Palestine - search results

by Stephen Lendman

He's a world class thug. He represents the worst of rogue state leadership. He exceeds Sharonian evil. Why Israelis put up with him they'll have to explain.

He's militantly racist. He deplores peace. He thrives on violence and instability. He blames Palestinians for Israeli crimes.

He calls sham peace talks legitimate ones. They've been stillborn decades. They remain so now.

Netanyahu wants Palestinians denied all rights. He wants them cowed into submission. He wants his rules enforced. 

Palestinians have no legitimate peace partner. They never did. For sure not now. They're on their own like always. Israel spurns equity and justice. Occupation harshness persists.

On Wednesday, Netanyahu ordered government officials to stop cooperating with PA ones. It's in response to Abbas' "grave violation of (his) commitments to the framework of the peace talks," he claimed.

He lied saying so. Israel bears full responsibility. He stressed eliminating meetings between Israeli ministers and their Palestinian counterparts. 

He did so in response to Abbas applying to join 15 UN bodies and treaties. He wants Palestinians denied their legal rights.

Cabinet secretary Avichai Mendelblit informed Israeli minsters by telephone. Only low-level cooperation is permitted.

Israeli Defense Ministry/PA contacts continue. Maintaining them relates to security. Abbas serves as Israel's enforcer. Peace talks aren't affected.

Fatah official Mohammed al-Madani said he's unaware of details on what happened. "If true, this decision is mistaken," he said.

"It’s impossible to sever the ties between Israelis and Palestinians. We must continue to have normal relations in order to reach a just and lasting peace."

Opposition Labor chairman Isaac Herzog reacted. He accused Netanyahu of aggravating sensitive conditions.

"The prime minister is handing petrol and flammable materials to the last of Israel's haters," said Herzog.

"It's not clear what good will come of this superfluous move of cutting off relations with the Palestinian Authority," he added. "In fact, it's quite clear what damage will come of this step." 

"It will harm the interests of the state of Israel and its economic sector. The prime minister has begun a process of disengagement between Israel the world." 

"This is the result of frustration and helplessness, and the prime minister of Israel's lack of ability to operate within a plan and reached any sort of achievement in that realm. Frustration and helplessness are not diplomatic policy." 

Meretz party MK Nitzan Horowitz said:

"Netanyahu is confirming that he killed the diplomatic process after making the talks explode, when he didn't give them a real chance in the first place. He's destroying what's left."

He's hurting Israel most, he added. His action is "irresponsible" and "dangerous."

Environmental Protection minister called his decision "useless." It "deserv(ed) prior discussion," he added.

"I intend to ask the prime minister to hold an in-depth discussion on the significance and implications of this decision," he said.

Finance Committee chairman Nissan Slomiansky supports the move. Palestinians need contacts more than Israel, he said.

"It's a serious mistake to think that we need to pay a price just so people will talk to us," he added. 

"I commend the prime minister for his decision to respond with determination to the Palestinian Authority's provocations."  

Hardline Economy Minister Naftali Bennett called settlement construction Israel's divine right.

"Some people describe the construction as a boom in settlement activities, and I am telling them we will continue to build in the capital of our Jewish homeland," he said. 

"Some tried to prevent us from living in our capital, but Zionism will continue to build, nobody will ever be able to stop us."

PA spokesman Ehab Bseiso said Israel undermined efforts "to revive the negotiations, to proceed with a constructive solution to the challenges facing the peace process."

Former US peace negotiator Aaron David Miller claimed:

"A collapse of the (talks) add(s) to the perception that we really don't know what we're doing."

Gulf Research Center senior advisor Mustafa Anali said Arab expectations of Washington are about as low as they can get.

"That's because Arabs never trusted this administration as a peacemaker."

Obama deplores peace. He's a warrior. He waged multiple direct and proxy wars. He's done so throughout his tenure. He's targeting Russia. He's playing with fire.

He wants all independent governments removed. He wants pro-US vassal states replacing them. He one-sidedly supports Israel. He says one thing. He does another.

Netanyahu goes way out of his way to incite conflict. He bears full responsibility for failed talks. Washington shares it. Kerry tried disingenuously to deflect blame.

Hours before Netanyahu's order, he blamed Israel for impasse peace talks conditions. He did so during Senate Foreign Affairs Committee testimony.

He said Abbas applying for UN body memberships followed Israel disrupting so-called peace talks.

"Both sides, whether advertently or inadvertently, wound up in positions where things happened that were unhelpful," he said. 

"Clearly, going to these treaties is not helpful, and we have made that crystal-clear," he added.

"Unfortunately, prisoners were not released on the Saturday they were supposed to be released. And so day one went by, day two went by, day three went by." 

"And then in the afternoon, when they were about to maybe get there, 700 settlement units were announced in Jerusalem and, poof, that was sort of the moment. We find ourselves where we are"  now.

Damage control followed Kerry's testimony. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said he was misunderstood. He didn't place blame primarily on either party, she claimed.

"Secretary Kerry has been consistently crystal clear that both sides have taken unhelpful steps, and at no point has he engaged in a blame game," she said. 

"The fact is, it is up to the parties and their leaders to determine whether they are going to make the tough choices needed, and that has always been the case."

Kerry's above quoted comments need no further explanation. He blamed both sides. He criticized Israel most. It deserves it entirely. 

Abbas should have joined all world bodies years ago. He should have done much more. He abstained instead of acting responsibly. 

Throughout his tenure, he's been a reliable Israeli collaborator. Betrayal defines his policy. Joining world bodies doesn't matter without willingness to use them.

Most important is holding Israel responsible for high crimes too grave to ignore. Abbas never did so before. Expect nothing this different time. 

Failure renders his action meaningless. Kerry and Netanyahu made mountains out of mole hills. Criticizing legal Palestinian rights reveals their true agenda. 

They want them entirely denied. They want Israel alone afforded them. They want Palestinians ruthlessly exploited. They want war, not peace.

Israel reacted sharply to Kerry's remarks. An unnamed Israeli official was "deeply disappointed." He referred to what he called his "poof speech."

He countered holding Palestinians responsible for Israel's intransigence. Kerry's remarks "both hurt the negotiations and harden Palestinian positions," he claimed.

Kerry "knows that it was the Palestinians who said 'no' to continued direct talks with Israel in November; who said 'no' to his proposed framework for final status talks; who said 'no' to even discussing recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; who said 'no' to a meeting with Kerry himself; and who said 'no' to an extension of the talks," he said.

"At the same time, in the understandings reached prior to the talks, Israel did not commit to any limitation on construction." 

"Therefore, the Palestinian claim that building in Jerusalem, Israel's capital, was a violation of the understandings is contrary to the facts." 

"Both the American negotiating team and the Palestinians know full well that Israel made no such commitment."

An unnamed PA official holds Israel entirely responsible. It's "undermining the American role in the peace process," he said.

Palestinian negotiators "never raised any issue that is not already an Israeli obligation."

Settlement construction is illegal, he stressed. Israel is obligated to halt it entirely. Failure to release prisoners agreed on threw fuel on the fire.

Months of talks reveal failure. Israel "clearly show(s) no interest" in viable Palestinian statehood.

It demands Abbas rescind his world body applications. Palestinian officials said they stand as submitted. They won't be reversed.

An unnamed Israeli official said "Israel wants to see the negotiations continue and will persist in its efforts to resolve the current crisis."

At the same time, he warned: "In response to unilateral Palestinian steps, Israel will take unilateral steps of its own."

It began doing so. It widens the gap between both sides. It makes conflict resolution less likely.

Given Israel's longstanding hardline position, it's virtually impossible. With Netanyahu in charge, it's zero.

Giving peace a chance is no option. Conflict resolution is more distant than ever.

Days earlier, Netanyahu imposed other punitive measures. He said more would follow. He suggested tax revenues due Palestine would be frozen.

Israel collects them and customs duties. It's obligated to return them to PA officials. They provide operating revenues. 

They amount to about $100 million monthly. They're on goods imported into Palestine. Israel froze them earlier. It was during times of heightened security and diplomatic tensions.

Twenty-six political prisoners scheduled for release remain incarcerated. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and General Yoav Mordechai were told "to prepare a list of all possible measures."

One suspends Palestine's Wataniya wireless provider. It operates in the West Bank. Permission to do so in Gaza will be denied. 

Implementing 3G cellular technology in PA-assigned areas is frozen. So are Area C promotion master plans.

On Tuesday, Abbas arrived in Cairo. He came for an emergency Arab League foreign ministers meeting. It convened at his request. 

Failed peace talks were discussed. He asked for economic help. He wants $100 million monthly in case Israel withholds tax revenues.

Arab League foreign ministers want talks continued. Why they'll have to explain. They're futile. They reflect decades of failure. Nothing is different this time.

London-based Asharq Al-Awsat quoted unnamed Palestinian sources saying PA "leadership is open to the idea of extending negotiations but not at any price."

In response to Netanyahu ordering government officials to stop cooperating with PA ones, Hamas called for ending PA security coordination with Israel.

It urged greater resistance against occupation harshness. It said Palestinians should "give full rein" to doing so. 

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoun said Abbas should act based on Netanyahu's decision. He should let resistance "deter the Israeli occupation and defend our people, our land, and our holy sites."

He should end negotiations. He should recruit regional and international opposition. He should challenge Israeli lawlessness. If not now, when?

Failed peace talks show Hamas was right. Negotiating with Israel assures failure. Doing so negatively impacts Palestinians. They're much worse off than ever.

Earlier talks did more harm than good. Sham ones work this way. They accomplish nothing. They give Israel free rein to benefit at Palestinians' expense.

They suffer horrifically under Israel's boot. Nothing suggests improvement going forward. 

Challenging Israeli repression responsibly matters most. The alternative is slow-motion suffocation.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

by Stephen Lendman

On April 1, Abbas signed documents to do so. He'll submit them to UN authorities. It's high time he did so. 

He should have years ago. It's Palestine's legal right. It's able to join all UN bodies and treaties. It can ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

It can file a formal state to state complaint against Israeli past and current officials. It can ask they be held responsible for crimes of war and against humanity.

It can ratify the Genocide Convention. It can sue Israel at the World Court. It can get a temporary restraining order. It can do so against Zionist lawlessness. 

It can go to the Security Council for enforcement. If vetoed by Washington, it can petition the General Assembly. 

It can do so under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377. If approved, vetoes become null and void.

Restraining order enforcement perhaps can halt lawless settlement expansions. Perhaps lift Gaza's siege. Maybe end unlawful occupation. 

Perhaps assure all long denied Palestinian rights. Failure to act responsibly assures business as usual.

Joining UN bodies and treaties is one thing. Using them responsibly  alone matters. It's high time Israel was held accountable. 

The alternative is continued occupation harshness. It's what no responsible leader would tolerate. 

Abbas is polar opposite what Palestinians need. He's Israel's enforcer. He's a long time collaborator. He sold out at Oslo.

It remains to be seen if he's turned a leaf. It takes a great leap of faith to believe it. Smart money suggests business as usual. 

Abbas has all the proving to do. His record isn't encouraging. Integrity isn't his long suit. Nor serving his people responsibly.

On Tuesday, he signed documents during a meeting with PLO officials. They unanimously endorsed them.

Abbas said he's ready to pursue an international campaign to oblige Israel to observe international law and related Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

"We aren’t trying to pressure any party," he said. "We seek no confrontation with Tel Aviv and Washington."

"Our legitimate activities do not target any country. This is our right, and we are going to use it."

His words ring hollow. He made similar pious statements before. Nothing followed. Don't expect this time to be different. It never was before.

He says one thing. He does another. He's done so throughout his political career. He's an opportunist. He's a traitor. 

It remains for responsible leadership to replace him. Israel and Washington will go all-out to prevent it. 

Perhaps Cast Lead 2.0 will target all Palestine. Perhaps more ruthless than ever repression will follow. 

Perhaps world leaders able to make a difference will continue turning a blind eye. They've done so since 1948. Expect nothing different this time.

Palestinians are on their own like always. They enjoy popular world street support. It's not followed by similar help in high places. That matters most.

Israeli officials believe Abbas acted to exert pressure on Israel and Washington for better peace talk terms.

So far they're entirely one-sided. Israel gets whatever it wants. Palestinians get virtually nothing. Business as usual persists.

Abbas may worry more about internal rebellion. Perhaps a third Intifada. Perhaps efforts to oust him. Maybe efforts to kill him.

Abbas said he and PLO officials acted after Israel failed to release an agreed on fourth round of Palestinian prisoners. Twenty-six remain incarcerated. 

What about thousands of political prisoners languishing in Israel's gulag longterm? What about their freedom? Abbas ignores them entirely.

What about nearly 1.8 million lawlessly besieged Gazans? What about slow-motion genocide suffocating them? Their rights aren't part of peace talks? 

Discussions exclude them. Abbas spurns them altogether. Claiming Israel's failure to release 26 prisoners as reason to join world bodies rings hollow.

Abbas said "(i)t is our right to turn to UN institutions, and we had postponed it for nine months and never agreed to give up that right."

He'll continue peace talks, he added. He'll do so through April 29. Perhaps longer. He'll seek conflict resolution, he said.

For a generation or longer, he did nothing responsible to do so. Don't expect this time to be different.

Abbas said the first document he signed petitioned to join the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. ICRC and Swiss officials administer them.

Apparently he doesn't know Palestinian history. In 1989, Palestine did so. It's already a Geneva state party. Swiss authorities consider it valid.

No official request was made to join the International Criminal Court. Some reports suggested otherwise.

A previous article discussed convicted spy Jonathan Pollard's possible release. Reports said Kerry suggested doing so as an Israeli peace deal sweetener.

They said Pollard's release was imminent. Likely before Passover begins on April 14. Perhaps not now.

Things have a way of changing fast. On the one hand, Abbas petitioned to join 15 world bodies and treaties.

Kerry planned meeting with him on Wednesday. He cancelled doing so in response.

At the same time, a US parole board member Patricia Smoot said Pollard waived his planned parole hearing. 

He declined to attend. It was scheduled for April 1. On the same day, Kerry and Netanyahu agreed on most details for continuing sham peace talks beyond April 29.

On April 2, meeting with Abbas was scheduled to do so. It's cancelled. It's unclear when rescheduling is planned.

An unnamed Israeli official said Washington is working on getting Abbas to agree on continuing talks. 

"Things are not sealed yet but we are not far from it," he said. "We are waiting for the Palestinian response." 

It remains to be seen what follows. More of the same is certain. Kerry is in lockstep with Netanyahu. 

They want Palestinians denied all rights. They want Jews alone afforded them. Business as usual continues.

Sham peace talks change nothing. They were dead on arrival when began. They remain so now. 

Pursuing them continues the charade. Palestinian rights are entirely spurned. 

It's been this way throughout nearly 47 years of occupation. Expect no substantive change going forward. 

Expect continued theft of Palestinian land. Expect occupation harshness persisting. Expect Palestinians denied all rights. Expect war, not peace.

Israeli officials reacted as expected to Abbas petitioning to join world bodies. Tourism Minister Uzi Landau said "they will pay a heavy price" for doing so.

"One of the possible measures will be Israel applying sovereignty over areas which will clearly be part of the State of Israel in any future solution," he added.

He referred to over 60% of West Bank territory Israel controls. Hardliners want it annexed to Israel. 

They want East and West Jerusalem entirely. Landau wants Palestinian financial aid blocked.

Mustafa Barghouti is a former Palestinian presidential candidate. Israel rigged Abbas' election to spurn him.

He's a physician and activist. He's a BDS founding member. He's a Palestinian Legislative Council member.

He heads the Palestinian National Initiative. He wants Palestine joining all relevant world bodies and treaties.

"There will be many more international institutions and treaties to join," he said. "The International Criminal Court will be one of them in the future." 

How soon he didn't say. Or whether Abbas and likeminded PLO officials will do so.

Palestinians prepared documents to join 63 world bodies and treaties. So far it's petitioning to join 15. 

Expect others to follow. At issue is when, not if. Tuesday's decision was a step in the right direction. Much more needs to be done.

Most important is exercising lawful rights. Palestine is lawlessly occupied territory. It's high time past and current Israeli officials are held accountable for high crimes too grave to ignore.

It's time for World Court action against Israel.  Accountability is long overdue. Pursuing it should be top priority. Long denied justice is impossible otherwise. 

Legitimate Palestinian leadership is needed to pursue what Abbas failed at throughout his tenure.

He's polar opposite what Palestinians deserve. He collaborates with Israel irresponsibly. He does so illegally.

In October 2009, he pulled a draft resolution condemning Cast Lead war crimes. He turned a blind eye to Israeli lawlessness.

Before Israel attacked, he got advance word. Israeli officials briefed him. He concurred with their plans. 

He urged Israel to crush Hamas. He ignored 23 days of mass slaughter and destruction. Toppling Hamas mattered more.

Avigdor Lieberman held ministerial positions under Sharon and Ehud Olmert. In April 2009, he became Netanyahu's Foreign Minister. 

He explained Abbas' involvement, saying:

"Over the past year, I witnessed (Abbas) at his best. In Operation Cast Lead, (he) called us personally, applied pressure, and demanded that we topple Hamas and remove it from power."

During Cast Lead, a senior Olmert official called his comments "essentially accurate." 

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said this information "reaffirms the fact that Mahmoud Abbas is no longer fit to represent our people, who conspired against his people during a war."

He was never fit to serve. He's not now. Israel and Washington chose him for that reason. He's easily manipulated against the interests of his own people. His entire political career reflects betrayal.

Cast Lead was planned months in advance. So was Israel's 8-day November 14 - 21, 2012 Pillar of Cloud aggression. Perhaps Abbas got advance word a second time.

During Israel's sustained terror-bombing, his comments were delayed, weak, meaningless and insulting. He did nothing to help beleaguered Gazans.

He ignored their suffering entirely. He concurred with Israeli mass slaughter and destruction. He deserves International Criminal Court prosecution.

Palestinians remain isolated on their own. Peace, equity, justice and liberation aren't forthcoming. Not any time soon. Not with Abbas and likeminded Israeli collaborators in charge.

A Final Comment

Longstanding New York Times policy one-sidedly supports Israel. It reacted to Abbas' decision as expected. It headlined "Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter."

He "defied the United States and Israel by taking concrete steps to join 15 international agencies - a move to gain the benefits of statehood outside the negotiation process."

Fact check

On November 15, 1988, the Palestinian National Council (PNC) "proclaimed the existence of the new independent state of Palestine."

It became a de facto, not a de jure, UN member. In late November 2012, it gained observer status. 

Doing so permits joining all world bodies and treaties. Responsible leaders are obligated to take full advantage. Don't expect the NYT to explain.

It spurns truth. It twists facts irresponsibly. It supports what demands condemnation. It's on the wrong side of history.

It said Palestine joining world bodies and treaties created "crisis" conditions. It fears Israel one day being held accountable for decades of crimes of war and against humanity.

It fears long denied Palestinian liberation. It wants Israel alone having rights. Don't expect their editors to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

by Stephen Lendman

Israeli and Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces share guilt. They operate collaboratively.

Journalists and free press activists established the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA). 

Free expression is the most important of all rights. Without it all others are at risk. Israeli and PA officials notoriously censor truth. 

Israeli military censorship bans or sanitizes material it calls potentially harmful to security. It does so whether or not it's true.

Israeli Supreme Court decisions limit content suppression to "tangible (or) near certain" instances of public endangerment. Interpretations are crucial.

Israeli authorities are increasingly hardline. Fundamental rights are systematically violated. Palestinian protests are prohibited.

Free expressions is compromised. Classroom materials are rewritten. Praise for Israel alone is allowed. 

Nakba denial persists. Academia is affected. Historical revisionism legitimizes crimes too important to whitewash.

Abbas represents coup d'etat leadership. He's a longtime Israeli collaborator. He governs illegitimately. He does so despotically. 

He ordered ISPs to block web sites criticizing him and/or PA officials. Affected sites include Amad, Fatah Voice, Firas Press, In Light Press, Karama Press, Kofia Press, Milad News and Palestine Beituna. 

They report daily news and information. They can't operate freely. Nor can independent broadcasters.

Journalists are targeted. Efforts are made to silence them. Israeli and PA security forces bear full responsibility. 

Bethlehem journalist George Canawati was targeted numerous times. Most recently it was on November 10. He was arrested on suspicion of "slander" and "insults."

He heads Radio Bethlehem 2000. He was physically assaulted during arrest and interrogation. He appeared in court with a black eye and torn shirt.

Eyewitnesses called his arrest "violent." His radio program airs weekly. Palestinian journalists said he was arrested for criticizing Bethlehem police commander, Omar Shalabi.

He denounced other PA officials earlier. Journalist Mohamed Abu Arkoub focuses on media freedom. He called Canawati's treatment a gross free press breach.

He took issue with how he was arrested, saying:

"Why do they have to raid and search the home of a journalist in a way that degrades the profession of journalism?" 

"This shows that there is no political will to consolidate and respect freedom of expression in Palestinian society."

Canawati went on hunger strike in protest. The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate condemned his arrest and treatment. 

It supports free press rights for all journalists. It rejects all attempts to deny them. It called for ending this unjustifiable practice.

MADA called for Canawati's immediate release. Radio Bethlehem 2000 correspondent, Arica Zidan, was present in his home when he was targeted.

Ten PA policemen accosted him. They did so violently. They "pushed his mother to the ground," she said.

She saw him in the Public Prosecutor's office. Clear signs of a beating were evident. He was denied legal counsel during interrogation. MADA expressed outrage, saying:

"The arrest of colleague Qanawati and beating him constitutes a serious violation of media freedoms and condemned action, and we reiterate our demand for his immediate release and respect for freedom of expression in Palestine."

In September, Al Quds network for Community Media correspondent Omar Abu Arwoub was denied permission to travel through Allenby crossing.

Numerous other West Bank and Jerusalem journalists were targeted. Israeli forces assaulted French Press Agency photographer Ja'far Ishtayeh and European Agency's Ala' Badarneh.

They were targeted while covering Kofor Qadom's weekly march near Qalqilya. Journalists reporting on Bab Hetta demonstrations were attacked. 

Reporting on Israel's September 11 Al-Aqsa Mosque closure was prohibited. Israeli security forces attacked Chinese news agency photographer Nedal Ishtayeh. His cameras were confiscated. They were returned broken.

Two sound bombs wounded Ramsat agency photographer Ayman Idris. He was covering a late September Kofor Qadom weekly march.

Israeli forces attacked other journalists. They did so with sound bombs and skunk water. They physically assaulted them near Jerusalem's Damascus Gate.

On September 27, other journalists were attacked. They were covering Beit Ommer's Hebron weekly march. Israeli security forces fired rubber bullets indiscriminately.

French agency photographer Mousa Al Sha'er sustained chest and hand wounds. Occupation forces prevented Palestinian photographers Esam Remawii and Thaer Faqosa from covering Israel's Al-Bireh raid.

Palestinian Authority forces arrested Heyad News Agency correspondent Thaher Shamaly. Quds TV correspondent Mustafa Al Khawaja was targeted.

MADA expressed "great concern over the escalation of violations against journalists in Palestine." Press freedom is greatly threatened. 

Most September violations were collective punishments. Journalists and photographers covering events Israel and PA authorities want suppressed were targeted.

Al Quds Net correspondent Daila Jwehan said journalists covering protests "were pushed and beaten with batons." They were insulted. Some were wounded. Cameras were confiscated, damaged or destroyed.

In early 2013, a Palestinian court sentenced Anas Said Awwad to one year in prison. It did so for insulting Abbas on Facebook. He was found guilty of depicting him as a Real Madrid soccer team member.

Numerous other Palestinians were targeted for posting critical Facebook comments.

Safad Nazzal criticized PA officials for ignoring wrongfully incarcerated Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israel's gulag. She was arrested for doing so.

In April 2012, Human Rights Watch (HRW) headlined "Palestinian Authority/Israel: Escalating Assault on Free Expression."

On March 26, PA security forces arrested journalist Yusaf al-Shayeb. He was held until April 2. He was charged with criticizing PA officials. He accused them of spying and corruption.

Israeli forces targeted Al Quds University administrator Adel Rweished. He was detained in Jerusalem's old city. Israeil police targeted an event "marking the launch of a new website." A security guard was arrested.

Both men were released. They were summoned for further questioning. Israel prohibits political demonstrations.

HRW's Sarah Whitson said:

"Both the Palestinian Authority and Israel should stop harassing and arresting journalists. These attacks send a chilling message about exercising the right to free expression."

Arrests violate fundamental free press rights. "On March 28, the Ramallah court of first instance ordered al-Shayeb's detention for 15 days, to enable police to investigate claims that he committed slander and defamation," said HRW. 

"Al-Shayeb has refused Palestinian prosecutors' demands to identify his sources."

Jordanian newspaper al-Ghad al-'Urdani said he accused the PA's deputy Paris ambassador, Safwat Ibraghit, of corruption and spying.

He did so on Muslim organizations. Al-Shayeb informed PA and foreign security agencies. He named other high level PA officials.

He faces potential two years imprisonment for "slandering" government officials. An official complaint seeks $6 million in damages.

He was fired for reporting responsibly. Under Palestinian Press and Publications Law (PPPL), journalists are entitled to protect confidential sources.

They can do so unless a court orders revealing them to protect security, prevent crime, or promote justice.

PPPL's Article 7 prohibits publishing material contrary to principles of freedom, national responsibility, human rights, and respect for truth.

Article 37 forbids published information harming national unity. According to HRW:

"These prohibitions are so vague that they could chill freedom of the press and violate an accused person’s right to defend him or herself, as it is impossible to know what types of information, if published, would constitute a crime."

PA officials repeatedly agreed to uphold free expression. Their policies are polar opposite.

Criminalizing proved defamation is wholly inappropriate. Honestly reporting government wrongdoing represents responsible whistleblowing.

No one's above the law. PA authorities want their crimes whitewashed. Journalists exposing them are victimized for doing their job.

Another case involves Al Quds University lecturer Abdul-Khaleq. Comments she posted on Facebook allegedly insulted Abbas.

She called for the PA's dissolution. She was detained. She wasn't charged.

PA security forces arrested Zaman press reporter Tareq Khamis. Doing so related to Abdul-Khaleq's case. He was later released.

Dozens of other journalists were targeted. So were activists. Abbas wants critics silenced. He's waging war on free expression. He does so collaboratively with Israel.

According to Palestinian human rights group Al Haq director, Shawan Jabarin:

"We monitored (PA security forces) arresting people and journalists, and the oppression of freedom of expression."

"There are many people I'm sure that are afraid and will count to ten before they say anything." 

"Maybe they'll push people to speak underground instead of expressing their opinions freely." 

Charges against journalists are based largely on decades earlier Jordanian Penal Code law.

Palestinian Attorney General Ahmad al-Maghni uses it irresponsibly. 

His "role is to protect the freedoms and the rights of the people in the face of arbitrary detention, instead of arresting people," said Jabarin. 

"Here, we see him acting quickly and exaggerating with all" charges levied. He's closing his ears and his eyes on (real) crimes going on."

Palestinian journalists, activists, human rights workers, bloggers and students are routinely targeted.

Arrests follow Facebook posted comments. Journalists exposing government wrongdoing are at risk.

Claiming justification for security reasons doesn't wash. Denying fundamental freedoms reflect police state harshness.

In August, the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC) called on Abbas and other PA officials to respect free expression and assembly at all times.

Denying fundamental rights has no legitimacy. PHROC said PA officials act unjustifiably against their own people.

Arrests and excessive force are commonplace. Palestinians are targeted for exercising their legitimate rights.

Security forces are supposed to protect civil and human rights without disruption.

PHROC cited Article 26 of Palestinian Basic Law and Article 2 of the Palestinian Public Assemblies Law, saying:

"The Palestinian Prime Minister must form an independent and impartial committee to investigate the circumstances behind the suppression of the peaceful protest and to ensure that those responsible for violating human rights are held accountable for their crimes." 

"Those who are found guilty of such crimes must be adequately punished, including dismissal from their positions within the Security Forces."

"The PA must publish the procedure and results of an independent investigation and publicly apologise to the victims of these violations."

Fundamental freedoms are inviolable. They're too important to loose. They include free expression, assembly and many others.

A "culture of respect for citizens's rights and freedoms is (entirely) absent" in Palestinian society. PA officials share blame with Israel.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

In October, 2013, ten ads went up in Vancouver transit stations depicting loss of Jewish land in the middle east since 1000 BCE. It turns out that in that time Jewish land had shrunk by a factor of five or so. These advertisements were responding to ads put up in transit stations and on sides of buses over a month before by the Palestine Awareness Coalition.  PAC had the more modest aim of showing Palestinian loss of land only since 1946, which ended in a small continuous patch called Gaza and specks of discontinuous territory in the West Bank.

Counterpunch – 17 October 2013

Two recent images encapsulate the message behind the dry statistics of last week’s report by the World Bank on the state of the Palestinian economy.

The first is a poster from the campaigning group Visualising Palestine that shows a photoshopped image of Central Park, eerily naked. Amid New York’s skyscrapers, the park has been sheared of its trees by bulldozers. A caption reveals that since the occupation began in 1967, Israel has uprooted 800,000 olive trees belonging to Palestinians, enough to fill 33 Central Parks.

The second, a photograph widely published last month in Israel, is of a French diplomat lying on her back in the dirt, staring up at Israeli soldiers surrounding her, their guns pointing down towards her. Marion Castaing had been mistreated when she and a small group of fellow diplomats tried to deliver emergency aid, including tents, to Palestinian farmers whose homes had just been razed.

The demolitions were part of long-running efforts by Israel to clear Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley, the agricultural heartland of a future Palestinian state. Ms Castaing’s defiance resulted in her being quietly packed off back to Europe, as French officials sought to avoid a confrontation with Israel.

The World Bank report is a way of stating discreetly what Castaing and other diplomats hoped to highlight more directly: that Israel is gradually whittling away the foundations on which the Palestinians can build an independent economic life and a viable state.

This report follows a long line of warnings in recent years from international bodies on the dire economic situation
facing Palestinians. But, significantly, the World Bank has homed in on the key battleground for an international community still harbouring the forlorn hope that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end in Palestinian statehood.

The report’s focus is on the nearly two-thirds of the West Bank, known as Area C, that is exclusively under Israeli control and in which Israel has implanted more than 200 settlements to grab Palestinian land and resources.

The World Bank report should be seen as a companion piece to the surprise decision of the European Union in the summer to exclude entities associated with the settlements from EU funding.

Both in turn reflect mounting frustration in European capitals and elsewhere at Israeli intransigence and seeming US impotence. Europeans, in particular, are exasperated at their continuing role effectively subsidising through aid an Israeli occupation with no end in sight.

With Israel and the Palestinians forced back to the negotiating table since July, and after the US secretary of state, John Kerry, warned that this was the “last chance” for a deal, the international community is desperate to exercise whatever small leverage it has on Israel and the US to secure a Palestinian state.

The World Bank’s concern about Area C is justified. This is the location of almost all the resources a Palestinian state will need to exploit: undeveloped land for future construction; arable land and water springs to grow crops; quarries to mine stone and the Dead Sea to extract minerals; and archaeological sites to attract tourism.

With access to these resources, the Palestinian Authority could generate an extra income of $3.4 billion a year, increasing its GDP by a third, reducing a ballooning deficit, cutting unemployment rates that have reached 23 per cent, easing poverty and food insecurity and helping the fledgling state break free of aid dependency. But none of this can be achieved while Israel maintains its chokehold on Area C in violation of the 1993 Oslo accords.

Israel has entrenched its rule in Area C precisely because of its wealth of natural resources. Israel neither wants the Palestinians to gain the assets with which to build a state nor intends to lose the many material benefits it has accrued for itself and the settler population in Area C.

It is its treatment of Area C that gives the lie to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that he has been pursuing “economic peace” with the Palestinians in lieu of progress on the diplomatic front. Rather, the Palestinian description of Israeli policy as “economic warfare” is much nearer the mark. During the Oslo period, the disparity between Israel’s per capita GDP and that of the Palestinians has doubled, to $30,000. And the World Bank says that the Palestinian economy is rapidly shrinking: the 11 per cent growth that Netanyahu took credit for in 2011 has crashed to 1.9 per cent in the first six months of this year. In the West Bank, GDP has actually contracted, by 0.1 per cent.

Despite its resources, Area C is being starved of Palestinian funds. Investors are averse to dealing with Israeli military authorities who invariably deny them development permits and severely restrict movement. The image of the French diplomat in the dirt is one that symbolises their own likely treatment if they confront Israel in Area C. Palestinian farmers, meanwhile, cannot grow profitable crops with the miserly water rations Israel allots them from their own acquifers.

Aware of the many obstacles to developing Area C, Palestinian officials have simply neglected it, concentrating instead on the densely populated and resource-poor third of the West Bank under their full or partial control.

The hope was that this would change when Kerry announced in the run-up to the renewed talks a plan to encourage private investors to pour in $4 billion to develop the Palestinian economy. But the reality, as the report notes, is that there can be no serious investment in the economic heartland of Area C until Israel’s control ends.

In effect, the World Bank is saying that Kerry’s plan – and the role of the international community’s envoy Tony Blair, the so-called Quatet Representative – is not only misguided, it is positively delusional. The Quartet has been trying to revive the Palestinian economy to usher in the conditions for statehood; the World Bank’s view is that there can be no Palestinian state, let alone economic revival, until Israel is forced out of the territories. The international community has it all back to front.

The idea that a financial lifeline – whether Kerry’s plan or Netanyahu’s economic peace – is going to smooth the path to the conflict’s end is an illusion. Peace, and prosperity, will come only when Palestinians are liberated from Israeli control.

Tagged as: Palestinian Economy, peace process, settlers

The same week President Obama honored Rosa Parks Parks’ 100th birthday, Israel announced two newly segregated bus lines for Palestinian workers traveling to Israel from the West Bank. The “Palestinian only” buses were introduced after Israeli settlers complained that fellow Palestinian passengers posed a “security risk.”

The timing of Israel’s announcement set the internet abuzz with moralizing references to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and Jim Crow. If only Palestinians could produce their own Rosa Parks. More sophisticated Palestine analysts observed that for Palestinians, segregation is already routine. Israeli society functions thanks to a complex web of segregated highways, neighborhoods, and educational institutions. Potential Palestinian “Martin Luther King Jr.’s”cycle in and out of Israeli jails.

Of course, President Obama avoids Jim Crow/Israel analogies. His administration continues to oppose international efforts to recognize Palestinian self-determination and the itinerary for Obama’s upcoming Israel trip resembles a POTUS version of Birthright. His first activity is a photo op with missile battery. Obviously, a spell of liberal indignation over bus segregation and a brief flurry of Rosa Park’s references will not translate into US policies shifts on Israel/Palestine. But in this faux-outrage, there is something valuable to be learned about the shortcomings of liberalism and its failure to fully comprehend both the plight of Palestinians and America’s own history of racial oppression.

As Samir Sonti pointed out in Jacobin last week, contemporary liberals sanitize the movement for black liberation as a fundamentally individual struggle for “civil rights,” stripped of its working class roots, revolutionary goals, and strong ties to organized labor.

For liberals, racial oppression is an uncomfortable concept because it lays the blame for inequality at the feet of society at large and implicates the very legitimacy of liberal institutions. For that reason, Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered more for his leadership of the Montgomery Bus Boycott — with its modest goals of bus integration — than for his Poor People’s Campaign and his deeper indictment of American society.

Liberals who generally support Israel, but find themselves cringing when Israeli politicians make racist remarks, seize on incidents like Israeli bus segregation because it packages the conflict in digestible terms. This impulse does signal some empathy for the Palestinian plight. But it also smacks of triumphalism. Realizing African American civil rights, we are told, is the landmark achievement of 20^th century liberalism — a hard but necessary journey. When we chastise Israel for segregating buses there is a clear subtext: America has come so far from the days of Jim Crow and our little sibling in the Middle East has some catching up to do.

But Palestinians know that bus segregation is merely a cosmetic feature of their oppression. Commuter discrimination amounts to a red herring. The separate buses are only significant for how they reflect on the general ideological predicament of Israeli society. In fact, many of the Palestinian workers who actually ride the buses welcome the segregation. The new routes are more direct and save the Palestinians from having to endure harassment from settlers.

The perspectives of Palestinian laborers fail to register with liberals, who are desperate to recast Palestinian oppression as an individualistic struggle for civil rights. For them, Palestinian oppression is comfortably framed as “inequality before the law,” a condition easily remedied by extending the largess of the Jewish state. This limited understanding works to reinforce the primacy of Israel — its courts, government, and military — as flawed but ultimately legitimate liberal institutions capable of reform.

If the problem is primarily a problem of civil rights, an issue of inequality rather than oppression, then the solution must be new laws, better courts ,and more sensitive politicians. This is a very comfortable position for liberals because it forecloses far reaching criticism of Israeli society at large and quashes difficult questions about the very foundation of that state.

By sidestepping the question of oppression and dismissing the potential for restructuring Israeli society, liberals do not pause to consider the claims of Palestinians. The age-old Palestinian demand for the “right of return” is considered inconceivable because it would undermine the very nature of the Jewish state. Palestinians are encouraged to set aside their historic grievances and embrace the existing “facts on the ground.” The liberal view holds that by working within the system Palestinians can overcome inequality. It does not leave much room for, in MLK’s words, “radically restructuring society itself.”

The same tendency infects the liberal civil rights mythos. In the push for a color blind society, any system-wide attempts to reach equal racial outcomes are cast outside the mainstream. The ultimate watchdog of American liberalism, the U.S. Supreme Court, is poised to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, one of the lone vestiges of a transformative approach to racial equality. For liberals, contemporary racism is the fault of a few bad apples and any push to fundamentally alter the distribution of resources is considered in poor taste.

Rosa Parks is cast as an ordinary woman, fed up with the indignity of her commute, rather than a lifelong activist with revolutionary aspirations and ties to the American Communist Party. Thus, the sanitized perception of Rosa Parks enables people like Mitch McConnell to bask in the achievement of civil rights alongside President Obama.

As liberalism fails to offer compelling solutions to racial inequality, a growing chorus of voices on the Left are shining a light on persistent Jim Crow-like segregation in American society. Under the “New Jim Crow” one in three black men are destined to go to prison and blacks are ten times more likely than whites to be incarcerated for drug crimes.

Critical race theorists like Charles Lawrence III have long anticipated this reconfiguration of racial castes. Lawrence III warned that the dominant individualistic understanding of racial inequality would prove inadequate to reverse centuries of oppression: “Racial equality [should be seen] as a substantive societal condition rather than as an individual right.” Yet radical solutions to persistent racial inequality — more aggressive affirmative action, slavery reparations, dismantling the criminal justice system as we know it, legalizing drugs that are the overwhelming cause of black incarceration — all fall beyond the purview of liberal criticism.

Liberals bring this same limited scope to their understanding of Israel/Palestine and their range of solutions for the conflict exposes grave ideological contradictions. Of course, Palestinians deserve equal rights, liberals proclaim, but fundamental questions about the very nature of Israel and its foundation remain taboo. Those who oppose the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state are quickly labeled anti-semites.

Liberals balk at racism within Israeli society but the roots of that racism go unexamined. Religion and State should be kept separate, say the liberals, but theocratic and overtly racist Israeli political parties continue to grow. For the foreseeable future Israeli politics will increasingly ruffle liberal sensibilities, but the liberal frame will continue to view Palestinian oppression as an understandable, if regrettable, blip in Israel’s democratic journey.

If US President Barack Obama wanted to move the Palestine/Israel issue along, he would need to demand that Israel free thousands of political prisoners it holds in violation of international law, end its violations of Palestinian human rights, lift the siege on Gaza or at the very least end the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians.US President Barack Obama at the Israel lobby group AIPAC’s conference in 2011. (AIPAC)

However, because the fear that retribution by Israel’s lobby will be swift and painful, none of these things will be said — much less demanded — even though they are well-documented and widely known. And so, President Obama’s planned trip to Israel will not offer any solution to the Palestine/Israel conflict.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is, politically, a toxic wasteland that no US president in his right mind would want to clean up. It has become a vicious cycle of deceit and double standards, and it will contaminate any US politician who tries to clean it up. One may trust that President Obama, being fully aware of this, will avoid getting involved with this issue in his second term, just as he did in his first term.

Even if he does visit the West Bank city of Ramallah during his planned visit, there can be little doubt that Barack Obama will continue to stand behind Israel and place his real efforts elsewhere. It’s the cost of doing business.

Blank check

The official US stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is that it needs to be resolved within the framework of a two-state solution but without the US pressuring the parties to reach a resolution. The pressures placed upon politicians in the US by the Israel lobby have created a reality in which criticizing Israel constitutes political suicide.

Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren, the Torquemada of the Israel lobby, stated recently on the satirical television program The Colbert Report that: “there are not many issues for which there is bipartisan support, the support for Israel is a true bipartisan issue” (“Obama’s Israel trip - Michael Oren,” 5 March 2013).

“Support for Israel” means a blank check. Understandably, Oren takes pride in this because it is an accomplishment for which his inquisition-style lobby has worked tirelessly. So much so, that the only vote on this issue that is acceptable in Washington is a vote that is aligned with Israel.

Reckless and destructive

The price of doing business in US politics is to applaud, encourage and pay for Israel to do whatever it wants, regardless how reckless and destructive it may be, and to ignore the plight of the Palestinians. This was true before the last Israeli elections, and now with the results of the Israeli elections clearly showing that Israelis have no interest in resolving the Palestinian issue, the president would have to go against Israeli electorate as well as the Israel lobby in the US, and all this to accomplish something no American president would even dare to articulate: peace and justice for Palestinians.

The naïve hope that Obama’s second term in office will be different than his first on this issue is just that, naïve. A just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian question will not come from an American president, nor will it come from an Israeli prime minister. The resolution of the conflict will come as a result of the fall of the Zionist state, not unlike the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

No substance at all

As student groups, churches, trade unions, civil society organizations and the movement calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel increase their pressure, Western governments who are now complicit in Israel’s crimes will inevitably be forced to halt their support for Israel.

This, along with the ongoing pressure from popular Palestinian resistance, disobedience and defiance of the laws that allow the Zionist occupation of Palestine to function, will bring about a democracy in Palestine, in place of the Zionist state.

But this will not come about of its own accord. People who care about Palestinians and Israelis and who care about justice and peace need to act vigorously and demand a democracy with full equal rights in Palestine/Israel. As for the president’s planned visit, we may expect, and we will surely see no substance at all.

© 2013 Electronic Intifada

Inspired by the campaign to end South African apartheid, Palestinians are leading an international campaign to put economic and political pressure on Israel by boycotting Israeli products, divesting from Israeli companies and pushing for international sanctions on Israel. On this edition, Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti explains his people’s resistance, and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign.

Omar Barghouti’s speech was excerpted from a presentation by the Lannan Foundation.

Featuring:
Omar Barghouti, author and activist; Amy Goodman, co-host Democracy Now!

“The Gatekeepers,” a new documentary, records the views of the Israeli security officials most responsible for suppressing Palestinian resistance and their growing doubts about the strategy of endless repression. But even this criticism glosses over the depth of the problem.

There is a new documentary movie about Israel called “The Gatekeepers,” directed by Dror Moreh and featuring interviews with all the former leaders of the Shin Bet, the country’s internal security organization.

The Shin Bet is assigned the job of preventing Palestinian retaliatory attacks on Israel and, as described by Moreh, the film “is the story of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories as told by the people at the crossroads of some of the most crucial moments in the security history of the country.” Along the way it touches on such particular topics as targeted assassinations, the use of torture, and “collateral damage.”

“The Gatekeepers” has garnered a lot of acclaim, playing at film festivals in Jerusalem, Amsterdam, New York, Toronto, Venice and elsewhere. It has won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association’s Best Documentary Award. It has been nominated for an Oscar.

In order to promote “The Gatekeepers,” Moreh has been doing interviews and recently appeared on CNN with Christiana Amanpour. He made a number of salient points, as did the Shin Bet leaders in the clips featured during the interview.

–Moreh says, “if there is someone who understands the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s these guys,” the Shin Bet leaders. Actually, this not necessarily true. One might more accurately claim that these men, who led Israel’s most secretive government institution, were and are so deeply buried inside their country’s security dilemma that they see it in a distorted fashion (with only occasional glimmers of clarity).

For instance, Avraham Shalom, head of the Shin Bet from 1981-1986, tells us that “Israel lost touch with how to coexist with the Palestinians as far back as the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 … when the country started doubling down on terrorism.”

But is this really the case? One might more accurately assert that Israel had no touch to lose. Most of its Jewish population and leadership have never had an interest in coexistence with Palestinians in any egalitarian and humane sense of the term. The interviewed security chiefs focus on the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza because they are the ones who offered the most resistance to conquest. But what of the 20 percent of the population of Israel who are also Palestinian and who actually lived under martial law until 1966? You may call the discriminatory regime under which these people live “coexistence,” but it is the coexistence of superior over the inferior secured largely by intimidation.

–Moreh insists that it is the “Jewish extremists inside Israel” who have been the “major impediment” to resolving issues between Israel and the Palestinians. The film looks at the cabal of religious fanatics who, in 1980, planned to blow up the Muslim shrine of the Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, as well as the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Yet, as dangerous as Israel’s right-wing extremists and settler fanatics are, focusing exclusively on them obscures the full history of the occupation.

By 1977, when Menachem Begin and Israel’s right-wing fanatics fully took power, the process of occupation and ethnic cleansing was well under way. It had been conducted against both the Arab Israelis from 1948 onward, and against the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967. In both cases, it was initiated by the so-called Israeli Left: the Labor Party led by such people as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin himself. Amongst the Israeli leadership, there were no clean hands.

–Finally, Dror Moreh repeatedly pushes another message: “a central theme of the documentary is the idea that Israel has incredible tactics, but it lacks long-term strategy … if [security] operations do not support a move toward a peace settlement, then they are meaningless.”

Again, this assessment reflects Moreh being so deeply situated inside of the problem that he cannot perceive it clearly. Moreh assumes that achieving peace with the Palestinians is the only “long-term strategy” Israel could possibly have and, in its absence, Israel pursues no strategy at all.

However, an objective assessment of Israeli history tells us that there has been another strategy in place. The Zionist leaders have, in fact, always had a long-term strategy to avoid any meaningful peace settlement, so as to allow: 1. occupation of all “Eretz Israel,” 2. the ethnic cleansing or cantonization of the native population, and 3. settlement of the cleansed territory with Jews.

It is because of this same naivete that Moreh confesses himself “shocked” when Avraham Shalom compares the occupation of the Palestinian territories to “Germany’s occupation of Europe.” It is to Shalom’s credit that he made the statement on camera, and to Morah’s credit that he kept the statement in the final version of the film. But then Moreh spoils this act of bravery when he tells Amanpour: “Only Jews can say these kind of words. And only they can have the justification to speak as they spoke in the film.”

Well, I can think of one other group of people who has every right to make the same comparison Shalom makes – the Palestinians.

Retired Official’s Confession Syndrome 

For all its shortcomings, the film is a step forward in the ongoing effort to deny the idealized Zionist storyline a monopoly in the West. Indeed, that “The Gatekeepers” was made at all, and was received so positively at major film venues, is a sign that this skewed Israeli storyline is finally breaking down. Certainly, this deconstruction still has a long way to go, but the process is picking up speed.

On the other hand, there is something troubling about the belated nature of the insights given in these interviews.  They are examples of what I like to call the “retired official’s confession syndrome.” Quite often those who, in retirement, make these sorts of confessions were well aware of the muddled or murderous situation while in office. But, apparently, they lacked the courage to publicize it at the time. It would have meant risking their careers, their popularity, and perhaps relations with their friends and family.

One is reminded of the fate of Professor Ilan Pappe, who has stood up and lived his principles, and eventually lost his position at Haifa University and was, in the end, forced into exile. For most, however, including these leaders of the Shin Bet, their understanding was clouded and their actions skewed by a time-honored, but deeply flawed, notion of “duty” to carry on like good soldiers.

To date, Israel’s leaders and Zionist supporters have shown an amazing capacity to ignore all criticism. The newly re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has let it be known that he has no intention of watching “The Gatekeepers.” It is also questionable how many of those who voted for him, or other right-wing politicians, will bother to seek the documentary out.

Israel’s government has recently made the decision to ignore the country’s obligations under the United Nations Human Rights Charter, a decision signaled by its representatives refusal to show up for the country’s “universal periodic review” before the Human Rights Council. Nor is there any sign that any new right-wing led government coalition will stop the ethnic cleansing and illegal colonial repopulation of East Jerusalem.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that it will take increasing outside pressure on Israel, in the form of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, to convince a sufficient number of that country’s Jewish population that they must change their ways. To not change is to acquiesce in Israel’s evolving status as a pariah state.

The irony of it all is that that status will have little to do with most of Israel being Jewish (that is, it will not be a function of anti-Semitism). Yet, it will have everything to do with the fact that, in this day and age, not even the Jews, who have been subjected to some of history’s worst acts of racism, have the right to maintain a racist state.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author ofForeign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

Last week, the Palestinian foreign minister, Riad Malki, declared that if Israel persisted in its plans to build settlements in the currently vacant area known as E-1, which lies between Palestinian East Jerusalem and the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, “we will be going to the I.C.C.,” referring to the International Criminal Court. “We have no choice,” he added.

The Palestinians’ first attempt to join the I.C.C. was thwarted last April when the court’s chief prosecutor at the time, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, declined the request on the grounds that Palestine was not a state. That ambiguity has since diminished with the United Nations’ conferral of nonmember state status on Palestine in November. Israel’s frantic opposition to the elevation of Palestine’s status at the United Nations was motivated precisely by the fear that it would soon lead to I.C.C. jurisdiction over Palestinian claims of war crimes.

Israeli leaders are unnerved for good reason. The I.C.C. could prosecute major international crimes committed on Palestinian soil anytime after the court’s founding on July 1, 2002.

Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000, the Israel Defense Forces, guided by its military lawyers, have attempted to remake the laws of war by consciously violating them and then creating new legal concepts to provide juridical cover for their misdeeds. For example, in 2002, an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, killing a Hamas military leader, Salah Shehadeh, and 14 others, including his wife and seven children under the age of 15. In 2009, Israeli artillery killed more than 20 members of the Samouni family, who had sought shelter in a structure in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City at the bidding of Israeli soldiers. Last year, Israeli missiles killed two Palestinian cameramen working for Al Aksa television. Each of these acts, and many more, could lead to I.C.C. investigations.

The former head of the Israeli military’s international law division, Daniel Reisner, asserted in 2009: “International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy.”

Colonel Reisner is right that customary international law is formed by the actual practice of states that other states accept as lawful. But targeted assassinations are not widely accepted as legal. Nor are Israel’s other attempted legal innovations.

Israel has categorized military clashes with the Palestinians as “armed conflict short of war,” instead of the police actions of an occupying state — thus freeing the Israeli military to use F-16 fighter jets and other powerful weaponry against barely defended Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

It has designated individuals who fail to leave a targeted area after a warning as “voluntary human shields” who are therefore subject to lawful attack, despite the fact that warnings may not be effective and escape routes not clear to the victims.

And it has treated civilian employees of Hamas — including police officers, judges, clerks, journalists and others — as combatants because they allegedly support a “terrorist infrastructure.” Never mind that contemporary international law deems civilians “combatants” only when they actually take up arms.

All of these practices could expose Israeli political and military officials to prosecutions for war crimes. To be clear, the prosecutions would be for particular acts, not for general practices, but statements by Israeli officials explaining their policies could well provide evidence that the acts were intentional and not mere accidents of war.

No doubt, Israel is most worried about the possibility of criminal prosecutions for its settlements policy. Israeli bluster notwithstanding, there is no doubt that Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal. Israeli officials have known this since 1967, when Theodor Meron, then legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and later president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, wrote to one of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol’s aides: “My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Under the founding statute of the I.C.C., grave violations of the Geneva Conventions, including civilian settlements in occupied territories, are considered war crimes.

The next step for the Palestinians is to renew a certificate of accession to the I.C.C. with the United Nations secretary general. Assuming that I.C.C. jurisdiction is accepted, investigations of alleged Israeli war crimes would still not begin automatically, because the I.C.C. must next find that Israel’s own courts are failing to adequately review those charges. Palestinians, by inviting I.C.C. investigations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, also run the risk that their own possible violations — such as deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians — could come under I.C.C. scrutiny.

If Palestinians succeed in getting the I.C.C. to examine their grievances, Israel’s campaign to bend international law to its advantage would finally be subjected to international judicial review and, one hopes, curbed. Israel’s dangerous legal innovations, if accepted, would expand the scope of permissible violence to previously protected persons and places, and turn international humanitarian law on its head. We do not want a world in which journalists become fair game because of their employers’ ideas.

If the choice is between a Palestinian legal intifada, in which arguments are hashed out in court, and an actual intifada, in which blood flows in the streets, the global community should encourage the former.

Indeed, Palestinians would be doing themselves, Israelis and the global community a favor by invoking I.C.C. jurisdiction. Ending Israel’s impunity for its clear violations of legal norms would both promote peace in the Middle East and help uphold the integrity of international law.

© 2013 The New York Times

Palestinians labourers work at a housing construction site in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Alon, east of Jerusalem on December 3, 2012. (AFP Photo/Menahem Kahana)

Palestine declared Wednesday that they will be left with ‘no choice’ but to take Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if the Jewish state proceeds with plans to build settlements in occupied areas of East Jerusalem.

After a meeting Wednesday of the United Nations Security Council on the Middle East, Riad Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, said his government’s decision will largely depend on whether the Israelis build on the E1 area outside the Arab suburbs of East Jerusalem.

“If Israel would like to go further by implementing the E1 plan and the other related plans around Jerusalem then yes, we will be going to the ICC. We have no other choice. It depends on the Israeli decision,” he said.

E1 is one of the occupied areas where newly-reelected Benjamin Netanyahu’s outgoing government has given the green light for what could be potentially thousands of new settlement homes.

Malki said the Palestinian government would wait and see what the new Israeli government does, adding that they are “absolutely not going to tolerate any construction in that particular area.”

Previously the Palestinians have said that bringing their various disputes with Israel to the ICC in The Hague was not option, but Malki’s remarks on Wednesday appear to mark a change of tactics.

The Palestinians became eligible to join the ICC after a vote on November 29, 2012, at the United Nations General Assembly, which voted to upgrade their status from ‘observer entity’ to ‘non-member observer state’.

This decision was seen by many as de facto recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Only nine nations including Israel and the United States voted against the motion in the 193-nation general assembly.

The vote took place on the 65th anniversary of the adoption of UN resolution 181, which portioned Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. After the vote, Israel announced it would build another 3,000 settler homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Senior Israeli officials announced last month that Israel does not intend to cancel plans to accelerate settlement construction in E1.Netanyahu himself said in an interview with Israeli Channel 2 last month that the disputed area “is not occupied territory” and that he “does not care” what the UN thinks about it.

Around 500,000 Israelis and 2.4 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, areas that, along with Gaza, the Palestinians want for a future state.

E1 covers 12 sq km and is particularly significant because it backs onto East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital, and because it sticks out into the narrow middle section of the West Bank.

The United Nations regards all Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. While Robert Serry, the UN Special Coordinator of the Middle East Peace Process, has said that the Israeli settlements are “increasingly an obstacle to peace.” However, he has also warned the Palestinians against pursuing the issue at the ICC.

The White House reiterated its call Wednesday for the resumption of long stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, in light of recent Israeli election which returned Netanyahu to power with a weaker majority for his right-wing bloc.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

In the Middle East, moves are afoot, to a large extent led by Qatar and its emir. He was in Gaza recently, and he seems to have made a deal, some people calling it a shotgun marriage, where Hamas and Fatah—Hamas recently moved its head offices to Doha, and now we have a sort of peace agreement between Hamas and Qatar. We're told by our journalist in Gaza, everywhere you see a Palestinian flag, there's a Qatari flag flying next to it. And Hamas is actually allowing people to protest, carrying the portraiture of Abbas, Abbas the head of Fatah and the PA. It's a very interesting development, including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which seems to have managed the peace agreement with Gaza in a way that has pleased President Obama.Now joining us from Geneva is Raja Khalidi. He's spent most of his professional career with the UN Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD, where he's currently chief of the Office of the Director, Division on Globalization and Development Strategies. And I have to point out, the opinions he's about to express are primarily his own; they're not necessarily those of UNCTAD. Thanks for joining us, Raja.RAJA KHALIDI, SENIOR ECONOMIST, UNCTAD, GENEVA: Nice to be with you.JAY: So, first of all, what do you make of what's going on, in terms of the UN recognition of Palestine as a nonmember state? And just what kind of Palestine does Qatar and others who are kind of moving pieces around on the chessboard, what kind of Palestine do you think is going to be built?KHALIDI: Well, I mean, with all of the regional, you know, transformations underway—and I think we haven't seen the end of them—they've started last year in a certain vein, with a largely political, economic, social content. They've been transformed this year into bloody battles around the region, unfortunately. In some places standoffs between demonstrators and the new governments, in other places various protest movements and human rights advocacy campaigns are underway. So I think, you know, the region is certainly in transformation, and we haven't seen the end of it, Arab Spring or not, whether or not we're in an "Arab Winter", as some would say. I think that's the first—you know, and you correctly noted that as the first and most important determinant for the Palestinians in the current circumstances, where things might go. The second important issue, I think, that has changed the discussion in the last month or so is, of course, the recent battle in Gaza between the Israeli military and the Hamas, largely, and other factions who, as we all now, let's say, fought to a standstill. In any case, as was—you know, we saw on Saturday with the huge celebration in Gaza, that's certainly a factor that has now also come into the equation, both the internal Palestinian equation and, I think, the regional equation. The third important issue, of course, is that [crosstalk] mentioned [incompr.] the diplomatic—let's say legal, also, to a certain extent—battle that's been fought by the PLO to upgrade its United Nations status to that of a nonmember state. Hence it's now referred to in the United Nations as the state of Palestine. So we're talking, of course, here about the PLO, which is the representative of the Palestinian people. So that upgrade is largely—so far appears to be a procedural one, in the sense that it allows the Palestinians access to certain things, like maybe instruments and courses of diplomatic, legal recourse that they didn't have, perhaps, before, but most importantly, I think, because it was a successful effort to get the world—large majority of the world to state, you know, very clearly its support for a two-state solution, most importantly for the establishment of the Palestinian state, the Palestinian rights, national rights, and sovereignty, and for the existence of state of Palestine, you know, more or less implicitly, though not so clearly in the resolution, on the '67 border. So that moment of global solidarity, I think this should not be underestimated, and the fact that, you know, both the Hamas as well as the Arab governments supported that effort.And the outcome, I think, is also indicative [incompr.] referred to pictures of Abbas being carried in Gaza, and, you know, to which one could add the presence of a Fatah delegation in Gaza on the celebrations of the 25th anniversary of Hamas. And there's clearly talk in the air of national reconciliation. So, you know, I think the United Nations, whoever, except for, you know, really, some governments, have largely supported the idea of Palestinian reconciliation. And now it's on the cards in a way that is more acceptable to the international community, it would appear, and to the region's main players than it was perhaps a year or less [incompr.] These are all factors which change the regional landscape but don't necessarily change anything on the ground as far as the Palestinians are concerned. So when you ask what sort of state we can expect to come out of this, I don't think any state—I don't think from—I mean, at least from the status of the peace process, I don't think we can expect any state to come out of this. We haven't seen a change in Israel's position. On the contrary, we've seen a hardening of the Israeli position regarding settlement of the West Bank. We haven't really seen anything in the way of a durable ceasefire that could ensure for the people. . . . Yeah. So, I mean, we haven't, I mean, seen in—as a result of the Gaza conflict, we haven't seen a relief of the siege of Gaza. So people in Gaza haven't really felt anything new as a result of a very hard-fought and widely publicized battle. So, I mean, as I said, I think the prospects for a Palestinian state haven't looked good for a long time, and they don't look any better, to me, at least, today as a result of—notwithstanding the diplomatic, military, if you wish, and regional diplomatic sort of pluses that the Palestinians have chalked up in the last few weeks.JAY: A Palestinian friend of mine, his theory of what's happening here is: Qatar, together with Saudi Arabia and in cooperation with the United States, the sort of plan is to develop the economy in Gaza and the West Bank and develop Gaza in a way that it becomes more and more integrated with Egypt, and Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood sort of manages Gaza. And in the West Bank, again, investment from Qatar and others develop the economy there in a way that strengthens the links with Jordan. He saw the whole thing as sort of the—his quote was this is the end of the Palestinian project.KHALIDI: Well, the end of the—the first person to say that was, I think, a Palestinian scholar in 2005, who said that with Arafat's death, the Palestinian national movement would start to come apart. In many ways, the last five years, six years have seen that sort of a disassembling of what was otherwise a fairly united national project now scattered into two regional, you know, political projects, as well, I mean, regional in the sense of Gaza and Ramallah, two different, separate Palestinian political entities, if you wish, political systems. And everything else we've seen in the way of disunity, if one can use that word in the Palestinian political and geographic and economic and international and regional relations sort of map. And now the fact that capital in the region might—I mean—or the idea that capital in the region might flow into Gaza or to the West Bank more readily than it has, let's say, in some better periods, i.e. periods where things were looking up, the Oslo period, for example, or even the last few years in the West Bank, you know, that it's going to somehow transform the economic prospects, I think, is unlikely. You know, there's very little what we call—in Arabic we use the word [incompr.] brave capital, courageous capital that's really willing to put its feet down in Palestinian—in investing in Palestine. So, you know, there's a Palestinian capital out there that could come back. So I don't see a major, you know, resource transfusion. We have this—yesterday we heard about this safety net, financial safety net approved by the Arab League. Basically, it's saying that, you know, if the Israelis cut off the tax revenue that's due for transfer to the PA, the Palestinian Authority, then the Arabs will step in and foot the bill, which is really, you know, almost—you know, which is a good safety net for a short period, but it's not really a sustainable one. In Gaza, you're right, there was this—there were major pledges for infrastructural development projects, and I think from Qatar prior to the last fighting. And those might actually—you know, now, in fact, you know, there's probably even more to reconstruction than there was before.But I don't think that, you know, that's—again, you know, we've had these spurts in Palestinian economic history of either donor-funded or remittance- (in some cases) funded or labor from—you know, wages-from-income-funded growth spurts, which led to, in some cases, some prosperity here and there, what we've called in UNCTAD, you know, individual prosperity and communal impoverishment. And we could see the same sort of—you know, especially in Gaza, because I don't think the West Bank has that, is really—you know, has anywhere to grow, whereas Gaza has a lot, still, to recover from. There's a lot of, you know, major infrastructural and social expenditures that could be envisaged there. And that will—you know, that could delay certain things, but we've always seen—you know, the thing comes back and bites any economic piece or any, you know, prosperity booms in the rear very badly. And it's happened—you know, it happened in 1987 with the First Intifada. It happened again after Oslo twice, both in the mid '90s, and then in 2000. The Second Intifada, we've had it again and again in Gaza. So, I mean, I think that the main issue is mainly occupation, lack of sovereignty, extremely limited, if any, economic policy space, even for the Gaza—government in Gaza, especially for the PA, in terms of its—the nature of its economic agreements and security and Oslo and Paris so-called agreements with Israel. I don't see anything yet that's—you know, with all of the links that might exist between the Hamas, Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood and their other—Egyptian and others, there are other very important forces at play. I mean, you know, the Iranian support for—the military support that has reached Gaza can't be discounted. There's a situation in North Sinai of lawlessness, which the Egyptian government hasn't gotten its handle on, hasn't gotten a handle on. And I think—you know, it worries Israel, and even worries Hamas, because it's a Salafi—sort of armed Salafi—not insurgency, but lawlessness, as I said, in the northwest Sinai. And then you have everything that's happening in Syria and Jordan in terms of regime change or potential, you know, reform, constitutional reform in Jordan. So, you know, I think the key player here in all this, even though I've, you know, made the tour of the Arab world, the key player is really Israel. I mean, the party that has it in its hands to change the prospects for a Palestinian state or a Palestinian economy, or even, you know, some achievement of Palestinian rights, is Israel. And, you know, we haven't seen any moves except, you know, further consolidation. This extraordinarily, you know, sensitive settlement plan in this area east of Jerusalem, E1, is certainly not—not to mention the tax issue, the revenue withholding. I mean, you know, that could go on as a short-term punishment, but I don't think the PA can live with it for very long. And already I think President Abbas, when he addressed the Arab League the other day, unfortunately, I think this has, you know, given us an example of the limitations of the state—status of being a state that the PLO is accorded in the UN is that he announced to them, he says that we're fast approaching becoming a collapsed state, basically, you know, probably the fastest failed state in history, between November 29 and—you know, only because we have one month of Israeli-, you know, channeled tax revenue withheld. And that's problematic. I mean, you know, it's problematic when you talk about state institutions that are supposedly there ready to function, and all that is needed is the magic wand of a political agreement. That's—you know, that's more easier said than done.JAY: So, in the next segment of our interview, let's talk further about just what kind of economy is going to be built in Palestine and Egypt, other countries of the Arab Spring. People were demanding democracy, but not just political democracy. People want something in terms of their economy. So please join us for the next segment of this interview on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

---

Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

The London-based Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) is organizing an international conference to discuss “Britain’s legacy in Palestine”, which takes a deep look at the UK’s failed policy in Palestine.

The gathering, which coincides with the fourth Palestine Memorial Week, to be held from 19th-25th Jan 2013, will be used as a formal launching pad for an anti-Balfour Declaration Campaign.

International Balfour Campaign is a five year initiative by the PRC to mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration in 2017.

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, the president of the British Zionist Federation that made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

Now, the main objective of the Balfour campaign is said to be raising awareness about Britain’s failed policies in Palestine and their devastating outcomes for the oppressed people of the region.

The UK’s failed policy in the region brought sufferings for thousands of Palestinians living under the British rule at the time and many more millions who are enduring terrible human rights abuses and occupation under the Zionist regime of Israel.

According to reports the conference will be inaugurated by Prof Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian Ambassador to the UK, Mohamad al Hamid of PRC and a number of MPs.

Among topics to be discussed during the conference there are three in the first session including the Theological and Ideological Roots of the Balfour Declaration, British Policy in Palestine, and the continuation of Britain’s colonial Legacy in Palestine by the Israeli regime.

“Ethnic cleansing of Palestine: Same goal different model”, and “Living Under occupation, the mechanics of ongoing ethnic cleaning”, are also among topics to be discussed at the second session of the conference.

Pushing the UK government to apologize to the Palestinians will also be top on the agenda of the International Campaign.

MOL/HE