Not Guilty

The Israeli Captain Who Emptied His Rifle Into A Palestinian Schoolgirl


· Officer ignored warnings that teenager was terrified
· Defence says 'confirming the kill' standard practice

By Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Wednesday 16 November 2005
Courtesy Of "The Guardian"

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.

"They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."

The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

Following the verdict, Capt R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: "I told you I was innocent."

The army's official account said that Iman was shot for crossing into a security zone carrying her schoolbag which soldiers feared might contain a bomb. It is still not known why the girl ventured into the area but witnesses described her as at least 100 yards from the military post which was in any case well protected.

A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to "lure" the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then "confirmed the kill".

"I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over," he said.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.

On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."

At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.

The prosecution case was damaged when a soldier who initially said he had seen Capt R point his weapon at the girl's body and open fire later told the court he had fabricated the story.

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."

The army's initial investigation concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically". But after some of the soldiers under his command went to the Israeli press to give a different version, the military police launched a separate investigation after which he was charged.

Capt R claimed that the soldiers under his command were out to get him because they are Jewish and he is Druze.

The Transcript

The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl

From the watchtower [three-way conversation between watchtower soldier, the operations room in another location, and finally, Captain R, the officer on the ground near watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

From the operations room "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"

Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts

Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."

Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

Capt R then "clarifies" why he killed Iman

"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

• This article was amended on 1 September 2010, to make explicit that the opening watchtower conversation is between three participants.

Israel's Fingerprints Surface

The Hariri Assassination

By RANNIE AMIRI

July 23 - 25, 2010

Courtesy Of "CounterPunch"

In the Middle East, the link between political machinations, espionage and assassination is either clear as day, or clear as mud. 

As for the yet unsolved case of the February 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, mud might be giving way to daylight.

A crackdown on Israeli spy rings operating in Lebanon has resulted in more than 70 arrests over the past 18 months. Included among them are four high-ranking Lebanese Army and General Security officers—one having spied for the Mossad since 1984. 

A significant breakthrough in the ongoing investigation occurred in late June and culminated in the arrest of Charbel Qazzi, head of transmission and broadcasting at Alfa, one of Lebanon’s two state-owned mobile service providers.

According to the Lebanese daily As-Safir, Qazzi confessed to installing computer programs and planting electronic chips in Alfa transmitters. These could then be used by Israeli intelligence to monitor communications, locate and target individuals for assassination, and potentially deploy viruses capable of erasing recorded information in the contact lines. Qazzi’s collaboration with Israel reportedly dates back 14 years.

On July 12, a second arrest at Alfa was made. Tarek al-Raba’a, an engineer and partner of Qazzi, was apprehended on charges of spying for Israel and compromising national security. A few days later, a third Alfa employee was similarly detained.

Israel has refused to comment on the arrests. Nevertheless, their apparent ability to have penetrated Lebanon’s military and telecommunication sectors has rattled the country and urgently raised security concerns.

What does any of this have to do with the Hariri assassination?

Outside the obvious deleterious ramifications of high-ranking Lebanese military officers working for Israel, the very legitimacy of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is now in question. The STL is the U.N.-sanctioned body tasked with prosecuting those responsible for the assassination of the late prime minister. On Feb. 14, 2005, 1,000 kg of explosives detonated near Hariri’s passing motorcade, killing him and 21 others.

It is believed the STL will issue indictments in the matter as early as September—relying heavily on phone recordings and mobile transmissions to do so. 

According to the AFP, “A preliminary report by the U.N. investigating team said it had collected data from mobile phone calls made the day of Hariri's murder as evidence.” 

The National likewise reported, “The international inquiry, which could present indictments or findings as soon as September, according to unverified media reports, used extensive phone records to draw conclusions into a conspiracy to kill Hariri, widely blamed on Syria and its Lebanese allies ...”

In a July 16 televised speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah speculated the STL would use information gleaned from Israeli-compromised communications to falsely implicate the group in the prime minister’s murder:

“Some are counting in their analysis of the (STL) indictment on witnesses, some of whom turned out to be fake, and on the telecommunications networks which were infiltrated by spies who can change and manipulate data.  

“Before the (2006) war, these spies gave important information to the Israeli enemy and based on this information, Israel bombed buildings, homes, factories and institutions. Many martyrs died and many others were wounded. These spies are partners in the killings, the crimes, the threats and the displacement.” 

Nasrallah called the STL’s manipulation an “Israeli project” meant to “create an uproar in Lebanon.”

Indeed, in May 2008 Lebanon experienced a taste of this. At the height of an 18-month stalemate over the formation of a national unity government under then Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, his cabinet’s decision to unilaterally declare Hezbollah’s fixed-line communication system illegal pushed the country to the brink of civil war. 

Recognizing the value their secure lines of communication had in combating the July 2006 Israeli invasion and suspecting that state-owned telecoms might be compromised, Hezbollah resisted Siniora’s plans to have its network dismantled. Their men swept through West Beirut and put a quick end to the government’s plan. Two years later, their suspicions appear to have been vindicated.

Opposition MP and Free Patriotic Movement head Michel Aoun has already warned Nasrallah that the STL will likely indict “uncontrolled” Hezbollah members to be followed by “… Lebanese-Lebanese and Lebanese-Palestinian tension, and by an Israeli war on Lebanon.” 

Giving credence to Nasrallah and Aoun’s assertions, Commander in Chief of the Israel Defense Forces Gabi Ashkenazi, predicted “with lots of wishes” that the situation in Lebanon would deteriorate in September after the STL indicts Hezbollah for Hariri’s assassination. 

Ashkenazi’s gleeful, prescient testimony to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs Committee betrays what Israel hopes the fallout from the STL’s report will be: fomentation of civil strife and discord among Lebanon’s sectarian groups, generally divided into pro- and anti-Syria factions. Ashkenazi anticipates this to happen, of course, because he knows Israel’s unfettered access to critical phone records will have framed Hezbollah for the crime. 

Israel’s agents and operatives in Lebanon and its infiltration of a telecom network have been exposed. At the very least, the STL must recognize that evidence of alleged Hezbollah involvement in Hariri’s death (a group that historically enjoyed good ties with the late premier) is wholly tainted and likely doctored. 

The arrest of Qazzi and al-Raba’a in the breakup of Israeli spy rings should prompt the STL to shift its focus to the only regional player that has benefited from Hariri’s murder; one that will continue to do so if and when their designs to implicate Hezbollah are realized. 

It is time to look at Tel Aviv.

Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator. He may be reached at: rbamiri [at] yahoo [dot] com.

Israel "Not As Untouchable As Before"

Israel Is Not Above The Law

Interview with International Legal Expert Berdal Aral

By Yonca Poyraz Dogan
Source: Today's Zaman"
June 14, 2010
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

Berdal Aral, an international law expert who teaches at İstanbul’s Fatih University, has said that Israel has been increasingly criticized by the world community and that it is more vulnerable than before because of its actions.

“Israel now has committed new crimes and is not as untouchable as before. Almost all countries in the world have been critical of its latest attack in one way or another,” he told Today’s Zaman for Monday Talk regarding Israel’s attack on May 31 which killed nine people and wounded several dozen on an aid ship carrying activists from more than 30 countries.

Israel claims that it acted in self-defense while attacking the ship, which was in international waters and carrying humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.

The Turkish government said that it will implement several measures against Israel and will seek options to have the Israeli officials responsible for the tragedy tried in court.

Aral responded to our questions regarding what those options might be.

Would you first explain what legal violations occurred in Israel’s attack on the aid flotilla?

There are two dimensions to it. One of them is the dimension of piracy. There was a military attack on a vessel in international waters. At the end of the attack, the ship was confiscated, people were dead and wounded, force was used while bringing people to the Israeli port, the freedom of communication of the people in the vessel was restricted, they were arrested and they were badly treated while under arrest. And we know that the nine people who were killed were Turkish. So we can talk about the applicability of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) here. There is a great harm inflicted on the Turkish citizens.

What is the second dimension?

In international law, there is a category of “crimes against humanity.” We know that there were at least nine people murdered and about 50 people wounded. Indeed, this is state terror against people who were carrying out a nonviolent humanitarian mission.

The Turkish prosecutors have taken the testimonies of the activists who were released by Israel and returned Turkey. Do you expect them to file a case?

In order to open an investigation, the Justice Ministry must request one under the relevant TCK article. The defendants here would all be officials, from the Israeli defense minister and other high-level officials who made the decision to the generals who implemented that decision. The TCK’s Article 76 -- on genocide crimes -- and Article 77 -- crimes against humanity -- allow action against Israel’s crimes, but again a request from the Ministry of Justice is needed. These articles exist in Turkey’s recently revised TCK as part of its efforts to come in line with universal legal standards. As a result of any decision to try Israeli officials, those Israeli officials would be banned from entering Turkish territory, and of course there would be political consequences.

We see that there has not yet been such a demand from the Justice Ministry. What does that indicate?

There has not been yet a widespread realization that you can go to national courts for crimes against humanity. This is a fairly new phenomenon. And there is another factor in that Turkey has become a more democratic country in the last 10 years and has adopted universal legal norms in its laws. I don’t know if the Justice Ministry would act out of concerns regarding the law or if it will make a political decision. Turkey’s decision will also depend on Israel’s stance. If Israel continues its stubborn stance and does not care about international law, refuses to apologize and does not accept an international investigation into the incident, then Turkey could bring Israel to court. This also depends on whether Turkey wants to burn bridges with Israel or not.

What can Turkey do in the international arena?

The government has some options. Turkey already went to the United Nations Security Council, which released a statement, although it was not as harsh of a condemnation as Turkey had demanded. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the violence, called for “a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place” and urged Israel to “provide a full explanation [of the matter].” He also said that the underlying problem behind the raid was the blockade of Gaza, which he described as “counter-productive, unsustainable and wrong.” Turkey also demanded removal of the blockade of Gaza. Turkey has seen this crisis as an opportunity to lead to the lifting of the blockade of Gaza. The Turkish Parliament’s declaration states that “economic, political and military actions are expected to be taken.”

Can Turkey ask the UNSC to consider sanctions on Israel?

This is possible, but the United States would not support it. And if one permanent member of the UNSC opposes a UNSC draft resolution, that resolution does not pass. Turkey could go to the UN General Assembly. There were nationals from 32 countries in the vessel; Israel committed crimes against humanity there. As there has been a huge reaction from the world, if the UNSC could not pass a resolution regarding sanctions against Israel, then the General Assembly could be called to convene to discuss how to handle this act by Israel. The General Assembly can pass a resolution recommending an embargo against Israel with a two-thirds majority. This embargo can be economic, political or can be about suspending diplomatic relations with Israel.

Ankara plans on appealing to the International Crimes Court [ICC] in The Hague to ask it to launch an investigation into the Israeli raid of the Gaza aid flotilla. Are there any problems with that?

Neither Turkey nor Israel endorsed the Rome Statute of the ICC; 110 states are party to the statute. The court can exercise jurisdiction only under some circumstances: where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party or where the person’s state has accepted the jurisdiction of the court; where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the court; or where a situation is referred to the court by the UN Security Council. Israel is not a party to the statute and the crime was committed in international waters. The UNSC could refer the situation to the court, but will it happen? Turkey is probably going to request that.

But is it possible to be taken seriously while Turkey still refrains from endorsing the Rome Statute of the ICC?

The important thing here is the endorsement of the statute by the defendant, which is Israel. If Israel had endorsed the statute, it would not matter whether or not Turkey did. There is no legal aspect of this discussion, but there is of course a moral argument.

‘UNSC has had more than 230 resolutions against Israel since its foundation’

Can other states file cases in their own countries regarding the situation?

They can because this is a crime against humanity. Every country has authority in that regard. Additionally, different civil society groups all over the world could come together and enforce an embargo on Israel by not using Israeli products, or academics all over the world could choose not to communicate with Israeli academics. In the UK, for example, some British unions do not communicate with their Israeli colleagues. The logic is that a majority of the Israeli public supports Israel’s policies of aggression. Public opinion polls show that 90 percent of the Israeli public had supported Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza.

What does international law say about interference on a vessel in international waters?

International law does provide that warships may interfere with the passage of ships flying the flag of another state in limited circumstances on the high seas, such as if there are reasonable grounds to suspect it of engaging in piracy or the slave trade. This provision is included in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, to which Israel is a party.

The London-based Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights group says that the International Maritime Organization’s 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation -- to which Israel is also a party -- likely also renders the Israeli navy’s actions unlawful.

The convention indicates that any person commits an offense if that person unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control over a ship by force or threat thereof or any other form of intimidation or performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship or injures or kills any person.

In the end the important thing would be what was done rather than what was intended, right? Israel would not care much about just words.

Israel has not been punished by the international community for its reckless acts. The UNSC has passed more than 230 resolutions against Israel since its foundation. In these resolutions Israel was either condemned or banned for doing something -- it condemned Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon, demanded immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and deplored Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem. These are the resolutions. There are also a number of draft resolutions vetoed by the United States. The issue which probably kept the UNSC the most busy in the last 60 years is the actions of Israel, which has only 25,000 square kilometers of land. The UNSC has also adopted a number of resolutions saying that the strategic relationship with the United States encourages Israel to pursue aggressive and expansionist policies and practices.

Meanwhile, the European Jewish Congress (EJC) has called on the European Union and European governments to immediately ban the Humanitarian Aid Foundation (İHH) on the basis that “organizations affiliated with and used as a front for terrorist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda must be outlawed, with immediate effect.” How do you evaluate this?

The İHH is not an armed group. Everybody knows that. It is a civil society organization that has aid operations in more than 100 countries. It does not bring aid only for Muslims. It has done many surgical operations in Africa to aid the impoverished. It digs wells and provides educational activities in Latin American countries. The Jewish organization’s efforts show that they lack morality and respect for the law. They have the courage to say the complete opposite of the facts that are known by everybody. This is very bad news for Israel, that some organizations supporting Israel’s policies are drifting far away from the international community.

‘Goldstone report demanded end to Gaza blockade’

When there are brutal killings by Israel, which has all the weapons and power, it is hard to talk about the other side’s sins. But there is an issue that remains open for discussion. It is about how leaders or countries are selective regarding it. The famous Goldstone report details how brutal Israel’s attacks were in Gaza, and at the same time it accused both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan talks about only one side’s wrongs. Doesn’t he need balance here?

The Goldstone report talks about Hamas’ rockets that fall on Israelis. No matter how primitive those rockets are, they have a psychological effect on the Israeli side even if they don’t always kill people. Erdoğan must have told Hamas not to launch such attacks. The thing is that Israel forces Palestinians to respond to its brutality, and when Palestinians do respond the Israeli side tells the world, “See, I told you they are terrorists.”

What do you expect next? Is there a possibility that Israel could accept an international investigation into its latest attack?

Israel already said that it wouldn’t accept an international investigation. Israel did not cooperate at the time the Goldstone report was prepared. But the report created a worldwide uproar. It is an important report because it was accepted at the UN General Assembly. Secondly, Richard Goldstone is of a Jewish background, he has had close ties with some Israeli institutions before, he has prestige and credibility. His report was 600 pages and detailed Israel’s war crimes, supported by evidence. The report demands that the Gaza blockade by Israel should end. It also demanded that the issue of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza should be independently investigated in Israel, and if not the issue should be brought to the UNSC, and that the UNSC should open the way for an ICC trial. Israel, now that it has committed new crimes, is not as untouchable as before. Almost all countries of the word have been critical of its latest attack in one way or another. Some of them responded harshly -- like Nicaragua, which severed its diplomatic ties with Israel -- and some of them were not so harsh in their reactions, like the European states. But Israel was morally condemned, and intellectuals and the press were critical of it. It is the beginning of an end for Israel. Turkey also had a big role as a catalyst to spur the international community to action in that regard. We have to wait and see what else the Turkish government is going to do.

What are the expectations?

If the government does not implement the measures that it has been talking about, it would lose its credibility. If Israeli soldiers continue to train in Turkish airspace, if Israeli firms continue to be selected for defense projects, if Israel has communication stations in Turkey, etc., then the government’s believability would be harmed.

Berdal Aral has been a professor at Fatih University since 2000 concentrating on international law. He earned a Ph.D. from the University of Glasgow in 1994. His first book, “Uluslararası Hukukta Meşru Müdafaa Hakkı” (Right of Self Defense in International Law), was published in 1999. He also published “The Geopolitical and Economic Transition in Eurasia: Problems and Prospects” in 2004 (together with Vildan Serin and Hızır Murat Köse). His most recent publications are “Reading International Law through the Invasion of Somalia” in Text Vol. 5, No. 1, Nov. 2009, and “Turkey in the UN Security Council: Its Election and Performance” in Insight Turkey, Vol. 11, No. 4, Nov. 2009.

Global Research Articles by Yonca Poyraz Dogan

Israel Navigates Between Inquiries

By Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler,
June 19, 2010
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

JERUSALEM – Israel’s easing of its land blockade of Gaza is unlikely to lessen international pressure for a change in its policies towards the Palestinians. Nor can Israel be expected to give up its battle to undermine Hamas’ control of the Gaza Strip.

On Thursday, a fortnight after the Israeli navy’s deadly raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla bound for the Hamas-ruled territory that provoked an international outcry, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet voted to "liberalize" the procedures under which Israel has allowed goods into Gaza for the past four years.

The tight Israeli restrictions have been in place since Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections and were intensified after Hamas’ violent takeover of Gaza the following year.

No specific product list was mentioned on Thursday, but the cabinet approved the passage of materials for civilian projects under international supervision, indicating Israel would allow the United Nations to take into Gaza previously-banned building material.

These materials are necessary for the reconstruction of Gaza following the devastating Israeli war on Hamas 18 months ago which resulted in many among Gaza’s 1.5 million people losing their homes or being displaced.

The security cabinet noted that "existing security procedures to prevent the inflow of weapons and war materiel" would continue.

The Israeli decision was worked out with the special Quartet envoy to the Middle East, Tony Blair.

Although the cabinet announcement evaded the international demand for a lifting of Israel’s sea blockade, Blair hailed the Israeli decision as "a very important step": "It will allow us to keep weapons and material out of Gaza. The policy vis-à-vis Gaza should be to isolate the extremists, but to help the people of Gaza," the former British prime minister said.

In advance of the decision, Israeli officials stressed that both Blair and the U.S. had acquiesced to Israel’s demand that the sea blockade remain in force, at least until adequate alternative watertight arrangements can ensure that no weapons reach Hamas via the sea.

Despite the decision, under pressure, to ease the land siege, Israel’s sea policy is soon to be tested again.

Several upcoming peace flotillas from a number of nations, including Iran, Turkey and Lebanon will once more challenge Israel’s right to impose such a blockade. Activists say they mean to demonstrate that, like the land siege, the sea blockade too is "unsustainable."

Embattled on another front, the legal aspect of the botched interception of the Turkish-led aid flotilla by the Israeli navy, the Netanyahu government is meanwhile busy trying to stymie the steady international pressure for a full-scale investigation.

On Monday, the government approved the appointment of a three-man public probe into what went wrong on the high seas.

The committee, headed by a retired Israeli supreme court judge, includes two well-known international "observers", Nobel Peace laureate David Trimble of Northern Ireland and Ken Watkin, Canada’s former judge advocate general, both friendly to Israel.

The committee’s mandate, also worked out in concert with Washington, falls far short of the demand by U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon for a full-fledged international inquiry commission.

Even within Israel, the committee is criticized as "most insufficient."

However, much of the domestic criticism focuses less on the need to address Israel’s policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians and more on the glaring failure to justify those policies to the world.

Upon taking the decision on Monday, one minister observed, "Maybe this will ease the international pressure on us."

"Don’t count on it," reportedly responded Netanyahu, in a rare acknowledgement that he takes the international pressure on Israel seriously.

In another rare public departure from Israel’s strident defense of its sea operation, President Shimon Peres acknowledged that "Israel’s problem is not explaining itself properly, but justifying its policies."

Criticizing the fact the Netanyahu-appointed committee is unlikely to examine the government’s decision-making process, renowned political scientist Shlomo Avineri, writing in Haaretz, calls it, "A disgraceful evading of responsibility."

"Much more difficult challenges face us; Israelis have the right to know how their leaders made their decisions, whether their judgment can be relied upon," Avineri wrote in Haaretz. "It is not the decision-makers’ fate and future that hang in the balance but the fate and future of the State of Israel."

And during the security cabinet deliberations, in another rare warning, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak told Netanyahu that Israel will find it difficult to extricate itself from its deepening international isolation, without a "daring and assertive diplomatic initiative."

The flotilla controversy underlines first and foremost the need to re-build ties with the U.S., Barak argued: "There’s no way to rehabilitate those ties without a bold program that addresses the core issues of a final settlement with the Palestinians. We have to realize it’s time to make major decisions and to take genuine political steps. Otherwise, Israel’s isolation will only intensify."

Barak is due to travel to Washington soon to meet with officials of the Obama Administration. The big question is, does he have the backing of Netanyahu and the rest of the right-wing cabinet for the kind of bold initiative he is calling for.

(Inter Press Service)

Read More By Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler

• Killings Could Boomerang on Israel – May 31st, 2010
• Israel, Palestine: Where Commemorations Are Split – May 21st, 2010
• The Only Democracy in the Middle East? – May 19th, 2010
• In Jerusalem, Divided We Celebrate – May 14th, 2010
• Jerusalem Divided Between Hats and Hearts – May 4th, 2010

‘Anti-Semitism’ Charges Unleashed

1. Don’t Mention The Mavi Marmara

Prime Minister Demands Canadian MP Resign Over Vague Israel Criticism

By Jason Ditz,
June 16, 2010
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

Since Israel’s May 31 attack on the Mavi Marmara aid ship, there has been growing criticism of Israel’s behavior across much of the world, including from traditional allies like Turkey.

Yet as this criticism has grown abroad, the pressure for Israel’s public to toe the official line on the story (whatever it may be at any given time) has also grown, and in the West there is an increasingly visible effort to lionize the Israeli attack and do demonize even perceived criticism of the Israeli government as “anti-semitism.”

In a speech earlier this week, several Congressmen demanded that the US bar anyone who was on board the Mavi Marmara from ever entering the United States because they are “terrorists.” There have also been calls to join Israel in re-classifying the aid group that sent the ship as a “terrorist organization” because they sent the ship that attempted to transport electric wheelchairs and toys to the Gaza Strip.

The ire has been even more blunt against Turkey, as a number of US Congressmen are openly promising “payback” against the Turkish government for complaining about eight of its citizens being slain on the Mavi Marmara. A US citizen was also slain, eleciting the following response from America’s Vice President: “So what’s the big deal here?”

In fact while officials were finishing up a collective yawn on the attack, the real ire was saved for Helen Thomas, a White House Press Corps reporter who responded to the attack by saying Israelis should “get out of Palestine.”

Canadian MP Libby Davies

In the run-up to Thomas’ resignation, the White House publicly condemned her remarks as “reprehensible” and demanded she apologize. There were several open calls to punish her for the comment, and several claimed that the comment proved Thomas was secretly an anti-semite for years, the new explanation for her years of criticizing the wars of the Bush and Obama Administration.

The situation is even more incredible in our neighbor to the north. Canadian member of parliament Libby Davies, a representative from Vancouver, called Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands “the longest occupation in the world” and hinted that she personally supports a boycott campaign against Israel.

The backlash against Ms. Davies was quick and astonishing, with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper demanding that she resign and insisting that he had called Israel’s ambassador to reassure him that this was not the position of the Canadian government.

Ms. Davies may be thankful that she is not in Germany, however, where three MPs who were on board the Mavi Marmara are facing charges of “incitement to hatred” for even being on the ship. The MPs and their Left Party were, in public comments by rival politicians, condemned as “anti-semites” on a number of occasions.

In the weeks since the attack, the story about the Mavi Marmara has changed a number of times, as has the tenor of the story. An Israeli attack became a battle and finally an “act of self defense.” The aid workers on the ship have gone from aid workers to “pro-Palestinian activists” to “terrorists” in the blink of an eye. Turkey itself appears to have moved from “close US ally” to NATO member and finally to enemy in the same span, with Israeli Education Minister condemning Turkey’s government for a “new type of anti-Semitism.”

The story can be taken as an example of how much can happen in a matter of a half a month, and while Israel’s killings may have sparked enough outrage to force at least minor relaxing of the blockade, they have also underscored just how large a crowd remains willing to praise anything Israel does, no matter how much of an atrocity, and willing to attack anyone even tangentially opposed to it at the slightest provocation.

2. Complaint Against German ‘Mavi Marmara’ MPs

By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL,
JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
06/15/2010 06:38
Courtesy Of "The Jerusalem Post"

FDP member resigns from party because of row.

BERLIN – Thomas Schalski-Seehann, a local politician from the Free Democratic Party (FDP) in the city of Stade, outside of Hamburg, filed a legal suit against three members of the German Left Party last week.

He told the Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper that “as liberals, we want to send a clear message against this nasty anti-Semitism in the Left Party, nor are we blind in the right eye. Other criminal complaints against politicians in the Left Party that have been submitted to the Berlin prosecutor’s office show that our complaint is right and important.”

The FDP is the political party of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

He appeared to be the first German politician to charge the three Left Party members with “incitement to hatred” and the “support of a terrorist organization.” Inge Höger and Annette Groth, members of the Left Party in the parliament, and Norman Paech, a former Left Party MP and foreign policy spokesman, were on board the Mavi Marmara.

However, Schalski-Seehann’s decision to take legal action against the Left Party caused friction among fellow FDP politicians, and according to a report in Monday’s Hamburger Abendblatt, he resigned from his post as chairman of the FDP in Stade, as well as his party membership. He still plans to pursue his complaint against the Left Party members and said he wanted to show the “anti-Semitic continuity between the SED [former communist party in East Germany] and the Left Party.”

In a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post on Monday, Margret Mohrmann, the deputy chairwoman of the FDP in Stade, said Schalski-Seehann had made an “entirely personal decision” to take legal action against the Left Party. When asked if he had been forced to resign by the FDP, Mohrmann said that there had been no pressure from the local FDP in Stade.

“We are a local organization” and “such matters” as Gaza are of no interest to a local political organization, she said. She stressed that Schalski-Seehann “did not speak with us” before he initiated his legal complaint against the Left Party.

Schalski-Seehann did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Anti-Israel sentiments following the Left Party’s involvement in the flotilla, and the alliance of many MPs with radical Islamic organizations, has been the subject of growing media criticism in Germany.

Writing in the Tageszeitung, a left-liberal German daily, reporter Doris Akrap noted that Paech “is not an objective observer, when it [comes to] Israel. He has compared over the years Israel’s military approach with Nazi methods, recommends Hamas as a dialogue partner, and leaves open whether the right of resistance of the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation has a limit.”

In a widely viewed investigative television report last week titled “Questionable Peace Mission, German Leftists on Ship with Turkish Islamists and Right-Wing Extremists,” Report Mainz showed that radical Islamists with a history of violence had been on board the Mavi Marmara. Members of the Great Union Party (Büyük Birlik Partisi) a radical nationalistic Islamic party, traveled on the Mavi Marmara. According to Islam expert Michael Kiefer, who was quoted in the broadcast, the Great Union Party has similar views, within a German context, to the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. When confronted with the list of radical Islamic passengers, including members of the Great Union Party, Groth told Report Mainz that she was not the right person to ask and walked away from the camera.

Will Israel’s Impunity Continue?

Gaza Sinks Slowly

Will Israel have to pay a price for its latest assault? Despite international opinion and damage to relations with Turkey and the Arab world, the answer is likely to be no

By Alain Gresh
June 2010
Courtesy Of "Le Monde Diplomatique"

The Israeli assault on the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza on 31 May has been generally condemned. It is hard to support an act of piracy in international waters, especially when it kills 10 people. The disproportionate force and the deliberate nature of the assault rightly make us indignant.

How can we comprehend Israel’s so-called mistake? There is now an unprecedented offensive against human rights organisations in Israel, both international and Israeli; these organisations are now considered a strategic threat to Israel, second only to that of Iran, Hamas and Hizballah. There is a serious attempt to delegitimise them, using groups backed by the Israeli government and the far right (for example, NGO Monitor). It is therefore unsurprising that Israeli soldiers saw the activists who came to bring supplies to Gaza as “terrorists” and treated them as such.

The first and most immediate question, though, is will Israel have to pay a price for this crime? And will the world’s governments, especially those of Europe, react with more than words? The answer to both questions is likely to be no.

The UN Security Council, which met on 1 June, was unable to adopt a resolution and had to make do with a declaration by its president. This mentioned the creation of an “independent and impartial” commission, but failed to state that it should be international. That will allow the Israeli government to set up its own enquiry, which will lead nowhere. The head of the Security Council reminded the world of the need to lift the blockade of Gaza, but that was no different from the unanimous resolutions adopted by the Security Council more than three years ago and never applied.

Israel is rewarded for its intransigence by both the US and the European Union. Only recently it was admitted to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), the club of the most developed economies. The Israeli prime minister marked this event with a triumphant visit to Paris. With hindsight, we might see the OECD admission was a green light for Israel’s 31 May assault. In December 2008 the EU decided to upgrade bilateral relations with Israel, giving it a status equivalent to that enjoyed by some great powers. Two weeks later, violating the ceasefire with Hamas, the Israeli army began its assault on Gaza, which had already been blockaded for several months. Europe’s decision could be seen as a green light for the attack, which was marked, according to Judge Richard Goldstone (1), by war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel, and also by Hamas. The report’s conclusions have not as yet been put into effect and the blockade continues.

Israel’s action is likely to have serious repercussions. First, on international opinion, especially in the West, which sees Israel as an outlaw state that violates all the rules of international law. Then on bilateral relations between Turkey and Israel, which is losing its most powerful ally in the Muslim world. The crisis could have repercussions in the Arab world too: Egypt’s decision to open the Rafah crossing is a sign of real alarm among moderate governments who see their peace strategy trampled by Israel. But will they go further? It seems unlikely.

The media talks of Israel’s “mistake” and its deteriorating image (sometimes that is the only criticism). But we need to remember that the real war crime, in the proper sense, is the blockade. This April, only 2,647 trucks crossed into the Gaza Strip from Israel. Before Hamas took control of the territory in June 2007, the figure was on average 12,000 a month. Gaza today receives around 22% of what arrived before June 2007 (2).

The late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin once admitted that he dreamed of seeing Gaza sink into the Mediterranean. This fantasy is becoming a kind of reality. Despite international condemnation, Gaza goes on sinking slowly.

(1) The UN Human Rights Council commissioned the Goldstone Report, Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (PDF), 15 September 2009.

(2) See the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Translated by Wendy Kristianasen

A Call To The American People

At the top of the list of Israel's defenders is the United States of America. To defend Israel it has gone to the ridiculous length of blaming the victims on Mavi Marmara. Again, there is nothing new in this kind of US behavior.

By A K M Mohiuddin
June 8, 2010
Courtesy Of "IslamiCity"

Demo against the assault on Freedom Flotilla in the front of the white house, on June 1, 2010

The compassionate and courageous souls on board the Freedom Flotilla bound for besieged Gaza have earned the love and respect of people all over the world. The tragically fallen ones have left us deeply grieving. Those who supported the attempt to break the cruel and illegal Israeli blockade also deserve our praise and gratitude. The Prime Minister of Turkey clearly stands out with his head high among the world's leaders. By a sudden stroke of destiny, the name of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Turkey has become very dear to the hearts of most people in the world.

But what of Israel? Israel has once again demonstrated to the world that nothing is too mean or low for it. There is nothing new or surprising in Israel's behavior. It can sink to any level in its cruelty, inhumanity and depravity toward the Palestinians and any of their sympathizers. Anyone whose memory is not terribly weak or whose mind is not totally biased will admit this. To write a proper account of Israel's diabolic nature would require a Shakespeare or a Joseph Conrad. Yet the saddest thing is that so many illusions have been held about Israel by so many for so long. It is astonishing that there are still people and states around to defend this arrogant and criminal state. Among these the most outstanding is the US.

At the top of the list of Israel's defenders is the United States of America. To defend Israel it has gone to the ridiculous length of blaming the victims on Mavi Marmara. Again, there is nothing new in this kind of US behavior. Since the time of President Truman, who badly needed Jewish money for his campaign fund, Israel has enjoyed unconditional and unlimited American support of every kind. The only exception was President Eisenhower during Israel's Suez Crisis in 1956. Other than that all Israel's barbarities against the Palestinians have been in partnership with the US. With American material and political support and protection Israel has gotten away with all its crimes. Assured of US protection, Israel has become bolder and bolder and now feels that it can defy all laws, norms and common decency. Without the US, Israel is nothing. So the question is: who is to blame more, Israel or the United States?

There is little joy in pointing the finger of blame, however, and nothing good comes of it. What the world really needs is an awakening of our hearts and open acceptance of everyone's common humanity. I speak out here not to blame, but to lament the atrophy of humanity in an important segment of mankind. At the same time, each of us can try to preserve our own humanity, like those men and women of diverse nationalities who gathered in the Freedom Flotilla, risking everything.

It baffles the understanding how such nice, friendly people like the Americans can be so biased against the Palestinians and so insensitive to their suffering and humiliation. I speak not about American political leaders, most of whom are known to be dependent on Jewish money to run their expensive election campaigns. But in a democracy the citizens have a responsibility to carefully watch their leaders and see what they are doing. If ordinary citizens evade this responsibility, they will share the guilt of their elected leaders. It is time they ask themselves whether they are doing their duty.

Another baffling thing is that so many of the best universities of the world are in America, and yet so few voices are heard speaking out for justice and humanity. One is also tempted to ask what happens to the hearts and souls of those who come out of these prestigious institutions and fill the different organs of public and private institutions. Why is it that Americans are so ill-informed of what is going on in the world? Why is it that accuracy and fairness, which are supposed to be the hallmarks of American journalism, are so noticeably absent from US media reports and commentaries? Have these reputed centers of education really done their work? Have these places made their goal only producing efficient functionaries, forsaking all other ideals of nourishing and nurturing humanity in those who come to them to benefit their lives? If the answer is yes, what a loss to humanity!

The time has come for the world's most powerful country to re-examine its own soul. That will be good for it and good for the rest of the world. But whether their leaders will be courageous enough to do so looks doubtful, at least at the moment. Their leaders are mired in folly, imprisoned in their own ego.

Will the American people also remain indifferent? It's hard to say, but if they woke up and realized how the world yearns for their help in pursuit of justice and peace, it would be a great day for the whole world. For this to happen they have to listen to the voice of their own humanity, refuse to accept the lies and the half-truths offered by their leaders and their media and find out the truth for what it is. The Vietnam war finally stopped the way it did almost exclusively because ordinary American citizens came to recognize the truth and were roused to speak out. Even now, the world has much faith in the goodness of the American people.

People of the United States, you have the ability to do much good, but we also fear that you have an equally great ability to do harm by your indifference or silence. Make your choice. Your leaders need to be led: step forward to lead them to all that is just and humane.

*****

A. K. M. Mohiuddin is a retired university professor of English literature living in Bangladesh. He can be reached at this address: akmm45 [at] yahoo [dot] com

UN Recognition Of Israel Is Fatally Flawed

What Legitimacy Does Israel Have?

By Christopher King
6 June 2010
Courtesy Of "Redress Information & Analysis"

Christopher King argues that beneath Israel’s litany of crimes against the Palestinians, and most recently its murder of humanitarian workers aboard the Gaza-bound international aid flotilla, lies the fact of its own illegality.

The true nature of the so-called freedom-loving, democratic state of Israel is now clear to the world following its military attack on Gaza, its illegal blockade of Gaza with terrible suffering of its population and now the murder of nine humanitarian activists in course of pirating the Free Gaza Flotilla in international waters.

These horrifying events should focus minds within the international community on the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. We should consider what meaning for its present status its disregard for legality and human rights since its inception might have.

The foundation of the entity Israel was supported by Europe and America due to sympathy or guilt, as you might have it, for the suffering of European Jews, the colonialist thinking of that time and familiarity with the Jewish biblical narrative.

“...it is clear that once the Jews took up arms against the Palestinians, dispossessed them and settled on their land, they acted against the terms and intent of the Mandate, to say nothing of civil law.”

The British government resisted unauthorized Jewish immigrants from 1944 to 1948 because they caused trouble with the Palestinians and no administrator likes gratuitous trouble. When the Jews took up arms the British were bound to take action against them. On the Jewish side, there had been expressions of intent based on the Balfour Declaration (1917) that gave Zionists reason to believe that their aspirations had political support. This was so, although with critically important provisos.

The preamble to the League of Nations Mandate by which Britain administered Palestine and which has the same essential wording as the Balfour Declaration, reads:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country [my italics].

Whatever was meant by the term “national home for the Jewish people”, it is clear that once the Jews took up arms against the Palestinians, dispossessed them and settled on their land, they acted against the terms and intent of the Mandate, to say nothing of civil law. Britain was placed in the position of breaching the Mandate if it condoned Jewish actions.

“The Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate in favour of a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ are often cited as the legal basis for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. It is obvious, however, that this cannot be true. These instruments had no legal force."

The Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate in favour of a “national home for the Jewish people” are often cited as the legal basis for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. It is obvious, however, that this cannot be true. These instruments had no legal force. Moreover, dispossession of Palestinians from their land breached the most important civil rights safeguarded by the Mandate, namely, the right to possess their land and the right for them and their descendants to live upon it.

Israel’s declaration of independence on 14 May 1948 when the British Mandate ended has no legal validity. Subsequently, Israel was recognized by other countries, following the United States. It was admitted to the United Nations, the rebranded League of Nations, by Resolution 273 on 11 May 1949 which, again is cited by Jewish Palestinians as Israel’s legitimization. Resolution 273 was a grave error. Israel not only had no pre-existing historical foundation but it incorporated a fatal flaw. That flaw was its failure to recognize the rights of the Palestinians. The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate had recognized Palestinian rights and the 10 December 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was a general acknowledgement that such rights existed for all peoples.

The right to own property without arbitrary confiscation and to live upon it in one’s own country did not, of course, come into existence with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. These rights had always explicity existed in European-based law, as well as in all developed countries and many others, with the exception of the brief experiment with socialism in some.

“Israel not only had no pre-existing historical foundation but it incorporated a fatal flaw. That flaw was its failure to recognize the rights of the Palestinians.”

The right to own property and live peacefully upon it already existed in Palestine. In June 2005 Turkey transferred Ottoman land ownership records for Palestine up to 1916 to the Palestinian Authority. From 1917 to 1948 land records were maintained by the British administration. It should be mentioned that the Israeli authorities seized the land records held by the Palestinian Authority as reported by the Scottish Trades Union Council on 22 April 2002:

Our Palestinian trade union colleagues are now confirming what has been suggested by such news reports as have been able to get out of the areas under Israeli assault.

"Ariel Sharon, with the complicity of the entire Israeli political establishment, is moving to complete his lifetime's ambition – the creation of a state of Greater Israel on all of historic Palestine, through the expulsion or killing of non-Jewish Palestinians, and the destruction of all physical evidence of their history.

"That is why the Israeli gunmen have not only been massacring Palestinians. They have also been demolishing centuries-old buildings, and ripping up olive groves, some of which date back to Roman times.

"They have seized and removed the records and documentation of the Palestinian Authority and of Palestinian civic organizations, including all the membership records of the Palestinian trade unions.

“And most significantly, they have seized the Palestinian records of land ownership. What purpose can that have, other than in order to destroy evidence of the Palestinians entitlement to their land? [my italics].

The 22 August report from the American Libraries Association’s International Responsibilities Task Force illustrates that Israel particularly targets libraries that contain historical records relating to Palestinian demographics (e.g. Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute, Ramallah), commerce (e.g. Palestinian Insurance Company, Ramallah) and government statistics (e.g. Bureau of Statistics, Ramallah). Library papers and computers are vandalized and records that could support Palestinian claims on their land are either entirely removed or destroyed.

The fundamental issue in Palestine is land and the right to live upon it. Israeli actions make clear their awareness that they have no title to the land. Israel is attempting to strengthen its possession by making it difficult for Palestinians to establish their claims.

“... the United Nations’ acceptance of Israel’s status as a legitimate state is inherently invalid. Legitimate means according to law. In dispossessing the Palestinians Israel had broken that people’s legally valid tie to the land on which they and their ancestors had lived for centuries if not millennia..."

This then is the fatal flaw in the United Nations 1949 recognition of Israel as a legitimate state within the international community. It ignores the land and residence rights of the Palestinians that had been made explicit in the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate and the United Nations’ own recognition in the period leading up to the expiry of the British mandate that Palestinian rights must be protected.

By fatal flaw, I mean that the United Nations’ acceptance of Israel’s status as a legitimate state is inherently invalid. Legitimate means according to law. In dispossessing the Palestinians Israel had broken that people’s legally valid tie to the land on which they and their ancestors had lived for centuries if not millennia, which is the very foundation of nationhood, national identity and indeed, livelihood.

As I have said elsewhere, legitimacy for Israel can only be granted by the Palestinians and even they cannot legally give it while under the duress of armed occupation and dispossession. Agreements with the Palestinian Authority or even Hamas relating to land allocation and citizenship are therefore worthless as they might be subject to valid legal challenge at any time in the future.

The status of the Jews in Palestine in international law is therefore that of a people having an ethnic identity, some religious identity but without a Jewish country. Those who emigrated to Palestine possessed national identities based on their birthplace and parents’ residence as in the case of the Palestinians. By these internationally-recognized critera, if they wish to live in Palestine, they are Jewish Palestinians among Muslim, Christian and whichever other Palestinians have a claim to the land.

There is no point in the Jews of Palestine or anyone else arguing subtle and complex legal points in refutation of this. If this proposition is not true, then any people in any country may be dispossessed by a more powerful country and lose all claim to their land. That cannot be the case. International law is founded on the concept of national identity and the right to defend the nation on which it is based. That is precisely what Hamas, the legitimate, democratically-elected government of Palestine is doing.

“The status of the Jews in Palestine in international law is ... that of a people having an ethnic identity, some religious identity but without a Jewish country.”

The Jews of Palestine cannot conceivably, therefore, invent a country and national identity on land confiscated by armed force from the Palestinian people. It is not possible.

Destroying Palestinian records is crime of unspeakable viciousness that rivals the crimes that Jewish Palestinians carry out against the persons of their Musilm compatriots. It does immense cultural damage while giving no advantage to Jews. The lack of records might be easily remedied for land redistribution purposes on the basis of the known ethnic populations in 1947, when mass immigration commenced. A democratically elected government for all Palestine, following the return of refugees, could sort out the details.

I have never heard anyone suggest that the Jews of Palestine should be ejected from that country. It appears, however, that they do not wish to live equitably among those Palestinians who have prior and better claim to the land than they. In that case, I would suggest that they might select an agreeable location of about 22,000 square kilometres in the United States. They could emigrate, drive its American inhabitants out and set up a Jewish homeland there. More land could be taken over later if desired. As the United States has unfailingly endorsed these principles in the case of Palestine it will undoubtedly be in accord. Alternatively, perhaps Muslim Palestinians might do the same. I cannot see what possible objection the United States government might have.

---

Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

7 Questions For Defenders Of Israel's Inhumane Siege Of Gaza

The Gaza Blockade Has Nothing To Do With Israel Defending Itself.

By Joshua Holland
June 7, 2010
Courtesy Of "Alter Net"

Apologists for the brutal siege of Gaza base their defense largely on a single, spectacularly dishonest argument: that Israel is only trying to keep arms out of Gaza -- arms that Hamas might use against Israeli civilians.

It’s a red herring of monstrous proportions, made more pernicious by the brutal effects of the blockade it supports. It’s dishonest because people around the world are not outraged by the idea of Israel keeping weapons out of the hands of Hamas. The entire world (perhaps aside from the United States and Israel) is appalled by the gradual strangulation of the people of Gaza -- young and old, innocent and guilty-- under an intentional man-made humanitarian crisis.

It’s imperative that people of good conscience not let Israel’s defenders get away with this bait-and switch. Israel’s “right to defend itself” has nothing to do with the moral outrage caused by the blockade. But it is nonetheless becoming the center of the debate.

In order to keep the focus on the real issue, here are seven questions for those who continue to claim the siege is about Israel’s security. If you encounter such an argument, just concede the point that Israel has every right in the world to check incoming containers for weapons, at least for the sake of argument, and then launch right into these Columbo-style questions. They’re impossible to answer. (Unless otherwise noted, this is the source for the following info).

Impossible-to-Answer Question #1: What’s the connection between a hungry Palestinian population and keeping weapons out of the hands of Hamas? I know Israel says it’s letting in enough food in to prevent a humanitarian crisis, but UN officials have called the situation "grim," "deteriorating" and a "medieval siege." A bare minimum of 400 truckloads of goods needs to enter Gaza per week, and an average of 171 get in. According to the World Health Organization, one in 10 Gazans suffer from “chronic malnutrition,” and the UN says six in 10 Gaza households are "food insecure."

Question #2: What changed? I mean, the Gaza strip has been under Israeli occupation since 1978, and in that time Israel has always prohibited the importation of weapons. Hamas has been around since 1978, and has always been an armed enemy. So if it’s all about security, why is it that Israel started preventing 75 percent of all manner of imported goods coming into Gaza only after the election of Hamas, a result rejected by Israel and the international community?

Question #3: Is Israel afraid of some sort of deadly sweet-and-savory weapon? Because I know it has, at various times, prevented chocolate, jam, sage and coriander from coming into Gaza. Just wondering what Israel’s security has to do with Gazans’ flavoring options, you know? Or are you saying that people who don’t have access to French fries, dried fruit -- or fabric, notebooks or toys for that matter -- are less likely to become terrorists?

Question #4: Israel attacked Gaza’s main power plant in 2006, and it won’t let the Gazans bring in the parts needed to restore its output to the previous levels. The majority of houses in Gaza experience power outages of at least eight hours per day, but some have no juice for as much as 12 hours a day. So, you know: Is Israel worried about rechargeable weapons of some sort?

Question #5: So, Israel “has not permitted supplies into the Gaza Strip to rebuild the sewage system,” and Amnesty International says that up to 95 percent of the water in Gaza isn’t healthy for human consumption. There isn’t enough power to run the desalination and sewage facilities, so significant amounts of sewage are seeping into Gaza's coastal aquifer, the population’s main source of water. Help me understand what Israel is defending against, here? Some sort of frozen ice-missile technology?

Question #6: How does barring the export of all goods from Gaza keep weapons out of Gaza? Am I not getting what the words “out” and “in” mean? The World Health Organization says, "In the Gaza Strip, private enterprise is practically at a standstill as a consequence of the blockade. 98 percent of industrial operations have been shut down.” Not sure how further impoverishing Gaza’s already poor population makes Israel more secure -- help me understand?

Question #7: If it’s about keeping weapons out of Gaza, then why won’t Israel allow in medical equipment, spare parts and the building materials necessary to rebuild the health-care infrastructure that was devastated in the 2008 war? The World Health Organization says the blockade has "accelerated the degeneration" of Gaza’s health system. Is the idea that keeping the health-care system down will make people too weak and infirm to pick up a weapon?

These questions are unanswerable because the blockade of Gaza is about keeping goods from flowing in and out of Gaza. Push them on their answers. Are they saying it enhances Israel’s security because people who are jobless, hungry, poor and in bad health may have less will to resist? That’s the definition of collective punishment, a serious crime since World War II, when the world reacted with revulsion to the collective punishments meted out by the Axis powers to the populations of the territories they occupied.

The argument that Israel is only keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists is not a minor distraction. As I wrote last week, the Israeli government is an occupying power that exercises “effective control” over Gaza. Some have argued that Gaza is an independent entity at war with Israel, and the Israeli Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Israel “had no commitment 'to deal with the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip or to allow unlimited amounts of goods and merchandise' to pass through, but only vital and humanitarian goods."

But outside of Israel it’s not a serious claim. According to the United Nations, “Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem [are designated] as Occupied Palestinian Territory… that definition hasn't changed." The United States government, Israel’s closest ally, says unambiguously: “West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement… permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.”

As an occupying power, Israel does have the right to keep weapons out of Gaza. But it also has a legal responsibility to safeguard the well-being of the civilian population. This is why the whole narrative of keeping rockets out is such a insidious lie.

The suffering in Gaza doesn't make Israel any safer. As the progressive pro-Israel group J Street noted, “Israel is a world leader in the monitoring and border control technology necessary to ensure weapons are not moved across the border into Gaza.” It added: “with fewer soldiers and resources assigned to enforcing the current blockade on non-military items, Israel could more effectively devote its energies to detecting and closing the tunnels through which Hamas is currently shipping arms.” Israel claims that just about any aid could be "diverted" to Hamas, but as the BBC notes, aid groups working in Gaza "have stringent monitoring systems in place."

For supporters of the siege, the value of the defense argument is simple to grasp. Intercepting weapons is a military objective. In international law, an occupying power has broad leeway in the use of force to accomplish military objectives. The siege of Gaza is, and always was, meant to crush Gaza’s economy, impose severe suffering on the population and ultimately make it impossible for Hamas to govern. The Israeli government has not hidden this fact. As J Street put it, "Israeli officials have repeatedly characterized their blockade policy in the following terms: ‘No prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.’" When the siege was first imposed, Dov Weisglass, an adviser to then Prime-Minister Ehud Olmert, explained, "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger."

The blockade’s objective is political, not military. It’s a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza (approximately half of whom are under 18 years of age). It is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. It’s a serious crime. And the world is calling for Israel to bring it to an end, not to stop intercepting weapons.

People who know what has happened to Gaza over the past 3.5 years consider the weapons argument a kind of tragic joke. As Lindsey Hilsum, the international editor for Britain’s Channel 4 put it, “Somewhere in Gaza, someone may once have tried to fashion a missile from a chicken hatchery, a goat, a bunch of coriander and a fishing rod stuck together with jam.” Israel’s kept all of those goods out of Gaza, with the intended result of making the people miserable. Strangling the Gazan economy, making eight out of 10 people dependent on international aid groups and making sure the residents can’t get their hands on tea and coffee isn’t making Israel one bit more secure.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.