Saturday, 26 June 2010

US Says Gaza Flotillas 'Irresponsible'

Al-Manar

25/06/2010 The US State Department on Thursday released a statement against additional flotillas to the Gaza Strip, calling them "irresponsible."

The statement said: "Mechanisms exist for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to Gaza by member states and groups that want to do so. Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances."

The statement added, "We, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we, along with our partners in the Quartet, call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza."

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Wednesday discussed the matter with US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. On Thursday he met with US officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor James Jones, and senior officials in the US military and defense establishment.

Meanwhile, organizers of an Iranian flotilla to Gaza on Thursday announced that the ship that was meant to set sail on Sunday will not be departing.

In a statement the organization said the main reason for the cancellation was "the violent and inhumane attitude of the Zionist regime to humanitarian aid."


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
Alexandria Demo for Khaled Said مظاهرة الشهيد خالد سعيد بالإسكندرية
June 25th, 2010 at 2:56pm | no comments yet
Tags: | | |


This was supposed to be a “silent” protest… Forget it!

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israeli killing leaves Jerusalem children fatherless

Mel Frykberg, The Electronic Intifada, 25 June 2010
The family Ziad Julani left behind -- Moira with her three daughters; Hannah 17, Mirage, 15, and Yasmin 7. (Mel Frykberg/IPS)

RAMALLAH, occupied West Bank (IPS) - "Where is my daddy? Why is he not coming home? I want my daddy," sobs seven-year-old Yasmin, her big blue eyes filling with tears. She wakes up crying every night.

"My life only began when I met him. I will never meet such a wonderful man again," Yasmin's mother Moira Julani tells IPS.

While it is just another statistic for the Israelis, another Palestinian family has been torn apart. US citizens, 17-year-old Hannah, 15-year-old Mirage and seven-year-old Yasmin are now fatherless. Former Texan Moira, nee Reynolds, who left the US 17 years ago to start a new life with her husband in Jerusalem, has lost her soul mate.

Two weeks ago 41-year-old Ziad Julani from East Jerusalem was shot a number of times at close range in the head and abdomen by Israeli special forces as he lay wounded on his stomach on the ground. An ambulance took the critically injured man to hospital but he died shortly afterwards.

Israeli soldiers accused Ziad of deliberately trying to run over a couple of soldiers as they walked in the street.

Eyewitnesses, however, say that Julani's car accidentally swerved slightly when his windscreen was hit by a rock, after he unknowingly drove into the middle of a clash between stone-throwing Palestinian youngsters and Israeli soldiers.

Two soldiers, who were slightly injured, and two of their comrades opened fire on Julani's car, wounding him in the shoulder. The panicked Julani drove a short distance further until he reached a dead-end road.

According to testimony compiled by the Jerusalem Centre for Social and Economic Rights, Julani then got out of his car. He was shot again several times by four special forces police who had pursued him, before he collapsed to the ground.

One of the policemen then came up and shot the critically wounded man again at close range in both sides of the head and in the abdomen before kicking him.

Witnesses who tried to help Julani were beaten back with clubs, with one requiring 20 stitches to his head. Other bystanders were wounded, including a five-year-old girl, when police and soldiers sprayed onlookers with rubber- coated steel bullets.

The Israeli authorities accused Ziad of attempting to perpetrate a "terrorist attack" and of having a "criminal record."

"Ziad was roughed up about a month ago by Israeli soldiers as he tried to pray at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque. He was held temporarily for a couple of hours, then released, and no charges were laid. Maybe one of these soldiers had a grudge against my husband," Julani tells IPS.

"He was not involved in politics and was not affiliated with any political group. He was a peaceful man with a cosmopolitan background who had lived in Switzerland as a child and studied pharmaceuticals in the US."

"On the morning he was killed he had gone to pray at al-Aqsa and had planned to later take the family out on a trip to the Dead Sea."

Occupied East Jerusalem has become a boiling cauldron of anger and resentment as Israel's Judaization of the eastern part of the city increasingly involves the destruction of Palestinian homes, and throwing Palestinian families on to the street to make way for illegal Israeli settlers.

In the rising tension several Palestinians have carried out attacks on Israelis in West Jerusalem using vehicles and bulldozers, killing several and wounding others.

The Israeli authorities have used these incidents to assert "self-defense" in the increasing numbers of cases where unarmed Palestinians have been shot dead by security forces at close range despite presenting no threat.

At the beginning of the year a media blackout was imposed on the house arrest of Israeli journalist Anat Kamm after she secretly copied Israeli army documents while she was doing her military service.

The documents outlined how Israeli hit squads were assassinating Palestinian activists, some of them unarmed, instead of arresting them, in flagrant violation of an Israeli high court ruling. Kamm has been accused of treason.

IPS has reported a number of cases in which young Palestinian men in the West Bank died after they were shot in the back and in the head. The Israeli army initially claimed they had used non-lethal ammunition, and had acted in "self- defense" after they were "attacked."

Later, however, army investigations conceded that live fire was used and that in some of the cases the soldiers involved had used "excessive force."

Turkish autopsies carried out on the nine activists shot dead on the Mavi Marmara as it tried to deliver aid to Gaza several weeks ago also indicate that a number of the dead were shot several times in the head at close range as part of Israel's "confirm kill" policy.

The Israeli security forces have become accustomed to impunity when it comes to the killing of Palestinians under dubious circumstances.

"We are asking for an independent investigation into my husband's killing. We don't want the Israeli security forces investigating themselves," says Julani.

Since the shooting of Ziad Israeli security officials have arrested witnesses who filmed the killing and confiscated their recording equipment. Street camera footage has been removed.

All rights reserved, IPS -- Inter Press Service (2010). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.

Mossad Chief Meir Dagan to Step Down in 3 Months: Report



26/06/2010 Mossad Chief Meir Dagan will step down in three months after he has been denied another year, Israeli channel 2 news reported on Friday.

Dagan served as Mossad Director eight years ago, he was appointed by Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to head the Mossad, and his term was later extended – twice by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and, in 2009, current premier Benjamin Netanyahu decided to keep Dagan on for another year.

According to the report, Dagan requested another year as head of the intelligence agency but was refused.

A source close to Dagan told Reuters earlier this year that the Mossad chief would not step down before his term is finished because resignation would be tantamount to taking responsibility.

Dagan faced international criticism after the January assassination of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, which was widely believed to be carried out by Mossad agents using forged foreign passports.

The Dubai police chief called for Dagan's resignation, and a Mossad official was expelled from Britain, while Ireland and Australia expelled Israeli diplomats over the affair.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday prayers in solidarity with the Al Salah neighbourhood

[ 25/06/2010 - 10:35 PM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- A large number of worshipers performed the Friday prayers at the neighbourhood of Al Salah in the town of Beit Safafa to the south of Jerusalem to express solidarity with the residents of the neighbourhood which is threatened by the occupation with demolition and its residents with expulsion.

Dr. Ekrema Sabri, head of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, who lead the prayer said during the sermon that Palestine is the responsibility of every Muslim. It cannot be relinquished under any circumstances.

He condemned the Israeli occupation's confiscation of land and building of the illegal settlements on those confiscated lands.

He also said that the Israeli occupation's repressive practices in Jerusalem including home demolitions, withdrawing identity cards, expulsion and land confiscation are illegal and aim to uproot Palestinian residents and replace them with Zionist settlers.

He praised the people of Jerusalem and the residents of Al Salah neighbourhood for their steadfastness.

He thanked the congregation, which included representatives of Palestinian factions in Jerusalem and a delegation from 1948-occupied Palestine, for their solidarity with the residents of the threatened neighbourhood.

The Israeli campaign of Judaization of Jerusalem is threatening hundreds of Palestinian homes in various suburbs of the holy city.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Devouring al-Quds in broad daylight


Thursday, 24 June 2010 11:15

News analysis by Khalid Amayreh in East Jerusalem

The recent decision by the Israeli government to banish four Palestinian lawmakers from Jerusalem to areas in the West Bank run by the Palestinian Authority (PA) is another repugnant expression of the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing in the city, holy to Muslims, Christians and Jews.

This undeclared but clear policy aims to minimize as much as possible the city's non-Jewish population  so that Israel can realize its routinely-invoked mantra of Jerusalem being "Israel's eternal and undivided capital."

The four Arab lawmakers, Muhammad Abu Tir, Ahmed Atwan, Mohammed Totah and Khalid Abu Arafeh, didn't violate any laws, committed no crimes and certainly did nothing to warrant extirpation from their natural homeland, the city of their birth.

Israel claims the four are affiliated with a political organization deemed "terrorist" by the Jewish state. Israel deems anyone and everyone, including peace activists carrying milk powder and food to blockaded Gazans as "terrorist." Indeed, Israel effectively classifies Palestinians into two categories: Terrorists, who ought to be annihilated, and collaborators or informers. There is nothing in between.

This is why the politically-motivated charge (affiliation with a terrorist organization) is really a mere pretext since Hamas is a legitimate political party with hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Hence, what Israel really wants goes far beyond vilifying and weakening Hamas? Israel simply wants to attain the following goal: Getting as many Palestinians as possible to leave East Jerusalem, by hook or by crook, and seizing as much as possible of Arab land and property, mainly under the rubric of hounding and fighting Hamas.

In fact, one can claim rather candidly that the unmitigated demonization of Hamas by Israel has very little to do with the Islamic movement's involvement in active resistance against the plainly cruel Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

 Hamas is an honest organization. Its doesn't accept anything less than a total Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories pursuant to international law,  The movement refuses to be cajoled or bullied by Israel to give up inalienable Palestinian rights usurped by Israel. It wouldn't be bribed by carrots or coerced by sticks, which help keep the Palestinian hope for true independence and freedom alive. This, not the issue of terror, is the real reason behind Israel's mad fixation on Hamas, a group molded in reaction to Israeli oppression and savagery against the Palestinian people.

It is for these reasons that the decision to deport these democratically-elected MPs ought to be viewed in the context of  larger  efforts to ethnically cleanse Jerusalemite Arabs from their city, which is home to al-Masjidul Aqsa, the world's third most important Islamic shrine.

Indeed, the decision to banish the four Jerusalemite leaders is only one expression of the ongoing Israeli drive to make Jerusalem free of Muslims and Christians as much as possible.

  In recent days, the Israeli authorities decided to demolish more than 88 Arab homes at the Silwan neighborhood. The declared purpose of this act of war against Arab demography is to build a Talmudic park in the area. However, there are ample signs that the real ultimate goal is to enforce Jewish settler's presence in the area as well as coerce more Arabs to leave.

According to the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem, Israel confiscated the residency rights of more than 6 thousand Palestinian residents in the past three years alone.

Other draconian measures meant to drive Palestinians away include excessive taxation, property seizure, as well as promulgating laws that would lead to shattering Palestinian daily life and  force as many  Palestinians as possible  to leave.

Israel, for example, is never content with demolishing Palestinian homes and confiscating residency rights at the slightest pretext. It is now outlawing protests against these manifestly illegal, indeed criminal,   measures. According to reliable sources in Jerusalem, the Israeli occupation authorities have begun to enforce new penalties against  Palestinian Jerusalemites, including revocation of residency rights, re-evaluation of taxes owed and reduction in welfare benefits.

According to Ziad al Hammouri, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Legal Rights, he latest racist decision may well be a "test case" that would determine subsequent acts of ethnic cleansing by Israel.

"They are trying to extirpate us from our homes. We are facing the real danger of being uprooted simply because Israel want Jerusalem to be exclusively Jewish and we are not Jews. So it seems that the Israeli message is like this: Either you leave or convert to Judaism."

Like Palestinians everywhere, the Palestinians of Jerusalem are ostensibly successfully protesting  the latest measures of ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem. However, Israel can not be trusted  to deal justly with Arab grievances. In fact, experience shows that in the absence of massive international pressure, Israel would pay no attention to the most elementary human and civil rights of its victims.

This is why, meaningful international efforts are vital  to stop the latest Israeli campaign targeting the  very existence of the  native Arab community in East Jerusalem.

The American government has half-heartedly protested Israeli plans to demolish numerous homes at Silwan. However, the Israeli authorities don't seem to take the Americans truly  seriously.

The Obama administration, which had demanded that Israel freeze Jewish settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the rest of the  West Bank, mainly in order to provide an appropriate atmosphere for the resumption of the clearly moribund peace process, has effectively succumbed to Israeli arrogance and insolence.

Hence, it would be naïve and self-defeating for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims to pin any genuine hopes on the Obama administration to force Israel to reconsider its criminal designs in Jerusalem.

 To be sure the American impotence vis-à-vis Israel is not intrinsic in nature. The US, which is Israel's guardian and ally, simply sees no urgent need to get tough with Israel especially as long as  its  vital interests throughout the Muslim world are not scathed the least as Arab regimes are vying to please and appease Washington.

This is  happening while the frustration and indignation  of Arab and Muslim masses are rising to new levels, especially in the aftermath of the criminal Israeli assault on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on 31 May, which killed at least nine Turkish activists and injured dozens others.

In the final analysis, the Arab and Muslim masses, although unable to reverse their tyrannical regimes subservience to Washington, can at least demonstrate to the Americans that hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world will never forgive the US government its scandalous embrace of Israeli criminality toward the Palestinian people.

As to the Palestinians themselves, it is time they turn their backs on the so-called two-state solution strategy.
Israel has simply killed the two-state solutions  by rendering unrealistic or virtually impossible the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank due to the ubiquitous proliferation of Jewish colonies in occupied Arab land.

Perhaps a sustained  popular struggle similar to that which eventually terminated the defunct White minority apartheid regime in South Africa, ought to be tried by the Palestinians.

True, Israel may look somewhat invincible and powerful. However, there are many signs that Israel is also disintegrating from within and losing at many fronts. In the end, Israel is moving on a losing track. I am sure many Jewish intellectuals know this.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, 25 June 2010

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

Via The Vineyard of the Saker

by Paul Joseph Watson for Prison Planet

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.
The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.
Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.
In response to widespread criticism of the bill, language was added that would force the government to seek congressional approval to extend emergency measures beyond 120 days. Still, this would hand Obama the authority to shut down the Internet on a whim without Congressional oversight or approval for a period of no less than four months.
The Senators pushing the bill rejected the claim that the bill was a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet, not by denying that Obama would be given the authority to shut down the Internet as part of this legislation, but by arguing that he already had the power to do so.
They argued “That the President already had authority under the Communications Act to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” when there is a “state or threat of war”, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.
Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.
While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.
As we have illustrated, fears surrounding cybersecurity have been hyped to mask the real agenda behind the bill, which is to strangle the runaway growth of alternative and independent media outlets which are exposing government atrocities, cover-ups and cronyism like never before.
Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state.
The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
-------
Commentary: Joe Lieberman. "Evil Joe". Lieberman has this almost satanic ability to radiate evil and to always, always, be right in the middle of most, if not all, the really ugly and evil plans the Empire is cooking up for the rest of us. In the same vein has Kissinger, Perle or Dershowitz, Lieberman is a living caricature of the "evil Jew" of the Nazi propaganda. Why is that? Why do these guys go out of their way to match the most extreme anti-Jewish stereotypes? I just don't get it...

The Saker

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 12:56 PM 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Can You Pass The Hamas Quiz?

June 25, 2010 by politicaltheatrics  
The degree of mainstream media repression, obfuscation and nonsense concerning Hamas is endemic in the US and Canada . In my local newspaper, The Montreal Gazette, one searches in vain for meaningful coverage of the respected Goldstone Report yet reference to Barak’s mythical “Generous Offer” persists and ahistorical reporting on Hamas rockets dominates.

While one cannot entirely absolve Palestinians for their dire situation, three categorical truths should always be borne in mind to ensure that there is no confusion between victim and victimizer:

1. Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land.
2. Occupied people have the legal right to resist occupation.
3. Palestinians are the only occupied people to suffer international sanctions (while Israel enjoys significant economic, military and diplomatic support from powerful states).
The following quiz is intended to provide needed context to the reporting on Hamas in the mainstream media.

THE HAMAS QUIZ QUESTIONS:

1. Has Hamas ever deliberately attacked an American target?
2. True or False: Israel supported Hamas in the past.
3. Which groups committed the following terrorist acts in Palestine to further nationalist goals during the British Mandate period?
3.1 July 22, 1946: Terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons.
3.2 December 19, 1947: Terrorists attacked a village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 persons, including 5 children.
3.3 December 30, 1947: Terrorists attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 persons.

3.4 March 3, 1948: Terrorists drove an army truck up to a building in Haifa and escaped before the detonation of 400 pounds of explosives that killed 14 persons and injured 23.
4. Who said the following in 1998? “If I were a young Palestinian, it is possible I would join a terrorist organization.”
5. True or False: The Palestinian school curriculum incites hatred and anti-Semitism.
6. Identify the Middle East entities responsible for the following promulgations:
6.1 “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.” We aim “at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.” “The…establishment of the state of Israel [is]…entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…”
6.2 “The [entity]…flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.”
6.3 “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.”
6.4 “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” “[We strive] to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security…”

7. Who made the following statements in 2007? “[T]here will remain a state called Israel—this is a matter of fact. …The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.” “As a Palestinian…I speak…for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land.”
8. Which party, Israel or Hamas, broke the six-month ceasefire that was agreed to in June 2008?
9. Who stated the following on Democracy Now! , a news program, on February 14, 2006? “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.”
10. Who, after serving six US secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations, wrote the following: “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker on the Arab-Israeli issue, than surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the needs and requirements of both sides.”
11. Who said the following: “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the Middle East and surrounding regions].”
12. According to the United Nations 1947 Partition Resolution, was the Gaza Strip to be part of the Jewish State or the Arab State?
13. Whose account of the forced expulsion of Palestinians by Jewish fighters in 1948 on the orders of David Ben-Gurion, was censored from his memoirs?
14. When Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, approximately what percentage of the population of Gaza was Jews and approximately what percentage of the land of Gaza was controlled by Israel and Jewish settlers?
15. Who made the the following 2004 statement indicating the primary motivation for Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process…And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of [the US] Congress.”
16. Who stated the following concerning Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections: “The boycott of Hamas after winning a free and fair election in 2006, and subsequent punishment of the people of Gaza, have backfired and the group may be more popular than ever. Polls show that Palestinians voted for Hamas members because of frustration with corruption in the dominant party, Fatah, and because Hamas’ humanitarian efforts and good governance of municipalities had helped people educate and provide for their children amidst a crippling occupation. The same polls show that popular support for Hamas in 2006 was not based on support for the group’s religious or political ideologies. The international community and Israel should have seized on the opportunity to persuade more Palestinians to participate in the political process, which would have done more to undermine extremist ideologies than the current course.”
17. What is the name of the Israeli soldier who was captured on 25 June 2006 by Palestinian fighters in a cross-border raid and has subsequently been held as a prisoner in Gaza by Hamas?
18. What are the names of the two Palestinians that were kidnapped from Gaza by Israeli soldiers on 24 June 2006?
19. Who made the following 2006 statement when referring to the purpose of economic pressure exerted on Gazans after the election victory of Hamas: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
20. Which US leader said the following on 25 January 2006, the day after Hamas won the Gaza elections?: “So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy….And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that’s positive.”
21. Who was the head of the United Nations fact finding mission, mandated to investigate the 2008-2009 military operations in Gaza?
22. Which human rights organization reported the following concerning the 2008-2009 military operation in Gaza ? “[We] found no evidence that Hamas…directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks….In all of the cases investigated…of families killed when their homes were bombed…by Israeli forces…none of the houses struck was being used by armed groups for military activities.…[However we did find that Israeli soldiers] used civilians, including children, as ‘human shields’, endangering their lives…”
23. Who said the following, concerning peace with the Palestinians, on 29 September 2008: “We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the [occupied] territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”

THE HAMAS QUIZ ANSWERS:

1. No. According to Kenneth Pollack, former CIA analyst, Middle East expert and former National Security Council staffer, “[H]amas…[has] never deliberately attacked American targets. The PLO did…” (Kenneth M. Pollack; A Path Out of the Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East; Random House; New York: 2008; p.170)
-Pollack adds that in recent times Palestinian militant groups have all concentrated on Israel and one another and not the US “despite the tremendous levels of anti-Americanism in the region, the popularity that al-Qa’ida has garnered for its attacks on the United States, and the lopsided pro-Israel policies of the George W. Bush administration. Consequently, it is difficult to suggest that Palestinian terrorist groups are a direct threat to the United States. …[T]hey do not constitute the same kind of threat to American interests as al-Qa’ida and therefore do not merit the same response.”
-An objective observer is left to conclude that it is Hamas’s independence from the US orbit of control, coupled with the power of the Israel lobby, that engenders relentless US rebukes.
-It should be obvious that simply killing terrorists in, say, Gaza, without changing the conditions that produced them is ineffective since new terrorists will arise.

2. True. “For well over two decades after the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel…[supported] the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot Hamas in Gaza as a counterweight to the nationalist…(PLO). This reached the point where the Israeli military occupation encouraged Brotherhood thugs to intimidate PLO supporters.” (Rashid Khalidi; The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood; Beacon Press; Boston: 2007; pp. xxviii-xxix)
-According to Anthony Cordesman, respected Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, Israel “aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO.” ( http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/06/08/1320881.php )
-It is interesting to note that in 2007 Israel encouraged the corrupt Fatah to overthrow Hamas. Divide-and-rule continues to be an effective tool of colonizers.

3.1 The Irgun: Zionist paramilitary group led by future prime minister Menachem Begin. It was classified as a terrorist organization by Israel itself when it became a state in 1948. ( http://guardian.150m.com/palestine/jewish-terrorism.htm )

3.2 The Haganah: Jewish paramilitary organization which became the core of the Israel Defense Forces. Members of the Haganah included future prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon.

3.3 The Palmach: Elite fighting force of the Haganah. (The Palmach’s last operation as an independent unit was against the Irgun. Perhaps right-wing Jews should not be so smug when they hear of fighting between Fatah and Hamas.)

3.4 The Stern Gang: Radical Zionist paramilitary group that split from the Irgun in 1940. Future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir was among its leaders.

4. Ehud Barak: Prime Minister of Israel, 1999-2001, and current Minister of Defence. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/25/se.13.h )

5. False. Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, after a detailed study on The Palestinian Curriculum, writes: “[T]he Palestinian curriculum is not a war curriculum; while highly nationalistic, it does not incite hatred, violence, and anti-Semitism.”
(http://home.gwu.edu/~nbrown/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm )
-Right-wing supporters of Israel, seeking reasons why Palestinians harbor resentment against Israel and Jews, often point to Palestinian textbooks that purportedly instill such hatred. Prof. Brown demonstrates that a better explanation is to be found in the harsh occupation administered by Israel. As Prof. Brown writes in his conclusion, “With the effects of conflict felt on a daily basis, what textbooks and teachers say is probably irrelevant in any case.”

6.1 The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). These are portions from the 1968 Palestine National Charter.
( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/PLO_Covenant.html )
-It is important to note that Israel negotiated peace accords with the PLO despite the fact that the 1968 Palestinian National Charter was in force at the time of the relevant negotiations. Clauses from the Charter were rendered void only after the 1993 Declaration of Principles was signed.
( http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx? DO=795&RecID=195&DocumentID=297&SaveMode=0 )

6.2 The Likud party. This was part of Likud’s platform at the time of the 2009 Israeli elections; the elections led to a Likud-led government. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/09/f-rfa-armstrong.html )
-Despite this offensive clause, which contravenes international law, Hamas has shown willingness to support talks with Israel.

6.3 Israel. This is a clause of one of Israel’s Basic Laws. ( http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm )
-Despite this official law of Israel, which contravenes international law, Hamas has shown willingness to support talks with Israel. (Even the US does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The US embassy is located in Tel Aviv.)

6.4 Hamas. The portions are from the Hamas Charter. ( https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZbAXItgbF6XZGo2enJrcV8xMTZjZ2pnMjZnYw&hl=en )
-While the Charter is one tool used by Israel to refuse to deal with Hamas, similarly odious clauses—provided above—did not prevent Israel from negotiating with the PLO.
-Would it matter to right-wing Jews if a Hamas leader made more conciliating statements? See question 7.

7. Khaled Meshal: Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/11/israel/print )
-“A recent study by a U.S. government agency concluded that Hamas ‘has been carefully…adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it is ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel.” (This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion; by Norman G. Finkelstein; OR Books; New York: 2010; p. 45)
-Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times, had this to say concerning Gaza under Hamas in early 2009: “Honestly, the idea that this is some totalitarian spot where you can’t write honestly is not true…. Hamas is not al-Qaeda….I can’t tell you whether they are going to accept Israel. What they basically say…is if we can go back to the ’67 borders and we can deal with the question of a right of return and all Palestinians agree…we won’t stand in the way….[A]s a broad observation, it seems almost impossible to imagine that there could be a Palestinian state that doesn’t include Hamas as part of a political structure. And if that’s true, then Israel will not have the security of being a Jewish democratic state, not an occupier, without some relationship with the Hamas movement.”
( http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=99901768 )
-It should be noted that Turkey demonstrates that Islam and democracy can coexist.
-Therefore, Hamas accepts the existence of the state of Israel. Yet, right-wing Jews argue: Words are cheap; Hamas doesn’t keep its word. (However, see question 8.)

8. Israel. “In June 2008, Egypt had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas…­[that] was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters.” ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/gaza-tony-blair-betrayal )
-”In a document entitled ‘The Hamas terror war against Israel,’ The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides striking visual evidence of Hamas’s good faith during the lull. It reproduces two graphs drawn up by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center: [Graphs provided] The graphs show that the total number of rocket and mortar attacks shrank from 245 in June to 26 total for July through October, a reduction of 97 percent.” ( http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10123.shtml )
-Hamas demonstrated that it keeps its word. Therefore, Israel knows how to stop rocket attacks from Gaza: enter good faith talks with Hamas. However, it is precisely Hamas’s potential as a serious and independent negotiating partner that threatens “Greater Israel.” Israeli policymakers know that upon proper negotiations, Israel will have to give up land and resources. But, uninformed supporters of Israel argue: what of the famous “Generous Offer”? (See Question 9.)

9. Shlomo Ben-Ami: Israel’s Minister of Public Security in 1999, Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2000-2001, and Israel’s top negotiator at Camp David and Taba negotiations. ( http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben )
-Mainstream commentators continue to reproduce the baseless Israeli claim that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak was very generous in the offer he made to the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000. The provided quote should be sufficient to end this harmful myth.
-The conclusion of questions 6 to 9 is that Israel won’t deal fairly unless forced by US pressure—for example, in March 1957 Israel was forced to withdraw from Gaza, following the Suez War, after US President Eisenhower applied heavy diplomatic pressure and threatened economic sanctions—or Arab strength—for example, Egypt’s effectiveness in the 1973 war led to Israel’s willingness to negotiate a meaningful treaty. Without such pressure, Palestinians suffer from tactics such as the one presented in question 15.
-It should also be noted that the Palestinians did try a largely non-violent resistance to Israel’s occupation during the first intifada of the late 1980s. And, in September 2000, Palestinians again launched a rebellion which was overwhelmingly nonviolent at its inception. However, in both cases, Israel responded with disproportionate, lethal force.

10. Aaron David Miller: Middle East negotiator and adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs at the US State Department for 25 years.
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200883.html )

11. General David Petraeus: US Army general and current Commander of the US Central Command. ( http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-general-israel-palestinian-conflict-foments-anti-u-s-sentiment-1.264910 )

12. Arab State.
- Arab rejection of the Partition Plan is understandable as Jews made up 37% of the population of mandatory Palestine, owned 7% of the land, yet the Jewish state was given 55% percent of the land. (Benny Morris; Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881 – 2001; Vintage; New York: 2001; p. 186)
-After the 1948-9 War, Gaza came under Egypt’s administrative control. And, as a result of the 1967 War, Gaza was occupied by Israel.
-According to Sara Roy, a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University (and child of Holocaust survivors), Gaza under Israel’s occupation suffered “de-development” as “the native population [was deprived] of its most important economic resources—land, water and labor—as well as the internal capacity and potential for developing those resources.” According to the respected Israeli historian, Benny Morris, “like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation”. (Norman G. Finkelstein; This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion; OR Books; New York: 2010; pp. 16-17.)

13. Yitzhak Rabin: Prime Minister of Israel, 1992-1995. (David Gardner; Last Chance: The Middle East in the Balance; I.B. Tauris; New York: 2009; pp. 161-2.)
-It was as a result of expulsions and fighting that “Approximately 250,000 Palestinians driven out of their homes during the 1948 war and its aftermath fled to Gaza and overwhelmed the indigenous population of some 80,000.” (Norman G. Finkelstein; This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion; OR Books; New York: 2010; p. 15.)

14. Jews constituted 0.6 per cent of the population (as approximately 8,000 Jewish settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians lived in Gaza); and, Israel and Jewish settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and a disproportionate share of the scarce water resources. (Avi Shlaim; Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations; Verso; London: 2009; p. 308.)
-The 2005 withdrawal was seen as a victory for Hamas and a humiliation for the Israel Defence Forces.
-As indicated in question 15, the withdrawal was not intended to enhance peace prospects. In fact in the year after the withdrawal, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank—hardly a sign of Israeli goodwill. ( http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-do-you-mean-when-you-say-no-1.233463 )

15. Dov Weisglass: Senior adviser to then Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. ( http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686 )
-Despite Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, it is manifestly obvious—and deemed so by international law—that Israel continues to occupy Gaza by dominating access to it by land, sea and air.

16. Jimmy Carter: President of the United States, 1977-1981. (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/features/p/conflict_resolution/gaza_questions_042108.html )
-The Carter Center, in partnership with the National Democratic Institute, sent an 85-member team to observe the election, which was found to be peaceful, competitive, and genuinely democratic.

17. Gilad Shalit: Probably the world’s best known captive.
-After the 2006 election victory by Hamas, the US and Israel “quickly moved from a crippling financial siege of the PA, with the aim of bringing down that government, to an escalation of Israeli assassinations of Palestinian militants, and to artillery and air attacks in Gaza that killed and wounded scores of civilians. Hamas had for 18 months observed a cease-fire in the face of these and earlier provocations (other factions were not so restrained, firing rockets into Israel). However, after a major spike in Palestinian civilian deaths and the particularly provocative Israeli assassination of militant leader Jamal Abu Samhadana, whom the PA government had just named to a security post, Hamas finally took the bait and responded with the capture of one Israeli soldier [Shalit] and the killing of others. The predictably ferocious Israeli response—even more killings of civilians, more assassinations, and ground incursions in Gaza…” (Rashid Khalidi; The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood; Beacon Press; Boston: 2007; pp. xv-xvi)

18. Osama Abu Muamar and Mustafa Abu Muamar: Probably among the world’s least known captives. (Israel claimed the brothers were planning attacks on Israel.)
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm
-According to Daoud Kuttab, a Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris professor of journalism at Princeton University, “Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians, some without charge or trial. Almost all of these prisoners are being held in contradiction to various international laws and treaties, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the actions of a prolonged occupying power.” http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/israels-gamble-in-a-prisoner-swap/#daoud

19. Dov Weisglass: Adviser to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel/print)
-The forced diet (i.e., illegal collective punishment) is working as “data from UNRWA, [indicate that] children’s inadequate nutrition is stunting their growth in Gaza. Israeli military do not allow vitamins and other essential nutrients into Gaza, so older persons and children, particularly, suffer from malnourishment.” ( http://www.globalaging.org/armedconflict/unrwa_gaza.htm )

20. George W. Bush: President of the United States, 2001-2009.
(http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=65146)
- Bush had a stake in the election as his Administration had demanded them. However, s oon after making the statement, Bush supported sanctions against the Hamas government. Apparently, democracy is the right to elect someone the US approves of—Venezuela, Iran, Gaza and others have learned this lesson.

21. Richard Goldstone: Former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and member of the Board of Governors of the Hebrew University. He is not only Jewish but is also a self-declared Zionist who firmly supports Israel as the state of the Jewish people. He identifies the Nazi holocaust as the inspiration for his pursuit of international and human rights law.
-The Goldstone Report found that Israel’s assault was based in a military doctrine that “views disproportionate destruction…as a legitimate means to achieve military and political goals,” and was “designed to have inevitable dire consequences for the non-combatants in Gaza.” Although Israel justified the attack as self-defense against Hamas rockets, the Report concluded that the attack was “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” (Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict;
25 September 2009; paras. 63, 1213-14 and 1893.)

22. Amnesty International. ( http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/en/8f299083-9a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf pp. 3-4 and 76-77.)
-Investigations by other, including Israeli, human rights organizations were likewise very critical of Israel’s—and to a much lesser extent, Hamas’s—actions.
2
3. Ehud Olmert: Israel’s Prime Minister, 2006-2009.
( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/world/middleeast/30olmert.html?ref=world )

Notes/Sources:
The above article was written by Jeffrey Rudolph; entitled: “Can You Pass The Hamas Quiz?
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Shalit Rights Watch criticizes Hamas treatment of Israeli



Via This is Zionism

Human Rights Watch charged Friday that Hamas militants are violating the rules of war by prohibiting a captive Israeli soldier from having contact with his family and the Red Cross.

The treatment of the 23-year-old soldier, captured exactly four years ago by Hamas, is "cruel and inhuman" and matches a U.N. definition of torture because he is denied any outside contact, the U.S.-based rights group said in a statement.

Hamas-affiliated militants captured tank crewman Sgt. Gilad Schalit inside Israel in 2006 and have been holding him since then in Gaza, the coastal Palestinian territory controlled by the militant Islamic organization.

Negotiations over a deal that would see Israel win Schalit's release by freeing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including militants convicted of deadly attacks against civilians, have stalled.

Hamas released a video of Schalit in October 2009 to prove the soldier was alive. His current condition is unknown.

The statement from Human Rights Watch notes Israeli violations of Palestinian rights, including limitations on visitation rights for some Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, but says violations by one side "do not justify violations by the other."

Schalit has dual French-Israeli citizenship and on Friday French President Nicolas Sarkozy released a letter he had addressed to the abducted soldier's parents.

"Like all French people, I'm indignant that a man could be deprived of freedom in such a way," Sarkozy wrote. "Such treatment, which totally lacks humanity, ignores universally recognized principles when it comes to prisoners, firstly the visiting rights of the International Committee of the Red Cross."

Schalit's father Noam met with the French ambassador to Israel Friday afternoon. Noam Schalit told reporters that Sarkozy had promised to continue his efforts to release his son. "They have means that Israel maybe does not have," he said.

Also Friday, Palestinians officials in Gaza said they retrieved the bodies of two Palestinians killed after Israel bombed a weapons smuggling tunnel overnight on the Gaza-Egypt border.

The Israeli military said the tunnel was targeted because Palestinians fired 12 rockets and mortars into Israel Thursday. Nobody was hurt in the barrage the Israeli military said because the shells exploded in open fields.

Schalit's parents have begun a new effort to rally public support for a deal to release the soldier. They have urged the release of Palestinian prisoners and criticized Israel's government this week for a recent decision to ease a blockade on the Gaza Strip, saying the blockade was an important bargaining chip for their son's release.

Israel arrested dozens of Hamas officials and legislators after Schalit's capture, which came just months after the Islamic group won Palestinian parliamentary elections, and carried out another wave of arrests the following year. Many of the Hamas officials have since been released but several dozen remain in detention, according to the Israeli rights group B'Tselem.

Four of the Hamas politicians released from prison are expected to be forced from their homes in Israeli-controlled east Jerusalem after the Israeli government stripped them of their residency rights, saying the men are senior members of a terror organization.

The men could be forcibly evicted by police as early as Friday.

Jerusalem police would not comment on a planned time for an eviction.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Hamas rival whose government in the West Bank has itself cracked down on members of the Islamic group, called the Israeli move a "dangerous precedent" and said Israel was creating "the biggest obstacles yet on the path to peace."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jsx1I4iHOAx7-hwB0M4hfnVvskmQD9GICSPG1


Posted @ 12:27   

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

World must deny legitimacy to Israel

JNOUBIYEH | 11:22 AM |

By KADER ASMAL

The world worked together to help bring apartheid to an end, writes Kader Asmal. So why allow it to live on in Israel/Palestine?

In 1980, I served on a commission of enquiry into reported violations of international law by Israel following its invasion of Lebanon. We spent 22 days in Lebanon, Israel and the surrounding areas. The devastation in Lebanon was quite overwhelming. Bombings were carried on while we were there; whole new blocks of flats in Beirut were destroyed simply because they were there. The noise, the dust and the sound of bullets were ceaseless.

And then, after our preliminary work had been done, there were the Sabra and Shatila massacres of hundreds of defenceless refugees, shot dead by the Israeli surrogates, the Phalange. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) had been expelled from Lebanon. Golda Meir had said coldly that there was no such thing as a Palestinian. Now the visible signs of such people had to be destroyed, as with the famous Palestine Library in Beirut and the hospital records in the West Bank.

Israel Shahack, head of an Israeli civil-liberties body, drew my attention to the similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa: "You see," he said, "the West Bank and Gaza are our bantustans, reserves of labour for Israel but no freedom of labour."

The Palestinians have been betrayed by those who believe in the legal system that holds the world together and they have been betrayed by their neighbours, who bought peace from Israel. The European Union grants Israel the enormous advantage of preferential trading status through the EU-Israel Association Agreement, and billions of American dollars in "aid" allows Israel to have the most technologically advanced army and counter-intelligence agency in the world.

It is time to delegitimise this entity. We did that to the apartheid government in South Africa, and the same must happen to Israel. We spent years trying to isolate South Africa, and the campaign grew to embrace a worldwide call for state-ordained boycotts, including military, economic, sporting, academic and cultural sanctions. These campaigns stirred the conscience of the world.

Today, in Israel, non-Jewish nationals have no right to return. Non-Jews are severely restricted in owning land in Israel and in the occupied territories. There is no freedom of movement for Palestinians, who can also lose their residence rights for the slightest reason. There is no right to assembly without the permission of the police. Israel, as the occupying power, has appropriated nearly 30% of the West Bank and destroyed the cohesiveness of East Jerusalem by building Israeli homes.

Every tenet of freedom and equality is violated by Israel, not only in the occupied territories but also in relation to their attitude to Palestine. Today the West Bank and East Jerusalem are home to nearly half a million Israeli settlers who are subject to Israeli and not Palestinian law. Special "Israeli-only" roads join these settlements together and to Israel. There are more than 600 checkpoints in the West Bank, where Palestinians need identity cards to travel from one village to another. Israel has imposed a matrix of controls that surpasses the restrictions once imposed by South Africa's apartheid regime on the black population.

With the construction of its "apartheid wall", deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice (ICC) in 2004, Israel has not just annexed a further 10% of Palestinian land but has divided the West Bank into increasingly watertight ghettoes.
A look at a map of the West Bank reveals that, in reality, it is now part of greater Israel. There are two classes of people living in this territory: Jews who have rights and privileges and non-Jews who have neither. This is apartheid, and has been identified as such by former American president Jimmy Carter, among others. Given that the world worked together to help bring apartheid to an end, why allow its persistence in Israel/Palestine?

The United States perceives Israel as a strategic ally. Furthermore, the Israeli lobby is by far the most powerful on Capitol Hill. The EU is paralysed by the genocide committed against Europe's Jews in the 1940s. This turns the Palestinians into scapegoats for Europe's past crimes, while equating the Israeli state with the Jewish people, many of whom worldwide passionately oppose its policies.

With no external pressure to conclude a peace agreement with the Palestinians, domestic pressure in Israel for peace has become muted. Israel will not voluntarily relinquish control of the Palestinian territories, extend equal rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel, or negotiate a just resolution to all outstanding issues if there are no negative consequences for maintaining the status quo.

Whenever an opportunity for negotiation arises, Israel derails it with a provocative act. In December 2008 and January 2009, the Israeli military onslaught on Gaza, named Operation Cast Lead, left 1 400 Palestinians civilians dead, including 116 women and 313 children. At no time in the history of apartheid did the racists use tactics such as those used by the Israelis: aerial strafing of built-up areas; tanks and cannon against houses; the destruction of water and sanitation works

In addition to the fatalities and injuries, tens of thousands of Palestinians were left homeless. Israel tightened the illegal blockade on Gaza in place since June 2007, preventing assistance being rendered to casualties and the importation of materials to rebuild Gaza. Nearly 20 000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza are in Israel's prisons.

In April 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Commission established an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international human-rights and humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead. It was led by Richard Goldstone, a former member of the South African Constitutional Court and chief prosecutor with the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

In September 2009 the Goldstone Report was released. It accused both the Israeli Defence Force and Palestinian militants of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. It recommended that Israel and Hamas carry out independent, credible investigations, and that the allegations be brought to the ICC if they didn't. The Israeli government rejected the report's findings; Hamas first rejected and then embraced it.

The most damning of the report's findings is paragraph 1886 of its conclusions:
"The Mission recognises that not all deaths constitute violations of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality acknowledges that, under certain strict conditions, actions resulting in the loss of civilian life may not be unlawful. What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the Mission is that deeds by the Israeli armed forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that, as a whole, they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the 'supporting infrastructure'. In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population."

In October 2009 the UN General Assembly endorsed Goldstone's findings, as did the EU Parliament on March 10 2010 -- and on March 22 the EU Foreign Affairs Council voted to enhance the EU/Israel Association agreement, providing Israel with even more favourable trading conditions!

It would appear that if there is a contest in EU policy between human rights and economic benefit, human rights come off worse. Yet the EU recently cancelled a trade agreement with Sri Lanka on human-rights grounds. The only logical conclusion is that Israel has impunity because of Europe's past crimes. The moral question remains: Why must the Palestinian people pay with their lives and freedom to ease the consciences of Europeans?

Now we must engage in a "legitimacy war". Doubt must be cast on several dimensions of Israel's legitimacy, its status as a moral and law-abiding actor, as an occupying power, and with respect to its willingness to respect the UN and abide by international law. No more impunity. Israel's leaders must be held to account.

The Goldstone report lends weight to calls from around the world to disrupt normal relations with Israel: by boycotting cultural and academic activities, by disrupting trade relations through disinvestment, or by refusing to load and unload ships and planes carrying cargo to or from Israel, and by pressing governments to impose economic sanctions.

It is up to all of us dedicated to peace and justice to do all we can to help the Palestinians prevail in the legitimacy war and bring their long ordeal to an end.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gas War: Israel Threatens to Use Force; Lebanon to Respond

Al-Manar

25/06/2010 A new kind of war seems to loom in the horizon: the gas war…

While the war of freedom flotillas remains at the top of the headlines as the Israeli enemy is seeking to prevent Lebanese flotillas seeking to break the inhumane siege of Gaza of setting sail, the gas war seems to be, without doubt, the "upcoming war" in the region…

This war finally saw light with Israeli threatening to use force to safeguard what it called its natural gas fields. In this context, Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau warned that his entity will not hesitate to use force to protect its natural gas fields from being claimed by Lebanon.

Israel would "not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law," Landau told Bloomberg News. "Whatever we find, they will have something to say. That's because they're not challenging our findings and so-called occupation of the sea," he said. "For them, our very existence here is a matter of occupation. These areas are within the economic waters of Israel."

In Lebanon, Speaker Nabih Berri said that the best response to the Israeli threat is to speed up adoption of the oil exploration draft law. He wondered why the proposal would meet opposition given that he was attempting to guarantee the best way to pay off Lebanon's debts.

Earlier this month, Berri urged the Lebanese government to start exploring its offshore natural gas reserves, claiming that otherwise Israel would claim the resources. "Lebanon must take immediate action to defend its financial, political, economic and sovereign rights," Berri, who has submitted a bill to launch exploration of potential offshore reserves, said. "Exploring our options in this field is our best bet to pay off Lebanon's debts," he told reporters. "Israel is racing to make the situation a fait accompli and was quick to present itself as an oil emirate - ignoring the fact that, according to the maps, the deposit extends into Lebanese waters," Berri said.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah official in the South Sheikh Nabil Qaouq stressed Friday Lebanon's right to every drop of petroleum off its shores. "It's the Lebanese' duty to defend this right because it is a defense of Lebanon's sovereignty," Sheikh Qaouq said. "A delay in approving a law on investing in Lebanon's petroleum serves Israeli goals, which the United States is trying to fulfill through Lebanon," he added.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Is Israel right to complain that Hamas has denied Red Cross visits to Gilad Shalit?


Via South Lebanon

JNOUBIYEH | 11:06 AM |

By ALI ABUNIMAH

The latest Israeli hasbara tactic to combat growing international opposition to Israel's criminal blockade of the occupied Gaza Strip is to complain that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been prevented from visiting the Israeli soldier captured by the Palestinian resistance organization Hamas in 2006 while he was enforcing the military occupation and siege of the Gaza Strip.
Indeed, a representative of the ICRC stated last week with respect to the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit's case, that the organization has been working hard to secure two things: (a) a visit to Shalit by ICRC representatives, and (b) direct contact between Shalit and his family.
The representative said:
Our efforts have lost none of their intensity, despite the fact that Hamas has so far firmly rejected all of our pleas. It is unacceptable to hold a soldier captive without allowing him contact with his family, as required under international humanitarian law. We particularly regret that political considerations so far appear to have carried more weight than humanitarian concerns.
She adds:
We have stepped up our contacts with the Hamas authorities, for example at high-level meetings held recently in Gaza and Damascus. We have requested access to Mr Shalit and tried to obtain information about his condition. We have also requested that Hamas hand over to Gilad Shalit thousands of letters and greeting cards sent to him by various organizations as well as by schoolchildren and other individuals. We deeply regret that all these requests have been rejected. We have also been constantly reminding his captors of their obligation under international humanitarian law to protect his life, to treat him humanely and to let him have regular and unconditional contact with his family.
The ICRC representative always maintains a clear distinction between (a) ICRC visiting him and; (b) contact between Shalit and his family:
Whatever the reasons behind its decision to deny Gilad Shalit regular contact with his family, Hamas has an obligation under international humanitarian law to allow such contact. Hamas said publicly that security considerations prevented it from allowing the ICRC to visit Shalit. Security considerations cannot, however, justify a refusal to permit the exchange of news between Gilad Shalit and his family for almost four years.
It would appear – at the very least from the way the ICRC is treating his case – as well as from other relevant facts, that Shalit can be considered a prisoner of war (POW). If so, his status would fall under the Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.
Under this Convention, the right of the ICRC to visit prisoners of war is not unconditional – and note that the ICRC never claims such an unconditional right. Under Article 125 of the Third Geneva Convention, such visits are "Subject to the measures which the Detaining Powers may consider essential to ensure their security or to meet any other reasonable need... ."
Security, according to the ICRC, is precisely the justification Hamas has given for denying visitation. The risk of allowing such visits is obvious: revealing the location of the Israeli POW would run the risk of an Israeli military attack either to attempt to rescue him, or for any other purpose.
Israel has a history of such military adventurism, such as its failed attempt to rescue another Israeli soldier in 1994, which ended up killing the prisoner and several others.
So there is nothing illegal about Hamas denying ICRC direct access to Shalit given the high risk of Israeli military attack – which would include from past experience – mortal danger to the POW himself. Indeed, as the Detaining Power, Hamas would be in violation of its obligations under the Convention if it knowingly and irresponsibly exposed Shalit to the danger of Israeli military attack.
Furthermore, under the Third Geneva Convention, Hamas not obliged to release any Israeli POW until the "end of hostilities" or unless the POW is severely injured or mortally ill. As Israel has affirmed from its side, a "state of hostilities" exists between Israel and Gaza (what Israel has termed an "enemy entity"), it cannot demand the release of a uniformed soldier who was a combatant in the armed conflict at the time of his capture until Israel agrees that hostilities have ended.
So unless Israel gives a firm public assurance that it would never attempt a military rescue of the POW, it has no grounds whatsoever to complain that ICRC has not been allowed to visit.
As regards denying Shalit family contact, in the form of letters and parcels, there Israel appears to be on slightly stronger ground. But Israel is being disingenuous here. Part of the "rules of the game" it has established in previous German-brokered prisoner deals with the Lebanese resistance, all information is itself a tradeable commodity. If Israel repudiates these rules, and also agrees to abide by international law with respect to Palestinian prisoners, then we would be able to take more seriously its complaints about the denial of family contact as well.
But as we know, Israel violates its own obligations to the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Gaza that it is holding.
In response to the question, "Is Israel entitled to ban family visits to detainees from Gaza held in Israel, given that Hamas is not allowing access to Gilad Shalit?" the ICRC representative states:
Both Israel and the Palestinian factions have obligations towards those they detain, and they cannot relieve themselves of these obligations on grounds of lack of reciprocity. This principle is at the very heart of humanitarian law.
Under international humanitarian law and human rights law, everyone is entitled to respect for their family rights. People held captive must therefore be given the opportunity to have regular contact with their loved ones. An ICRC programme enabling Palestinian families to regularly travel to see close relatives detained in Israeli prisons has been accepted for decades, and the ICRC has always accepted the security controls that were imposed. But the programme has been suspended for families from Gaza. The ICRC has repeatedly called for the resumption of family visits to Gaza detainees and will continue to do so.
While Shalit, as a uniformed combatant of an occupying army captured during hostilities, is almost certainly a prisoner of war, it needs to be emphasized that not all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are POWs. The vast majority would be civilians subject to the protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War – which Israel also constantly violates – while those captured as part of resistance organizations described in the Third Geneva Convention may be POWs.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian