Category: Gaza Carnage – Resources page

EDITOR: To Whom the Bells Toll?

Below you can read the publisher and owner of Haaretz, Israel’s only broadsheet, Amos Schocken, writing clearly about Israeli apartheid and a state beholden to a dedicated fascisto-religious organisation and its appendages across the whole society. While others have said those things many times before, for Schocken to say them – he hardly ever publishes any writing in his own paper – is evidence of how deep the cancer has hit.

It is also interesting to read the reporting about Iranian reactions to the developing threat to its nuclear facilities from Israel and its allies – the issue is more or less avoided in the UK and the US, with papers either mentioning it in passing, or avoiding it altogether.

The necessary elimination of Israeli democracy: Haaretz

Haaretz publisher and owner Amos Schocken says there is a difference between the apartheid of South Africa and what is happening in Israel and in the territories, but there are also similarities.
By Amos Schocken
Speaking in the Knesset in January 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said, “Iran is in the initial stages of an effort to acquire nonconventional capability in general, and nuclear capability in particular. Our assessment is that Iran today has the appropriate manpower and sufficient resources to acquire nuclear arms within 10 years. Together with others in the international community, we are monitoring Iran’s nuclear activity. They are not concealing the fact that the possibility that Iran will possess nuclear weapons is worrisome, and this is one of the reasons that we must take advantage of the window of opportunity and advance toward peace.”

At that time, Israel had a strategy – which began to be implemented in the Oslo accords, put an end to the priority granted the settlement project and aimed to improve the treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens.

If things had gone differently, the Iran issue might look different today. However, as it turned out, the Oslo strategy collided with another, stronger ideology: the ideology of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful ), which since the 1970s, apart from the Oslo period and the time of the withdrawal from Gaza, has established the concrete basis for the actions of Israel’s governments. Even governments that were ostensibly far removed from the Gush Emunim strategy implemented it in practice. Ehud Barak boasted that, in contrast to other prime ministers, he did not return territory to the Palestinians – and there’s no need to point out once again the increase in the number of settlers during his tenure. The government of Ehud Olmert, which declared its intention to move toward a policy of hitkansut (or “convergence,” another name for what Ariel Sharon termed “disengagement” ) in Judea and Samaria, held talks with senior Palestinians on an agreement but did not stop the settlement enterprise, which conflicts with the possibility of any agreement.

The strategy that follows from the ideology of Gush Emunim is clear and simple: It perceives of the Six-Day War as the continuation of the War of Independence, both in terms of seizure of territory, and in its impact on the Palestinian population. According to this strategy, the occupation boundaries of the Six-Day War are the borders that Israel must set for itself. And with regard to the Palestinians living in that territory – those who did not flee or were not expelled – they must be subjected to a harsh regime that will encourage their flight, eventuate in their expulsion, deprive them of their rights, and bring about a situation in which those who remain will not be even second-class citizens, and their fate will be of interest to no one. They will be like the Palestinian refugees of the War of Independence; that is their desired status. As for those who are not refugees, an attempt should be made to turn them into “absentees.” Unlike the Palestinians who remained in Israel after the War of Independence, the Palestinians in the territories should not receive Israeli citizenship, owing to their large number, but then this, too, should be of interest to no one.

The ideology of Gush Emunim springs from religious, not political motivations. It holds that Israel is for the Jews, and it is not only the Palestinians in the territories who are irrelevant: Israel’s Palestinian citizens are also exposed to discrimination with regard to their civil rights and the revocation of their citizenship.

This is a strategy of territorial seizure and apartheid. It ignores judicial aspects of territorial ownership and shuns human rights and the guarantees of equality enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. It is a strategy of unlimited patience; what is important is the unrelenting progress toward the goal. At the same time, it is a strategy that does not pass up any opportunity that comes its way, such as the composition of the present Knesset and the unclear positions of the prime minister.

The term “apartheid” refers to the undemocratic system of discriminating between the rights of the whites and the blacks, which once existed in South Africa. Even though there is a difference between the apartheid that was practiced there and what is happening in the territories, there are also some points of resemblance. There are two population groups in one region, one of which possesses all the rights and protections, while the other is deprived of rights and is ruled by the first group. This is a flagrantly undemocratic situation.

Since the Six-Day War, there has been no other group in Israel with the ideological resilience of Gush Emunim, and it is not surprising that many politicians have viewed that ideology as a means for realizing personal political ambitions. Zevulun Hammer, who identified this ideology as the way to capture the leadership of the National Religious Party, and Ariel Sharon, who identified this ideology as the way to capture the leadership of Likud, were only two of many. Now Avigdor Lieberman, too, is following this path, but there were and are others, such as the late Hanan Porat, for whom the realization of this ideology was and remains the purpose of their political activity.

This ideology views the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime as a necessary tool for its realization. It has no difficulty with illegal actions and with outright criminality, because it rests on mega-laws that it has adopted and that have no connection with the laws of the state, and because it rests on a perverted interpretation of Judaism. It has scored crucial successes. Even when actions inspired by the Gush Emunim ideology conflict with the will of the government, they still quickly win the backing of the government. The fact that the government is effectively a tool of Gush Emunim and its successors is apparent to everyone who has dealings with the settlers, creating a situation of force multiplication.

This ideology has enjoyed immense success in the United States, of all places. President George H.W. Bush was able to block financial guarantees to Israel because of the settlements established by the government of Yitzhak Shamir (who said lying was permissible to realize the Gush Emunim ideology. Was Benjamin Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan University speech a lie of this kind? ). Now, though, candidates for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination are competing among themselves over which of them supports Israel and the occupation more forcefully. Any of them who adopt the approach of the first President Bush will likely put an end to their candidacy.

Whatever the reason for this state of affairs – the large number of evangelicals affiliated with the Republican party, the problematic nature of the West’s relations with Islam, or the power of the Jewish lobby, which is totally addicted to the Gush Emunim ideology – the result is clear: It is not easy, and may be impossible, for an American president to adopt an activist policy against Israeli apartheid.

Legalizing the illegal
Because of its inherent illegality, at least in democratic terms, an apartheid regime cannot allow opposition and criticism. The Gush Emunim ideology is obliged to eliminate the latter, and to prevent every effort to block its activity, even if that activity is illegal and even criminal, meant to maintain apartheid. The illegal activity needs to be made legal, whether by amending laws or by changing their judicial interpretation – such things have occurred before, in other places and at other times.

Against this background, we are now seeing the campaign of legislation against, and the unbridled slandering of the Supreme Court, against human rights organizations and against the press, as well as the so-called boycott law, which is aimed at preventing the possibility of dealing with Israeli apartheid in the way South African apartheid was dealt with. It is against this same background that legislation has been submitted that is directed against the Arab citizens in Israel, such as the Loyalty Law and the proposal for a “Basic Law of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.” It is against this background that a campaign of incitement and intimidation is being waged against the necessary and justified critique being voiced by members of academia.

The Supreme Court, which permitted the settlement project and effectively collaborated with the Gush Emunim ideology, has now become an obstacle that needs to be removed – in the eyes of those who still adhere to that ideology – primarily because the court refuses to recognize the possibility of settling on privately owned Palestinian land and did not overturn the government decision to evacuate the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Because the land belongs to the Jews by divine decree and history (from this perspective, there are similarities between Gush Emunim and Hamas ), there is no choice but to elect to the Supreme Court justices who live on Palestinian land, possibly private land, and those who understand that there is no such thing as “land under private Palestinian ownership.”

Similarly, this line of thinking goes, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of human rights laws also requires its elimination in its present format. Judgments such as those relating to the Kaadan family (allowing an Arab family to build a home in a Jewish community ); the selling of Jewish National Fund land to Arab citizens of Israel; the amendment to the Citizenship Law (no ruling has yet been handed down, but there seems to be a possibility that a majority of justices will rule it illegal ); the opening of a highway to Palestinian traffic – all these rulings conflict with essential elements in Gush Emunim ideology: the discrimination between Jews and Palestinians (in Israel and the territories ) and the deprivation of the Palestinians’ rights, which transform them into second-class people, absentees or, best of all, refugees.

Does an Israel of this kind have a future? Over and beyond the question of whether Jewish morality and the Jewish experience allow such circumstances to exist, it is clear that this is a flagrantly unstable and even dangerous situation. It is a situation that will prevent Israel from fully realizing its vast potential, a situation of living by the sword – a sword that could be a third intifada, the collapse of peace with Egypt and a confrontation with a nuclear Iran. Yitzhak Rabin understood that.

Iran to hit Turkey if nuclear program targeted by Israel, U.S., general says: Haaretz

Threat by senior Revolutionary Guard commander comes after another Iranian general says Tehran would strike Israel’s nuclear facilities if it was attacked.

A senior commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard says the country will target NATO’s missile defense shield in Turkey if the U.S.¬ or Israel attacks the Islamic Republic.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Guards’ aerospace division, is quoted by the semiofficial Mehr news agency as saying the warning is part of a new defense strategy to counter what it sees as an increase in threats from the U.S.¬ and Israel.

He says Iran will now respond to threats with threats rather than a defensive position.

Tehran says NATO’s early warning radar station in Turkey is meant to protect Israel against Iranian missile attacks if a war breaks out with Israel.

Turkey agreed to host the radar in September as part of NATO’s missile defense system.

Earlier Saturday, another Iranian defense official threatened retaliation against Israel if any of its nuclear or security sites are attacked.

“If Israeli missiles hit one of our nuclear facilities or other vital centers, then they should know that any part of Israeli territory would be target of our missiles, including their nuclear sites,” General Yadollah Javani of the Revolutionary Guards told ISNA news agency.

“They (Israel) know that we have the capability to do so.”

Javani, the former head of the military’s political department, was referring to mounting speculation that Israel would strike Iran’s nuclear facilities after the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had tested designs used to make nuclear warheads.

EDITOR: The Unholy Alliance

Trust this bunch of democracies to group together in support of the most devastating munitions, directed at civilians and affecting especially small children, as was the case in Lebanon and elsewhere, after the Israeli IOF left few million bomblets as a parting gift in South Lebanon. May the partners to this nastiness be damned.

Britain unites with smaller countries to block US bid to legalise cluster bombs: Gaurdian

Israel, Russia and China along with America wanted to approve use of ‘bomblets’ that often unintentionally maim and kill civilians
Richard Norton-Taylor

A coalition of countries including Britain on Friday defeated an attempt by the US, Russia, China and Israel to get an international agreement approving the continued use of cluster bombs. The weapons, which have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon scatter “bomblets” over a wide area, maiming and killing civilians, notably children, long after they have been dropped and are banned under a 2008 convention which was adopted by the UK and in more than 100 countries. The US, refused to sign and in negotiations in Geneva, over the past two weeks pressed for a protocol to be added to a UN convention to provide legal cover for the continuing use of cluster munitions. But smaller countries, supported by agencies including Amnesty and Oxfam, refused to give way.

Thomas Nash, director of Article 36, a group which coordinated opposition to cluster munitions, said: “The rejection of this attempt to set up a weaker standard on cluster bombs shows that states can act on the basis of humanitarian imperatives and can prevail in the face of cynical pressure from other states”.

He added: “It shows that it is not only the US and other so called major powers that call the shots in international affairs, but that when small and medium sized countries work together with civil society and international organisations we can set the agenda and get results”.

The US was supported in the Geneva talks by other cluster bomb manufacturers – including Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan.

They were backed by countries which had signed the 2008 convention, including France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Australia, conference observers said.

The Foreign Office had said that the British government would not accept the proposed protocol unless it provided clear humanitarian benefits.

The US and its supporters argued that their proposal would allow the use of cluster bombs manufactured after 1980 and that these had a less than 1% failure rate. Opponents said that most bombs produced before 1980 are unusable and that modern cluster munitions have failure rates much higher than the manufacturers claim.

If the US bid had been approved, international legal cover would have been given to such weapons as the BLU-97 “combined effects” bomb which contains bomblets that, as they fall, fragment and can turn into an incendiary weapon.

The unexploded bomblets have the appearance of yellow drink containers and are attractive, often picked up by children who mistake them for toys. However, the consequences are lethal, often resulting in maiming or even fatalities.

Continue reading November 27, 2011

EDITOR: Egypt’s revolution is fighting back!

The last week has been both devastating and exhilarating for all of us who are closely following the developments in Egypt. As Netanyahu writes off the Arab uprising with words that only the most arrogant Zionist politician can utter, the masses of protesters in Egypt, in Cairo and beyond, are doing the impossible, again! Despite mass killings and woundings, the Egyptians have yet again joined those in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan, facing armed troops and brutal police forces, fighting for freedom and democracy with amazing bravery, with civil inventiveness, with long terms goals, with optimism of action.

While it is less than certain that they goals will be reached soon and easily, one is impressed by the great spirit of freedom which engages the Arab masses elsewhere, after western and Zionist pundits have written them off time and again, as somehow unable to either wish or enact democracy. For Netanyahu, the SCAF rule is ideal, as was Muabark’s rule before – he can get exactly what he needs from such rulers. His glee over the ‘defeat’ of the revolutions in the Arab countries is wishful thinking, is whistling in dark. Together with the USA and other western powers, he would do all he can to make this wish a reality. I am persuaded he shall fail, and history shall prove that this thesis of Zionism was as rancid and vile as the rest of its thinking and actions. Those who always had power, who have always acted brutally against the powerless, cannot ever understand the power of millions of the oppressed, and are forever surprised when it wins.

I have decided today to devote the whole apace to pieces about the event in Egypt, as they have a direct effect on the future of life on the whole region, and especially on Palestine.

Ahdaf Soueif in Cairo: ‘By early evening it was clear that this was Revolution II’: Guardian

The novelist writes from Tahrir Square where the advice is to wear a gas mask and write your name on your arm
Ahdaf Soueif

“Eat a good breakfast. Take a rucksack with a gas mask and swimming goggles. Write your name on your arm. Write your details into a message on your mobile. And go to the Square.” The tweet appeared after three of the (at least) 38 people killed in the streets of Egypt over the last three days proved impossible to identify. It was picked up by the well-respected Egyptian daily al-Shorouk and published to #Tahrirsupplies – the hashtag that collates what you can bring in to the square if you want to help.

Egypt is much more than Tahrir Square. People across the country are demanding the abdication of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf). On Tuesday night as the news cameras concentrated on Tahrir, the army and police were attacking citizens in other places: Alexandria, Assiut, Aswan, Damietta, Ismailia, Luxor, Mahalla, Mansoura, Sohag and Suez.

And yet, of course, in this age of spectacle it was the images of Tahrir that were most shocking. We could hardly believe that Scaf would allow that image which had become such an icon across the world – Tahrir Square teeming with citizens, decorated with flags – to reappear clouded with teargas. But they did.

Throughout the day on Tuesday thousands poured into the square. By early evening it was clear that this was Revolution II. In the small hours of Sunday the little field hospital in the small mosque of Ibad al-Rahman had been pleading for a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, betadine, cotton wool.

By Tuesday afternoon there were five field hospitals around Tahrir stockpiled with equipment and medicines – all donated by people coming in. Two, Omar Makram Mosque and Qasr el-Doubara Church, cross-reference specialisations. On a wall between them someone has written: “We are the Square: A Church, a Mosque and a Parliament.”

The revolution is using what it learned in January and February and adding to it. Signposts, information, directions. Young men on motorbikes ferry the injured from the front lines to the field hospitals. The organisation is breathtaking. And the creativity: when Malek Mostafa – a popular, newly married young activist had his eye shot out by the army, one of the great black lions on Qasr el-Nil bridge suddenly sported an eye patch.

The revolution is now aware how dear it is. Everybody talks about its cost. On Tuesday 200 young doctors walked into the square together in their white coats and distributed themselves among the hospitals – in a few hours one of them, Dr Rania Fouad, had been killed. The people notched it up: the revolution had just become dearer – more impossible to abandon.

On Tuesday night Field-Marshal Hussein Tantawi made a speech reminiscent of Hosni Mubarak in its detachment and tardiness, its formal emptiness, its moral vacuity. And then the teargas started in earnest. People stood their ground because they knew the army wanted to claim that the speech had satisfied people so they’d left.

Events are so many and so fast that it’s hard to claim to “know” anything from the midst of them. Yesterday morning Tahrir Square was clean and tidy, settling in for another day of the sit-in; the mood utterly determined.

Just down Tahrir Street, however, I could see the clouds of white teargas. The army and police are using at least two kinds of gas. One hangs around in a dirty white cloud. Another is transparent; you only know it’s there because your skin starts to burn and your eyes and all the insides of your head and your chest. Three people so far have choked to death. In a flat on the 10th floor above Tahrir we had to wear gas-masks, the smell was so strong. I’ve seen a boy convulse and shake, his eyes turn upwards in his head. In the square, a young woman slipped off her gas-mask to say “tell them no one speaks for the shabab, the young people, and we’re not leaving till the army council leave”.

At 3pm yesterday a group of university sheikhs from al-Azhar brokered a truce and the army stepped between the young people surrounding the ministry of the interior and the police. How real is this? What does it mean? How long will it last? The minister of the interior, in any case, has not been near his office for three days and operations are run by General Hamdy Badeen, who commands the military police. So if police and army are under one commander, how is it that two hours later, at 5pm, a gas canister suddenly crashes out from behind the lines of protecting army and the attacks on the protesters start once again?

Here are things we know: the demand of the protesters is for Scaf to step down from the presidency of Egypt and hand over all powers (except defence) to a civilian government or presidential council. The people will back any one of, or combination of, three of the potential candidates for the presidency; the ones who have refused to meet with Scaf over the last two days.

Every time the military gas bomb a street or fire another shot the people become more determined to see the back of them. In Revolution I the ministry of the interior was the declared enemy of the people. Over nine months Scaf have protected it from any attempts to reform, restructure or investigate it. Since July they have been working with it. This is one of the reasons why Scaf must relinquish power – because they have allied themselves completely with the enemies of the people.

The protesters are unarmed. When the army and police attack them they fight back bravely, using stones from the street, lobbing back gas canisters, keeping up a constant chanting and a constant drumming on the metal lamp-posts and street-signs, occasionally shooting fireworks. The square is well aware of the contrast between their drumming and fireworks and the deadly thud of the sniper and teargas canister.

The leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood has declared against the protests. This has been a very bad move. They’re perceived to have sided with Scaf against the people. They’ve caused a split within their own ranks: some members of the Brotherhood have disobeyed orders and obeyed their consciences and joined the protests. But the Brotherhood can no longer claim that the numbers in the streets are due to the Islamists – the numbers we’ve been seeing in the streets of Egypt since Saturday night are mostly without the Brotherhood.

We’re saying these are “Ayyam el-farz” – the days of sorting, if you like. The situation is very intense. On Wednesday night, at that flashpoint where a truce was brokered at 3pm and broken at 5pm, the army and police shot protesters at sunset prayers. The field hospitals in Qasr el-Doubara Church and Omar Makram Mosque are calling for neurologists; the motorbikes have brought in 50 cases in the last 10 minutes.

© Ahdaf Soueif 2011

EDITOR: For a fascinating Al Jazeera English report on the Egyptian electronic media and its reporting of events, go to:

Al Jazeera English report

Guide to gas sprays

CS or tear gas
The active ingredient is a white powder, 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, which causes streams of tears, a burning sensation in the eyes, the nose and throat, and can trigger chest tightness and vomiting. CS gas was first used here on rioters in Toxteth in 1981, and since 1995 police officers carry a CS spray; it is widely used by US police.

CN gas
This spray’s active chemical, phenacyl chloride, is weaker than CS but longer lasting and more toxic: a potent eye, nose and throat irritant which can cause burns, short breath, and a burning sensation in the chest. CN gas is sold under restrictions in some US states. Police forces increasingly favour pepper spray (oleoresin capsicum) over CN, because it works faster and is less toxic. In the UK, police are not authorised to use CN gas.

CR gas
Of the three riot control agents, this is the most potent and long-lasting. It has dibenzoxazephine, which causes intense irritation of eyes, skin, throat and lungs. Breathing it in can cause a fluid build-up in the lungs that, in an enclosed space, may lead to death by asphyxiation. CR was used against anti-apartheid protests in South Africa. It is authorised for use by UK armed forces when otherwise soldiers would resort to guns. UK police are not authorised to use CR. The US does not use it because the spray is carcinogenic.

Tahrir protesters compare Tantawi to Mubarak, insist on his departure: Ahram online

Demonstrators describe field-marshal’s Tuesday speech as Mubarak-like; vow to continue their ongoing sit-in until SCAF departs
Sarah Raslan, Thursday 24 Nov 2011
Standing outside the tent where he spends his nights in Tahrir Square, the young activist looked around him, carefully scanning the place that had served as his home for the past week.

Signs reading “Down with the military,” listing protesters’ demands and spelling out the area’s laws, hang on poles and tents around him.

“We came with only one main demand,” said Mahmoud Yousef.  “And that was for a national salvation government to be formed with full authority to manage the transitional period and oversee elections.”

Yousef came to demonstrate in Tahrir on Friday and returned to the square Saturday afternoon after learning of clashes between protesters and security forces.

When asked about Field-Marshal Hussein Tantawi’s Tuesday evening speech – the first official statement from the head of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) since clashes began on Saturday – the young man smirked.

“It was identical to Mubarak’s speech,” he said, “which could mean he’s starting to bend just like Mubarak did.”

“Tantawi simply removed the line where Mubarak announces he’s the president and replaced it with his military title,” he added.

Yousef, along with about 20 fellow demonstrators, vowed to stay in the square until the SCAF stepped down.

Yousef said he supported the proposed formation of a presidential council to include would-be presidential contenders Mohamed ElBaradei, Hamdeen Sabbahi, Abdel Moneim Abou El-Fotouh and Hazem Salah Abou-Ismail, along with a judge.

“I personally don’t support Hazem Abou-Ismail, but wouldn’t object to him being part of the presidential council,” he said. “The council would represent all Egypt’s political factions, and that’s the first step towards democracy.”

He stopped a young boy who was walking by – one of the street children who help activists with daily chores in exchange for food and shelter, as they did during the 18-day January uprising – and asked him if he had got the juice he was drinking from the army.

“After attacking us, the army is now throwing packaged cakes, candy and juice boxes at us,” Yousef said. “But we don’t want their charity. Demonstrators threw their juice boxes back at them.”

A nearby demonstrator pointed out that Salafist presidential hopeful Hazem Abou Ismail had visited the square on Wednesday night to distribute sandwiches and juice to the protesters. She said that the Islamists appeared divided about the ongoing demonstration, with some calling on Tahrir Square protesters to give the SCAF a “second chance” and others supporting the sit-in.

Several sheikhs carrying signs condemning the recent bloodshed paraded through the square to the entrance of the adjacent Mohamed Mahmoud Street, the scene of continuous bloody skirmishes in recent days.

Nasr Mohamed El-Ashry, a middle-aged Azhar sheikh, said he was going to the interior ministry to demand an end to the bloodshed and the use of teargas against unarmed protesters.

“Yesterday they listened to us and there was a truce,” El-Ashry said. “I don’t know why clashes started up again at night, but this must stop.”

The sheikh went on to say that he planned to stay in the square until the ruling military junta handed executive power over to a civilian government.

“The army’s job is to protect Egypt from foreign enemies. The armed forces can only come to the square if the people request their presence – but not to attack the people they should be protecting,” he said.

The sheikh expressed support for protesters’ demands, urging all Egyptians to join their cause.

In an attempt to curb clashes on Mohamed Mahmoud Street, which leads to the interior ministry building, the military closed off the street with barbed wire on Wednesday to prevent both security forces and protesters from entry.

According to the latest reports, this week’s violence has left at least 35 dead and over 1,000 injured.

Abdelrahman Gamal, coordinator of the Tahrir Square field hospital, said no injured protesters had been brought to the hospital for treatment on Thursday.

A concrete barrier was erected on Thursday, further barricading the street and providing some protection for the interior ministry.

Mohamed Mahmoud Street saw a fragile truce from Thursday morning until 3:30pm, when several demonstrators climbed over the concrete blockades in an attempt to cross over to the other side. Tahrir doctors convinced demonstrators to stay on their side of the cordon, however, thus maintaining the shaky ceasefire.

On Thursday, the SCAF issued Statement 86 on its Facebook page, asking protesters not to remove the barriers so as to safeguard the lives of Egyptians on both sides.

Continue reading November 24, 2011

EDITOR: Democracy? What is that?

The latest rush of racist and fascist legislation in Israel has started the few people of left or liberal bent thinking, though it is now too late for any real action, and the fact that most of the (Jewish) population agree fully with the right-wing drift, is making any action either impossible or ineffectual. Like in 1933 Germany, enough of the population are fascists and racists, and the rest, like in Germany, are either frightened or in denial. The result is that the right can now pass just about any legislation it wished to, so bye bye to any pretense of democracy, Jewish or other…

Does Israel still need democracy?: Haaretz

The individual has ceased to be at the core of Israel’s democracy, with the right-wing majority aggressively pursuing legislation that turns the country’s non-Jews into second-class citizens. Anyone who allows this to happen will be complicit in the country’s fate.
By Zeev Sternhell
What makes the Israeli right unique is not its ideology, bully tactics or the diverse forms of terror it employs against its opponents. What sets it apart is the fact that it is Jewish. It is chilling to comprehend that a people that in the not-too-distant past was the most significant victim of tribal ritual that ran wild in Europe and led to right-wing extremism, is the very same people that in our era is creating a power-driven national movement, negating human rights, and rejecting universal rights, liberalism and democracy.

What do you think about the state of democracy in Israel? Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter (#israeldemocracy).

As has occurred elsewhere, the right acts through two arms: the violent arm − that of the settlements, which enjoy territorial autonomy, is equipped with arms, and imposes its terror on the army and police − and the respectable arm, which carries out the work in the Knesset. The crude violence that runs wild on a daily basis in the territories, but has already trickled down to the Israeli street, is in many respects less dangerous than the quiet and consistent parliamentary work, which is gradually undermining the values of democracy.

In this context, it ought to be recalled that striving against the intellectual and ethical principles of the liberal and democratic order began in Europe about 40 or 50 years prior to the official passage of German, Italian and French race laws. Several decades passed between the daily attacks on “traitors” who fought for the attainment of principles such as equality and human rights − including those of Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus − and the passage of legislation that abolished the civil rights of anyone who was not counted among the dominant nationality or an adherent of the Christian faith. Once the Jews’ civil rights were rescinded, the Jews were abandoned and there was no longer anything to prevent their deportation.

Process of elimination
Making non-Jews into second-class citizens is the objective aspired to by the right-wing majority in Israel. Acting on behalf of this movement are the ministers of justice and foreign affairs, who have the backing of the entire parliamentary elite of the right, except for the Speaker of the Knesset, Reuven Rivlin. Even when the activity is conducted within the framework of the law, it is stridently opposed to the foundations and spirit of democracy, and to the intellectual values of liberalism.

Yaakov Neeman is bringing disgrace to the office of the Justice Ministry. Through his manipulative and heavy-handed actions, Neeman is showing us that it is permissible to distort and violate all of the rules of the game that were set over the decades and that served an unblemished Israeli democracy well. Members of the right would be wise to consider the old-school Revisionists. Upon joining the government, Menachem Begin and leaders of the Herut movement ‏(the right-wing precursor to Likud‏) took meticulous care of the liberal and democratic values of the government administration in Israel. Human rights, division of authorities, freedom of expression, independence of the media, and independent status of the Supreme Court as a watchdog of civil freedoms were all, in their eyes, the inalienable assets of Zionism and of the young state. With the change in government when Likud assumed power in 1977, for the first time since independence Israel became a Western democracy that proved itself. These achievements are now in a gradual process of elimination.

Nevertheless, the core of democracy’s existence is the assurance of human rights and individual freedoms. Majority rule is the means to that end, not a goal in itself. Majority rule came into the world as an alternative to rule of the individual or of the few, in order to prevent arbitrariness and to guarantee equality for all. Therefore, majority rule is limited by the purpose for which it was created: Rule of the majority loses its legitimacy the moment it harms human rights and denies universal norms of equality. Through majority rule, democracy can also terminate itself.

Against the background of legislation that has been, or is destined to be, passed by the Knesset, one should bear in mind that if Israel wishes to remain democratic, it can define itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people in only two senses: It is a state in which the Jews constitute a majority, and it is a state that was founded and that exists not only for those who live in it but also so as to assure a safe haven for Jews liable to need it sometime in the future. Conversely, if the state expresses an ethical partiality for Jews that would necessarily evolve into political, if not social and financial, partiality, then it has ceased to be a democratic state.

Another consensus
In order to understand the seriousness of the war now being waged in the Knesset, including attempts to eliminate the Supreme Court as a body that restrains the majority, we must ask the elementary question: Who needs democracy, and why is liberal democracy considered a desired form of regime? Really, why not replace it with the method known as “guided democracy,” without any division of authorities, without a supreme court to conduct judicial oversight of decisions by parliament and government, without an investigative and critical press? Why not opt for a regime that imparts governmental authorities to the executive branch without disruption by other elected institutions or by the courts?

Really, who needs a regime of checks and balances? Why not decide that in a state in which two or more nationalities are living, the dominant nationality will have control and to that end it will be determined that the national community has ethical priority over the civil community? And why stick to the consensus that we inherited from progressive Europeans of the late 18th century, due to which Jews and blacks became citizens with equal rights in the days of the French Revolution? Why not create another consensus?

The truth is there is nothing holy about democracy. The democracy that places the free and sovereign individual at the center of the world is based on nothing more than consensus. In other words, our rights and freedoms as autonomous creatures are anchored in a fiction that says that at any time and at any place, by virtue of his essence, the individual is a rational creature, and therefore also a free creature who is equal to all other human beings.

As such, he can and should manage his own life. All of the free regimes of the West are built upon this simple infrastructure. They guarantee equality to all their citizens and do not distinguish between members of various nationalities, races or religions. All are viewed as citizens possessing equal rights.

This perspective is being challenged by both the secular and religious wings of the Israeli right. The right is revolted by the principles of liberal democracy and detests the rules of the game. The function of the constitutional revolution of the right is to secure absolute supremacy for ethnic and religious identity over political and legal identity. In this outlook, it is the tribe that is the objective of every social and political action, not the individual.

Therefore, the state is not conceived as a device to ensure the well-being of all its citizens, but as a framework that facilitates the enforcement of supremacy of the Jews over those who are not Jews. One should not misunderstand the intentions of the right. The seriousness of the current antidemocratic legislation derives from the fact that it is anchored in an inclusive outlook, that it serves a clear objective, and is nothing but the first stage in the major war to change the character of the state and society in Israel.

There were also a host of defects and flaws in the Ben-Gurionesque concept of democracy, but they stemmed from his adherence to the idea of precedence of the state, as opposed to the tribal ritual. David Ben-Gurion was far from being a liberal and more than once sought to expand the authorities of the state as much as possible. He viewed the state as taking precedence over both the individual and civil society. But he did not think it was permissible to mortgage the Supreme Court to the will of the parliamentary majority, or to carry out ugly manipulation of the makeup of the Judicial Selection Committee. The first prime minister established and maintained the military administration of Israel’s Arab citizens for reasons of administrative ease, but he knew that it was a time-limited transition period, and therefore he did not legislate Basic Laws that would ensure Jewish supremacy.

The founding father was thrilled by the revival of statehood; he realized that establishment of the state constituted a colossal revolution in the lives of the Jewish people. For the first time in their history, Jews became citizens in their own state. He knew there was great significance to the normalization of Jewish existence. Citizenship required equality between all those who lived within the boundaries of the new state. He would have preferred that there would be no Arabs in Israel, but as they were here it was forbidden to legislate discriminatory laws, as these would constitute a lethal blow to Israel’s existence as a modern state. The Law of Return was meant to protect Jews around the world, and was not an excuse for establishing a permanent legislative norm that would have resulted in two classes of citizens.

As opposed to both the Ben-Gurion legacy and that of the Revisionist right, which was also zealous to uphold the authority of the state and the rule of law, the revolutionary right of present times views the institutions of state − starting with the government, Knesset, Supreme Court, army and police − as tools for ensuring Jewish tribal supremacy. This is the perspective that guides lawmaking in the Knesset, it is what obligates the army and police to cooperate with the bullies on the hilltops in the territories, and it is what now calls for a dramatic shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court.

In contemporary European terms, the Israeli right in general − with the exception of Revisionist remnants like Moshe Arens and Reuven Rivlin − is an even more extreme right than that darling of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front. Compared to Avigdor Lieberman, Neeman, Yariv Levin and David Rotem, the European right of Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and David Cameron is a bunch of dangerous leftists.

Without perspective
At this point, it seems proper that Israelis take stock of their situation. What would we say if the legislation now making its way through the Knesset were to be passed in one of the European countries? What would we be saying if documents were publicized there − akin to the statements and rulings of Israeli rabbis − demanding that apartments not be rented to non-Christians, or forbidding girls from dating non-Christians, even though the reference is to other citizens of that country? Without a doubt, a loud outcry would arise here: The monster is again raising its head. So it would be worthwhile to consider the fact that the monster is already walking, head held high, through the hallways of the Knesset, and proudly displaying its accomplishments.

The Dichter Law ‏(officially known as Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People‏) substantially modifies Israel’s character as a state trying to maintain the delicate and difficult balance between universal norms of equality and particular norms of Jewish nationhood. The proposed law essentially states that citizenship is artificial, that it is merely a convention that can at any time be abolished or supplanted by another consensus.

Therefore, the status of the citizen is inferior, by virtue of its inferior standing vis-a-vis the status of a member of the national tribe. Any person can receive any passport, but he cannot choose for himself the tribe to which he will belong, in the same way that he cannot choose for himself the color of his eyes. In order to be Israeli in the full sense of the word, citizenship is insufficient: Nationalism trumps citizenship, in the same way as it was in Europe, not only in Germany but also in Vichy France, in Italy ‏(following the passage of the Manifesto of Race in 1938‏) and in numerous other countries. The race laws constituted a direct and logical outcome of the differentiation between national identity and citizenship.

Most Israelis would not consciously want to go that far, but they would allow things to evolve on their own. Most of them apparently endorse a policy anchored in a principle that posits that what distinguishes one person from another is more significant than what unites them. Supporters of the Dichter Law well know that emphasizing the differences creates a hierarchy, and a hierarchy creates fear and hostility.

To be sure, these are the objectives of the legislation that will be coming up for vote in the weeks to come: A protective wall must be erected around the Jewish people, relations with the neighbors should be exacerbated, and close association with aliens should be prevented. The Arabs in Israel must come to terms with their subordinate status, just as the Arabs in the territories must recognize the Jewish people’s sole ownership of the Land of Israel.

These are symptoms of a disease that is increasingly spreading through Israeli society. The foundations of a historic and cultural determinism that could easily evolve into an ethnic determinism are being laid once more in Israel, as if World War II never happened, as if none of the persecutions and catastrophes that struck the Jewish people ever occurred. In the past, ethnic nationalism led all too easily to various forms and stages of racism, and there is a real danger that events in Israel will develop no differently. Those who stand and watch from the sidelines must be aware that their responsibility for the approaching collapse will be no less than that of the instigators.

The writer is a professor of political science, an Israel Prize laureate and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Continue reading November 21, 2011

EDITOR: Freedom of expression is too precious to allow it to Palestinians…

In the best tradition of Jewish democracy, the Israeli authorities have closed down the Kol Hashalom (“Voice of Peace”) radio station, a venture bringing together peace activists from both Israeli and Palestinian communities. The official line is that it is a piratical station…

One would have thought the pirates are the IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) for raiding boats with peaceful protestors in international water, arresting them illegally and confiscating their cargo…

Read below to fully appreciate the depth of change the Israeli society is undergoing now. The war is waged on peace with every instrument of the state, and as this campaign against the future and against history is backed by the most powerful nations on earth, it is likely to be successful, at least in the short term. It is crucial for Israeli political leaders that not just the practices leading to a just peace, but the very idea of a peaceful and just solution be dead and buried, beyond reprieve. The continuation of a racist Israel, militarily controlling the Middle East and its mini empire is dependent on destroying any agenda for change through a just peace, an end to occupation, and a reversal of the Palestinian long exile and suffering.

So Israelis and Palestinians will be denied the voice of peace, the idea of peace, the danger of peace.

Ministry shuts down broadcasts of Israeli-Palestinian radio station: Haaretz

Communications Ministry demands an end to broadcasts, claiming that “Kol Hashalom” is a pirate station.

Israel Police and the Communications Ministry cut off the broadcasts of Kol Hashalom radio station on Saturday, claiming that they are pirate broadcasts. Kol Hashalom’s operators claim that their offices, which are located in the Palestinian Authority, are not subject to Israeli law, but Palestinian law, and therefore the Communications Ministry does not have the authority to shut it down.

Kol Hashalom has been broadcasting for the past seven years from East Jerusalem, using broadcasting equipment in Ramallah and an operating license from the Palestinian Communications Ministry. The station was established by Israeli peace activists working together with Palestinian peace activists.

The station is intended to replace the legendary Kol Hashalom radio station operated by Abbie Nathan, but a slightly different Hebrew spelling was chosen to differentiate between the two. The original station’s spelling translates to “The Voice of Peace” in English, while the new station’s spelling translates to “The Whole Peace”.

According to the station’s operators, for all its broadcast history, they were never asked to stop broadcasting or to acquire an Israeli license. Their first communication of the kind was received on November 4, asking them to stop broadcasting, claiming that their operations are illegal. The station denied the charges and requested time to form a reply.

Station manager and former Meretz MK Mossi Raz was called into a police station for interrogation regarding the matter on Thursday. While Raz was questioned under caution, he was asked to give orders to end broadcasts, or else he would be remanded by a judge and the police would raid the station’s offices.

Raz made clear to his interrogators that he did not intend to broadcast illegally and gave instructions by telephone to end broadcasts until further instructions. The station managers plan to turn to the courts in the days to come in order to overturn the decision of the Communications Ministry.

Raz is certain that the decision to close down the station is part of a general attack on left-wing organizations. The station provided a platform for left-wing groups that are now under attack by a new law that would curb their foreign funding.

“Of course there is an attack here that is not only on us. If someone came to the conclusion that this isn’t legal, then after seven years there are different ways to go about it,” Raz said.

The Communications Ministry responded, saying, “The Ministry carried out wireless supervisory activities in cooperation with Israel Police against a pirate radio station, just as it carries them out against all other illegal station.”

Likud MK Danny Danon recently turned to the Attorney General, demanding that he shut down the station, claiming that is broadcasting incitement.

On Saturday night, he announced, “Shutting down the station was carrying out justice. The content [broadcast by] the station were unacceptable and the fact that they were a pirate broadcast made it possible for Israel Police to close down the station.”

If you lived in Iran, wouldn’t you want the nuclear bomb?: Guardian

The best way for the US to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons is to dial down the rhetoric and adopt some diplomacy
Mehdi Hasan
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. Photograph: Ho New/Reuters
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

On your eastern border, the United States has 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. On your western border, the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 and plans to retain a small force of military contractors and CIA operatives even after its official withdrawal next month. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, is to the south-east; Turkey, America’s Nato ally, to the north-west; Turkmenistan, which has acted as a refuelling base for US military transport planes since 2002, to the north-east. To the south, across the Persian Gulf, you see a cluster of US client states: Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet; Qatar, host to a forward headquarters of US Central Command; Saudi Arabia, whose king has exhorted America to “attack Iran” and “cut off the head of the snake”.

Then, of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents.

The map makes it clear: Iran is, literally, encircled by the United States and its allies.

If that wasn’t worrying enough, your country seems to be under (covert) attack. Several nuclear scientists have been mysteriously assassinated and, late last year, a sophisticated computer virus succeeded in shutting down roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. Only last weekend, the “pioneer” of the Islamic Republic’s missile programme, Major General Hassan Moghaddam, was killed – with 16 others – in a huge explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base 25 miles outside Tehran. You go online to discover western journalists reporting that the Mossad is believed to have been behind the blast.

And then you pause to remind yourself of the fundamental geopolitical lesson that you and your countrymen learned over the last decade: the US and its allies opted for war with non-nuclear Iraq, but diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea.

If you were our mullah in Tehran, wouldn’t you want Iran to have the bomb – or at the very minimum, “nuclear latency” (that is, the capability and technology to quickly build a nuclear weapon if threatened with attack)?

Let’s be clear: there is still no concrete evidence Iran is building a bomb. The latest report from the IAEA, despite its much discussed reference to “possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme”, also admits that its inspectors continue “to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at [Iran’s] nuclear facilities”. The leaders of the Islamic Republic – from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to bombastic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – maintain their goal is only to develop a civilian nuclear programme, not atomic bombs.

Nonetheless, wouldn’t it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes? The US government’s Nuclear Posture Review admits such weapons play an “essential role in deterring potential adversaries” and maintaining “strategic stability” with other nuclear powers. In 2006, the UK’s Ministry of Defence claimed our own strategic nuclear deterrent was designed to “deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means”.

Apparently, what is sauce for the Anglo-American goose is not sauce for the Iranian gander. Empathy is in short supply. As leading US nuclear policy analyst George Perkovich has observed: “The US government never has publicly and objectively assessed Iranian leaders’ motivations for seeking nuclear weapons and what the US and others could do to remove those motivations.” Instead, the Islamic Republic is dismissed as irrational and megalomaniacal.

But it isn’t just Iran’s leaders who are unwilling to back down on the nuclear issue. On Tuesday, around 1,000 Iranian students formed a human chain around the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. Their protest may have been organised by the authorities but even the leaders and members of the opposition Green Movement tend to support Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. According to a 2010 University of Maryland survey, 55% of Iranians back their country’s pursuit of nuclear power and, remarkably, 38% support the building of a nuclear bomb.

So what is to be done? Sanctions haven’t worked and won’t work. Iranians refuse to compromise on what they believe to be their “inalienable” right to nuclear power under the Non-proliferation treaty. Military action, as the US defence secretary Leon Panetta admitted last week, could have “unintended consequences”, including a backlash against “US forces in the region”. The threat of attack will only harden the resolve for a nuclear deterrent; belligerence breeds belligerence.

The simple fact is there is no alternative to diplomacy, no matter how truculent or paranoid the leaders of Iran might seem to western eyes. If a nuclear-armed Iran is to be avoided, US politicians have to dial down their threatening rhetoric and tackle the very real and rational perception, on the streets of Tehran and Isfahan, of America and Israel as military threats to the Islamic Republic. Iranians are fearful, nervous, defensive – and, as the Middle East map shows, perhaps with good reason. As the old adage goes, just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Israel shuts down Palestinian groups in Jerusalem: The Electronic Intifada

18 November 2011
Israeli policies are pushing Palestinians out of East Jerusalem in favor of Israeli settlers. (Ryan Rodrick Beiler )
The recent forced closures of Palestinian nonprofit organizations in Jerusalem is an example of the Israeli authorities’ continued attacks on the city’s Palestinian identity and their attempts to maintain control over occupied East Jerusalem, according to local human rights groups.

“The purpose is to control and undermine the role of Palestinian civil society and [its] efforts in Jerusalem,” Rashad Shtayyeh, the activities coordinator at the Civic Coalition to Defend Palestinians’ Rights in Jerusalem (CCDPRJ), told The Electronic Intifada by email.

“Also, [this Israeli policy] tries to restrict anything that might help in protecting the Palestinian identity in Jerusalem, as a part of the Israeli Judiazation project in occupied Jerusalem,” Shtayyeh explained.

On 25 October, Israeli police presented closure notices to four Jerusalem-based organizations — Shua’a Women’s Association, al-Quds Development Foundation, Saeed Education Center and Work Without Borders — for a one-month period.

Given thirty minutes to leave
Dr. Nufuz Maslamani is the director of the Shua’a Women’s Association, a group that was founded in 2008 with the goal of empowering women in Jerusalem to achieve their social, political and economic rights. She told The Electronic Intifada that Israeli police gave volunteers at the association thirty minutes to leave their office before they locked the door.

“I said, ‘Why do you want to close it?’ I said that we are a women’s association and that we are working with women, with gender issues. [The police officer] said, ‘No, you are doing activities for the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP],” Maslamani explained.

“As always, they have a lot of reasons to close any association, to stop anyone who is working in Jerusalem. They continue their policy to make Jerusalem empty of the Palestinian people. This is their policy. That’s why they closed the association,” she said.

Maslamani said that the closure has already had a negative impact on the Palestinian women and children who take courses through the association.

“This is really a problem because we now have women who are taking computer courses, and other courses. These women feel that they have a purpose and that they can do anything,” she said, adding that she feared the one-month closure order would be arbitrarily extended.

“The most dangerous thing is that the Palestinian people can’t live or do what is right for them. This is our right, to continue our lives in Jerusalem, as all women and people in the world.”

History of closures in Jerusalem
According to the Civic Coalition for Defending Palestinians’ Rights in Jerusalem (CCDPRJ), since August 2001, the Israeli authorities have closed approximately 28 organizations serving the Palestinian community in Jerusalem, including the Orient House, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) former headquarters in the city, the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce and the Arab Studies Society.

In 2009, the Israeli authorities also banned numerous Palestinian cultural and educational events scheduled to celebrate the declaration of Jerusalem as the “Capital of Arab Culture” for that year.

“The closure of these and other Palestinian institutions are part of a broader policy through which the Israeli authorities seek to stifle Palestinian development in Jerusalem and increase the strength of Israel’s occupation over East Jerusalem,” explained Shtayyeh. “These closures relate to the overarching policy that includes violations of housing rights, revocation of residency, and ultimately results in the forced displacement of Palestinians from Jerusalem.”

Most Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have residency rights, not full Israeli citizenship, since they refused to take Israeli passports on principle shortly after Israel began occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.

As such, Palestinian Jerusalemites have the right to live and work in Israel yet are denied other provisions that come with full Israeli citizenship. For instance, unlike citizenship, permanent residency is only passed on to a person’s children if certain conditions are met, including most notably proving that one’s “center of life” is in Jerusalem.

Since 1967, it is estimated that more than 14,000 identification cards have been revoked from Palestinian Jerusalemites, who have thereby lost their residency rights and the ability to live in the city.

Widespread attack on human rights groups
The Jerusalem-area closures come as the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is expected to pass two new bills that would make it harder for human rights groups in the country to receive funding from foreign governments.

On 13 November, the Israeli Ministerial Committee on Legislation voted in favor of two new bills. The first, officially known as the Associations Law (Amendment — Banning Foreign Diplomatic Entities’ Support of Political Associations in Israel), would bar human rights groups from receiving donations of more than 20,000 NIS (roughly $5,400) from foreign state entities.

The second bill, an amendment to the Israeli Income Tax Order, would make funding from foreign state entities to Israeli nongovernmental organizations subject to a 45 percent taxation rate. This is more than three times more than the taxation rate incurred by private organizations.

On 10 November, 18 human rights groups in Israel, including Adalah — the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Arab Association for Human rights, released a statement condemning the bills.

“This is not the first time Knesset members target foreign funding as a way to silence civil society and human rights organizations. The bills are a part of a calculated policy to silence voices of dissent and criticism and go hand in hand with attempts to restrict Israel’s judicial system, media outlets and activists,” the statement reads (“NGOs in Israel: Urgent call regarding severely restrictive funding bills,” 10 November 2011).

“A vibrant civil society is an essential part of a healthy democracy,” the statement adds. “These organizations promote transparency, public debate and accountability regarding government policy, and ensure essential protection of more vulnerable communities.”

According to the Mossawa Center, a group representing Palestinians in Israel, the bills would have the biggest impact on organizations working for the rights of Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

“Many Israeli NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] do not receive funding from the Israeli government because of their work with the Palestinian Arab minority. They are forced to rely on foreign state entities, like the EU and European government-sponsored organizations, for a majority of their funding,” Mossawa explained in a statement (“The Mossawa Center calls on the international community to condemn bills that restrict funding for human rights organizations in Israel,” 16 November 2011 [PDF]).

“While the NGO bills directly hinder the ability of Arab and human rights NGOs to operate independently within Israel, right-wing organizations that violate international law by supporting settlements in the West Bank are not limited in the proposed legislation,” Mossawa adds. “Most right-wing organizations are funded by the state and/or foreign private donations, which the bills’ sponsors do not consider foreign interference. It is clear that the proposed legislation would conceal the state’s human rights violations and advance the government’s right-wing agenda without impediment.”

Protected under international law
In Jerusalem, CCDPRJ’s Rashad Shtayyeh explained that “East Jerusalem is incontrovertibly recognized under international law as an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territory over which the Palestinian people are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination.”

Indeed, the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.”

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also stipulates that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

In his email to The Electronic Intifada, Shtayyeh explained that these protected rights — as well as freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly — are regularly denied to Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

“We call upon the international Community, the United Nations and the European Union to take responsibility to uphold their obligations towards the protected persons under occupation in Jerusalem,” he said. “We demand that the international community obliges the Israeli government to refrain from closing the Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem.”

Continue reading November 20, 2011

EDITOR: Countdown to full-blown fascism

You know things are getting beyond hope when Gideon Levy writes about Netanyahu as Israel’s hope for democracy, and that without any irony… maybe he thinks that calling Netanyahu a democrat will make him into one? While his analysis of what is now under way is quite accurate, it is beyond me that he does not see that all the fascists around are playing Netanyahu’s game, and the proof must be that even Gideon Levy sees him as a democrat… Non of those fascists are doing anything which Netanyahu disagrees with, so it is sad to see Levy reduced to whistling in the dark! They are just serving Netanyahu’s agenda.

 

The real cost of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians: Haaretz

16 NOVEMBER 2011
By Amira Hass, Haaretz – 16 Nov 2011
Palestinians are losing out on some $6.9 billion a year, a study shows, as restrictions on water use, resources and imports exact their toll

The Israeli occupation is exacting a high price on the Palestinian economy, according to a report by the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy and the Applied Research Institute – Jerusalem – which puts the damage at $6.9 billion a year – what it calls a conservative estimate. The figure is about 85% of the Palestinian GDP for 2010, $8.124 billion.

The calculation includes the suspension of economic activity in the Gaza Strip because of Israel’s blockade, the prevention of income from the natural resources Israel is exploiting because of its direct control over most of the territory and the additional costs for the Palestinian expenses due to restrictions on movement, use of land and production imposed by Israel.

The introduction to the report states that the blocking of Palestinian economic development derives from the colonialist tendency of the Israeli occupation ever since 1967: exploitation of natural resources coupled with a desire to keep the Palestinian economy from competing with the Israeli one.

The report was published at the end of September, a few days after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas applied for full membership at the United Nations.

Its publication during the period of the High Holidays meant that it was hardly mentioned in the Israeli media.

By quantifying the losses caused by the Israeli occupation, the authors of the report wished to dispel the mistaken impression that has developed over the past two or three years that the Palestinian economy is flourishing naturally, whereas it is in fact supported by donations that make up the cost of the occupation.

The largest chunk of losses to the Palestinian economy is due to the policy of the blockade on Gaza, which is preventing all production and exports. The calculation was made on the basis of a comparison of the rate of growth in the GDP in the West Bank, which in the years prior to the blockade was similar to the growth rate in Gaza. Thus, the authors of the report estimate that in 2010 the gap between the potential GDP in Gaza (nearly $3 billion ) and the actual GDP was more than $1.9 billion. The Palestinian economy, and especially the agriculture sector, is losing a similar sum because of Israel’s discriminatory distribution of water between Palestinians and Israelis. Relying on a 2009 World Bank report, the authors of the current study find that not only did the Oslo accords freeze in place a situation of unequal distribution of water pumped in the West Bank (a ratio of 80:20 ), but also that Israel is pumping more from the western aquifer than was alloted it in the agreement.

At the same time Israel is selling water to the Palestinians to compensate for part of what they lack. Israeli control over water resources and access to land in Area C is preventing the Palestinians from developing irrigated agriculture, which today accounts for a mere 9 percent of the cultivated area.

The authors estimate that were it not for the Israeli restrictions it would have been very possible to expand the agricultural sector considerably, up to nearly one quarter of the 2010 GDP.

The Israeli policy of restricting access to water also causes various health problems. The authors of this study added up the costs of treating these heath problems – $20 million – and tacked it on to the total losses.

The Palestinian economy is also losing the potential profits from other natural resources, which Israel is exploiting today or preventing the Palestinians from developing: minerals from the Dead Sea, stone and gravel in quarries, natural gas off the Gaza shore. These erased profits are estimated at about $1.83 billion.

Natural and antiquities sites, as a tourism resource, are being paralyzed by Israel’s control over Area C and the restrictions on movements it imposes within the entire West Bank. For example, the losses caused by Israel’s control of the Dead Sea alone amount to $144 million annually.

The report also quantifies the damage caused by the uprooting of 2.5 million olive trees and other fruit trees since the start of he occupation in 1967 – an annual loss of $138 million.

The industrial sector is restricted not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank. This, in part, is due to the severe import restrictions Israel imposes on list of 56 items of raw materials and machines because it has defined them as “dual use” – for manufacturing and for fighting.

The list was drawn up in 2008 and includes, among other things, fertilizers, various raw materials, lathes, grinding machines, metal pipes, optical equipment and navigation tools. The report states that these items are still severely restricted despite improvement in the security situation and cooperation between Palestinian security forces and the Israeli army and Shin Bet security service.

These restrictions directly harm a variety of industries like the food, beverage, metal, textile, medications, clothing and cosmetics industries.

The report relies on findings from a study submitted to the National Economy Ministry in 2010 dealing with the possibilities for Palestinian trade. It states, for example, that after Israel prohibited the import of glycerin to the West Bank in 2007, a cosmetics company in Nablus was no longer able to export to Israel. Under Israeli standards, skin care products must contain glycerin.

Because of Israel’s control over crossing points and Area C, the Palestinian treasury is not able to fully collect tax and customs duties on all the products sold in the West Bank.

The report estimates that the annual fiscal loss to the Palestinian coffers is about $400 million.

Moreover, the report calculates an indirect fiscal loss: a shrunken GDP relative to the potential means less income from taxes. “According to our calculations, the economy would be 84.9% larger without the occupation, thus it would generate $1.389 billion additional fiscal revenues. Adding this figure to the direct fiscal costs yields total fiscal costs from the occupation of $1.796 billion.”

The authors stress this is a conservative estimate of the losses. It does not include various speculative calculations such as losses because of he prohibition on building in Area C, or economic losses caused by the separation fence and restrictions on marketing to East Jerusalem. “Given the total fiscal deficit in West Bank and Gaza of $1.358 billion in 2010,” the report states, “the Palestinian economy would be able to run a healthy fiscal balance with a surplus of $438 million without the direct and indirect fiscal costs imposed by the occupation. It would not have to rely on donors’ aid in order to keep the fiscal balance and would be able to substantially expand its fiscal expenditure to spur needed social and economic development.”

EDITOR: Lying for Zionism…

In a brilliant piece below, Akiva Eldar analyses Netanyahu’s behaviour as a system rather than an abberation, quoting also other lying Israeli PM. Very accurate, of course, but one should remember that the whole Zionist project was based on a crucial lie – Ever since Herzl, Zionists pretended that they wanted to divide the country with its inhabitants, but behind the scenes, always planned to get rid of every single Arab Palestinian. Herzl had his ‘transfer plan’ hidden well within his diary, while in public he would never admit to it. Every Zionist and Israeli leader since then was of the same mold – planning and preparing for transfer, while pretending some kind of agreement will be struck soon, maybe not today or tomorrow, or next year, but soon… At the heart of the matter, the problem is not Netanyahu, but Zionism. Netanyahu is just a more revolting example of the rule, but also more honest sometimes, as he does not care what non-Jews think, anyway!

Why should anyone believe Netanyahu?: Haaretz

How many politicians, media people and ordinary citizens believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sincerely interested in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians?
By Akiva Eldar
If the law enabled putting leaders on trial for serial defrauding of the public and obtaining support through deception, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be keeping company with Moshe Katsav in prison. The former president has been convicted of raping women who were his subordinates and misuse of his authority. Netanyahu is having his nefarious way with Israeli democracy and using his status in order to lead Israeli society astray, all the way to diplomatic and economic isolation. From there it is but a short way to regional war and apartheid – the only question is which will come first. Yet nevertheless, a whole country is continuing to give in willingly to a liar who does not cease to harass and endanger it.

Have I exaggerated? How many politicians, media people and ordinary citizens believe Netanyahu is sincerely interested in reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians? The reference, of course, is not to an agreement that will include Israeli control over the Jordan Valley for 40 years, as Netanyahu proposed recently to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

During the course of a condolence visit to one of the Jewish settlements at the end of the 1990s, Netanyahu bragged that he had succeeded in deceiving the Clinton administration during his first term as prime minister, in order to destroy the Oslo Accords. Believing the microphones and cameras had been turned off, Netanyahu related how he had extorted from the Clinton administration, in exchange for the Hebron agreement, a promise that Israel would be the sole entity entitled to define what the “military sites” are that will remain under its control. With a sly smile spread across his face, Bibi added: “I said that as far as I am concerned the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military site,” and explained: “Why is this important? Because from that moment I stopped the Oslo Accords.”

Yitzhak Shamir, Netanyahu’s predecessor in the Likud leadership, put this in simple words: “For the Land of Israel it is permissible to lie.” Netanyahu, a student of conservative American media advisor Arthur Finkelstein, has a more sophisticated formulation. In a lecture at a Likud conference in Eilat in July 2001, Bibi instructed the activists: “It doesn’t matter if justice is on your side. You have to depict your position as just.”

Eventually he gave this procedure the broadest possible interpretation. Though in all likelihood he had not forgotten when he came into this world (October 21, 1949 ), he was able to recount a formative encounter with British soldiers near his childhood home, even though the Mandate had ended well before his birth.

The things French President Nicolas Sarkozy told United States President Barack Obama sum up the reputation he has acquired abroad. The microphone that had been left open by mistake pulled away the diplomatic mask and revealed the two important leaders’ opinion of the prime minister of Israel. This was preceded by a meeting between Sarkozy and President Shimon Peres at the beginning of 2010 at the Elysee Palace, during the course of which the French president said: “I don’t understand where Netanyahu is going and what he wants.”

An equally important European leader, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, also joined the club of people affected by Netanyahu’s lies. Her opinion of the prime minister’s peace declarations did not make its way to the microphones, but according to a report by Barak Ravid in Haaretz in February, Merkel told Netanyahu in a phone conversation: “You have disappointed us. You have not taken a single step to advance peace.”

On the eve of the most recent meeting between Netanyahu and Obama in New York, it was leaked to The New York Times that Obama had told his advisors he didn’t believe Netanyahu would ever be prepared to carry out compromises leading to a peace agreement. Prior to that Steven Simon, Senior Director for Middle East and North Africa at the White House, revealed in a conference call with Jewish community leaders in the United States that the Palestinians had agreed to renew the negotiations on the basis of Obama’s outline (the 1967 lines and agreed exchanges of territories ) and that the ball was now in Netanyahu’s court.

As is known, Bibi depicts President Abbas as refusing to enter negotiations. With a trove of lies like this, is Bibi expecting “the world” to believe he intends to attack Iran’s nuclear installations and tighten the sanctions on Iran? Why shouldn’t they suspect that maybe all the ruckus about the bomb is intended only to distance the threat of peace, and therefore not lift a finger against the Iranian threat?

Rafeef Ziadah recites her amazing poem on western ‘sensitivities’ and the Gaza Massacre – Not to be missed!

Israeli leaders choosing personal interests over law: Haaretz Editorial

Rather than protecting these landowners, whose land the state has already admitted to the High Court was taken by force, the state attorneys are continuing their foot-dragging.
Late last week, another mark of disgrace was stamped on the foreheads of Israel’s decision-makers and law enforcement authorities. The response that the state submitted to a High Court of Justice petition filed by Palestinian farmers demanding the return of their land, on which the settlement of Amona was built, is still more evidence of an incredibly serious phenomenon – the government and prosecution’s collaboration with thieves and lawbreakers.

Rather than protecting these landowners, whose land the state has already admitted to the High Court was taken by force, the state attorneys are continuing their foot-dragging. This time, they asked the High Court to delay the razing of the structures for no less than 14 months.

At the same time, ministers and MKs from the right, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are working to delay the evacuation of Givat Assaf, which was also built on private Palestinian land – despite the fact that the state undertook before the High Court to evacuate the outpost by the end of the year.

All this was preceded by Netanyahu’s initiative to appoint a panel of jurists to suggest ways to legalize outposts built on private Palestinian land. The government is also expected to debate a bill designed to restrict the activities of organizations such as Peace Now and Yesh Din, which help the Palestinians reclaim their stolen property. The Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved the measure Sunday.

The government said recently that it welcomed the Middle East Quartet’s draft proposal from September, which is based on, inter alia, the Road Map of 2003. Netanyahu was a senior member of the government that adopted the Road Map, which includes a commitment to “immediately dismantle” outposts that were erected after March 2001.

At worst, the government’s behavior with regard to the outposts, particularly those erected on privately owned land, demonstrates that a small group of criminals can terrorize Israel’s elected public officials. Even worse, we see that the worldview and/or the personal interests of people in the political leadership can overcome the rule of law, natural justice and the national interests of the State of Israel.

Either way, when the political echelons give refuge to lawbreakers and ridicule High Court rulings, it is incumbent on Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to put a stop to it.

 

EDITOR: Seeking blood all around

The UNESCO vote on Palestine have brought about the usual hysteria in Israel – any visibility of the word Palestine internationally is apparently dangerous to the continuation of mankind – and started a flood of quite mad demands to exterminate UNESCO and its personnel. One such expression was the caricature in Haaretz, where Netanyahu is seen briefing the pilots who are about to attack Iran :”and on the way back, bomb the UNESCO offices in Ramallah”. Understandably, this was not much appreciated by UNESCO, who complained to the Israeli ambassador, who was happy to blame UNESCO for this, as can be seen below.

 

This is quite a good illustration of the current state of mind on the Israeli public, including the so-called ‘inlltelligentsia’, the intellectuals and artists. It is almost unheard of for Israelis to doubt their way of seeing the world, to question their own point of view. This inability is behind all which is now happening in Israel – the fascisation of the state and its mechanisms, the pronounced rightward lurch of the whole of society, the total backing given to the racist occupation and its machinery of repression and murder, the preparation for an attack on Iran for developing Nuclear Energy, by a country with more than 300 undeclared nuclear devices of mass destruction, and the growing Nazi style attacks nicknamed ‘price-tag’ on Palestinians in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. At some point in the future, after a series of terrible events will bring Zionist hegemony to an end, most Israelis will be heard to say:”we had no idea all this was taking place”…

The Israelis and their partners in crime across the world, who support Zionist aggression and expansion, are on the lookout for antisemitism everywhere. They would do better to look under their own beds – Israel has become one of the most racist, arrogant and anti-semitic societies in existence, and the longer this is avoided, the deeper this society will decline and fall.

‘Death to Arabs’ scrawled across Muslim gravestones in Jerusalem: Haaretz

Assailants desecrate some 15 Muslim headstones in what is suspected to be the latest ‘price tag’ attack by right-wing extremists.
By Oz Rosenberg
Some 15 Muslim gravestones were found desecrated in Jerusalem with the slogan “Death to Arabs” on Thursday, in what is suspected to be the latest “price tag” attack by right-wing extremists.

“Death to Arabs” and “Givat Asaf” – the name of a West Bank settlement outpost that is slated for demolition – were spray painted on the gravestones in the Bamamila Cemetery, next to the Jerusalem Museum of Tolerance.

It is still not known who is responsible for the desecration of the gravestones, or even exactly when it took place.

A month ago, on Yom Kippur, graves were desecrated with anti-Arab graffiti in two cemeteries in Jaffa, Christian and Muslim.

Police arrested a 21-year-old on Wednesday on suspicion of spray-painting ‘price tag’ and anti-Arab slogans, and on suspicion of being behind a false a bomb scare at the offices of left-wing political activists Peace Now. The young man had already being arrested in the past after he rang the doorbell of Yariv Oppenheimer, head of Peace Now, and threatened to harm him.

After police interrogated the man over the threats he uttered, he was released. A Jerusalem court remanded the man for another six days on Wednesday.

The man took responsibility for some of the crimes attributed to him at the beginning of his interrogation, including causing damage to the car of an Arab. He said that he did it because he “hates Arabs and hates Leftists.” But later he retracted his confession, and he is currently denying all accusations made against him.

The man’s lawyer, Shaul Ezra, claims that his client’s confession is inadmissible because it was extracted by force. Even when he confessed to some acts at first, the young man denied that accusation that he was responsible for spray-painting graffiti at the home of Hagit Ofran, the Settlement Watch Committee of Peace Now.

Israel Police Commander Yohanan Danino vowed to Peace Now activists on Wednesday that the police was taking every measure to ensure their security and apprehend those responsible for the attacks.

The police struck out in court in another incident that had triggered suspicions of being a ‘price tag’ attack. The police believed that they had enough evidence against three suspects who were caught in Wadi Ara soon after the murder of a family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, carrying bottles of propane.

The three men claimed in court that they were on their way to visit the graves of Jewish saints and had taken propane will them in the event of an emergency.

UNESCO files complaint against Israeli delegation over Haaretz cartoon: Haaretz

A cartoon published in Haaretz causes a rift between Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when a senior official at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization called him in for a tongue-lashing on Wednesday. The reason? A cartoon published in Haaretz.

The November 4 cartoon, a riff on the government’s anger at UNESCO’s decision to accept Palestine as a full member, showed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak sending an air force squadron to attack Iran, with Netanyahu ordering, “And on your way back, you’re gonna hit the UNESCO office in Ramallah!”

When he met with Eric Falt, UNESCO’s assistant director general for external relations and public information, Ambassador Nimrod Barkan was stunned to be handed a copy of this cartoon and an official letter of protest from UNESCO’s director general, Irina Bokova. Falt told Barkan the cartoon constituted incitement.

“A cartoon like this endangers the lives of unarmed diplomats, and you have an obligation to protect them,” Falt said, according to an Israeli source. “We understand that there is freedom of the press in Israel, but the government must prevent attacks on UNESCO.”

Barkan pointed out that the government has no control over editorial cartoons printed in the papers. “Ask yourselves what you did to make a moderate paper with a deeply internationalist bent publish such a cartoon,” he suggested. “Perhaps the problem is with you.”

After Barkan reported the conversation to the Foreign Ministry, it cabled back: “What exactly does UNESCO want of us – to send our fine boys to protect UNESCO’s staff, or to shut down the paper? It seems your work environment is getting more and more reminiscent of ‘Animal Farm.'”

Gilbert Achcar: on the US Likudniks’ racist smear campaign: IOA

11 NOVEMBER 2011
Glibert Achcar

This past October, I gave talks about my book, The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, at five California universities – Stanford, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC San Diego and UCLA. These weren’t my first talks at North American universities on the same book: I had already made presentations at Columbia, NYU, Rutgers, Harvard, U of Chicago, U of Michigan, U of Wisconsin-Madison, U of Toronto and Rice.

U.S. Likudniks, who had remained relatively restrained on this issue until now, could not stand it any longer. They launched a massive attack against me in the form of a smear article – their trademark type – written by two Campus Watch vigilantes and first published on FrontPageMag, the online magazine of the notorious ultra-right-winger David Horowitz. From there, the article was reproduced by countless websites and blogs belonging to the same ideological swarm, and distributed by them to their extensive email lists.

What drove my detractors especially mad was the fact that my talks were often hosted by scholars of Jewish background, if not by Jewish Studies Centers, like the one at UC Davis that was the first target of this latest smear campaign. I have also been invited by Jewish Studies Centers at the Universities of Chicago and Toronto to talk about my book, a book that was reviewed – rather positively – in the Jewish Review of Books and the Journal of Jewish Studies. My detractors lament: “The rot is so pervasive that it’s infected Middle East studies, Israel studies, Jewish studies, and Holocaust studies alike. At this rate, there will be no bastions of true scholarship left.” By these sorts of malicious attacks, of which I am only the most recent target among many others, they are trying to deter and intimidate the whole of U.S. academia, especially Jewish scholars, from any independent thinking. They are AIPAC’s academic vigilantes.

I will not waste my time – nor that of the readers – discussing in detail what amounts to an accumulation of slanders and distortions combined with rightwing Likudnik-type comments that any intelligent and progressive person can easily recognize for what they are worth. As I usually do in such cases, I will only take one example illustrating the method of my detractors. The two Campus Watch vigilantes’ article starts with this sentence that they attribute to me: “Don’t expect me to take a pro-Israel view. I’m an Arab.” They then go on commenting: “Those in the audience hoping for scholarly objectivity were thus informed that Achcar’s ethnicity trumped intellectual independence…” And to add racist insult to injury, they then find it necessary to emphasize my “heavy accent.”

Fortunately, my lecture at Berkeley, which they comment upon, is available online (see also here). Here is what I said in my opening remarks:

“Let me say from the start that I don’t claim to be neutral, because I don’t think that anyone can be neutral with regard to such issues. What I claim and purport to be is honest. It is a matter of intellectual honesty and this is what I try to display in the book. But I think it would be dishonest to say ‘This is purely scholarly, there’s no politics here, I’m above politics.’ It’s in itself a political statement usually when people say such things, especially on such topics. So, it’s clear that this is a book written by – okay – a scholar, but a scholar who, like any scholar, has a sociology, an origin. I’m myself from the Middle East, I’m from Lebanon, so I’m Arab ethnically speaking, and dealing with the Arabs and the Holocaust, one won’t expect me to take a pro-Israeli view in this regard. Again, my main claim here is one of intellectual honesty. It’s up to the readers to judge, but I didn’t try to hide any embarrassing facts whatsoever, and the book is informed by a perspective which may be described as basically antiracist, against any type of racism be it anti-Semitism, or anti-Arab racism for that matter, or whatever form of prejudice.”

Prisoners reps: Israel not honoring commitments to detainees: Ma’an News

Published Thursday 10/11/2011

Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners Issa Qaraqe said the situation of Palestinian prisoners was worse than before the Oct. 18 prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas. The deal also included an end to solitary confinement and punitive measures, he said.

Director of the parliamentary prisoners’ committee Khalida Jarar said Israel has detained 110 Palestinians since the deal was made.

The comments were made at a news conference at the Government Media Center in Ramallah on Thursday, where representatives spoke out on the situation of some 5,000 Palestinians still in Israeli jail after 477 were released in the first stage of the swap deal three weeks ago.

In late September, detainees launched a 3-week mass hunger strike in jails across Israel to protest worsening conditions. Prisoners suspended the strike on Oct. 17 after they said Israel had announced it would meet a key demand by ending the practice of solitary confinement.

But since ending the strike, isolation cells continue, prisoners’ visiting periods were not increased, and they are still barred from moving between cells to see fellow prisoners, representatives said Thursday.

Qaraqe condemned Israel’s sentencing of Fatah-affiliated lawmaker Jamal Tirawi to 30 years in jail on Oct. 31. Tirawi was already held in Israeli jail for over four years as his trial was postponed repeatedly.

The international community has a responsibility toward democratic representatives jailed in Israel, as they were elected in a national election in 2006 declared free by international observers, Qaraqe said.

Israel’s military prosecution admits that the measures against prisoners is for political, rather than security, reasons, Qaraqe said.

Director of Palestinian Prisoners Society Fares Qaddura said none of the charges against the 23 elected representatives in Israeli jail could be proved, and the sentencing of Tirawi contradicted an agreement to free the lawmaker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Jarar noted that the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted resolutions calling for the release of Palestinian members of parliament detained in Israel in April 2011, and union delegates were prevented from visiting prominent lawmakers Ahmad Saadat and Marwan Barghouthi.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union should ban Israeli politicians from entering member countries to pressure them to release the Palestinian legislators, Jarrar said.

Abbas: Palestinians to continue efforts to seek full UN membership: Haaretz

Speaking to reporters in Tunisia, Palestinian President rules out the possibility of dissolving the Palestinian Authority if UN efforts fail.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his officials stressed Saturday that they will continue efforts to seek full United Nations membership in spite of the latest setbacks at the UN Security Council.

A Palestinian application for full UN membership Abbas submitted on September 23 hit a snag on Friday when a committee reviewing it was not able to agree on the application.

The Palestinians also preferred not to call for a Security Council vote after it became clear they do not have the nine votes needed to bring it before the council for a full vote.

Speaking to reporters in Tunisia, where he is on an official two-day visit, Abbas said late Friday that even if efforts at getting full membership fail at this time, the Palestinian Authority will continue in its efforts in the future. He ruled out the possibility of dissolving the Palestinian Authority if the UN efforts fail.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Malki also said Saturday that these efforts will continue, “even for the 1,000th time,” until Palestine is granted full membership. “Our goal is to get full membership,” he said, stressing that becoming a non-member state of the UN remains an option that the Palestinians can embark on at any time and most likely get, but it was not the primary goal.

“We always knew that one round to get full membership would not be enough,” Malki told Voice of Palestine radio from New York, where he was following up on the Palestinian application.

“The option to join the UN as non-member state is open for us and we can do it whenever we want,” he said. “But our focus is to get full membership because this is what we want.”

He said that the Palestinian Authority may opt for a non-member state but that will not be an alternative to getting full membership. “If we decide to go for a non-member state, it will be for tactical reasons and to join UN agencies. But this will not be an alternative to efforts to ask the Security Council for full membership,” he said. “We do not want to just be observers; we want to be full members.”

EDITOR: Caught in the act…

Who would be the best friends of Israel but Euro fascists? From Hungary to France, from Poland to Italy, the Euro fascists and neo-Nazis support Israel with a venom. And it is not that they have become Jew Lovers, either. It is about the perceived enemy -Islam… So the fascist daughter of Le Pen is quite happy to be seen embraced by the Israeli ambassador to the UN, and he seems to be at least as happy. They have a lot in common.

Now they have to call it an error. There is no error about it!

Israeli diplomat: Le Pen lunch was an ‘error’: Independent

Embarrassment for UN ambassador over meeting with head of French National Front
DONALD MACINTYRE   JERUSALEM  MONDAY 07 NOVEMBER 2011

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said yesterday that the country’s ambassador to the UN made an “error of judgement” by chatting and being photographed with Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s extreme right wing National Front, at a New York reception.

Ron Prosor, formerly Israel’s ambassador to London, has explained that his presence at a lunch last week for Ms Le Pen – whose party has long been shunned by Israel as a matter of government policy – last week was a “mistake.” But while he was also quoted in the Israeli daily Haaretz yesterday as saying that he left “immediately” when he realized his error, it has emerged that he did indeed stay long enough to have a conversation with the National Front leader which she later reportedly described as “warm”. And Mr Prosor was filmed by a French TV crew shortly after leaving saying that he and Ms Le Pen had talked about “Europe and other topics” and that he had “very much enjoyed the conversation.”

The Labour Knesset member Daniel Ben Simon said last night it was “outrageous” that the meeting had taken place and he would be asking the Foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, today whether Mr Prosor had been instructed to attend the function. “Are we now adopting a racist party?” he asked. “This is very, very serious.”

The photograph of the meeting was published in French newspapers, including Le Monde, which recalled the infamous remark by Ms Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen, the National Front founder, that concentration camp gas chambers were a “point of detail of the history of the Second World War.”

Yigal Palmor, spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry, said that Mr Prosor had arrived at the lunch under the misapprehension that it was being hosted by the French mission to the UN. “When he realized who was there he tried to sneak away without causing a spectacle but he was spotted by the lady and engaged in conversation.” Mr Prosor had been anxious to avoid making a scene and had stayed for about 20 minutes, he said.

While the Congolese Ambassador was said to have also mistaken the nature of the occasion, he reportedly turned on his heel as soon as he realised what it was and was overheard loudly upbraiding his secretary on the telephone for sending him to the lunch.

Mr Palmor admitted it was a “faux pas” and “an error of judgment”, and was emphatic yesterday that there was no change in Israel’s long-standing policy of “non-contact” with Ms Le Pen’s party, which had failed to disavow its “legacy of xenophobia and racism.”