Tag: gaza

Posted on

Gandhi Rejected Zionism

A private chuckle emanates from the land of bananas – juxtaposing Chomsky, didact he is, with the visionary Gandhi and his words of 80 years ago is a minor recompense for the grinding realisation that Chomsky may well be right – US foreign policy is cynically fixed in the fifties still, remnants of the cold war stultifying change, recognition of universal human rights, law and pursuit of happiness other than for the privileged, paranoid, bigoted west. Why should they change? the Americans are asleep again, they didn’t know what hit them when 911 came, and have missed the message. Injustice breeds resistance and the more monstrous the injustice, as with the ignored Palestinian cause, the more likely history will repeat, unless the nascent global voice which is taking wing in boycotts, protests, twitters, facebooks and other extraordinary means circumvents the sluggardly grinding wheels of an unwilling political machine.

Here’s Noam anyway, since I’m collecting him of late – it’s a great piece, if depressing.

Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously – both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.

Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president – a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that “if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that.” He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.

On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters – avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.

Obama’s talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: “the Arab peace initiative,” Obama said, “contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative’s promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”

Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.

The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel – in the context – repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.

The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called “Bantustans” for Palestinians – an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon’s conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).

Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how “I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.”

Also unmentioned is Israel’s use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington’s shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama’s Middle East advisers.

Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed – a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: “as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else’s border – Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional’.” Egypt’s objections were ignored.

Returning to Obama’s reference to the “constructive” Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas’s term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha’aretz describes Fayyad as “a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank.” The report also notes Fayyad’s “close relationship with the Israeli establishment,” notably his friendship with Sharon’s extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.

Obama’s insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.

Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. “To be a genuine party to peace,” Obama declared, “the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.” Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet’s central proposal, the “road map.” Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time – and in the mainstream, the only time.

It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a “genuine party to peace.” But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.

It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.

Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.

Obama began his remarks by saying: “Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.”

There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.

Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.

The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.

A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out “the wrong way.” There are many other highly relevant cases.

The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world – including the Arab states and Hamas – in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.

In short, Obama’s forceful reiteration of Israel’s right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit – though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.

The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell’s primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell’s mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.

Obama also praised Jordan for its “constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel” – which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment’s scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants “were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally,” according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.

Obama made one further substantive comment: “As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime…” He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.

Also missing is any reaction to Israel’s announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be “lasting” are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, “Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn’t let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit” (AP, Jan 22); srael to keep Gaza crossings closed…An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); “Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit’s release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007” (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); “an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit” (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.

Shalit’s capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas’s criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel’s prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel’s regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.

Obama’s State Department talk about the Middle East continued with “the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan… the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. “Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council” (LA Times, Jan. 24).

Afghan president Karzai’s first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai’s call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their “responsibilities.” Among them, the New York Times reported, is to “provide security” in southern Afghanistan, where “the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining.” All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.

Hillary Clinton once again espouses that which Chomsky alludes to – that Hamas must meet the unmeetable three conditions, before being included in negotiations. One wonders if she is aware of the impossibility of her demands and is being deliberately obtuse.

In the below video, Norman Finkelstein discusses Gandhi philosophy in relation to the Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestinians.

More recently, Finkelstein discusses Gandhi’s principles of non-violence in relation to the Obama administration.

Posted on

Boycott, Divestment and Protest Israel Update

From grassroots community action in Tescos in Wales as above to Preston Council voting to boycott Israel and CODEPINK’S visit to Gaza to meet with women’s groups and Hamas officials, ordinary good-hearted people are putting themselves on the line for peace and justice.

From Mondoweiss – US academics at last are making a stand too against Israeli apartheid:

Today we see writers from across the spectrum, Max Blumenthal, Glenn Greenwald, John Mearsheimer, Daniel Levy, Scott McConnell, Paul Craig Roberts–who have educated themselves and said, No thanks, we draw the line. They are making this movement.

Harvard Law Professor Duncan Kennedy strikes the liberation bell –

Just listen to Kennedy’s soft, persuasive voice. It’s a long excerpt. But important. First the Gaza bit:

Numerous observers have charged Israel with committing war crimes during the war. Without downplaying that aspect, I think it is important to understand the 1,300 Palestinian casualties, including 400 children as well as many, many women, versus 13 Israeli casualties, as typical of a particular kind of “police action” that Western colonial powers and Western “ethno-cratic settler regimes” like ours in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Serbia and particularly apartheid South Africa, have historically undertaken to convince resisting native populations that unless they stop resisting they will suffer unbearable death and deprivation. [Here Kennedy seems to agree with my law-and-order post of yesterday] Not just in 1947 and 1948, but also in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, Israel used similar tactics.

Causing horrific civilian deaths is often perfectly defensible under the laws of war, which favor conventional over unconventional forces in asymmetric warfare. The outright “crimes,” like the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, or Russian massacres in Afghanistan and then in Chechnya, are less important for the civilian victims than the daily tactics of air assault, bombardment, and brutal door-to-door sweeps, meant to draw fire from the resisters that will justify leveling houses and the people in them…

History bit:

In 1967, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and occupied the West Bank and Gaza, largely populated by refugees of 1948, as well as East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Sinai (later returned to Egypt). This generated another approximately 200,000 Palestinian refugees who were also forbidden to return. Since 1973, Israeli governments have gradually moved about 400,000 Jewish settlers into the West Bank and another 200,000 into East Jerusalem, appropriating about 50 percent of the land (when roads and other infrastructure are taken into account), taking over the water, and alternately exploiting and starving the West Bank and Gaza economies to the point where the Arab population is overwhelmingly dependent on the international “donor community” for subsistence.

Palestinian non-violent and violent resistance to the military occupation is fully legal under international law. On the other hand, many of the specific tactics, especially airplane hijacking, suicide bombing targeting civilians, including children and old people, and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been widely denounced as criminal….

In his measured article at the Harvard Crimson, Professor Kennedy suggests:

Can this picture be right? If so, what is to be done? If not, what is to be done? If you are not already clear about what you think, it is crucial to try to find out for yourself. If the situation is as bad as I have painted, you might consider some small step, perhaps just a contribution to humanitarian relief for Gaza, or e-mailing the White House, or something more, like advocating for Harvard to divest.

In South Africa, dock workers are refusing to unload Israel ships.

In a Palestine Solidarity Committee news release, the Congress of South African Trade Unions’ decision to “strengthen the campaign in South Africa for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against apartheid Israel” is noted. Referring to workers’ commitment to “refuse to support oppression and exploitation across the globe,” the committee recalls the refusal by Durban dock workers last year to offload arms from China that were destined for Zimbabwe.

The release also says that workers will not allow South African ports to be used as “transit points for goods bound for or emanating from certain dictatorial and oppressive states such as Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Israel.”

The release continues: “We also welcome statements by various South African Jews of conscience who have dissociated themselves from the genocide in Gaza. We call on all South Africans to ensure that none of our family members are allowed to join the Israeli Occupation Forces’ killing machine.”

Calling on the South African government to sever diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, the Palestine Solidarity Committee announced a week of action under the banner “Free Palestine, Isolate Apartheid Israel.”

Turkish soccer player for Sivasspor, midfielder Ibrahim Dagasan, has planted a Palestinian flag in the middle of the pitch at a match in protest against Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

While the Western Australian Maritime Union of Australia support sanctions against Israel and the Sydney branch officials have signed a petition condemning Israel, the conservative AWU condemns boycotts.

Other local union leaders, such as Steve Dargavel from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, have also attacked Israel’s “aggression” in Gaza

A new article “Why the West backs Israel – and how to make it stop” by Tony Itis makes good reading – Tony explains why the BDS movement can be effective in eliminating Israeli apartheid.

Maltese NGOs are pressuring the EU to annul its uncomfortable ‘special relationship’ with the occupier state.

In view of the recent three-week premeditated campaign of bombing of the population of Gaza and its infrastructure by the State of Israel which came after a crippling, illegal two-year siege, we, 14 member organizations of SKOP, the Maltese national platform of development non-governmental organizations, call for a suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Freezing the upgrade of its relations with the State of Israel to make it a privileged partner, as the EU has done so far, is simply not enough. If the EU is truly committed to the pursuit of a just peace it must also act in a way that clearly dissociates it from war crimes, while helping to bring the perpetrators to justice.

UPDATE FEBRUARY 6

Students across the UK have mobilized in what are now almost two dozen university liberations, in protest against Israel, in solidarity with the people of Gaza, and seeking their universities’ divestment from companies doing business in Israel while doing more to support the victims of Israel’s war. These students have been tremendously courageous, as well as creative and inspiring.

Open Anthropology has an excellent post on the progress of Canadian and UK University protests against Israel, particularly the actions at Manchester University.

Posted on

Fatah fires rockets, Israel Blames Hamas

Illustrating its further intent to marginalise Hamas, Israel illogically blames Hamas for rocket strikes claimed by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of the Fatah faction led by Mahmoud Abbas.

Olmert, again demonstrating his war criminality, booms:

“We’ve said that if there is rocket fire against the south of the country, there will be a severe and disproportionate Israeli response to the fire on the citizens of Israel and its security forces.”

The monstrous Olmert, lusting for more innocent blood, is promising further criminal responses:

“The response will come at the time, the place and the manner that we choose.”

…

Palestinian witnesses reported huge explosions on Sunday and the Israeli military confirmed strikes on half a dozen locations, including an abandoned police station in northern Gaza and suspected smuggling tunnels in the south near the Egypt-Gaza border.

Disproportionate responses are forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. This has never stopped Israel before from collectively punishing citizens of Gaza, whose lives are treated as expendable by the Zionist entity.

As highlighted by Sherri Muzher in the Detroit News:

The Israeli Defense Force’s revelation in a Haaretz article that it overestimated Gaza’s rocket severity went unnoticed by our media. The bombing continued, as did the self-righteousness.

Perhaps, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe put it best in a recent article on Gaza. He wrote: “The self-righteousness is a powerful act of self-denial and justification. It explains why the Israeli Jewish society would not be moved by words of wisdom, logical persuasion or diplomatic dialogue.”

Though we live in the 21st century, it seems that maybe our Western world (specifically the United States) has been caught in a time warp. Some actually think it can atone for the crimes of World War II by giving Israel the green light to commit more crimes against humanity. But ignoring Israel’s embargo and the killing of Palestinians dishonors the memories of those who were murdered for who they were during World War II.

Just because there are no ovens or gassing in the conflict doesn’t mean that it’s less genocidal. And when Israel intentionally blocks humanitarian goods and aims to make life so miserable that Palestinians will want to leave all the while dehumanizing them in the process, Israel is committing genocide.

Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide doesn’t make exceptions for motive. In other words, using Hamas as an excuse is unacceptable.

The convention discusses “Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.”

As to Israel’s 2005 pullout from Gaza? Israel’s B’Tselem, a human rights group, notes that Israel has maintained complete control over the airspace, waterways, the movement of goods and most elements of the taxation system. Israeli Palestinian citizens continue to be denied entry into Gaza even to visit family.

Israel, a victim? Not even close.

WND follows up, finding that Hamas has demanded Fatah, America’s ‘partner for peace’ cease firing rockets.

Contacted by WND, the leadership of Islamic Jihad in both Gaza and the West Bank were not aware their group launched any rockets.

The claimed results of an immediate investigation launched by both Hamas and Islamic Jihad were shared with WND. The probe found the Islamic Jihad rockets were actually fired by Fatah.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad sources explained that when Hamas took over Gaza from its Fatah rivals in 2007, about 100 members of Fatah’s Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades joined Islamic Jihad, and it was those members who launched today’s attacks.

Hamas has demanded Islamic Jihad immediately clamp down on the Fatah members within its ranks, prompting some tension between the two allies.

A top member of Hamas’ so-called military wing told WND today the Fatah members who shot today’s rockets will be dealt with harshly, hinting they may even be killed.

“If we catch them, I think they will not live to see the light of day,” he said.

Earlier today, the Al-Arabiya television network quoted Hamas sources stating the group has accepted an Egyptian proposal for a year-long truce with Israel in Gaza starting on Thursday. The report said Hamas agreed to an international mechanism along the Egypt-Gaza border that includes members of Fatah, as long as those Fatah members coordinate their activities with Hamas.

One of Israel’s main goals for its offensive was to halt Hamas’ ability to smuggle weapons across the Egypt-Gaza border. Previous international monitors stationed along the Egypt-Gaza border fled their duty and repeatedly failed to stem Hamas’ weapons smuggling. The monitors were stationed at the border following Israel’s 2005 evacuation of the Gaza Strip.

Hamas in 2007 seized control of Gaza from Fatah, taking over all U.S.-backed security compounds in the territory. Top diplomatic sources in Jerusalem told WND last month Abbas and his top representatives had waged a quiet campaign for months asking the Israeli government to target Hamas in Gaza just before the PA president’s term in office expired Jan. 9.

Hamas leaders repeatedly had warned they would not recognize Abbas after Jan. 9 and that they would launch a major campaign to delegitimize the PA president and install their own figures to lead the Palestinian government. Abbas used the violence to declare an emergency government that will keep him in office at last another year.

How bizarre is it then that Israel, the US and EU are hell bent in maintaining Abbas as a peace partner by maintaining a new, even more virulent siege on the people of Gaza, a siege that prevents the reconstruction of society, that causes further hatred and contempt? Because they know Abbas doesn’t have the support of the people and thus will fit the dictatorial puppet role which has been the usual historical method these big swinging dickheads have chosen to control the middle east? Yep, without a doubt.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and other Western leaders had proposed creating a temporary international committee to oversee the funding and organisation of the reconstruction effort. However, Abbas and his supporters rejected such a mechanism on the grounds that “it presumes that the separation between Gaza and the West Bank will continue,” as acting PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad put it, adding that international donors who are eager to reconstruct Gaza “will risk deepening the Palestinian division by ignoring the role of the PA”.

The PA’s stance, if followed, would condemn Arab pledges made in Kuwait — as well as any pledges made in a possible international conference on the reconstruction of Gaza called for by Egypt, the PA and the EU president — to remain pending until such time as a “viable peace partner” secures a steady seat in Gaza.

Although the participants at the Kuwaiti summit stressed the need for the reconstruction of Gaza in principle, they failed to reach an agreement over the mechanism. Differences between leaders obstructed a proposal to create a reconstruction fund and the most participants managed to agree upon was to make reconstruction contingent upon Palestinian reconciliation, a task they designated to Arab foreign ministers without setting a date or place for a ministerial meeting for this purpose, leaving us with the question as to when and how Arab ministers are to succeed where their heads of state failed.

Of course this procrastination through delegating makes the pledge to reconstruct Gaza barely worth the paper it was written on and will probably consign it to the same oblivion fated for so many other Arab summit resolutions. One of those forgotten resolutions was that adopted by the emergency Arab summit in Cairo in October 2000 calling for the creation of an Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem Fund for the purpose of reconstructing Palestinian infrastructure, especially in the sectors of healthcare, education, agriculture and housing. Apparently Arab leaders in Kuwait did not wish to recall that that resolution did not restrict the distribution of funds through the channel of the PA but also provided for other channels such as UNWRA, the Egyptian and Qatari Red Crescents, the Jordanian Royal Philanthropic Organisation, the UN Arab Gulf Programme and other such regional and international humanitarian agencies. Perhaps, too, they did not want to remind anyone that when that earlier resolution was passed there was no “Hamas problem” behind which are hiding those who do not really want to reconstruct the occupied territories, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank.

…

There is nothing to debate about humanitarian relief. The Israeli offensive destroyed all the civil infrastructure of the government in Gaza on the grounds that it served as bases for Hamas whereas in fact it was PA infrastructure paid for by taxpayers in donor countries. Whole residential quarters were flattened, totally destroying 4,000 homes and severely damaging around 16,000 more. There are now some 100,000 civilians in urgent need of shelter, temporarily accommodated in some 12 refuges opened by UNWRA in schools that were also targeted by Israeli guns and therefore need to be repaired as well. In addition, agricultural land ruined by bombardment has to be reclaimed, potable water needs to be supplied to half a million Palestinians, electricity has to be restored to about the same number of people, and about 80 per cent of the inhabitants of Gaza are in urgent need of food relief (these are all UN estimates). Any political argument for postponing such urgent aid is morally outrageous.

The Israeli list of “prohibited materials” even before its offensive includes such items as iron, steel and cement, which are now absolutely vital to reconstruction. UN Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes pointed out this self-evident truth in a statement last Tuesday saying that if Israel refuses to allow in construction materials reconstruction cannot begin.

Abbas is therefore holding the people of Gaza in siege as surely as does the Israeli – both are occupiers, abusers and criminals.

Gideon Levy comments that the Israeli threats and attacks are still linked to the forthcoming elections – who can prove the bloodiest war criminal will win the vote from a hypnotised Israeli public.

“There is a domestic struggle between candidates and who will be more extreme and who will take a hardline stance towards the rocket fire coming from Gaza. The main lesson is that the Palestinians and Israelis did not learn any lessons from the war – it will bring more agony and destruction. Both parties are in a game of fools.”

…

Ron Kampeas, an Israeli political analyst, said the underlying motive of the strikes was that the ruling Kadima party wanted “to show it is as hawkish as the Likud”.

He told Al Jazeera that Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, appeared likely to win the February 10 election and Livni was now trying to keep her job as foreign minister in a coalition government.

Kampeas added that it remained to be seen whether Netanyahu, if he won, would form a coalition with Avigdor Lieberman, who is seen as further right than Netanyahu, and “could mean an even more hardline stance towards Hamas”.

Conveniently, whilst not recognising Hamas, Israel holds it responsible for all attacks against the Zionist state.

A Hamas spokesman responded to Olmert’s bellicose threats:

“We condemn the statements by Olmert and others today threatening the Gaza Strip,” Taher al-Nunu, a Hamas spokesman, said in a statement on Sunday.

“This is an attempt to find a false excuse to escalate the aggression against the Palestinians, to destroy the Egyptian efforts to improve the calm and to use pressure against the Palestinian people to accept Israeli conditions in those talks.”

Egyptian mediators have been attempting to secure a longer-term ceasefire addressing Israel’s concerns over rocket attacks and weapons smuggling into Gaza, as well Palestinian demands for the Israeli siege of the territory to be lifted.

The non-involvement of Hamas in the latest rocket attacks is confirmed by Israeli intelligence:

Israel’s military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said that Sunday’s attacks were not waged by Hamas but other militant groups that “are challenging Hamas and carrying out attacks for a renewed escalation.”

“Hamas, for its part, has been deterred and is honoring the ceasefire, but is not deterring the others enough,” added Yadlin.

Meanwhile Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials are in Cairo for cease fire talks mediated by Egypt.

An adviser to Ismail Haniya, who heads the Hamas government in Gaza, told AFP news agency the militant group was waiting for Israel’s response to a truce offer, transmitted by Egypt, adding that things were “moving in a positive direction”.

The Egyptians have been leading efforts to broker a permanent ceasefire by holding separate talks with officials from Israel and Hamas.

Abbas is seeking to destabilise talks again:

But Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told journalists in Cairo that talks were impossible with anyone who rejected the supremacy of the Palestine Liberation Organisation – in an apparent reference to Hamas’s leadership.

He also accused Hamas of having “taken risks with the blood of Palestinians, with their fate, and dreams and aspirations for an independent Palestinian state”.

Abbas miraculously also appears to be in Paris today for talks with Sarkozy and the prime minister of Qatar. Mitchell is having talks with Sarkozy’s chief of staff and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Israeli opinion is divided as to the success of their slaughter of Gazan people.

A poll conducted for Haaretz newspaper at the weekend predicted that Likud and its allies would win 65 seats in the elections, giving it a 12-seat advantage over the centre-left parties, which are expected to capture just 53 of the 120 parliamentary seats up for grabs.

“Forty-one per cent said that the war was a success and 41% said it wasn’t,” said Tel Aviv University professor Camil Fuchs, who conducts a poll for Haaretz newspaper and Channel 10.

The war has served to boost the importance of Netanyahu’s key campaign issue – national security – and the debate about its aftermath has strengthened his hand.

“Of those who said it wasn’t a success, 37% said it was because they didn’t finish Hamas off while 31% said it wasn’t a success because they didn’t bring home [the captured Israeli soldier] Gilad Shalit,” Fuchs said. Some 11% said the government failed because of the high number of Palestinian casualties.

The Turkish public is showing solid support for Erdogan’s courageous stance at Davos against Olmert’s war criminality.

A recent public survey conducted among Turks immediately after the incident in Davos revealed that 78.3 percent of the Turks polled said they welcomed Erdo?an’s protest, while 13.7 percent said it was a negative act, 5.6 percent said they had no idea and 2.4 percent responded they knew nothing about the incident.

The survey was carried out Friday by the Metropoll Strategic and Social Studies Center by telephone with 1,002 respondents from 30 cities in order to measure how Erdo?an’s public spat and protest were perceived. According to the poll, 81.7 percent welcomed the Turkish government’s policy throughout the Gaza crisis, 10.2 percent expressed disapproval and 8.1 percent said they had no idea.

The Davos incident was the peak of a month of strong rhetoric from the prime minister against Israel since its military operation into Gaza Strip began Dec. 27. Erdo?an said the offensive was “savagery” and a “crime against humanity” and said Israel should be barred from the United Nations. There had also been huge anger among the populace toward Israel’s operation in Gaza.

Erdogan pragmatically recognises Israel’s war crimes agaisnt Gaza are aligned with the Israeli elections.

On Saturday, Erdogan said once again that Israel did not act fairly and expressing his disappointment. He warned, “We have serious relations (with Israel) and they should not be sacrificed for the elections,” referring to the general elections in Israel this month.

Yet, it appears Israel is vindictively seeking to sabotage Turkey’s chances of joining the EU.

The Foreign Ministry has learned that senior European Union diplomats were highly critical of the vociferous criticism Erdogan had leveled at Israel over the operation in Gaza and for his support of Hamas.

According to one report, senior European officials said, “Erdogan wants to be part of the European Union, but now he can forget about it.”

In other war crimes news, an Israeli IDF officer has been severely reprimanded for handing out a propaganda booklet encouraging IDF to show no mercy to enemies.

The unnamed officer distributed the booklet to troops during the Israeli offensive in Gaza. It said the soldiers were fighting “murderers”.

The military said its chief rabbi, Gen Avichai Rontzki, did not know of the booklet before it was given out.

A rights group said the booklet bordered on “incitement to racism”.

The army described the case as an isolated incident.

The booklet cites an ultra-nationalist civilian rabbi who supports the Jewish settler movement in the West Bank.

The rights group, Yesh Din, said the booklet’s contents could be “interpreted as a call to act outside the confines of international laws of war”.

The Times is running a story on the ICC looking at ways to prosecute Israelis for war crimes committed in Gaza.

The alleged crimes include the use of deadly white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas, as revealed in an investigation by The Times last month. Israel initially denied using the controversial weapon, which causes horrific burns, but was forced later, in the face of mounting evidence, to admit to having deployed it.

When Palestinian groups petitioned the ICC this month, its prosecutor said that it was unable to take the case because it had no jurisdiction over Israel, a nonsignatory to the court. Now, however, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, has told The Times that he is examining the case for Palestinian jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Gaza.

Palestinian groups have submitted arguments asserting that the Palestinian Authority is the de facto state in the territory where the crimes were allegedly committed.

“It is the territorial state that has to make a reference to the court. They are making an argument that the Palestinian Authority is, in reality, that state,” Mr Moreno-Ocampo told The Times at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Part of the Palestinian argument rests on the Israeli insistence that it has no responsibility for Gaza under international law since it withdrew from the territory in 2006. “They are quoting jurisprudence,” Mr Moreno-Ocampo said. “It’s very complicated. It’s a different kind of analysis I am doing. It may take a long time but I will make a decision according to law.”

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said that his examination of the case did not necessarily reflect a belief that war crimes had been committed in Gaza. Determining jurisdiction was a first step, he said, and only after it had been decided could he launch an investigation.

The prosecutor’s office has already received several files on alleged crimes from Palestinian groups and is awaiting further reports from the Arab League and Amnesty International containing evidence gathered in Gaza.

…

The case has wide-reaching ramifications for the Palestinian case for statehood. If the court rejects the case, it will highlight the legal black hole that Palestinians find themselves in while they remain stateless. However, it also underlines some of Israel’s worst fears about a Palestinian state on its borders. A Palestinian state that ratified the Rome treaty would then be able to refer alleged Israeli war crimes to the court without the current legal wrangling. The case could also lead to snowballing international recognition of a Palestinian state by countries eager to see Israel prosecuted.

One avenue would be for Israel to agree to investigate its commanders and prosecute any crimes discovered. That would remove any case from the orbit of the international court. So far that appears unlikely, given Israel’s repeated denials of war crimes in Gaza.

The Israeli army has, however, launched an internal inquiry into whether white phosphorus was used in some cases in built-up areas, having eventually admitted that it did use the incendiary substance, which is not illegal as a battlefield smokescreen but is banned from being used in civilian areas. Camera footage from one such attack shows what appears to be white phosphorous raining down on a UN school in Beit Lahiya, where Red Crescent ambulances and their crews were stationed.

A coalition of Israeli human rights groups has urged the country’s attorney-general to open an independent investigation into allegations of war crimes by troops, urging that to do so could head off international court cases. The groups, including the antisettlement organisation B’Tselem, said that there had been reports of Israeli forces firing into civilian areas, denying medical aid to the wounded and preventing Palestinian ambulances from reaching them, and of firing at people carrying white flags.

Meanwhile, the UN is preparing an inquiry into the bombardment of a UN school in Jabaliya, in the northern Gaza Strip. Israeli forces fired artillery shells outside the school, which had been converted into a refugee shelter for Gazans fleeing their homes. At least 43 people were killed. Israel said that Palestinian militants had fired from the compound, which was denied by the UN.

It appears the US supplied the white phosphorus shells which Israel used on civilians in Gaza.

The United States sold phosphorus artillery shells made at the Pine Bluff Arsenal to Israel — the same kind of rounds allegedly used against civilians during the recent fighting in Gaza.

A State Department official told The Associated Press that the rounds — typically used to light up darkened battlefields or provide smoke cover for combat troops — were most recently shipped to Israel in 2007. International human rights groups accuse the Israeli military of firing the chemical rounds into civilian homes, causing severe burns to those inside and killing at least one woman.

…

The State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity over the sensitivity of the issue, stressed that the white phosphorus rounds should only be used to “obscure, and thereby protect, troops and their movements.” The official said the United States would take any unauthorized use of the rounds seriously and “would take appropriate, corrective action.”

…

Amnesty International has issued a report about a shelling in a residential area of Gaza City, concluding that Israel used white phosphorus rounds improperly. Amnesty also said Israel used white phosphorus shells in an attack on U.N. warehouses in Gaza City on Jan. 15, an incident that infuriated U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Amnesty has accused Israel of committing a war crime by firing the munitions into densely populated areas.

More from Amnesty, this time on Israel’s attacks on ambulances and paramedics.

Emergency medical rescue workers, including doctors, paramedics and ambulance drivers, repeatedly came under fire from Israeli forces while they were carrying out their duties. At least seven were killed and more than 20 were injured while they were transporting or attempting to collect the wounded and the dead.

In one case Arafa Hani Abd-al-Dayam, a paramedic, was killed by flechettes, tiny metal darts packed 5-8,000 to a shell, which should never be used in civilian areas (see yesterday’s post).

On 4 January 2009, an ambulance arrived about 15 minutes after a missile strike in Beit Lahiya that apparently targeted five unarmed young men. It was hit a few minutes later by a tank shell filled with flechettes.

Two paramedics were seriously wounded in the incident. One of them, Arafa Hani Abd-al-Dayam, later died. Examining the wall of the shop beside where the ambulance had been, we found it pierced by hundreds of these darts.

In another case, three paramedics in their mid 20s – Anas Fadhel Na’im, Yaser Kamal Shbeir, and Raf’at Abd al-‘Al – were killed in the early afternoon of 4 January in Gaza City as they walked through a small field on their way to rescue two wounded men in a nearby orchard. A 12-year-old boy, Omar Ahmad al-Barade’e, who was standing near his home indicating to the paramedic the place where the wounded were, was also killed in the same strike.

Artintifada has a chilling first hand account of life during Israel’s attack from Gazan Rehaf Alagha.

Doctors say that some of these bombs -that were used on us – are made in the U.S.A. and they have caused instant cancer. These will die within 6-7 months. More than 1,300 are already dead, more than 5500 are injured. How many more will be dead in 6-7 months…. you do the math!! Oh but then I guess Israel will not count them as “civilians” that are killed as a result of what they have done, they’re “human shields,” right?
Who would use their own children as human shields??!! The Israeli army does it all the time, but of course to our children. But who would do that to their own children, it’s just ridiculous. The Israeli army they handcuff Palestinian kids to their cars so protesters wont throw rocks at them. They have children and even adults walk in front of the army as it goes around the town going into houses. How dare they say we use human shields, how dare they say the red cross or the UN schools or the shelters or where they store the food that has come for us, or the ambulances, or where reporters are staying (all places that are clearly marked and they have the coordinates for) are carrying weapons or resistance fighters… They only try to justify what cannot be justified. As for the resistance fighters they do not go near any such area. Even the homes they justify bombing them and say there were weapons inside, come look, come have an independent organization to come look… there is nothing of the sort.

George Mitchell meets with King Abdullah in Saudia:

… any Middle East solution should ensure the establishment of an independent state for the Palestinians where they can live, the agency said. Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal attended the talks at the king’s palace in Riyadh.

…

King Abdullah, who is the main architect of the Arab peace initiative, held talks with Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa before meeting Mitchell. During the meeting Abdullah and Moussa discussed “the Arab League’s efforts to tackle Arab issues, most importantly the Palestinian issue,” the SPA said.

Several years on, the Arab League is still waiting a formal response from Israel to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. This point was reiterated at Davos by Amr Moussa. It is likely that Bibi will continue to ignore the initiative, which guarantees recognition of Israel by Arab states in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state and and an Israeli withdrawal on the Syrian front.

Enjoy Flashpoint’s BEST OF FLASHPOINT Gaza War Crimes Special – Part One compiled by Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman.

Ali Abunimah comments on the situation Mitchell faces in Israel and Palestine:

Like Irish nationalists, Palestinians will never recognize the “right” of another group to discriminate against them. Like Protestant unionists, Israeli Jews insist on their own state. Israel’s solution is to cage Palestinians into ghettos — like Gaza — and periodically bomb them into submission.

If Mitchell is allowed to apply Northern Ireland’s lessons, there may be a way out, but he’ll face obstacles he didn’t encounter in Belfast. The Obama administration remains committed to the failed partition formula of a Jewish state and a Palestinian state and maintains a misguided boycott of Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in 2006. And the Israel lobby — much more powerful than Irish-American groups — warps U.S. policy to favor the stronger side, an intransigent Israel. If these policies don’t change, the hope Mitchell brings will be wasted, and escalating violence will fill the political vacuum.

Posted on

Israeli war criminals to receive Spanish justice after all

In an amusing turn of events, Tipsy Livni is boasting that Spanish Foreign Minister has told her that the Spanish government is to enact legislative changes to head off Spanish trials of Israeli war criminals.

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos informed Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Friday of Spain’s plan to amend legislation that granted a Spanish judge the authority to launch a much-publicized war crimes investigation against senior Israeli officials.

….

“I just heard from the Spanish Foreign Minister Moratinos, that Spain has decided to change its legislation in connection with universal jurisdiction and this can prevent the abuse of the Spanish legal system,” Livni told the Associated Press. “I think this is very important news and I hope that other states in Europe will do the same.”

This of course won’t help said Israeli war criminals if the US decides to support the ICJ.

Regardless of any alleged moves by the Spanish government to amend legislation, Israel is supplying documentation to the Spanish court.

Israel on Friday said it would provide “relevant material” for a Spanish crimes against humanity probe over a 2002 Israeli bombing in Gaza, after vowing to quash the investigation.

“The Israeli justice ministry will provide the Spanish government with the relevant material,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

Israel’s embassy in Madrid on Friday sent judge Fernando Andreu of the National Audience documents which are still unofficial, in Hebrew and English, over the bombing in which a Hamas leader and 14 civilians were killed, a Spanish judicial source said.

The judge will decide whether to go ahead with the inquiry or shelve it once the documents have been translated into Spanish.

The changes in legislation, if any are indeed made, apparently will not affect cases currently before the Spanish courts.

Spain’s Foreign Ministry did not reply to repeated telephone requests for confirmation.

Spanish state television TVE quoted government sources as saying the possibility of a legal “adjustment or modification” may have been mentioned, but it would not be retroactive and would not affect the case before the courts.

…

Any government-initiated changes to Spanish law would have to be approved by congress. TVE said Spain would not renounce universal jursidiction, which has been on its statute books since 1870.

Looks like Livni’s remonstrations are just electoral bluster and the disgraceful Israeli war criminals will receive justice in Spain after all.

In parallel moves in Turkey, Mazlumbder, a human rights group has approached the Turkish courts with a suit against Israeli war criminals for their part on the more recent attack by Israel on the Gazan people.

Mazlumder Istanbul Branch chairman Ayhan Küçük and other members and volunteers went to Sultanahmet Court in ?stanbul “to ask investigation for Israel’s war crimes against humanity” for their involvement in Gaza massacre.

The written application demands “20 Israelis, whose names and involments in the killings of 160 Gazans are known”, to be put on trial and punished for “their crimes against humanity according to the Turkish Criminal Law and International agreements.”
After submitting the petition calling for the Israeli officials of the massacre in Gaza, Küçük said they went to Gaza to probe violations during Israeli bombings and assaults, and this petition is “the result of their findings that shows Israel committed serious crimes during the attacks.”

“What Israel did in Gaza is a genocide, war and crimes against humanity. In our first investigation, we witnessed that all infustracture of Gaza had been destroyed, people`s bodies were burned by phosporus bombs, Gaza Islam University building and its most important laboratory, stores in the city center, UN schools, mosques, ambulances, and official buildings were bombed, he added.

” Additionally, we have seen flatten out buildings, orange fields, animal farms, small manifacturing facilities, and public buildings in Jabaliya. We want all Israeli officials who are responsible for this attack to be put on trial in International Criminal Court and in Turkey,” he said.

Gazans have demonstrated in the streets in support of Hamas, waving Palestinian and Turkish flags in appreciation of Erdogan’s strong stand against Peres.

Across the Gaza Strip, thousands took to the streets in support of Hamas and its leader Khalid Mashaal who called for the creation of an alternative representative authority to replace the Fatah-run Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Press TV’s correspondent Tarek al-Farra reported from Khan Younis on Saturday.

…

“The Israeli cowards failed in this war they thought that they would destroy the resistance and Hamas, but we must tell them that the popularity of Hamas has grown more than before,” said one of the demonstrators.

“The resistance will continue to work toward achieving its goals, which are liberating all Palestinian prisoners, repatriating all Palestinian refugees and completely ending the siege,” he added.

Hamas Spokesman Hamid al-Rakeb, who took part in the rally, also said that Israel’s offensive had increased Palestinians’ confidence.

“The message coming out of Gaza after the war is a cry of rage against the Israeli occupation. Gazans are holding on more to their rights and the resistance is more confident of its ability to achieve bigger victories in the future,” al-Rakeb said in the southern city.

Hamas announced that it no longer recognized Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian Authority Chief after his term expired on January 8.

More Israeli war crimes are coming to light –

Two Gazans killed ‘in cold blood’, say witnesses

The idea to bombard the closing ceremony of the Gaza police course was internally criticized in the Israel Defense Forces months before the attack.

Listen to Cameron Reilly’s podcast with guest Antony Loewenstein from Independent Australian Jewish Voices. Cameron conducts a very professional in depth interview eliciting superbly comprehensive content from Antony – this podcast provides an essential overview of the politics surrounding current events in Israel and Palestine.