existence of Israel.

2. We understand that one of the primary reasons for the social and economic distress of citizens in Israel, in addition to the capitalist economic policies, is the continuation of the occupation and excessive security budgets, which Israel’s government seeks to justify as needed for defending the security of the settlements on the one hand and the state borders on the other. We therefore believe that an end to the occupation and establishment of a fair and just peace are essential for a life of peace and welfare.

We welcome the participation and integration of the Palestinian population in Israel in the social protest. This is an important opportunity to present before various groups within Israeli society the distresses of the Palestinians and the injustices caused to them, so that these groups can take responsibility in the struggle against the marginalizing policies and ongoing discrimination against the Palestinians in Israel, for putting an ending to confiscation of lands and full equality, and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian lands that were occupied in 1967.

We warn again the familiar attempts by the occupation government to evade the crises and its internal crises and the pressure of the protest waves through the politics of fear which point to an external threat: Whether by presenting the Palestinian appeal to the UN as a “danger” or by military actions, as we have witnessed in the past few days in light of the harsh escalation in bloodletting of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

3. We recognize the right of the Palestinian people, living under occupation, to make use of all the legitimate forms of resistance in accordance with international norms for removing of the occupiers from its land and for self determination. In this context, we emphasise the importance of the joint popular struggle of Palestinians and Israelis. A popular joint struggle is one of the central guiding principles in the struggle against the occupation, the settlements, racism, colonialism, against policies of exclusion, weakening, impoverishment, and racist separation within Israel.

September 2011


Signed: Political parties, social organizations and young women and men Palestinian and Israeli activists (in alphabetical order)

Association of Palestinian Democratic Youth (Palestine)

Association of Progressive Students (Palestine)

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Palestine)

Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (Israel)

Democratic Teachers’ Union (Palestine)

Democratic Union of Professionals in Palestine (Palestine)

Democratic Women’s Movement in Israel (Israel)

Israeli Communist Party (Israel)

National Campaign for Return of the Bodies of Arab and Palestinian Martyrs Captured by the Israeli Government (Palestine)

Palestinian People’s Party (Palestine)

Popular Campaign for the Boycott of Israeli Products (Palestine)

Progressive Workers’ Union (Palestine)

Tarabut-Hithabrut – Arab-Jewish Movement for Social and Political Change (Israel)

The Alternative Information Center (Palestine/Israel)

Union of Palestinian Farmers’ Unions (Palestine)

Union of One World for Justice (Palestine)

Union of Palestinian Working Women (Palestine)

Workers’ Unity Bloc (Palestine)

PALMER REPORT'S FATAL FLAWS

2 September 2011, Palestine Chronicle http://palestinechronicle.com (USA)

By Julie Webb-Pullman* - Gaza

The most fundamental fault of the Palmer Report on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident(1) is its one-eyed view of security. The second is its exceeding of the Terms of Reference (TOR).

While the Report upholds, and goes into considerable detail about, Israel’s right to security and the firing of weapons into Israel from Gaza and the killing of 25 Israeli’s since 2001, it COMPLETELY IGNORES Gaza’s – or the Palestinian - right to security, it ignores the innumerable military attacks on Gaza by Israel which according to an Israeli Human Rights group (2) have killed more than 4500, with 41 Israeli air strikes in the last week alone killing another 17, and it ignores Israel’s continuous invasions and incursions into Palestinian territory contrary to international law, and in breach of some 80 UN Security Council Resolutions.

If the claimed purpose of the Palmer Report is in fact to “avoid similar incidents in future” it would be more appropriate to address the ROOT CAUSE of the incident, which is Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and ongoing military assaults on Gaza, even the weapons for which are disproportionate - while Gazan groups use homemade, inaccurate and usually ineffective weapons rarely resulting in injury, let alone death, Israel favours extremely high-tech, accurate, brutally effective – and ILLEGAL – weapons that almost always maim and kill.

Cause and Effect
The Palmer Panel, and the United Nations, would do better to prevail upon Israel to observe international law, as embodied in some 80 UN Security Council Resolutions and numerous international conventions, than do irrelevant book reviews that do nothing but give Israel more ammunition to legitimise its genocide.
It needs to be re-stated – rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, and efforts by international civil society to alleviate the suffering caused by the illegal siege of Gaza, are EFFECTS directly flowing from the ROOT CAUSE, Israel’s persistent and ongoing refusal to observe international law, or even internationally-determined borders.

Enforcement of UNSC Resolutions, not a glorified “book review,” are what is required to “avoid similar incidents in future.”

The TOR
The TOR makes it clear the Report was never intended to be anything but a Clayton’s exercise. They state: (and I don’t know where number 1 disappeared to – it was not in the copy I have)

The panel:

2 (a) will receive and review interim and final reports of national investigations into the incident; that is, do a “book review” and call it a Report, which the international community is expected to swallow, and “move on”.

(b) may request such clarifications and information as it may require from relevant national authorities. Not obtain or assess original or direct evidence, not even obtain witness testimonies or examine or cross-examine witnesses – merely have a chat to the ‘points of contact’ of the ‘relevant national authorities’.

3. In the light of the information so gathered the panel will:

(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; – which given the limited TOR can only be what the two national authorities ‘reported’ they were – a veritable exercise in Chinese Whispers (not sure of the politically-correct term for this, if there is one), which is not only a poor substitute for due process, but it is also very unlikely to establish the facts, circumstances and context of the incident such that any meaningful recommendations could be made;

(b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future. – the most obvious recommendation of all being OBSERVANCE BY ISRAEL OF ALL SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, such that defensive actions by Gaza, and humanitarian convoys to alleviate their suffering, are no longer necessary.

The Palmer Panel’s limited assessment of the evidence, and obsession with Israel’s right to security, seems to have blinkered them to this, the most obvious recommendation of all.

Did the Report Find the Naval Blockade is Legal?
While Israel, and lazy mainstream media, touts the Palmer Report as finding Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is legal, a closer reading shows no such thing.

If anything, the report shows that the Palmer panel exceeded their Terms of Reference (TOR) by the two chairs taking it upon themselves to lay the so-called “secure legal foundation” that served as the basis for their findings and recommendations despite acknowledgement they had no grounds to do so, then attributing legality to their subsequent considerations, findings or determinations.
In its own words, the panel states in paragraph 5 of its Introduction:

“It needs to be understood from the outset that this Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique. The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability.” and
6. “It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law.”
So why did it go on in Para 73 to make a determination that:
“The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade.”

And in paragraph 81, to state that:

“The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal.” –
These findings are clearly outside the TOR, and are findings on which subsequent statements rely, such as in the Summary at:

ii, “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

And,

viii. Attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade.

Appendicitis
These painful contradictions can be explained by the first appendix in the Report, stating that:

“the Chair and Vice-Chair provide our own account of the principles of public international law that apply to the events under review” in order to rest their findings and recommendations “on a secure legal foundation.” – of their own invention.

Of considerable importance is that they do not even require Israel to have fulfilled its obligation to declare this blockade by notifying it to the UN Security Council according to the processes outlined in Article 51 of the Charter, instead accept their posting it on a few Israeli websites!

This makes a mockery of both the TOR, and the considerable body of highly-qualified international legal opinion that disagrees with their position, and that they explicitly chose to ignore in preference to their own. This ensures that the supposed secure legal foundation for the Report, thus all finding and recommendations based on it, are but a Palmer/Uribe house of cards.

The Palmer Report not only exceeds its TOR, but it is internally inconsistent, and in conflict with other reputable legal bodies and opinions, including those of other UN agencies.

In keeping with the TOR, therefore, any legal determinations and findings should, like an acutely-inflamed appendix, be immediately removed from the final report before they irreparably harm the host.

Extra-territoriality of the Application of the Naval Blockade
A curious omission from their legal deliberations on the legitimacy of the naval blockade, inappropriate as they were, is the attack on the Mavi Marmara 72 nautical miles from the coast and 64 nautical miles from the blockade zone. This goes way beyond enforcing a legitimate naval blockade, which extends at most 20 nautical miles from the coast, into extra-territorial application of the Gaza blockade into international waters.

This has serious - and extensive - implications in international law, which the panel chooses not to discuss, but which are directly relevant to the prevention of further incidents.

Curious – and Unsupportable - Justifications
An example of one of the more curious justifications for not finding the naval blockade disproportionate is the statement in paragraph 78 that “the prospect of delivering significant supplies to Gaza by sea is very low” because of the lack of port facilities.

That the port facilities were destroyed by Israel in 2001 appears to them too insignificant to mention. That Gaza port has been used for literally THOUSANDS OF YEARS for the delivery of “bulk supplies” through Gaza to Europe, and back again. Large ships moored offshore and smaller vessels, of which there thousands here, transferred the goods to port. Gazans were doing this long before New Zealand even had human habitation, and they continued doing it up until late last century - I have spoken to Gazan men in their 50’s who recall watching this as a favorite past-time as children.

There is no reason such methods could not be occurring now – but for the naval blockade. That they might be “inefficient” methods in the panel’s view speaks more to their first world arrogance and failure to appreciate the conditions on the ground in Gaza, than it does to the need to get bulk supplies in to meet the very real desperate need that exists, as repeatedly and continuously stated by the numerous international NGOs and UN agencies working in Gaza.

Recommendation to Use Established Procedures
Any remaining shred of credibility is totally destroyed by this bizarre statement in paragraph 154 which flies in the face of all available evidence, that:

“... the Government of Israel has taken significant steps to ease the restrictions on goods entering Gaza since the 31 May 2010 incident.”

And with regard to future prevention, the even more bizarre recommendation in paragraph iv that:

“All humanitarian missions wishing to assist the Gaza population should do so through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

The panel has completely ignored not only the reality on the ground in relation to the so-called easing of restrictions, as reported by numerous NGOs (3), but also UN assessments such as that of OCHA published in March 2011, the Executive Summary of which stated:

“The partial lifting of import restrictions...increased the availability of consumer goods and some raw materials...However, due to the pivotal nature of the remaining restrictions, this relaxation did not result in a significant improvement in people’s livelihoods.”

And went on to say that despite 100 water and sanitation, education and health services. projects since being approved, “while the potential benefit of these projects, once implemented, is significant, due to the recurrent delays in implementation, the population has so far not experienced any improvement in the quality of services.”(4)

Finally, statements from both the Israeli and Turkish participants contained in the Appendix indicate that far from coming to the consensus decisions required of it, the Palmer Report is a Palmer/Uribe house of cards based on selective – and self-determined – legal determinations that exceed their TOR, and are one-eyed in the application of rights – to security, to self-defence, and to provide humanitarian aid as, when and where it is needed.

Most significantly, the selective condemnation of Gaza homemade rocket attacks, while failing to condemn Israel’s use of prohibited weapons against civilian targets in a clear and incontrovertible exercise of the collective punishment of a trapped population, beggars belief.

* Julie Webb-Pullman is a New Zealand activist and writer currently based in Gaza. She has written on social and political justice issues for New Zealand Independent News website SCOOP since 2003, as well as for websites in Australia, Canada, the US, and Latin America, and participated in several human rights observation missions. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.


Notes:

(1) Palmer Committee Final Report (2011) Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident.

(2) B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories – Statistics. http://www.btselem.org/statistics.

(3) Amnesty International UK et al (2010) Dashed Hopes: Continuation of the Gaza.

(4) OCHA (2011) Special Focus: Easing the Blockade.