A Tale of Two Gaza Flotilla Reports

In an article headlined "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid" the New York Times reported yesterday on the release of the UN Secretary General's Panel of Inquiry into the events surrounding the Israeli attack on the flotilla on May 31, 2010. It also leaked a copy of the report.

The report has been sensationalized for some time -- it has been delayed in its release, having been completed in July 2011 -- due to the effect it would have on relations between Israel and Turkey. In fact, today Turkey expelled Israel's representative and "decided to downgrade its diplomatic ties with Israel to the lowest possible level" as a response to the report.

Due to the impact of the Goldstone Report on Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, it is only natural that this report will be seen through the prism of the Goldstone experience and in comparison to it. But in reality, this Palmer Report (named for the leader of the inquiry Sir Geoffery Palmer) and the Goldstone Report are two very different things.

The Goldstone report was the outcome of a fact-finding mission initiated by the UN Human Rights Council which was mandated to investigate violations of international law and human rights during the 23-day Israeli campaign in Gaza. The Palmer report was NOT the outcome of a fact-finding mission, nor was it initiated by the UN Human Rights Council. A report like that on the flotilla had already been initiated and completed a year ago, and can be found in its entirety here.

It is important to note the differences between the two reports, not only because of their starkly contrasting conclusions about the events on the flotilla and the Israeli blockade, but also because of their methodologies and intentions. Below, I enumerate some important differences between the newly released Palmer Report and what I will refer to as the Hudson-Phillips report for consistency and expediency.

1. Origins- The Hudson-Phillips report originated from a June 2nd (two days after the flotilla attack) resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which called for an "independent international fact-finding mission." The Palmer report did not originate from the UNHRC and instead was initiated by the UN Secretary General on August 2nd (two months after the flotilla attack). While the Hudson-Phillips report was tasked with:

"investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding the boarding by Israeli military personnel of a flotilla of ships bound for Gaza and to determine whether in the process violations occurred of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law"

The Palmer panel, which the UN Secretary General called an "unprecedented development" was aimed at what the Secratery General hoped would effect "positively on the relationship between Turkey and Israel"

2. Composition- The UNHRC appointed to the fact-finding mission:

Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired Judge of the International Criminal Court and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, to be chairman and to head the mission. The other appointed members were Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

As for the Palmer report, the panel of inquiry was composed of Sir Geoffery Palmer, former Prime Minister of New Zealand as chair and the former President of Columbia, Alvaro Uribe as vice-chair. The inquiry also included a representative from Turkey and a representative of Israel. The appointment of politicians instead of jurists to the Palmer inquiry suggests strongly that political and diplomatic considerations were more important than fact-finding or law.

3. Methodology: The Hudson-Phillips report is explicit about its methodology in paragraphs 18-25. It directly collected and evaluated evidence and in the process interviewed 112 witnesses. In contrast, the Palmer report interviewed ZERO witnesses and instead relied on the reports of Israel and Turkey. The Palmer report states clearly that:

The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.

And while the Palmer panel did get to view witness reports appended to the Turkish investigation, when discrepancies arose about accounts between the Turkish report and the Israeli report, the panel had no ability to independently substantiate witness statements or corroborate evidence. In cases where the Turkish and Israeli reports disagreed, Palmer and Uribe would just have to make a decision based on the reports from the two countries and not independently ascertained facts.

While the Palmer panel received direct input from both representatives of the states of Israel and Turkey, which allowed both states to promote their individual national interests, it featured no mechanism for direct input from the members of civil society which undertook the flotilla effort and were the direct victims of the Israeli attack. For its part, the Hudson-Phillips report made extensive efforts to garner information, but the state of Israel refused to cooperate with it.

4. Conclusions- Perhaps the most important difference between the two reports is their conclusions. The Palmer report largely vindicates Israel, calling its blockade legal, but criticizes the way in which the raid on the flotilla was carried out. The Hudson-Phillips report condemns the use of force against civilians on the flotilla, but is also very clear on the illegality of the blockage saying "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."

Both reports should be read in their entirity to properly appreciate the differences between them.

So what happened here? How can two reports on the same events issued by the UN differ so drastically?

It seems what happened here is that Israel learned a very difficult lesson from the Goldstone Report: that it must ignore and marginalize any inquiries into violations it committed unless it can ensure a positive outcome for its reputation. This is not to say that Israel cooperated with the Goldstone inquiry, because it did not. And it seems Israel realized that the strategy of simply ignoring the inquiries and not cooperating will not guarantee that it won't suffer significant international condemnation as the result of a damning report that will be published with our without Israeli cooperation.

Instead, the best way for Israel to mitigate such condemnation was to cooperate with an inquiry, but only one in which they had a reason to expect a positive outcome. The illusion of impartiality created by the Palmer inquiry, because it included Israeli and Turkish representatives, is no substitute for a genuine fact-finding commission -- especially not for the families of the 9 dead civilians and the 1.5 million more civilians suffering from the Israeli siege -- but for Israel it accomplished the task at hand. Clearly, Israel participated in the Palmer inquiry with the same sort of confidence John Gotti had walking into court; evidence and justice didn't really matter and it knew the outcome would be a desirable one.

The Palmer report was never intended to ascertain what happened on the flotilla, why it happened and who is at fault. Rather, it accepted that both Israel and Turkey had a narrative of these events, and its job was to marry those narratives into something acceptable enough to both sides to get Israel out of the flotilla mess unscathed, and improve relations between the two nations.

Turkey is clearly incensed over this report. With 9 of its citizens dead and others badly injured in an act of civil disobedience against what Turkey and much of the international community considers an illegal blockade, it is unlikely Ankara will remain quiet about this. Still despite this, Israel could have apologized for the killings -- "most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range" -- but decided not to because it seems even an apology would be too incriminating for an state that has become paranoid about its perception internationally.

But Ankara seems to understand Israel's vulnerability to international isolation, and now, without Israel issuing an apology that could have mitigated a breakdown in ties, Turkey seems hell-bent on hitting Israel where it hurts: in the court of international opinion. The Turkish ambassador to the United States tweeted earlier today: "Israel should understand that no country is above the international law and that the Mediterranean is not a lake of its own." Its foriegn minister also declared that Turkey will initiate proceedings in international legal arenas on the legality of the Israeli blockade.

Israel's stubbornness at this stage reminds me of its stubbornness prior to the 1973 war when it ignored diplomatic efforts to secure minor withdrawals from Sinai that might have avoided the entire confrontation.

Here again, after a foray into the Palmer report with the purpose of mitigating further international marginalization, Israel only finds itself having angered Turkey more. In a revolutionary region where Israel is loosing what few autocratic friends it had rapidly, it once again finds itself barreling toward further isolation.

I can't say I'm surprised; that will continue to be the case as long as Israel's occupation and it's siege of the Gaza Strip continues.

read more...

What Opening Rafah Means & Doesn't Mean

The news was welcomed by many around the world this week when reports about a decision taken by Egypt's current military government to open the Rafah crossing with Gaza surfaced. But what does the opening of Rafah mean? There will undoubtedly be those trying to proclaim that life is on the up and up in Gaza now and that the siege is over. But Gaza and the siege that entraps it is immensely complicated. Ignoring the nuances of this policy and thinking that Gaza is equivalent to a solid black box that just had its lid opened is entirely misleading. It is important, especially as the anniversary of the attack on the Mavi Marmara approaches, to understand what the opening of Rafah means and does not mean, and to redouble our efforts to raise awareness about, and challenge, the continued Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip.

What the Opening of Rafah Does Not Mean: The siege is over.

The siege of the Gaza Strip is a multi-layered closure with many dimensions. Several closure policies contribute to the siege effect, and the opening of Rafah is unlikely to have a major impact on the overall effect simply because the remaining closure policies, enforced by Israel, are not changing.

First, what exactly is the Rafah Crossing? Rafah is a Palestinian town in the Gaza Strip which straddles the border with Egypt. A terminal at the border exists to facilitate the travel of people across the border, but Rafah is not designed as a crossing for supplies. The opening of Rafah, while it may allow for people in Gaza to exit (with the permission of Egypt still required of course), has little effect on the actual quantity of goods coming in and out of Gaza.

The other layers of Siege

The Other Crossings: For logistical, historical and infrastructural reasons, other crossing points into Gaza are ideal for the entry of commercial or humanitarian goods. Using data from the UN Office for the Coordinate of Humanitarian Affairs, which keeps track of what is allowed into Gaza, when and through which entry, we can see a stark contrast between the different crossings. Aggregate data from June 19, 2007 through May 19, 2011 presented in this pie chart exposes just how few goods come through the Rafah crossing.

But this chart also doesn't tell the whole story. Today, most of these crossing have been closed, and in fact, thus far in 2011 95% of trucks that were permitted entry to Gaza came through the Kerem Shalom crossing. Israel has, over time, practically shutdown all other crossings.

Israel's multi-decade occupation of Gaza, and Gaza's history as an integral part of historic Palestine for millenia, created infrastructure and logistical realities which make supplying it from the north far more easy than the south. The population density of Israel/Palestine over time has always been greater than that of Egypt's Sinai, meaning resources would be centrally located in the middle of historic Palestine and distributed naturally to its perimeter.

By retaining total control over the other crossings, Israel is still able to maintain its siege policy to practically the same exact extent as before the opening of Rafah. Unless Egypt and Palestine completely revamp the Rafah crossing and the infrastructure around it on both sides of the border, this is unlikely to change. Also, such changes are highly unlikely for both political and economic considerations. It is simply not a cost effective investment to bring supplies to Gaza in a roundabout fashion when the land it has always been economically integrated into is to its north. Further, separating Gaza from historic Palestine, in anyway, is a political minefield because of its potential implications to the struggle for Palestinian self-determination.

Electricity and Water: For many of the same reasons explained above, Gaza is overwhelmingly dependent on Israel when it comes to electricity. This 2010 special focus report from UN OCHA states "the Gaza Strip’s needs range between 240 and 280 megawats (MW), of which at least 42 percent is purchased from Israel, distributed in separate feeder lines along the Gaza Strip, and six to seven percent is purchased from Egypt, distributed mainly to the Rafah area"

It explains the genesis of the electricity problem well:

The shortage of electricity in the Gaza Strip dates back to June 2006, when the Israeli Air Force destroyed all six transformers at the GPP during an air strike. Five months later, the power plant resumed production, but at a significantly reduced level; producing around 65 MW (out of 80MW of potential capacity), compared to 118MW at peak production (out of 140 MW of potential capacity) prior to the bombardment.

Israel’s imposition of a blockade on the Gaza Strip in June 2007, following the Hamas take-over, further tightened existing restrictions on imports of spare parts, equipment, consumables and industrial fuel required for the operation of the power plant and the electricity network.. As a result, there has been a chronic shortfall in the GPP’s level of electricity production. Since January 2010, the daily electricity deficit has increased further, following the expiration of the European Commission’s direct subsidy to the fuel purchase for the GPP. Since this time, the power plant has twice had to shut down completely, due to lack of fuel. The plant now operates using one turbine, producing only 30 MW of electricity, compared to its average production of 60-65 MW in 2009.

Israel's control over the vast majority of electricity generated outside of Gaza, and their ability to deny the sustainable development of electricity generation inside Gaza by preventing the materials necessary for bringing the power-plant up to capacity, gives them effective light-switch control over Gaza.

Electricity has a direct impact on the issue of clean water as well. Amnesty International reports that 90-95 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is contaminated and unfit for consumption. The United Nations even found that bottled water in Gaza contained contaminants, likely due to the plastic bottles recycled in dysfunctional factories. The lack of sufficient power for desalination and sewage facilities results in significant amounts of sewage seeping into Gaza's coastal aquifer--the main source of water for the people of Gaza.

The Blockade: People often use the words blockade and siege interchangeably and this is simply inaccurate. The blockade of Gaza is enforced by the Israeli navy off the coast of Gaza and in Gaza's territorial waters. The siege is a combination of restrictive and punitive policies which includes the blockade, but also some of the other issues discussed above. The blockade itself, however, has a specific but equally devastating impact on Gaza, its people and its economy. For Gaza's fishing industry in particular this has been destructive. Israel enforces it's illegal naval blockade at the 3-nautical mile mark (most of the fish native to Gaza's territorial water's are beyond this mark) and when Gaza's fisherman get too close, they get shot. In fact, three fisherman were injured just this morning when Israeli naval boats fired on them.

While Israel argues its blockade is to keep weapons out of Gaza, it has yet to provide an explanation as to why it is shooting Palestinian fisherman coming from Gaza on dinghies. The effects of this have been so severe, that a coastal territory with a rich seafaring history farms fish on land and imports fresh fish now from Israel. Needless to say, the opening of the Rafah crossing will have little impact on this aspect of the siege.

What the Opening of Rafah Does Mean: The Closing of A Dark Chapter in Egypt's History

The siege of the Gaza Strip is a disgraceful policy that collectively punishes civilians in direct opposition to international humanitarian law and is an ugly scar on the conscience of the international community. Egypt, sadly, played an undeniable roll in this policy under the Mubarak regime despite the fact that most Egyptians vehemently disagreed with this policy. While the Egyptian closure of Rafah was a minor contributor to the overall effects of the siege compared to Israeli restrictions, Mubarak regime complicity was viewed as treacherous in the eyes of most in the Arab and Muslim world. Most Palestinians and frankly most people around the world knew that the people of Egypt did not agree with what the government of Egypt was doing. Any who doubted this were thoroughly convinced after January 25th, 2011.

However, the extent to which this truly is the end of a dark chapter in Egyptian history will be determined by what kind of role the new Egypt will play toward Gaza, and whether the opening of Rafah is the first or last step it takes toward breaking the Israeli-led policy of siege. Making sure Palestinians in Gaza can travel freely in and out of the newly opened Rafah crossing, without discriminatory visa and security-check delays which have debilitated travel in the past, would be an immensely important next step in the right direction.

read more...

Legality vs. Legitimacy: America's Ambiguous Umbrella Protecting Israeli Settlements

The response by the Netanyahu government to the gruesome murder of 5 settlers in the settlement of Itamar was typical; they announced they'd build even more settlements. The American response to the Israeli announcement was perhaps even more typical. This story summarizes what has become a near-automated and ambiguous response(emphasis in this and all excerpts is mine):

In the first U.S. reaction to the Israeli decision, the State Department said in a statement Sunday that Washington was deeply concerned by continuing Israeli actions with respect to settlements in the West Bank."

"Continued Israeli settlements are illegitimate and run counter to efforts to resume direct negotiations," the statement said, adding that "through good faith direct negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties."

If anyone else is wondering what this means, you are not alone. The terminology of "legitimacy' entered the discourse of official US policy after President Obama delivered his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo. At the time, President Obama said "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." This line was greeted by applause from the crowd in the auditorium where he was speaking, as well as from onlookers around the Arab and Muslim world. Many welcomed the fact that the new American President was directly criticizing Israel's settlement enterprise. The reaction to this line came because he said it, but not necessarily because the meaning and gravity of the language used was fully appreciated and fully understood.

What does it mean for the US to consider settlements "illegitimate"? And more importantly, how does this concept of legitimacy differ from the more important concept of legality. After delivering that crowd-pleasing line in Cairo, the President followed it up with language that may offer insight into what is really meant by "legitimacy":

This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Note that the President deliberately chose not to say that the construction violates international law. So from what the President said, it seems that to the United States, settlement construction is illegitimate in so far as it violates agreements (not laws) and undermines (American led) peace efforts. By speaking about settlements in this context and completely sidestepping the context of legality, an open question arises about US policy on settlements: Does the United States consider the building of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory illegal under international law? And if so, why is it so hard to just say it?

An recent episode at the UN Security Council may shed light on an ambiguous US policy. The Palestinians sought to bring a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning illegal Israeli settlements. The resolution included the following language:

Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Reaffirming that all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-State solution,

Condemning the continuation of settlement activities by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

The United States wanted to avoid a UNSC vote on this issue but when the Palestinians continued to push for the resolution to come up for a vote, the Obama Administration would be forced to lift the veil on the sneaky language they introduced in Cairo and had been using ever since. In a effort to avoid a vote, the US informed Arab governments that it would support a UNSC Presidential Statement (which doesn't carry the weight of a UNSC Resolution) that used language Washington was more comfortable with. It stated:

The Security Council reiterates its previous resolutions and the obligations under the Quarter Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.

No mention of legality, which made the statement useless to those supporting the resolution. Ultimately, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, was instructed to veto the resolution and she did. Of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, 14 voted for the resolution and 1, the United States, voted against. In her statement after the vote, Ambassador Rice attempted to explain the reasoning behind the American veto she had just cast. In doing so, she said this in her statement:

Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.

So we know now, perhaps, what wasn't clear in Cairo when President Obama introduced this statement of policy. In Washington's lexicon, legitimacy and legality seem completely unrelated and do not overlap. Some maybe wondering whether or not this matters or if this is just a question of semantics . It matters greatly, of course, because there are clear consequences and actions which must be taken against violators of international law. By insisting on "opposing" Israeli settlements by calling them "illegitimate", the United States simply protects Israel and its settlement enterprise by shielding them from legal obligations. Not surprisingly, Israel has continued with settlement expansion under an American umbrella of intentional ambiguity.

The entire world (except for the Obama Administration and Israel) including anyone with a basic understanding of International Law can state unequivocally that the building of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is 100% illegal.

In the past, I wrote about Matthew Lee, an AP reporter covering the State Department who did a fantastic job posing straightforward questions consistently until he got an answer (or lack of one) about the detention of the non-violent Palestinian activist Abdallah Abu Rahmah.

Incidentally, Abu Rahmah was released today after serving 16-months in prison. Maybe it's time for State Department reporters to try to get spokesman on the record about the US government's official position on the legality of Israeli settlements - and not take "illegitimate" for an answer.

read more...

Why Israel Criminalizes Nonviolence

An Israeli military court convicted Abdallah Abu Rahmah, the coordinator of the Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, of incitement and holding illegal demonstrations. The eight-month long ordeal, during which the peaceful activist was imprisoned, also ended with his acquittal on two other charges: stone-throwing and possession of arms.

Abu Rahmah gained international attention for his leading role in the growing nonviolent protest movement in occupied Palestine. His central West Bank village is the site of weekly protests against the encroachment of Israel's wall and other occupation policies. The wall was considered illegal under international law by the International Court of Justice in a 2004 advisory opinion.

Quite often, Israeli military forces use violence and coercion against unarmed protesters there. Last week, Israeli soldiers in riot gear injured several of them, as well as a journalist. They detained two activists, one Palestinian and one foreign.

Increasingly, Israel criminalizes Palestinian protest, thereby reaffirming its cause and giving way to only more nonviolent opposition.

His conviction through the machinery of the laws of occupation highlight the fact that he, and other Palestinian prisoners, are processed by an illegitimate court administering an occupation and apartheid structure that contravenes international law and norms of justice. Legal prohibitions and enforcement against nonviolent resistance illustrate the inherent criminality of the system, a point made by purveyors and practitioners of civil disobedience, from Thoreau to Gandhi and King Jr.

Civil disobedience, as suggested by the philosopher John Rawls, is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. The organizers of protests in Bil'in, as well as in Nilin, Budrus and other Palestinian areas, are working in the spirit of this definition.

The severity of the case against him demonstrates Israel's official fear of nonviolent resistance. Abu Rahmah, himself, believes that this illegitimate campaign against him and the Bil'in activists will only inspire further activism:

Israel’s military campaign to imprison the leadership of the Palestinian popular struggle shows that our non-violent struggle is effective....Whether we are confined in the open-air prison that Gaza has been transformed into, in military prisons in the West Bank, or in our own villages surrounded by the Apartheid Wall, arrests and persecution do not weaken us. They only strengthen our commitment to turning 2010 into a year of liberation through unarmed grassroots resistance to the occupation....This year, the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee will expand on the achievements of 2009, a year in which you amplified our popular demonstrations in Palestine with international boycott campaigns and international legal actions under universal jurisdiction...

Elements of the conviction indicate the political motivations behind his arrest. The indictment cited this as evidence of indictment: Abu Rahmah collected spent Israeli tear-gas projectiles and bullet cases from the sites of demonstrations to prove that the violence was being used against demonstrators.

Israel's military authorities effectively prohibit the collection of evidence against their policies and practices.

Under military law, incitement is "The attempt, verbally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area in a way that may disturb the public peace or public order" (section 7(a) of the Order Concerning Prohibition of Activities of Incitement and Hostile Propaganda (no.101), 1967), and carries a 10 year maximum sentence.

The sentencing of Abu Rahmah, which begins next month, will be premised on the absurd argument that documenting Israel's use of force against unarmed demonstrators disturbs the public peace. Public order in the case means the security of the military occupation. The prosecution is expected to recommend a two-year imprisonment sentence.

Beyond the criminality of the charges, the evidence presented against him should raise eyebrows. The prosecution presented the testimonies of minors who were arrested in the middle of the night and questioned without access to legal counsel. Under fair judicial systems testimonies by children made under duress would be inadmissible as evidence. The trial itself is testimony to the police state nature of the occupation.

Abu Rahmah’s case harkens back to the intifada that began in late 1987. This prosecution was the first use of the organizing and illegal demonstrations regulations since then. Military ordinances define "illegal assembly" in a much stricter way than Israeli law does (another example of the apartheid-nature of the occupation). It forbids any assembly of more than 10 people without a permit from the military commander.

The hidden charge, the one not expressly conveyed, is that Abu Rahmah was gaining international visibility, and was rising as a powerful voice of conscience against the forty-three year-old Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Israel is well aware of what damage a Palestinian figure of international stature could cause to Israel's status quo.

After all, how often have western commentators criticized the Palestinians for lacking a Gandhi? This question was more often a function of the questioner's ignorance than a reflection of the state of Palestinian nonviolent resistance -- which has always been ubiquitous. From circumventing checkpoints, to refusing to pay fees to Israel, to building without permits, Palestinians fundamentally disobey Israel's overbearing authority on a nearly continuous basis.

It is when leaders emerge that Israel targets them. In 2008, exactly a year before the Israeli military arrested Abu Rahmah in the middle of the night, he received the Carl Von Ossietzky Medal for Outstanding Service in the Realization of Basic Human Rights, which was awarded by the International League for Human Rights in Berlin.

The delegation of international figures and statesmen known as The Elders -- including Mary Robinson, Fernando Cardoso, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu and others -- visited the memorial of the fallen Bil'in organizer, Bassem Abu Rahmah, in August 2009. Abu Rahmah accompanied them, and is pictured with them in the photo to the left. After his arrest in December, 2009, the South African former archbishop and anti-Apartheid Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu called for his release.

As with other nonviolent political prisoners, such as Mohammad Othman and Jamal Juma', Abu Rahmah is intended to be made an example. Mubarak Awad was when he was deported by Israel in 1988 for organizing nonviolent resistance campaigns. However, Abu Rahmah's case is an example of the excesses and authoritarianism of an occupation regime, one that suffers declining political support and increasing international ostracism.

The occupation is so rooted in violence and coercion that its only answer in the face of nonviolence is more of the same repression that inspires the protests. Because Israel's occupation runs on force, it cannot distinguish physical and ideational threats by criminalizing them both. Its legal system punishes both through detentions, stripping what few freedoms there are, and through programs of state-sanctioned violence. Knowing that nonviolence has a powerful potential to politically shatter the occupation, the authorities see a need to punish it ruthlessly.

The ideological aims of occupation and settler-colonialism are embedded in this legal administration, making the system morally bankrupt.

For more information on Abu Rahmah, see the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee's website.

read more...

Israel's Abu Ghraib Scandal Grows

I wrote yesterday about the embarrassing moments that expose the IDF's mistreatment of Palestinians and how Israel's leaders attempt to downplay these as isolated episodes by "bad apples" which are supposedly not representative of the entire army. A similar response came after the revelation yesterday that a certain IDF soldier had posted pictures on her Facebook page posing with detained Palestinians.

The IDF response called the photos "repulsive" and claimed that they in no way represent the IDF as a whole. But within hours from the beginning of Israel's Abu Ghraib scandal more photos surfaced of IDF personnel humiliating Palestinians and posing for 'trophy shots' with dead Palestinians. I wrote about some of the IDF's top Abu Ghraib-like moments yesterday - moments that make objective onlookers question the morality of the IDF and its occupation - but as these photos continue to make their way into the public eye the scandal is growing.

Breaking the Silence, an Israeli organization which collects testimony from IDF soldiers who can no longer silence their conscience, issued a statement claiming that this behavior is not limited to one soldier and that "the IDF Spokesman [should] not insult the intelligence of the Israeli public, and clarify that it is a widespread phenomenon, not an aberration caused by a single soldier"

More of these types of photos are available here but beware some of the images are not suitable for those with weak stomachs.

The release of these initial photos, and there will certainly be more to come in the future, merely provided further support for the testimonies of Palestinian victims of routine humiliation by the occupation. The story here is not that the IDF humiliates Palestinians and treats them in an inhumane fashion, that's old news. Rather, the real story is that this is another instance where the Israeli PR machine has failed to terminate the transparency created by technology and the internet. The limits of state control are clearly on display as a potentially devastating PR catastrophe that began with one soldier's photos is now snowballing into something much bigger only within 24 hours.

The IDF soldier whose Facebook album exposed these practices yesterday morning can not comprehend why they are problematic. Ha'aretz reports:

"I still don't understand what's wrong," Abergil told Army Radio on Thursday, saying that the "pictures were taken in good will, there was no statement in them."

The former IDF soldier said the pictures, which she said were of Gazans who had been arrested while attempting to crossover into Israel, were meant to depict a "military experience," and were not intended to injure the detainees.

During the Army Radio interview, Abergil repeatedly said that it had never occurred to her that "the picture would be problematic," asking interviewer Ilana Dayan whether the media asked for detainees permission when they film them.

Referring to the possibility that the images could injure Israel's image in the international arena, Abergil said: "We will always be attacked. Whatever we do, we will always be attacked."

Abergil is wrong about a lot of things but she is most wrong about the last, fatalistic comment in the excerpt. The world is not out to get Israel. The world has told Israel time and again, if it abides by international law and ends it's 43 year occupation, it would be a welcomed part of the international community. Until then it will remain a pariah state to most of the world, and if not most of the world's governments, at least most of the world's population.

The perception that Israel will be attacked for whatever it does has a dangerous corollary. If IDF soldiers, the Army and the State have bought into the idea that criticism will come regardless to what actions they take (and you would sure think so considering what they have been saying in recent years), what is to stop them from taking these disgusting actions.

Israel's PR machine has long criticized what it considers to be a deligitimization campaign and this criticism has increased since the heinous attacks on besieged Gaza and the attack on the flotilla. But as Israel's Abu Ghraib scandal continues to develop, we are witnessing yet another example of how Israel, through its occupation and treatment of Palestinians, has done more damage to Israel's image than anyone else. Unless the occupation ends, Israel will continue to be its own worst enemy.

read more...

The IDF's Top 5 'Abu Ghraib' Moments

In the battle for global sympathy, Israel goes to great lengths to convince the world that the IDF is the "most moral army in the world". Israel's leaders and spokesmen repeat this ad nauseum lest anyone have a moment to think otherwise. But on a frequent basis stories, images or films leak out into the mainstream which make it hard for Israel's PR professionals to maintain the mantra of morality. Disturbing images of occupation, in its most raw forms, have caused many, Israelis and Americans alike, to begin to ask what in the world is Israel doing to the Palestinians.

This morning, the news broke about another one of these moments. An IDF soldier, discharged from service in 2008, was found to have created a Facebook album featuring images of her posing with detained, handcuffed and blindfolded Palestinians a la Abu Ghraib. Here is an excerpt from the online version of the Israeli newspaper Yideot Ahranot:

Eden, an Ashdod resident who was recently discharged from the army, apparently had her pictures taken with the Palestinian detainees in 2008. The photos were posted in an album titled "Army…best time of my life :)"

The photos quickly caused a stir on the internet with many net surfers shocked by the images. Some of her friends however responded with enthusiasm.

"You're super sexy here," one of her friends wrote her. Adi responded: "Yeah, I know, ha ha, what a day that was, see how he completes my picture, I wonder if he's on Facebook! I have to tag him in the photo! Ha ha."

This incident, of course, is not unique. A number of different embarrassing moments over time have offered glimpses into the morality, or rather the lack there of, of the Israeli occupation. Alone, these events are often dismissed as the acts of "bad apples" which do not reflect on the whole. But it is important to understand these events as part of an ongoing occupation, a system which drives this behavior because it is based on a fundamental inequality of human beings. It is this inequality which permits the inhumane treatment of other human beings.

In other words, the frequency of these events has little to do with the frequency with which we hear about them. The fact, however, that some of these incidents do see the light, tell us that many more have not been captured on camera.

So this is an appropriate moment to look back at some of the IDF's other 'Abu Ghraib' moments. I use the Abu Ghraib analogy not because the individual acts are exactly like the horrific acts that took place in the American run Iraqi prison of infamy, but rather because, like Abu Ghraib, these are moments or episodes which have led some people to rethink the occupation.



#5. A Child Scared-

In what became an iconic image from the second intifada, this picture is representative of a plethora of scenes where children are arrested, mistreated, humiliated and often worse. Here, a child, who seems to be around 10 years old is arrested by numerous heavily armed Israeli soldiers. Not knowing where he is being taken, the child is frightened to the point where he wet himself.



#4. Smile, you're dead-


Some hunters pose proudly next to the stag they shot, some stuff the heads and mount them on the wall to memorialize the prize. In this photo, IDF soldiers pose next to a dead Palestinian in what was widely criticized as a 'trophy shot'. Armed with American made M-16 riffles, the soldiers huddle and smirk above the a lifeless Palestinian body.




#3. The 'Non-Existent' Human Shields- The proponents of the 'most moral army in the world' claim often deny the IDF ever uses human shields. Of course, the Goldstone report found that the opposite was quite true. (Even a recent, albeit hushed, IDF report found Goldstone was right on the use of human shields.) But images of IDF personal using Palestinians as human shields are not rare. This one was featured in an English paper under a provocative headline.



#2. One shot, two kills

Israel's war on Gaza, which followed years of siege that imposed collective punishment on the 1.5 million civilians in the tiny strip, left 1400 people, mostly civilians dead. The images of carnage, white phosphorus and devastating force used in densely populated civilian areas led many to critcize Israel's conduct during the war and allegations of war crimes were heard even before the war ended and long before the Goldstone commission received its mandate to investigate human rights violations. It was evident early on that the Israel's PR machine would have to kick into high gear to combat allegations that the 'most moral army in the world' acted improperly. Certainly, these t-shirts, which became popular among some IDF soldiers as well as other Israeli citizens didn't help. This now infamous image shows a pregnant Palestinian lady with her womb in the cross hairs of an Israeli sniper. The caption reads "One Shot, Two Kills."



Drumroll.......



#1. Point Blank Punishment

In perhaps the most difficult to look at scene, this video tops the list. Here, after a protest against the building of the wall in the West Bank near the village of Ni'lin, IDF soldiers arrest, handcuff and blind fold on of the protesters. Then, they bring him next to their jeep where he is surrounded by IDF personel. A moment later, a soldier raises his gun toward the blindfolded youth firing at point blank range into his foot. The youth falls to the ground writhing in pain.

Many more could be added to this list but you get the point. How many more 'Abu Ghraib' moments does the IDF need to have for the world to realize that there is no morality in an army of occupation?

read more...

Israel's Land Discrimination: Unrecognized Villages vs. "Unauthorized" Outposts

A comprehensive legal analysis by the Dirasat - Arab Center for Law and Policy found that Palestinian and Bedouin citizens of Israel engage in so much illegal construction as a direct result of biased state policies and regulations. Israel's land regime has long privileged Jewish demographic growth over that of the Palestinians. Israel's foundation and national history since then has been oriented around the goal of maximal land acquisition for Israeli Jews while minimizing Palestinian residential areas.

The study found that the excessive prohibitions and lack of accommodations for Arab population growth result in unjustifiably prohibitive permit and license rules. Many Arab communities have neither a local nor privatized master building plan and so they cannot receive building permits from the state. Others have old or outdated plans. Some of those with plans, find the hurdles put up by the state to be too great, effectively blocking the plans' implementation.

The timing of the study's release coincided with Israel's demolition of dozens of buildings in the Bedouin town of Arakib. It is one of Israel's many "unrecognized villages," meaning areas of residence the state of Israel does not consider legal. They do not get state services, get placement on the electric grid and appear on no official maps. Palestinians, mainly Bedouin, with Israeli citizenship are the primary residents.

There are an estimated 45,000 "illegal constructions" in the unrecognized villages in the Negev region. According to the Knesset, some 1,500 illegal structures are built each year in the unrecognized villages. Israel can demolish them at any moment, as events in Arakib showed.

Israel's history is testimony to the systematic favoring of its Jewish citizens. Aside seven Bedouin communities established in Negev, Israel has not seen the foundation of a single Arab town since 1948. At the same time, it established some 1,000 Jewish settlements.

Israel claims that its rules around land are driven by the rule of law. It cited state ownership of land as giving the legal impetus to raze homes in Arakib. Lacking impossible-to-obtain permits was also the legal justification given for demolishing Palestinian residences in Jerusalem.

However, the same principles of discrimination in land use clearly flout international law and agreements as they are practiced in the West Bank.

In the West Bank, Israel is privileging the Israeli settlers over the Palestinian population in terms of land. There are more than 121 illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, housing more than 300,000 settlers (nearly half of whom reside in Occupied East Jerusalem). In all, the settlements take up 42% of the West Bank, according to B'tselem.

Israel's increased prosecution of building in the unrecognized villages stands in stark contrast to the soft ball it is playing with ideologically zealous settlers who set up camps and quickly erected sites. They also set up dummy outposts - phony settlement outposts for Israel to remove - as a way of preventing the removal of their own. This is a game Israeli clearly plays along with.

As described in a piece on Electronic Intifada, Israel has termed the colonial outposts it wants to remove "unauthorized," which is a legal fiction intended to grant implicit authorization to the rest of the colonies despite their blanket illegality under international law.

This distinction is clearly a shell game: of the most recent 15 unauthorized outposts slated for removal, 11 were dummies. And these 15 ordered removals, which are so clearly performed for the sake of outside audiences, represent such a minute percentage of the colonial activity in the Palestinian territory.

Even when Israel agrees to freeze only partially the colonial growth in the West Bank, it fails to live up to its obligations. The Israeli group Peace Now documented 492 violations of the U.S.-brokered partial moratorium on new construction in the occupied West Bank.

Peace Now found that construction had begun on at least 600 housing units in 60 different settlements (as well as 2,000 housing units approved just before the freeze announcement in November 2009). The moratorium may have led to a decrease in building. Usually, 1,130 new homes go up in an eight-month period. Still, there were many violations of the agreement.

The clear pattern of aggressive Israeli colonization in the West Bank, combined with growing state actions against Arab citizens building in Israel shows there is no clear rule of law, but that an ideologically motivated system of discrimination between peoples is at work. Israel's state-building and now state-expanding project is fundamentally at the root of this conflict. Policymakers should see this is a basic and systematic process that crosses the green line and will likely set the frame of the future. The current direction towards greater discrimination -- even apartheid -- must be addressed at its core.

read more...

Ethnic Cleansing By Any Other Name

Changes in Israeli Military Orders Effective Today Target Palestinians

Palestine Center Brief No. 195

By Yousef Munayyer

Background

The West Bank has been occupied by Israel since 1967. Israel maintains authoritative jurisdiction over the happenings in the West Bank via its military apparatus. Decisions governing the simplest aspects of Palestinian life, from traveling from one area to another to building a home, ultimately lie under the jurisdiction of the Israeli Military's High Command in the West Bank. In October of 2009, amendments were made to military orders governing the legitimate presence of persons in Occupied Palestinian Territory. The changes, effective six months after the signing of the orders, are beginning to take effect. It is important to note that Palestinians are not in control of the Palestinian population registry. Israel maintains strict control over this database and continues to do so. It is because of this that Israeli authorities can determine the residencies of Palestinians and only through the Israelis can the Palestinian Authority issue identification documents.

Changes in Israeli Military Orders

The main changes come as amendments to the Israeli Military Order No. 329 titled "Order Regarding Prevention of Infiltration" which was signed into effect two years after the occupation began in 1969. This order defines so-called "infiltrators" as persons who "enter the Area knowingly and unlawfully having been present in the east bank of the Jordan, Syria, Egypt or Lebanon." In 1969, prior to peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, infiltrators as defined by this order were persons entering the West Bank from enemy states. The amendment to this order, order number 1650, signed in late 2009 changes this definition to "a person who entered the Area unlawfully following the effective date, or a person who is present in the Area and does not lawfully hold a permit." [emphasis added]

The original order also defines a "resident of the Area" as a "person whose permanent residence is in the Area." The new order eliminates this definition, apparently leaving determination of residency in the hands of military commanders.

Further, the original order states that a person that is present in the West Bank without documentation of their residency bears the burden of proving that he did not infiltrate the area. The amendment changes this language significantly and simply states that any person present in the West Bank without a document or permit is "presumed to be an infiltrator." The amendment adds that a lawful document or permit is only one that is issued by the commander of the Israeli Military in the West bank or someone acting on his behalf.

Changes have also been made to the punishments levied against those considered so-called "infiltrators". The amendments to the order now specify that deportation orders can be carried out as early as 72 hours from the issuance of the order and in some cases even sooner. Further, the Palestinians targeted for deportation will be held liable for the expenses of their deportation up to 7,500 NIS. Under the amendment, a military commander is permitted to seize monies held by the deportee to cover the expenses.

The section of the order on the sentencing of an alleged "infiltrator" was also modified. The old statute condemned an "infiltrator" to "imprisonment of fifteen years or a fine of 10,000 Israeli Lira or both". The new order seems to condemn Palestinians to imprisonment regardless of their innocence. Read closely the section below:

A. "The infiltrator shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years.
B. The provisions of Subsection (A) notwithstanding, where an infiltrator has proven his entry into the area was lawful-he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years"

A second amendment issued at the same time, Order No. 1649, establishes a committee to review deportation orders. However, hearings before this committee are for those held in custody in the process of deportation and the order stipulates that they be allowed a hearing before the committee no later than eight days from the issuance of the deportation order. The obvious problem which arises is that when deportation orders are executable in 72 hours, a Palestinian may be deported before they have a chance to have a hearing.

The collective effects of the changes made by the new orders yields an increased ambiguity that can be dangerously exploited to target Palestinians and others in the West Bank.

Implications for Palestinians Residing in the West Bank

The changes made to these orders may lead to sweeping changes in the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank. Effectively, this order makes every resident of the West Bank subject to treatment as an alleged "infiltrator" and prosecution/deportation under this order for simply being unable to produce identification on the spot or not having the ambiguously defined and potentially unattainable identification mentioned in the amendments.

Two particular Palestinian communities will face increased difficulties because of these changes: Palestinians with Gaza Residencies and Palestinians with East Jerusalem Residencies.

Palestinians from Gaza - Palestinians which are either born in Gaza or maintain permanent residence in Gaza but reside in the West Bank are now subject to prosecution/deportation under this new order. This is a clear violation of the Oslo Accord agreements which stipulated that Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank would be treated as one nation and also a violation of international law which treats the peoples of the West Bank and Gaza as one nation under a single occupation. While it is unclear exactly how many Palestinians from Gaza are currently living in the West Bank, it is certain that this number is in the tens of thousands and possibly higher. This number has also increased in recent years as the prosperity gap between the West Bank and Gaza widened due to an Israeli siege leading many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who were able to come to the West Bank to do so. Aside from families which may have moved from Gaza to the West Bank, many married couples in which one spouse is a resident of Gaza will face forced separation because of the change to this order. Students who have residency in Gaza but study in the West Bank are also vulnerable to prosecution/deportation under this order. While cases like this are not new, this new order will certainly expedite separation and make legal objections far more difficult, placing an insurmountable burden of proof upon Palestinians for the "crime" of living on their land.

Palestinians with Jerusalem IDs - Another group that may face difficulties because of this order are Palestinians with Jerusalem IDs. Palestinians who reside in the territory that Israel refers to as East Jerusalem number approximately 270,000. These Palestinians have Israeli issued residency cards, which gives them a status between Palestinian Citizens of Israel and Palestinian residents of the West Bank. In an attempt to annex Jerusalem's geography without its demography, Israel permits these Palestinians residency without citizenship. Should Palestinians with Jerusalem IDs be present in the West Bank where they may have numerous family members as well as commercial ties, they too may be treated as infiltrators under this ambiguous order. It is conceivable that Palestinians with Jerusalem IDs prosecuted under this category may eventually lose their residency rights as a result of prolonged incarceration preventing the renewal of their residency.

Implications for Foreign Born Residents in the West Bank

Another category which may be targeted under the changes to this order are foreign born residents of the West Bank. People in this category are most often the spouses of native born Palestinians who reside with their families in the West Bank. A Palestinian born in Jordan, for example, who married a West Bank Palestinian will not have an Israeli issued ID proving residency in the West Bank and will therefore be subject to prosecution/ deportation under these changes.

Implications for Foreign Born visitors in West Bank

The change in definition of "infiltrator" in the old order now seems to allow for the deportation of persons who are foreign born visitors in the West Bank as "infiltrators". Citizens of foreign countries, like the United States or the United Kingdom for example, who enter into Israel without permission to be in the West Bank can be deported. While this is not expressly stated, it is the clear outcome of the sum of the policies in place. This may be part of an ongoing Israeli effort to silence dissent and crack down on international solidarity members and activists who travel to Palestinian areas to support protests and rallies often bringing with them the eyes of the outside world. The broad language in these orders basically allow the military regime that governs the occupied West Bank to arbitrarily deport or incarcerate nearly anyone present in the area.

In sum, the changes to these orders create a dangerous ambiguity with little protection for the most vulnerable under occupation: the Palestinians. Increasingly, Palestinians find themselves in the cross hairs of policies designed to force them off their land. It is important to keep in mind that in recent years, Israel's altering of residency policy in Jerusalem has led to a dramatic spike in residency revocations. It happened in the mid-1990s and it culminated in 2008 with a record high 4,800 residency revocations of Palestinians in Jerusalem. There is little doubt that Israel has both the motive and the tendency to use these types of policies as tools for ethnic cleansing. With such ambiguity in these orders, a history of ethnic cleansing and the capacity to carry out such horrific acts, the world should be very wary of what is happening in the Israeli occupied West Bank where Israel is charged under international law with the protection of the native population and not its endangerment. At a time when the United States and the International community have asked Israel to do more to restart peace negotiations, this is a clear and significant step in the opposite direction.

Related Content

Arab News: Israel's expulsion order a new catastrophe: PLO 4/13/10

Ma'an News Agency: Erekat: World must compel Israel to revoke military order 4/13/10

Guardian: Israeli Groups Fight Orders Allowing Army to Jail West Bank Residents 4/11/2010

Haaretz: IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank 4/11/2010

Report Forbidden Families: Familiy unification and child registration in East Jerusalem-B'Tselem & HaMoked 2004

Report Perpetual Limbo: Israel's Freeze on Unification of Palestinian Families in the Occupied Territories B'Tselem & Hamoked 2006

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

read more...

Book Discussion with Victor Kattan

Victor Kattan stopped by the Palestine Center to discuss his latest book titled From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949 with Yousef Munayyer, the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund.

Victor Kattan is a Teaching Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.

Download Video (mp4) [right click the link and select 'save link as']

Download Audio (mp3) [right click the link and select 'save link as']

read more...

VIDEO: Amnesty International Urges End to Gaza Blockade

A leading human rights group cited the suffocation of the 1.4 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip as reason for Israel to lift its two-and-a-half year embargo on the tiny coastal area.

Amnesty International's Francesca Burke explains in this video how Israel's blockade leaves Gaza residents struggling in poverty.

"The reality is that the blockade does not target armed groups, but rather, punishes Gaza's entire population by restricting the entry of food, medical supplies, educational equipment and building materials," said Malcom Smart, the group's Middle East and North Africa director.

read more...

Israel is Still Displacing Palestinians

The al-Rayan refugee camp in northern Gaza [Electronic Intifada]

Israel's displacement of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-48 was a foundational step in the formation of the state. The millions of Palestinian refugees who descend from those originally displaced persons have remained in limbo and pose a challenge for peacemakers given Israel's staunch opposition to granting them basic refugee rights.

A Scandinavian NGO now warns that Palestinian displacement is not merely a historical fact but is an on-going process. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre of the Norwegian Refugee Council issued a short paper (pdf) on current Israeli dispossessions, something the international community must attend to.

The focus on two main areas:

The three-week Israeli offensive in Gaza launched in December 2008 cost the lives of over 1,000 Palestini-ans and led to the displacement of over 100,000 people. In Gaza, the continued Israeli blockade has stalled reconstruction and limited the access to assistance of the tens of thou-sands of people still displaced. In the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) demolitions of houses by the Israeli authorities has continued to cause displacement, displacing close to 600 Palestinians in 2009.

Sadly, the vast majority of Gaza's currently displaced persons descend from 1948 refugees.

Israel's policies of continuing the usurpation of Palestinians only makes more difficult a peaceful settlement. Rather than causing it to slow, Israel has only accelerated these measures in the face of an American renewal of peace talks.

The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, established in 1998 by the Norwegian Refugee Council, is the leading international body monitoring conflict-induced internal displacement worldwide. Hopefully, they can move this issue up in the international agenda.

read more...

Gaza, One Year On: the Palestinian Struggle Continues

Palestine Center Brief No. 188 (27 December 2009)

By Yousef Munayyer

One year later, the deadly attacks which targeted an already suffering Gaza Strip have become yet another chapter in the epic tragedy that is the Palestinian struggle for freedom.

During the attacks, over 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza woke up unsure if they would be able to experience waking up ever again. The Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip termed "Operation Cast Lead" by Israel, was a pivotal moment in the region and one that horrified people across the globe. Prior to the start of the attacks, Israel had a negotiated cease-fire with the Palestinian government in Gaza.

During the cease-fire, projectiles fired from Gaza into Israel had dropped 99 percent. Despite this, on 4 November 2008, while the world was consumed with a historic election in the United States, Israel launched an attack that shattered the cease-fire, killing several Palestinians. The crisis elevated through an increase in strikes by both sides and the tightening of an already debilitating Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip.

Instead of working to restore a cease-fire that worked well, on December 27th Israel launched aerial attacks killing hundreds of Palestinians. It became clear from this point forward that life in Gaza, which no one thought could possibly get worse, quickly would.

For two years, Palestinians in Gaza had been struggling to live under siege. Israel controlled all of Gaza's commercial ports and had sealed them shut, allowing in the bare minimum to keep Palestinians alive. Still, the devastation that was to come made the situation far worse.

The Israelis followed the air attack with a ground invasion. One of the highest-powered and most-mechanized armies in the world invaded a tiny, densely populated area where 80 percent of the population were refugees and half were children.

The human toll was tremendous and an Israeli arsenal that included one-ton bombs, white phosphorus shells and M-16 machine guns courtesy of American tax-payer money, made a visiting U.S. Congressman later say "I will admit and I was a little reluctant to say that I was an American Congressman. Quite frankly, it might have been the IDF launching the bombs, but they all said made in America."

After 22 days, more than 1,400 Palestinians were killed. The majority of these casualties were civilians, over 300 of them children and over 100 more were woman. Countless more were injured or maimed in a walled off prison with inadequate medical care.

But it was not only the destruction of human life that was inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza; unprecedented destruction of infrastructure was wrought upon an already impoverished place. Entire industries were bombed into oblivion.

For example, one of the most badly damaged industries was the construction industry. The United Nations Human Rights report on the Israeli attacks on Gaza, which was released earlier this year, detailed what seemed to be a deliberate Israeli policy to target the construction industry infrastructure to make the reconstruction of Gaza more difficult.

Certainly, this has succeeded. Today Gaza lies virtually in the same situation it did after the war. The only difference now is that more graves have been dug.

The American School in Gaza, which was funded by American taxpayer dollars and ultimately destroyed by bombs bought with American taxpayer dollars, still lies as a pile of rubble. The textbooks that were intended to educate the Palestinians of Gaza can still be found amidst the destruction.

It is obvious that as Americans we have some responsibility for what happened. Not only because we funded the operation, but also because our government, the only one with the necessary influence over the state of Israel, did little to stop the heinous attacks.

At this point, some would make a plea for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in Gaza and they certainly do need it. What they need more, however, is a real solution to the political crisis that underlies the ongoing illegal Israeli occupation.

Humanitarian assistance gives Palestinians the ability to survive, but it is the desire to pen the final sentence of their struggle that gives them the will to live.

If we as Americans can help them write it, we can work to erase the painful scar that "Operation Cast Lead" left on the human conscience.

Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center.

The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

read more...

Goldstone: Deep Attachment to Israel Motivated Inquiry

The head of the recently released United Nations Human Rights Council inquiry into Israel's invasion of Gaza last winter published today an explanation of why he took on the role. Published in the right-wing newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, he described himself "as a Jew who has supported Israel and its people all my life."

He protested the politicization of his report, saying that while "there has been no attempt by any of its critics to come to grips with its substance," it has "been fulsomely approved by those whose interests it is thought to serve."

He found that Israel and its supporters made the harshest assault on the report. "Those who attack it do so too often by making personal attacks on its authors' motives and those who approve it rely on its authors' reputations."

Goldstone thought that as an outspoken supporter of Israel, he would gain cooperation from Israel. Also, "the terms of the mission's mandate," which he described as "even-handed," called for Israel's participation in the investigation. He made clear he called on them to take part many times, and said its "refusal to cooperate was a grave error." Israel even denied them the chance to enter

He rejected criticism of the report as biased. Those critics "should be asking the Israeli government why it failed to argue its cause" before the panel. They wrote about what their inquiry dug up, and Goldstone found much of it shocking:

In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not heard or read any government justification for this destruction.

He argued the inquiry found ways to speak to citizens of Sderot, where Palestinian rocket attacks hit. They also spoke to the father of the Israeli prisoner held in Gaza for more than three years.

He did provide support for the claim by some Israel-supporters, that the United Nations itself is prejudiced against Israel, but argued against it meaning Israel should be immune from international law.

He ended the oped with a challenge to Israel:

Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that should be envy of many other countries in the region. It has the means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will?

The decision whether to investigate itself or not will ultimately be a political, rather than a legal, decision. While it is close to impossible that any such self-inquiry will result in prosecutions or a semblance of justice, Israel's refusal to even carry out a routine self-acquittal because it would validate an international inquiry shows just how much Israel has grown to transgress international norms.

One wonders if Israeli intransigence in the face of a United Nations inquiry led by one of its own supporters will be met with any reaction by the international body? With the United States willing to veto away any Security Council resolution critical of Israel, it appears unlikely. The political damage will be done, however, and the United States will again lose a bit more credibility in its defense of the indefensible -- unless Russia comes to the rescue.

read more...

TRANSCRIPT: Imagining Israel-Palestine Peace: Why International Law Matters with Professor Richard Falk

The Edward Said Annual Lecture

Edited Transcript of Remarks by
Professor Richard Falk
Transcript No. 318 (8 October 2009)

Watch the Video

The exclusion of international law from past efforts to establish a peace process has disadvantaged the Palestinians and benefited the Israelis. Respect for Palestinian rights would help neutralize the disparities of diplomatic and military power that have so far existed. Neither the realization of rights nor military power can achieve either peace or victory for one side. International law matters in the following respects: to identify the contours of a fair and sustainable peace; to explain the failures of past diplomatic efforts to solve the conflict; to establish winners and losers in the legitimacy war that is being waged on a global battlefield.

View the video of this briefing.

The Palestine Center
Washington, D.C.
6 October 2009

Professor Richard Falk:

Thank you very much for that very gracious introduction. I’m very glad to have this opportunity to speak because any event honoring Edward Said brings powerful memories to me. He was a close friend for many years. I think Yousef spoke very eloquently and appropriately about the power he brought; the power and the underlying combination of insight and passion. I think that’s what distinguished his brilliance from that of others who also have addressed this issue. That he had this extremely powerful intellect but it was grounded in deep moral convictions and it pervaded the form that political engagement took for him particularly in the last two decades of his life.

Edward’s legacy is inspirational in view of this mixture of clarity and courage. He gave a voice to the Palestinian struggle that very few liberation and emancipatory movements have enjoyed. But beyond that, I think his understanding of the conflict remains deeply instructive, and should be acknowledged as prophetic due to his sense of the impossibility of achieving any kind of peace with justice on the basis of two separated ethnic communities: one that was a Jewish state and another that was a Palestinian state. Edward was often criticized for not endorsing the two-state consensus, which is framed around the given of the Zionist project to be supplemented at some point by some semi-sovereign Palestinian entity that would be called a state but would lack the real elements of national sovereignty.

He wrote a very important essay in 1999 called “Truth and Reconciliation” that, I think, does vindicate this sense of his prophetic understanding of the conflict. And he said in that essay, and I quote:

What if the peace process has in fact put off the reconciliation that must occur if the 100 year war between Zionism, Jewish nationalism and the Palestinian people is to end? I see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens. There can be no reconciliation unless both peoples, two communities of suffering, resolve their justice as a secular fact, and it has to be dealt with as such.

Now, that’s a provocative view that goes against the still prevailing understanding that the two-state solution is the only game in town. And that kind of thinking also rests on what I have increasingly myself felt to be a false premise, and that is that the political outcome that will bring the reconciliation and peace will be produced as a result of tradition diplomacy. I don’t believe that that’s possible. I believe that all of the elements are missing. The United States is not an honest broker, to put it mildly. The Palestinians are not represented by authentic representatives that can speak for the Palestinian people and have increasingly--as was said in the introductory comments--have increasingly alienated the support not only of the Palestinians, but all people around the world who care about a just solution to this conflict. And Israel is governed by an extremist, right-wing, Zionist leadership that has made it clear that it will not compromise on Jerusalem, on refugees, on settlements, on the separation wall. So what is there to negotiate if you take that position, which I think does represent the prevailing position?

The whole idea that a peace process could be established because the U.S. has a more sympathetic political leader, [U.S. President] Barack Obama, is in my view, naïve and dangerous. It’s dangerous because failed negotiations are worse than no negotiations. What they do is induce a new cycle of despair that generates a new cycle of violence. In that sense, I think it was fortunate, in a way, that the [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu leadership refused to accept even this extremely modest precondition for resuming the so-called peace process--a temporary freeze on settlements. Remember that what was being asked of the Israelis was to stop for a while doing something that was unlawful. The settlements are a clear violation of Article 49, paragraph six of the Fourth Geneva Convention. There’s no ambiguity about that. It’s very clear. This is equivalent to telling a bank robber, ‘stop robbing banks for two weeks and we will give you a legitimate status as a negotiating partner.’ And the fact that Israel was able to face down the Obama presidency, despite sending [Former U.S. Senator] George Mitchell twelve times to persuade Netanyahu, is really both a strong signal of the lack of effective leverage over Israel and the unwillingness of Israel to even create a cosmetic sense of a willingness to accommodate the demands of an American political leadership that’s seeking the illusion of balance. It’s not seeking balance, but it’s seeking the illusion of balance and Israel won’t even cooperate to that extent. And pretty clearly their strategy is to continue accumulating facts on the ground. That is, to deny that there is a partner for peace, or to suggest that there is no viable way of achieving peace so long as the [Richard] Goldstone report is being taken seriously. A lot of essentially phony arguments to allow a fairly consistent policy that was pursued all throughout the Oslo years. That of expanding the settlements, of encroaching on the 22 percent of the historic Palestine that was still what was supposedly the territorial basis for a Palestinian state, constructing the unlawful separation wall on Palestinian territory--an act the International Court of Justice by a vote of fourteen to one determined to be unlawful and ordered Israel to dismantle the wall and to pay reparations to the Palestinians for the harm done by its construction up to that point. Now, in the context of these very recent developments, Israel merely defied the International Court of Justice which is probably the most respected organ within the UN system and was supported by the U.S. government in doing that. But it did it without taking it seriously. It was just a clear repudiation of UN and international legal authority. They continued with the construction of the wall and said they would listen to the Israeli Supreme Court but they were not going to listen to the so-called World Court.

What’s interesting is why have they reacted so hysterically to the Goldstone report when they’ve always in the past reacted dismissively toward criticism that emanated from the UN? They always said ‘well the UN is a one-sided organization. It’s not to be trusted. It will always take positions that are hostile to Israel.’ Sure enough though, something in this Goldstone report touched a raw Israeli nerve. And one has to ask, what is it to understand the complex diplomacy that has emanated from it. And just as an aside, it may turn out that that the most significant impact of the Goldstone report is to delegitimize the Palestinian Authority because of its willingness to play along with the U.S.-Israeli effort to have it sidetracked from any serious implementation. But let me return to this question: why the hysterical response? Netanyahu devoted a significant portion of his General Assembly speech to attacking the Goldstone report. The [Israeli] Minister of Defense [Ehud] Barak said this was a great gift to terrorists by imposing legal restrictions on the use of force against terrorists. It was making it impossible for democratic states to defend themselves. And the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, called the report a mockery of history. You can search for any comparable set of reactions to an international criticism. Part of the explanation is that their normal tactic of shooting the messenger in order to avoid the message is really hard to pull off given the protective armor that Richard Goldstone possesses. He is after all a lifelong Zionist, a person with deep personal connections with Israel; he fought to have the mandate from the Human Rights Council include the inquiry into the crimes of Hamas.

The report itself is as susceptible or more susceptible to criticism from a Palestinian side because it endorses the false Israeli narrative that the use of force against Gaza was essentially defensive. It overlooks the fact that the temporary ceasefire had been working, the rocket fire had been reduced virtually to zero, that Hamas was proposing a ten year extension of the ceasefire, that it was in a context where the whole population of Gaza was under a blockade that was itself a form of collective punishment-again, clearly prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. That whole Israeli narrative, that also has dominated the mainstream media here, that the only question worth inquiring into was whether Israeli force was disproportionate and indiscriminate is, from an international law point of view, deeply misleading because it suspends inquiry into the major premise: was the major recourse to force justified in the first place?

There were two things that made it non-justifiable in my view. The first is that there was a diplomatic alternative in the form of the ceasefire. Secondly, that it was Israel, not Hamas, that really disrupted the ceasefire by launching a major attack on November 4th inside Gazan territory and killing several Palestinians on that occasion. What is disturbingly relevant here, beyond the Goldstone report itself, although it’s illustrative, is the degree to which this false narrative continues to dominate the debate in all venues, even in the UN and certainly in the mainstream newspapers-CNN and so on. And so democracy can’t function if it doesn’t have access to the realities that underlie the formation of policy. Nowhere is American political democracy more defective than in giving the people some kind of accurate understanding of the facts, the truth of the allegations.

This question of why was Israel so upset by the Goldstone report has to do mainly with the degree to which for the first time there is a serious proposal that Israeli military and political leaders should be held accountable for the criminality of their occupation policies and their use of force. Even though it is probably unlikely that anything very tangible within the UN system would emerge from this, it does confirm the view held overwhelmingly outside the United States, the view of world public opinion, that Israel is an oppressor of the Palestinian people in the occupation and is relying on crimes against humanity and war crimes in order to maintain control. That message, even if it’s a symbolic message, is very hard to refute given the facts of the Gaza attack last winter. And given the understanding first that Goldstone mission was an extremely professional look at the allegations and it really repeats conclusions by several other respected groups: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, a Dugard group. John Dugard was chairing a group that worked under the auspices of the Arab League. All of these reports are more or less identical in their confirmation that Israel used phosphorous against civilian targets, that indiscriminate tactics were relied upon, very loose rules of engagement. This has been born witness to by the 30 Israeli soldiers who published this very moving document called “Breaking the Silence” in which they in effect say they were told to be indiscriminate in order to eliminate risks of Israeli casualties.

The analysis and the conclusions that one finds in the Goldstone report are beyond serious question. You have to be extremely biased to question their bias, to allege their bias. In other words, even if you’re very sympathetic with Israel, you can’t look at these facts without coming to these general conclusions. And as I say, the threatening aspect from Israel’s point of view is to give credibility to those who’ve been alleging war crimes in a variety of contexts. This in turn creates a foundation for the expanding campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions. It makes that campaign seem not anti-Semitic, not arbitrary but grounded in law and morality. That campaign had been growing very rapidly ever since the Lebanon war of 2006 around the world. You may not know it in North America, but in most other parts of the world there are boycotts of cultural and athletic events where Israel is supposed to participate. There are academic boycotts. There have been efforts from Sweden and France, successful efforts, to discourage investment contracts with Israel, including quite large ones. Labor unions have refused to unload cargo from Israel or to load cargo destined for Israel. There’s a lot of very effective civil society initiatives around the world. The Palestinian solidarity movement, on this global scale, has become the real sequel to the anti-apartheid movement that was so effective in the 1980’s.

I think, and I’ve been trying to express this in a variety of ways, that one must understand that there is a second war-the nonmilitary war- what I call the legitimacy war which is being waged around the world. It rests on three kinds of elements or dimensions. First of all, the symbolic dimension of appropriating the symbols of legality and morality and legitimacy for a particular struggle. Secondly, the reliance on soft power, not hard power, to carry on the struggle. In other words, boycotts and divestment. Things that are coercive in a way but don’t rely on violence. So, it’s a kind of nonviolent, coercive soft power approach. And finally, the use of low technology violence to a partial extent. I don’t think this is characteristic of the anti-apartheid struggle or necessarily the Palestinian solidarity movement, although of course there has been Palestinian low technology violence. But what it does draw attention to is the connection between this sort of legitimacy war and the decolonization movement that was such an important historical transformation in the last half of the twentieth century. Where again, it was a series of struggles in which the low technology side, which had appropriated the symbols of legitimacy and had some soft power support, prevailed. One of the interesting elements in all this kind of understanding is the tendency of people throughout the world and particularly policy makers and leaders to exaggerate the capacity of hard power to shape political outcomes.

If you look back at the most important conflicts of the last 75 years you’ll see hard power superiority has rarely shaped the outcome. It’s not that it never works but it rarely works. I sometimes have used the example of Vietnam where the United States won every battle and lost the war. Where it had complete military dominance and yet lost the war because it lost the legitimacy war. It lost the legitimacy war in the sense that it couldn’t command popular support. The Vietnamese, next to the South Africans, were extremely skillful in mobilizing popular support throughout the world for their struggle. One of the important things at this stage is to understand the potency of legitimacy wars. They don’t always succeed. Tibet is a good example where a legitimacy war is failing because it hasn’t been able to create a political climate that would transform the relation of forces. But by and large, recent history suggests that hard power is good for destroying and oppressing, but it’s not good for shaping political solutions to conflicts. What shapes the political solutions are either this collaboration between low technology violence and legitimacy, or some kind of transformation of the formally oppressive elite that control the political space--the South African example. Another model is the Good Friday solution of Northern Ireland where the British side and the Northern Irish side finally decided to treat the [Irish Republican Army] IRA not as a terrorist organization, but as a political actor and that made it possible to reach a compromise and an accommodation. So those are the two models that I think are very relevant--the Northern Ireland model and the South African model--to understanding the prospects. Seemingly remote at this point, but the only real prospects for finding any kind of sustainable peaceful solution to this conflict that has so deeply tormented the Palestinian people and the Israelis as well.

There is a further element that complicates what I’ve been trying to express and that is that those that run the governments of the world and shape public opinion in most societies remain addicted to hard power. We see it now on the American debate on Afghanistan and on Iran. There is a sense that serious governmental policy, particularly by powerful countries, should be shaped according to what academic people call the realist consensus. What realism claims is that history is shaped by hard power; that the challenge for security for important countries is to manage military force effectively. This addiction to hard power is reinforced by what Eisenhower long ago called the military industrial complex. In other words, it’s not only that this is a political consciousness that’s deeply embedded in our way of thinking, it’s also a socioeconomic structure that has deep roots in the society and is extremely hard to challenge. The gatekeepers of power will not allow entry of those that are not subscribers to this realist consensus. So you get no interesting discussion of whether, for instance, the military budget of the United States is way inflated over any legitimate security objectives. It is outside the realm of responsible debate [of] this addictive consensus. And that prevents any kind of constructive criticism, even constructive debate. The last presidential campaign never raised the issue, even though the United States spends as much as the rest of the world put together on its military machine and has never felt more insecure. There is a zero learning curve. The government continues to reinvent ways to fail. Each new kind of political cycle comes with a new counterinsurgency doctrine that is more humane, more people oriented but still rests on the core fallacy that foreign military intervention can achieve successful political outcomes. Afghanistan is the example of the moment that illustrates this general conclusion.

So let me end by saying that I think one needs to look in new directions to be hopeful about an eventual, just outcome of the Palestinian struggle. That new direction depends on the mobilization of global civil society around this struggle as the symbolic struggle of our present period and one that does rest on the premises of what I’ve been calling the legitimacy war. This requires that we disabuse ourselves of the two-state illusion and at the same time that we be careful not to mindlessly endorse a one state that would reproduce within the borders of a single state exploitative and oppressive structures that now exist in the form of the occupation. In other words, one can look at after 42 years one can consider the occupied territories to be effectively annexed. But this is a de facto one state already. It exists. The question is how do you democratize it. You can’t democratize it without eliminating its ethnic identity. It has to be a state that serves the diverse peoples, the diverse religions that live within its borders. That may seem like a difficult struggle, but it’s at least taking account of the real elements that have prevented over this long period of time any progress toward an outcome that could be identified with sustainable peace. I think we all have a part to play in this struggle because it is a civil society challenge. The Jewish philosopher Abraham Heschel once said, “few are guilty but all are responsible.” And I leave you with that thought. Thank you very much.

Professor Richard Falk is the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestine Territories and Visiting Distinguished Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Previously, he was the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University.

This transcript may be used without permission but with proper attribution to The Palestine Center. The speaker's views do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jerusalem Fund.

read more...