April 5, 2013

EDITOR: Gaza suffers again, without any ill-effect in Israel after their brutal attack this week

Immediately after the limp and submissive Obama visit, with its ‘eternal love for Israel’ theme, Israel returned to the fold, reminding us who is boss in the Middle East… Thank you, Obama, for being the non-entity which allows Israel to continue illegally torturing two million Palestinians in Gaza, with your political, financial and emotional support! You have made the US a full partner in this crime. You must be pleased that now hunger will be added to these crimes.

UN suspends Gaza food centres after compound attack: BBC

Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri urged Unrwa to rethink its decision

The UN says it is suspending all its food distribution centres in the Gaza Strip after protesters angered by aid cutbacks stormed one of its compounds.

The UN Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa) said the centres would stay closed until it received security assurances for its property and staff.

It said it was trying to mitigate the effects caused by cuts in cash payments to some of Gaza’s poorest families.

Unrwa provides aid for an estimated 800,000 Palestinians in Gaza.

It runs dozens of schools and medical clinics and distributes food to many of the territory’s 1.7 million residents, but says it is grappling with a huge budget deficit.

Correspondents say the suspension of food aid will cause more hardship for people in Gaza already hit by Israeli and Egyptian controls on its borders.

An Unrwa statement said the storming of its Gaza field office was “a dramatic and disturbing escalation in a series of demonstrations that have taken place over the past week”.

“We fully understand the impact the decision to suspend cash assistance had on some of our beneficiaries,” Robert Turner, head of the agency’s Gaza operations, said in the statement.

Protesters outside Unrwa compound in Gaza. 1 April 2013There have been days of protests outside Unrwa compounds in Gaza

“What happened today was completely unacceptable. The situation could very easily have resulted in serious injuries to Unrwa staff and to the demonstrators. This escalation, apparently pre-planned, was unwarranted and unprecedented.”

He added: “All relief and distribution centres will consequently remain closed until guarantees are given by all relevant groups that Unrwa operations can continue unhindered.”

Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas which governs Gaza, said they condemned any violence against Unrwa but described the decision to close the food centres as “unjustified”.

“When the administration of Unrwa asked the Palestinian security to intervene they arrived and stopped the chaos. We are asking Unrwa to rethink their decision,” he said.

Unrwa says financial support for its programmes to help Palestinian refugees hasn’t kept up with the deepening poverty of those in need.

It says it is currently grappling with a deficit of more than $67m (£44m).

EDITOR: The UCU case lost by Anthony Julius is continuing to make waves

Even the Jewish Chronicle could not but agree with the Tribunal that the case was ill-advised, to say the least! Surely they will be crucified for this report by the likes of Ronnie Fraser and Jonathan Hoffman…

By Simon Rocker, April 4, 2013
“Disappointed”: Ronnie Fraser“Disappointed”: Ronnie Fraser

A failed legal challenge to the anti-Israeli policies of Britain’s lecturers’ union has divided opinion as community activists try to grapple with the repercussions

An employment tribunal last week dismissed a claim of harassment against the University College Union (UCU) by the director of the Academic Friends of Israel, Ronnie Fraser, who had accused the union of “institutional antisemitism”.

In his judgment, Judge Anthony Snelson, who presided over the three-person tribunal, attacked the claim as “a sorry saga”, which represented “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”.

One lawyer active in Jewish affairs, Jonathan Goldberg QC, commented: “This enormous but legally flawed lawsuit was an act of epic folly by all concerned which will negatively impact our community for a long time to come. You only bring such showcase litigation if you are certain to win.”

Lawsuit will have negative impact on our community for a long time’

The chairman of UK Lawyers for Israel, Jonathan Turner, also questioned the wisdom of bringing the action. “I had deep misgivings and feared it would fail,” he said. But he called it “a reverse, not a disaster”, suggesting that lessons could be learned on “which cases to fight and how”.

Anthony Julius, of solicitors Mishcon de Reya, who had represented Mr Fraser, was unavailable for comment this week.

But communal organisations which had supported the lawsuit closed ranks. A spokesman for Fair Play, the anti-boycott campaign founded by the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “Years of campaigning inside UCU had convinced us and many union members that the union was incapable of fairly tackling complaints of antisemitism by itself. Supporting Ronnie was the right thing to do.”

A number of JLC members are understood to have contributed to Mr Fraser’s fighting fund.

Board vice-president Jonathan Arkush, who is a lawyer, said that “many aspects of this ruling surprised and disappointed me, not least the suggestion that the case was brought for a political end. A trade union member who feels that he is the victim of racial harassment or antisemitism is surely entitled to bring a claim without being labelled as politically motivated.”

The tribunal stated that a belief in Zionism or attachment to Israel was “not intrinsically a part of Jewishness” and was not an aspect that could be protected under equality law.

Eric Moonman, co-president of the Zionist Federation, said that this was a “wrong and worrying interpretation. It presents a very real issue for a different campaign to make sure there is an accepted definition of Jewishness which highlights the integral nature of Israel to Jews.”

Mr Fraser had argued that a succession of anti-Israel resolutions passed by the union’s annual congress, and the resulting incidents, had created an inhospitable climate for Jews.

But the tribunal said that while he may have found certain comments upsetting, they did not amount to harassment in the legal sense.

While the panel found him a “sincere” witness, it contrasted his “down-to-earth style” with the “magnificent prose” in which his lawyers had couched his case.

Although some of Mr Fraser’s witnesses were “impressive”, the tribunal was highly critical of others, saying they were “more disposed to score points or play to the gallery”.

Evidence that Jewish speakers were jeered and harassed at union congresses was found to be “false”, while JLC chief executive Jeremy Newmark’s cited reason for his exclusion from a UCU meeting was “untrue”.

The tribunal panel was also unimpressed with the “glib evidence” of MP John Mann and former MP Denis MacShane, key figures in the All-Party Parliamentary Campaign against Antisemitism.

The panel said it was troubled by a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression” underlying the claim. It was also critical of its “gargantuan scale”, with 23 bundles and 29 oral witnesses for Mr Fraser plus four written testimonies — compared to five witnesses and two written testimonies for the defence.

Mr Fraser said that, while naturally “disappointed” at the outcome, he would continue to campaign as a member of the Board of Deputies “to accept a definition of Jewishness which includes a connection with Israel”.

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said that Mr Fraser would “be treated with respect within the union as will his views on this question. Not that a decision has been made. I hope in turn that he, and others who share his views, will play an active part in the union and its debates rather than seek recourse to the law.”

In a statement released by the British Committee for Universities for Palestine, UCU executive member Tom Hickey welcomed “a landmark judgment. The accusation of antisemitism against UCU because it supports a boycott is absurd.”

Human rights lawyer Adam Wagner said that the argument that attachment to Israel was not an intrinsic part of Jewishness could be an issue to raise in appeal.

“Discrimination law is unpredictable,” he said, “as shown by the recent European Court of Rights judgments on religious discrimination.

“However, even if an appeal was successful on the legal points, it would still be difficult to overcome the very significant factual findings — the claimant needs to show that there was harassment in his case.

“Perhaps even more problematic would be persuading an appeal court to wade into the vexed and arguable political — that is, not legal — question of whether anti-Zionism can plausibly amount to racism.

Given the court’s comments about this ‘sorry saga’, this may be the last we hear of that argument for some time.”

UCU activist writes: It’s about the Palestinians stupid: Jewssansfrontiers
Mike Cushman

To no one’s surprise a Zionist claque has swiftly assembled to denounce the findings of the Fraser vs UCU Employment Tribunal. It would appear that according to these voices the only business a the next meeting of UCU’s national executive will not be fighting the massive cuts in UK higher and further education but debating when and in what format to reissue The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Hysterical rubbish, of course but we have to explore why the reaction is so unbalanced. Fraser and his legal advisors chose the legal terrain and the scope of their action, not UCU. They chose their schedule of witnesses who declaimed and dissembled but failed to address the matters that Fraser wished the tribunal to consider.

Anthony White, counsel for UCU, demolished their testimony but was only able to do so with such effectiveness because they were such poor witnesses.  Ever since the tribunal, Fraser’s self-proclaimed friends have been picking over 50 pages of closely argued legal findings trying to claim they are simultaneously technically narrow and the most wide-ranging antisemitic text of recent years.

Hirsh and Susskind et al fail to grasp at least two very basic points. They solipsistically believe it is all about the Jews; they cannot understand or believe that it is about the Palestinians.

For the vast majority of those active in support of Palestinian rights it was the oppression of Palestinians that led them to activity.  They only started to consider Zionism as an ideology when they started to enquire why Israel was behaving so badly and so criminally.  At that point they encountered the Zionist justification for occupation and oppression and took a stance of either deploring the degradation of a potentially positive movement or took a more radical stance of identifying Zionist ideology, in itself, at the heart of the problem.

The absence of the Palestinians even as objects, let alone actors, in the Zionist exclusionary Jewish narrative tells us all we need to know about why being anti-Zionist is radically different from being an anti-Semite.  Anti-Zionism is a stance against a pernicious anti-Palestinian racism.  Zionism is an ideology that allows Israel to behave as it does while simultaneously believing that Israel conforms to the norms of liberal, law-based democracy.

Secondly, they continually ask, ‘why only boycott Israel?’  The Palestinian call for BDS is the only extant call for boycott by a significant national liberation movement.  Other movements and peoples call for different forms of support each of which must be considered on its merits.

Israel’s crimes are not measured on a Richter scale of oppression against those of China or Burma or Zimbabwe and only be the subject of campaigns when they reach the hotly contested pinnacle at the top of the Premiership of abuse.  That the crimes are profound and continuing is a sufficient justification.

Other regimes are the subject of regular denunciation and sanction by western governments, Israel is singled out not by our opposition but by the condoning of its actions by the USA; its massive military and civil aid; and its systematic cover at the Security Council.  Similarly the EU treats Israel, in defiance of geography, as a surrogate, if displaced, part of Europe and grants the privileges of association without requiring the fulfilment of Council of Europe human rights standards.

None of this is deny the possibility, and occasional reality, of support for Palestinian rights being motivated by malice towards Jews.  We have a duty to criticise and condemn such behaviour when we see it and the Palestinian rights movement is, in general, self-aware and self critical on this.  Fraser and his team were unable to discover any such motivation behind the actions of UCU officers and activists and are now reduced to asserting that its absence can only be the result of a wider collaboration to conceal it.  Such concealment is beyond the limited ability of UCU, PSC, BRICUP, the Employment Tribunal Service or other presumed conspirators.  Its absence is just that, an absence.

Mike Cushman is a member of BRICUP and is a UCU branch secretary and a regular speaker in favour of Palestinian rights at successive UCU congresses. His interventions were regularly referred to by Fraser and his witnesses.

EDITOR: Another BDS success!

Academic Trade unionists in Ireland have just called for BDS and an academic Boycott  of Israel!

Teachers Union of Ireland calls for Academic Boycott of Israel in unanimous vote; first academic union in Europe to do so: ipsc.ie

At its Annual Congress on Thursday 4th April 2013, the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) became the first academic union in Europe to endorse the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel. The motion, which refers to Israel as an “apartheid state”, calls for “all members to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes” was passed by a unanimous vote during today’s morning session.

The motion further calls on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to “step up its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank, and agrees to abide by International law and all UN Resolutions against it”, and on the TUI to conduct an awareness campaign amongst members on the need for BDS. The motion was a composite motion proposed by the TUI Executive Committee and TUI Dublin Colleges Branch. It was presented by Jim Roche, a lecturer in the DIT School of Architecture and member of the TUI Dublin Colleges Union branch, and seconded by Gerry Quinn, Vice President of the TUI.

Speaking after the successful passage of the motion, Jim Roche said: “I am very pleased that this motion was passed with such support by TUI members, especially coming the day after Israeli occupation forces shot and killed two Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank yesterday. BDS is a noble non-violent method of resisting Israeli militarism, occupation and apartheid, and there is no question that Israel is implementing apartheid policies against the Palestinians. Indeed, many veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa have said that it’s worse than what was experienced there.”

Mr. Roche pointed to the desperate situation of Palestinian education under occupation saying that: “Palestinians are struggling for the right to education under extremely difficult conditions. They are eager for it, as shown by the large numbers of students in third level education inside and outside the occupied Palestinian territories. Education has always been a target of the Israeli occupation, seeing forced closures of universities, disruption under checkpoint, closure and curfew regimes, and arrests, beatings and killing of both students and teachers. Sometimes, such as during the 2008-09 attack on Gaza, educational institutions have been militarily attacked. In fact I have just returned from a solidarity visit to Gaza where I had the opportunity to hear first-hand from Palestinian educators and students about their difficulties. The unanimous passage of this motion that shows that the Palestinian struggle for freedom, of which academic freedom is a key part, resonates with TUI members and sends a strong message of solidarity to their counterparts in Palestine”

Mr. Roche concluded: “We proposed this motion as we believe that, as with South Africa, the trade union movement has a vital role to play in helping apply pressure to end Israeli apartheid and occupation. I am proud that the TUI has taken a clear stand, and now support a full academic boycott of Israel in line with the Palestinian call for BDS”.

Dr. David Landy, a member of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign and founder member of Academics for Palestine welcomed the motion saying: “This is an historic precedent, being the first such motion in Europe to explicitly call for an academic boycott of Israel. We congratulate the TUI and call on all Irish, British and European academic unions to move similar motions. Undoubtedly apologists for Israeli apartheid will complain that such motions stifle academic freedom, but this is nonsense. The Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel is an institutional boycott, not a boycott of individuals. Ironically, those that will jump to complain about this motion will have no words of condemnation for the de facto boycott imposed on Palestinian education by Israel, nor for its continuing attacks on Palestinian education, students and educators”.



The TUI Motion in full reads:

241. Executive Committee/Dublin Colleges(x4)

TUI demand that ICTU step up its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank, and agrees to abide by International law and all UN Resolutions against it.
Congress instructs the Executive Committee to:
(a) Conduct an awareness campaign amongst TUI members on the need for BDS
(b) Request all members to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes. (ENDS)

The Palestinian Call for a Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel can be read here:

Jim Roche is a lecturer in DIT School of Architecture and a member of the TUI Dublin Colleges Branch He is also PRO of the Irish Anti-War Movement and a member of both the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Gaza Action Ireland.

David Landy is a lecturer in the TCD Department of Sociology, a member of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign national committee and a founder member of Academics for Palestine

Posted April 4, 2013 in Academic Boycott, Apartheid, BDS, BNC, Cultural Boycott, Gaza, Human Rights, National Rights, Political Rights, Press releases, West Bank.

EDITOR: Telling the truth is illegal in Israel…

The Zionist Lawfare is now a feature not just in the US, UK and France, but also in Israel itself. Soon it may be either illegal, or just technically impossible to write the truth about Israel’s illegal occupation, with both newspapers and journalists being made to pay for reporting the truth. It had to come, I suppose. A Jewish democracy is not for Jews who have a conscience, it seems.

For writing this article, Amira Hass is now to be taken to court, as will be the Haaretz editor who published it, by the criminal fraternity of the illegal settlements in the West Bank… when those who break the law take you to court for telling about their crimes, you can be sure you live in the only Jewish democracy on earth!

Incitement charges brought against Haaretz and its journalist, Amira Hass: Middleeastmonitor

Haaretz article causes storm in political circles.Haaretz article causes storm in political circles.

The Council of Settlements in the West Bank have demanded the opening of a police investigation into the Haaretz newspapers and its journalist, Amira Hass, following the publication of an article yesterday which addressed the issue of Palestinian rights to throw rocks as a means of self-defence.On Thursday, Maarev newspaper added that the secretary-general and the regional head of the Council had both submitted written reports to the Jerusalem police demanding an investigation of the newspaper and the journalist, as the article allegedly incites violence.

The Council’s report asserted that, “The article cheers on and praises the rock-throwers and gives them the right to do so, but ignores the fact that rock-throwing is a dangerous violation and endangers the lives of Israeli residents and soldiers. Such acts have resulted in a number of deaths and dangerous wounds.”

Yesterday, the “Judiciary of the land of Israel” made a request to the government’s Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, to investigate the alleged incitement published in the article.

The article also caused a storm in political circles, and Knesset member from The Jewish Home party, Orit Strock, said that it was “dangerous incitement toward violent acts against civilians and an encouragement to assault soldiers”. She also expressed astonishment that an Israeli newspaper would publish an article which, according to her, promotes bloodshed and violence.

In the same vein, Likud Member of the Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, made a statement saying that “Haas’ words are condemnable and are considered an expression of disloyalty to the state.”

He also added that, “The article by Haas delights those who don’t recognize that the state between the sea and the river belongs to the Jewish people alone.”

The inner syntax of Palestinian stone-throwing: Haaretz

It would make sense for Palestinian schools to give classes in resistance: how to build multiple ‘tower and stockade’ villages in Area C; how to behave when army troops enter your homes; how to identify soldiers who flung you handcuffed to the floor of the jeep, in order to submit a complaint.

By  | Apr.03, 2013 | 2:34 AM |  59

Stone throwers

A Palestinian protester throwing stones during clashes with Israeli soldiers in Hebron after Jaradat’s funeral, Feb. 25, 2013. Photo by Reuters
By Cellu Rozenberg | Apr.03,2013 | 2:34 AM |  26

Throwing stones is the birthright and duty of anyone subject to foreign rule. Throwing stones is an action as well as a metaphor of resistance. Persecution of stone-throwers, including 8-year-old children, is an inseparable part − though it’s not always spelled out − of the job requirements of the foreign ruler, no less than shooting, torture, land theft, restrictions on movement, and the unequal distribution of water sources.

The violence of 19-year-old soldiers, their 45-year-old commanders, and the bureaucrats, jurists and lawyers is dictated by reality. Their job is to protect the fruits of violence instilled in foreign occupation − resources, profits, power and privileges.

Steadfastness ‏(Sumud‏) and resistance against the physical, and even more so the systemic, institutionalized violence, is the core sentence in the inner syntax of Palestinians in this land. This is reflected every day, every hour, every moment, without pause. Unfortunately, this is true not only in the West Bank ‏(including East Jerusalem‏) and Gaza, but also within Israel’s recognized borders, although the violence and the resistance to it are expressed differently. But on both sides of the Green Line, the levels of distress, suffocation, bitterness, anxiety and wrath are continually on the rise, as is the astonishment at Israelis’ blindness in believing that their violence can remain in control forever.

Often hurling stones is borne of boredom, excessive hormones, mimicry, boastfulness and competition. But in the inner syntax of the relationship between the occupier and the occupied, stone-throwing is the adjective attached to the subject of “We’ve had enough of you, occupiers.”

After all, teenagers could find other ways to give vent to their hormones without risking arrests, fines, injuries and death.

Even if it is a right and duty, various forms of steadfastness and resisting the foreign regime, as well as its rules and limitations, should be taught and developed. Limitations could include the distinction between civilians and those who carry arms, between children and those in uniform, as well as the failures and narrowness of using weapons.

It would make sense for Palestinian schools to introduce basic classes in resistance: how to build multiple “tower and stockade” villages in Area C; how to behave when army troops enter your homes; comparing different struggles against colonialism in different countries; how to use a video camera to document the violence of the regime’s representatives; methods to exhaust the military system and its representatives; a weekly day of work in the lands beyond the separation barrier; how to remember identifying details of soldiers who flung you handcuffed to the floor of the jeep, in order to submit a complaint; the rights of detainees and how to insist on them in real time; how to overcome fear of interrogators; and mass efforts to realize the right of movement. Come to think of it, Palestinian adults could also make use of these lessons, perhaps in place of their drills, training in dispersing protests, and practice in spying on Facebook posts.

When high school students were drafted two years ago for the campaign of boycotting settlement products, it seemed like a move in the right direction. But it stopped there, without going further, without broadening the context. Such lessons would have been perfectly in tune with the tactics of appealing to the United Nations − civil disobedience on the ground and defiance of power in diplomacy.

So why are such classes absent from the Palestinian curriculum? Part of the explanation lies with the opposition of the donor states and Israel’s punitive measures. But it is also due to inertia, laziness, flawed reasoning, misunderstanding and the personal gains of some parts of society. In fact the rationale for the existence of the Palestinian Authority engendered one basic rule in the last two decades − adaptation to the existing situation. Thus, a contradiction and a clash have been created between the inner syntax of the Palestinian Authority and that of the Palestinian people.

EDITOR: New EU moral stand by 23 MEPs: MEPs letter

In a letter sent to the chief of EU foreign policy Catherine Ashton, 23 members of European Parliament called for the suspension of EU-Israel Association Agreement.

It is very unique that such a significant, cross-party initiative has been taken by MEP`s to call outright for suspension of the Association Agreement.

Baroness Catherine Ashton of Upholland
Vice-President/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Rue de La 200
1049 Brussels
cc: European Commissioner for International Trade, Mr Karel de Gucht.
Strasbourg, 11 March 2013

Honourable High Representative,
According to article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) the Union’s external actions
shall be guided by the principles which inspired its own creation, development and
enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law,
the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for
human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the
UN Charter and international law.
Also before the Lisbon treaty introduced a legally binding obligation, the EU included
conditionality clauses with respect to human rights and democratic principles in its
international association and trade agreements. For the EU to remain a credible negotiator visà-
vis third countries, and to improve human rights and fundamental freedoms through its
economic power and actions, it is necessary that the EU enforces these conditionality clauses.
Since taking office you have consistently1, on behalf of the EU, voiced concerns and
condemned the ongoing settlement activity by Israel’s government throughout the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The EU has consistently stated that all
settlement construction is illegal under international law and constitutes and obstacle to peace,
particularly an agreed two-state solution. Regrettably, it is fair to say that up to date the EU’s
objections did not have any effect on change of policy. We need a new approach and decisive
EU action.
The legal framework for EU-Israel relations is provided by the EU-Israel Association
Agreement, or the “Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement’. The Agreement is based on
mutual respect for human rights and democratic principles, as explicitly stated in article 2 of
the Agreement. The ongoing authorisation for settlement activity of the Israeli government, as
well as several human rights abuses that have been extensively documented by the United
1 Statements of 2 December 2012, 8 November 2012, 19 October 2012, 22 August 2012, 8 June 2012, 22 February
2012, 20 December 2011, 2 November 2011, 15 October 2011, 27 September 2011, 17 August 2011, 12 August
2011, 5 August 2011, 6 April 2011, 9 January 2011, 9 November 2010, 16 May 2010, and 10 March 2010.
Nations2 and international human rights organizations3, are in breach of Israel’s commitments
under article 2 of the Agreement.
Recent discussions in the European Parliament about the signing of an ‘Additional Protocol to
the Euro-Mediterranean’ on the ‘Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial
Products (CAA)’ highlighted the Parliament’s concerns about the EU’s ongoing trade
relationship with Israel despite policies in breach of the Association Agreement. These
concerns should be addressed at the appropriate level; the Association Agreement.
One of the main aims of the Association Agreement is to enhance political dialogue between
the two parties. The violation of international law and human rights by the Israeli
government’s activities, and the lack of response to the EU’s calls to respect international law,
in particular a moratorium on settlement expansion, compels the EU to engage more deeply in
a political dialogue with Israel on these troubling issues which need to be formally and duly
addressed in the context of the Association Agreement.
The EU should take the lead in observing international law and protecting and promoting
universal human rights. We therefore call upon the Commission to formally address the
aforementioned concerns as soon as possible in the Association Committee, as established by
article 67 of the Association Agreement and to consider the (partial) suspension of the
Agreement. We also ask for your reaction and a serious proposal to address this crucial issue.

Marietje Schaake MEP (ALDE)
Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP (GREENS)
Margrete Auken MEP (GREENS)
Franziska Brantner MEP (GREENS)
Tarja Cronberg MEP (GREENS)
Chris Davies MEP (ALDE)
Andrew Duff MEP (ALDE)
Ismail Ertug MEP (S&D)
Véronique De Keyser MEP (S&D)
Nicole Kiil-Nielsen MEP (GREENS)
Liisa Jaakonsaari MEP (S&D)
David Martin MEP (S&D)
Emilio Menéndez del Valle MEP (S&D)
María Muñiz De Urquiza MEP (S&D)
Norbert Neuser MEP (S&D)
Niccolò Rinaldi MEP (ALDE)
Judith Sargentini MEP (GREENS)
Helmut Scholz MEP (GUE/NGL)
Joanna Senyszyn MEP (S&D)
Kyriacos Triantaphyllides MEP (GUE/NGL)
Alexandra Thein MEP ALDE)
Ivo Vajgl MEP (ALDE)
Graham Watson MEP (ALDE)
2 Report of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli
settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
3 Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/israel-palestine; Amnesty International:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/israel-occupied-palestinian-territories; Freedom House: