Saturday, October 3, 2009

Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss: Israel vs. Human Rights

Jerry Haber, who blogs at http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/ says at the conclusion of Horowitz and Weiss's article:
"Israel's only recourse, after it violates the rights of Palestinians, is to deny that such rights exist." But as time goes by, the denial, and especially the suppression of such rights is spreading to include human rights workers and other dissenters within Israel proper and anywhere else. The most prominent example at the moment is the attacks Israel and its "supporters" have been heaping on Richard Goldstone. (See, for example, Cecilie Surasky's report at http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/10/01/anne-bayefsky-is-an-anti-semite-and-a-hypocrite-attacks-on-goldstone-cross-the-line/ ).

Racheli Gai.


Israel vs. Human Rights

Adam Horowitz & Philip Weiss: Israel vs. Human Rights

September 30, 2009

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/horowitz_weiss


The Human Rights Watch reports that were sharply critical of Israel's killing of civilians in Lebanon represent the latest battle for Jewish hearts and minds in the ideological war over the Middle East.

The head of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, Judge Richard Goldstone, was "upset" by the speech. "It is disingenuous, to put it lightly, what Netanyahu said," he told The Nation. "The idea that this is aimed at delegitimating the state of Israel--that is the last thing I would want to do." Goldstone, a Jew and a Zionist, said that Israel's leaders were behaving contemptuously, "ignoring the specific allegations and simply launching a broadside."

Those broadsides began not long after the ascension of the right-wing Netanyahu government in March, when his ministers began painting human rights and peace groups as a fifth column for terrorists. "For the first time the Israeli government is taking an active role in the smearing of human rights groups," says Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch.

Traditionally that job had gone to Israel's friends. The executive director of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, for instance, condemned human rights groups this past spring as part of an international "campaign" to dehumanize the Jewish state to the point where "Israel stands alone, isolated and at risk." But as one international report after another accused Israel of war crimes during the Gaza assault, the Israeli government joined the fight. The government refused to cooperate with Goldstone's investigation, forcing him to enter Gaza from Egypt. Israeli witnesses had to be flown to Geneva to be interviewed.

The Israeli government has also sought to quash domestic dissent. In April it targeted the anti-militarism organization New Profile, seizing computers and detaining activists. In July, when a group of Israeli veterans called Breaking the Silence released dozens of anonymous soldiers' testimonies from the Gaza assault describing indifference to civilian targets, the Israeli government went, well, ballistic. It threatened to cut off the financial support the group receives from the Dutch, Spanish and British governments and warned those governments that their support was illegal. Israel indicated that it would look into foreign support that Israeli human rights groups B'Tselem and Machsom Watch receive as well.

Ron Dermer, a Netanyahu adviser who was raised in Florida, struck a fearsome tone: "We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups. We are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity."

Shooting back meant calling out New York-based Human Rights Watch for raising money in Arab countries, an anti-Arab theme that was echoed in a September attack on Human Rights Watch published by the Jerusalem-based advocacy group NGO Monitor. The critique listed staff members who are allegedly "anti-Israel," with some of the charges as flimsy as the fact that an official had been on the board of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. And as Judge Goldstone found, the Israeli government has refused to cooperate with Human Rights Watch investigations. "Over the last year they have not wanted to meet with us, even when we've presented them with very, very detailed questions about IDF conduct based on preliminary investigations," says program director Iain Levine.

Of course, Palestinian human rights activists are familiar with stonewalling, and much worse. A March 2006 UN report criticized the Israel Defense Forces for the "systematic targeting of peace and human rights activists" and noted that Israel seemed to use administrative detention to deter human rights work. That policy was underscored in September, when Israel arrested Mohammad Othman, a human rights activist, after a visit to Norway, where he had pushed for boycott, divestment and sanctions.

The impetus for the new Israeli strategy appears to be fear of shifting international opinion. As analyst Michael Wahid Hanna of the Century Foundation puts it, Goldstone's stunning findings may well "take on a life of their own...and make diplomatic life much more tricky." The Netanyahu government is counting on the United States to block a potential UN Security Council recommendation for an international war crimes tribunal and has warned the Obama administration that the Goldstone report can only hinder the peace process. Certainly human rights reports have emboldened Israel's critics. Just two days after the release of the report, the British Trade Union Congress, representing more than 6.5 million workers, endorsed the boycott movement against Israel, explaining that the decision was "the culmination of a wave of motions passed at union conferences this year, following outrage at Israel's brutal war on Gaza."

We are used to accounting for the costs of the Israeli occupation in concrete terms: so many checkpoints, so many colonies, so many dead civilians. The new Israeli effort suggests an even larger cost: that of the very idea of human rights. The government has yet to question one factual allegation Goldstone has made, says progressive Zionist blogger Jerry Haber. "Israel's only recourse, after it violates the rights of Palestinians, is to deny that such rights exist."


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Thursday, October 1, 2009

The human cost of "Progress" - an interview with Arundhati Roy / democracynow.org

An interview with Arundhati Roy as her new book comes out. The book is titled: "Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers". Roy talks about the human costs of "progress" - in India and elsewhere, on how the term "Democracy" has come to mean free market and globalization. In the service of "Progress" and markets indigenous people got slaughtered in the past, and are being dispossessed and put down right now.
While the interview sheds light mostly on events in India, it compares and connects them to a larger picture. It's a dark, even terrifying, portrayal of the kind of grim reality we're all facing, but Roy still has hope. The interview ends by her saying:
"What gives me hope is the fact that this way of thinking is being resisted in a myriad ways in India, you know, from the poorest person in a loincloth in the forest saying, "We're going to fight," right up to me, who's at the other end, you know. And all of us are joined together by the determination that, even if we lose, we're going to fight, you know? And we're not going to just let this happen without doing everything we can to stop it. And that gives me a tremendous amount of hope."

Racheli Gai

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/28/author_arundhati_roy_on_conflicts_and

Author Arundhati Roy on the Human Costs of India's Economic Growth, the View of Obama from New Delhi, and Escalating US Attacks in Af-Pak

We're joined from the Indian capital of New Delhi by the Booker Prize-winning novelist, political essayist and global justice activist Arundhati Roy. Her books include the Booker Prize-winning novel The God of Small Things and her latest essay collection, Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. We speak to Roy about India's conflict with Maoist rebels, the occupation of Kashmir, ongoing Indian-Pakistani tensions, Obama's war in "Af-Pak," and more. [includes rush transcript]


AMY GOODMAN: We turn to a woman the New York Times calls India's most impassioned critic of globalization and American influence, Arundhati Roy, world-renowned Indian author and global justice activist. Her first novel, The God of Small Things, won the Booker Prize in 1997. She has a new book; it's called Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. An adapted introduction to the book is posted at tomdispatch.com, called "What Have We Done to Democracy?" Arundhati Roy joins us now from New Delhi, India, on the country's biggest national holiday of the year.

Arundhati, we welcome you to Democracy Now! And as you listen to this report from the streets of G-20 by our producer Steve Martinez, talk about globalization and what has happened to democracy.

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, that's a huge subject, Amy. And I think my book—in my book, I discuss it in some detail in terms of what's happening to India. But as we know now, because of the way the global economy is linked, countries are not—you know, the political systems in countries are also linked, so democracies are linked to dictatorships and military occupations and so on. We know that. We know that some of the main military occupations in the world today are actually administered by democracies: Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir.

But what I think is beginning to be very clear now is that we see now that democracy is sort of fused to the free market, or to the idea of the free market. And so, its imagination has been limited to the idea of profit. And democracy, a few years ago, maybe, you know, even twenty-five years ago, was something that, let's say, a country like America feared, which was why democracies were being toppled all over the place, like in Chile and so on. But now wars are being waged to restore—to place democracy, because democracy serves the free market, and each of the institutions in democracy, like you look at India, you know, whether it's the Supreme—whether it's the courts or whether it's the media or whether it's all the other institutions of democracy, they've been sort of hollowed out, and just their shells have been replaced, and we play out this charade. And it's much more complicated for people to understand what's going on, because there's so much shadow play
.


But really we are facing a crisis. And that's what I ask. You know, is there life after democracy? And what kind of life will it be? Because democracy has been hollowed out and made meaningless. And when I say "democracy," I'm not talking about the ideal. You know, I'm not saying that countries that live in dictatorships and under military occupation should not fight for democracy, because the early years of democracy are important and heady. And then we see a strange metastasis taking over.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Arundhati Roy. She's joining us from New Delhi, India, the world-renowned author, global justice activist. Her book The God of Small Things won the Booker Prize, well known all over the world. Now she has written a new book. Today we will talk about it for the first time in the United States in a national broadcast, Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. We'll be back with her for the rest of the hour in a minute.

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Arundhati Roy, speaking to us from New Delhi, India, talking about India, war and globalization. I'm here with co-host Anjali Kamat. Anjali?

ANJALI KAMAT: The Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers met in New York Sunday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting but failed to agree on a timetable for negotiations. Talks continue to be stalled by the fallout of the November 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 163 people. India blames Pakistani militants for the attack and has emphasized the need for Pakistan to prosecute those responsible. The Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told reporters he raised these concerns with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

S.M. KRISHNA: As you are aware, we do have serious and continuing concerns about terrorist and extremist groups in Pakistan, which are—which are a national security risk for us and for our people. Foreign Minister Qureshi conveyed to me the seriousness of his government in bringing to book, through their legal process, those responsible for the terrorist outrage in Mumbai ten months ago.


ANJALI KAMAT: Meanwhile, inside India, the focus has shifted to a different adversary. The stage is set for a major domestic military offensive against an armed group that the Indian prime minister has repeatedly called the country's, quote, "gravest internal security threat."

Operation Green Hunt will reportedly send between 75,000 and 100,000 troops to areas seen as Maoist strongholds in central and eastern India. In June, India labeled the Naxalite group, the Communist Party of India—Maoist—a terrorist organization, and earlier this month India's home minister came to the United States to share counterterror strategies.

The Indian government blames the deaths of nearly 600 people this year on Maoist violence and claims that Maoist rebels are active in twenty out of the twenty-eight states in the country. The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh outlined the threat to a conference of state police chiefs earlier this month.

PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH: In many ways, the left-wing extremism poses perhaps the gravest internal security threat our country faces. We have discussed this in the last five years. And I would like to state, frankly, that we have not achieved as much success as we would have liked in containing this menace.


AMY GOODMAN: Well, to help make sense of what's unfolding inside the world's largest democracy, we continue with the Booker Prize award-winning novelist, political essayist, global justice activist Arundhati Roy. She won the Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize in 2002. She's the author of a number of collection of essays and the novel The God of Small Things. Her latest book is called Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers.

Can you make sense, Arundhati, of what is happening inside India for an audience around the world?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, let me just pick up on what Anjali was talking about just now, about the assault that's planned on the so-called Maoists in central India. You know, when September 11th happened, I think some of us had already said that a time would come when poverty would be sort of collapsed and converge into terrorism. And this is exactly what's happened. The poorest people in this country today are being called terrorists.

And what you have is a huge swath of forest in eastern and central India, spreading from West Bengal through the states of Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh. And in these forests live indigenous people. And also in these forests are the biggest deposits of bauxite and iron ore and so on, which huge multinational companies now want to get their hands on. So there's an MoU [Memorandum of Understanding] on every mountain, on every forest and river in this area.

And about in 2005, let's say, in central India, the day after the MoU was signed with the biggest sort of corporation in India, Tatas, the government also announced the formation of the Salwa Judum, which is a sort of people's militia, which is armed and is meant to fight the Maoists in the forest. But the thing is, all this, the Salwa Judum as well as the Maoists, they're all indigenous people. And in, let's say, Chhattisgarh, something like the Salwa Judum has been a very cruel militia, you know, burning villages, raping women, burning food crops. I was there recently. Something like 640 villages have been burned. Out of the 350,000, first about 50,000 people moved into roadside police camps, from where this militia was raised by the government. And the rest are simply missing. You know, some are living in cities, you know, eking out a living. Others are just hiding in the forest, coming out, trying to sow their crops, and yet getting, you know, those crops burnt down,
their
villages burnt down. So there is a sort of civil war raging.

And now, I remember traveling in Orissa a few years ago, when there were not any Maoists, but there were huge sort of mining companies coming in to mine the bauxite. And yet, they kept—all the newspapers kept saying the Maoists are here, the Maoists are here, because it was a way of allowing the government to do a kind of military-style repression. Of course, now they're openly saying that they want to call out the paramilitary.

And if you look at—for example, if you look at the trajectory of somebody like Chidambaram, who's India's home minister, he—you know, he's a lawyer from Harvard. He was the lawyer for Enron, which pulled off the biggest scam in the history of—corporate scam in the history of India. We're still suffering from that deal. After that, he was on the board of governors of what is today the biggest mining corporation in the world, called Vedanta, which is mining in Orissa. The day he became finance minister, he resigned from Vedanta. When he was the finance minister, in an interview he said that he would like 85 percent of India to live in cities, which means moving something like 500 million people. That's the kind of vision that he has.

And now he's the home minister, calling out the paramilitary, calling out the police, and really forcibly trying to move people out of their lands and homes. And anyone who resisted, whether they're a Maoist or not a Maoist, are being labeled Maoist. People are being picked up, tortured. There are some laws that have been passed which should not exist in any democracy, laws which make somebody like me saying what I'm saying now to you a criminal offense, for which I could just be jailed. Even sort of thinking an anti-government thought has become illegal. And we're talking about, you know, as you said, 75,000 to 100,000 security personnel going to war against people who, since independence, which was more than sixty years ago, have no schools, no hospitals, no running water, nothing. And now, now they're being—now they're being killed or imprisoned or just criminalized. You know, it's like if you're not in the Salwa Judum camp, then you're a Maoist, and we can
kill
you. And they are openly celebrating the Sri Lanka solution to terrorism, to terrorism.

ANJALI KAMAT: Arundhati Roy, can you explain a little bit more about how India has so successfully hidden this side of it, this underbelly of democracy that you bring out in your book—murder, disappearances, torture, rapes, thousands—millions of people displaced, whether it's for development projects or in the process of fighting wars, tens of thousands disappeared in Kashmir, the insurgency that's being fought, the military that's fighting the insurgency in the northeast? How is India, on a global stage, continues to be seen as this successful democracy, a place where investors are flooding to?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, precisely because it is a democracy for some of its citizens, you know? And so, in a way, it has—this whole system has somehow created an elite that is now suddenly enriched in the last, you know, twenty years since the advent of the corporate free market. We have a huge middle class that is hugely invested in this sort of a police—or, you know, a police state that isn't acknowledged as one. So you have—it's not just a small sort of coterie of generals, like in Burma, or a kind of military dictatorship that's supported by the US in America. You have a huge constituency in this country that completely supports this whole enterprise, and you have a free media where 90 percent of the turnover of those media houses comes from corporate advertisements and so on. So they're also free, but free to also embrace this particular model, in which, you know, a small section of people—well, not a small section; there are millions and millions of people, but
they
are not the majority of the people of this country. The light shines upon this rising middle class, which is, as I said, such a huge number that it's a very, very attractive market for the whole world.

So, when India opens its markets, you know, because it has opened its markets, and because it's—you know, international finance is flooding in, and all of that is so attractive, it is allowed to commit genocide in Gujarat; it's allowed to commit civil war in the center; it's allowed to have a military occupation in Kashmir, where you have 700,000 soldiers, you know, patrolling that little valley; it's allowed to have laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in the northeast, which allows the army to just kill on suspicion. And yet, it's celebrated. It's allowed to displace millions of people, but yet it's celebrated as this real success story, because it has all these institutions in place, even though they've been hollowed out.

So you have, for example, a Supreme Court in which there are very erudite judges, and there are some very erudite judgments, but if you look at how it's actually functioning, it has hollowed out. To criticize the court is a criminal offense. And yet, you have judgments where a judge openly says something like—you know, that—I've forgotten the exact words, but how corporate—you know, a corporate company cannot basically commit anything illegal, cannot commit an illegal act, you know? Or you have a judge in court openly talking about, let's say, Vedanta, which is mining in Orissa for bauxite. And the Norwegian government had pulled out of that project because of the human rights violations and so on; and, you know, for a whole lot of ethical reasons, they pulled out. And in India, you know, the company was taken to court, and a judge openly, in an open court, says that, "OK, we won't give this contract to Vedanta. We'll give it to Sterlite, because Sterlite is a very
good company. I have shares in it," omitting to mention that Sterlite is a subsidiary of Vedanta.

You know, but there's so much fancy footwork. If it was a military dictator, they have would have just said, "Shut up" and "Vedanta will get the project." But here, there are affidavits and counter-affidavits and a little bit of delay and everything; everyone thinks it's democracy. You know, you have the Supreme Court hearing on, let's say, the Parliament attack, where openly the Supreme Court of the world's greatest democracy says, you know, on the one hand, "We don't have evidence to prove that the person who was charged is—belongs to a terrorist group," and a few paras later says, "but the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if we sentence him to death." And it's just said so, blatantly, out there, you know? And you can't criticize it, because it's a criminal offense.

AMY GOODMAN: Arundhati Roy, talk about Kashmir. I think it's something, certainly here in the United States, a conflict people understand very little.

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, Kashmir—Kashmir was an independent sort of kingdom in 1947 at the time of independence and partition. And when—I mean, just to cut a very complicated story short, when partition happened, both India and Pakistan fought over it and hived off parts of it, and both now have military presence in this divided Kashmir. But to give you some idea of the military presence, it's—you know, let's say the US has 165,000 troops in Iraq. India has 700,000 troops in Kashmir.

Kashmir used to have a Hindu king and a largely Muslim population, which was very, very backward and so on at the time, because at the time, you know, Muslims were discriminated against by that princely—in that princely state.

But now, for—I mean, in 1990, after a whole series of events, which culminated in a sort of fake election, a rigged election in 1987, there was an armed uprising in Kashmir. And really, since then, it's been convulsed by militancy and military occupation, encounters, disappearances and so on. Last year, there was a—you know, last year, they began to say everything is normal, you know, tourists are going back to the valley. But, of course, that was just wishful thinking, because there was a huge nonviolent uprising in which hundreds of thousands of people, you know, flocked the streets, day and night, demanding independence. It was put down with military force.

And now, once again, you have a situation where you can hardly walk from, you know, twenty meters without someone with an AK-47 in your face. Sometimes in places like Srinagar, which is the capital, it's well hidden. But it's a place where every action, every breath that people, you know, breathe in and breathe out, is kind of controlled by military force. And this is how—you know, people are just being asphyxiated; they cannot breathe.

And, of course, there's a huge publicity machine. You know, I mean, I'd say that the only difference between what's happening in Palestine and Kashmir is that, so far, India has not used air power on the people of Kashmir, as they are threatening to do, by the way, in Chhattisgarh, you know, to its own poorest. It has not—you know, the people, technically, they are able to move around, unlike the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Kashmiris are able to move around in the rest of India, though it isn't really safe, because their young get picked up and disappeared and tortured and so on. So, you know, it's not something that they easily will do. And there has not been this kind of system of settlements, you know, where you're trying to sort of take over by pushing in people from the mainland. So, other than those three, I think we're talking about an outright occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: We're speaking with the great writer Arundhati Roy, social justice activist. She's speaking to us from New Delhi, India. When we come back, we'll talk about India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the view of President Obama from India. This is Democracy Now! Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: We continue with our exclusive global broadcast with Arundhati Roy in New Delhi, India, the world-renowned author, social justice activist. Her first book, The God of Small Things, translated all over the world, won the Booker Prize in 1997. Her new book, just out: Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers.

I'm Amy Goodman with Anjali Kamat. Anjali?

ANJALI KAMAT: Arundhati, years ago, under the Bush administration, you called yourself a "subject of empire." Today, can you talk about what Obama's America looks like from India, from New Delhi, as the Obama administration expands the war from Afghanistan into Pakistan?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, I think, you know, when people would ask me what I thought of Obama, I said I hope that he would land the American empire gently, like the pilot who landed the—who crash-landed the plane in the Hudson.

Yes, he's expanding the war in Afghanistan. I think, basically, people, including Obama, just don't know what to do in Afghanistan, and expanding the war is certainly not going to end that war or create any kind of just peace in that region. It's, in fact, going to exacerbate the situation, draw Pakistan into it, and when Pakistan is drawn into it, so will India, and so on. So it goes.

I think, you know, the real change that has taken place in the last, you know, ten years is also the rise of India and China as kind of imperial powers, you know, playing out their games in Africa and also in parts of Latin America. So it's a very—and, of course, the rise of Russia.

So, I think the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir is very volatile. And, of course, let's not forget that these are nuclear powers, even though a scientist recently has announced that India's nuclear tests were a damp squib and that they were not successful, but I don't know what that's about and why he's coming out with it now.

But I think we are headed for a lot of chaos. And in India, you know, as I said, while the situation in Kashmir—even now, as I speak in the studio, there's news coming in of what they call "encounter killings," you know, almost a few every day. So, obviously, given that nonviolent protest has been put down violently, things are going to go back to a previous era of some kind of militant violence there. And, you know, the heart of India being sort of hollowed out by this civil war and this assault on its poor.

I really don't know what to say or what to expect, except to say that this kind of pressure can never result in an orderly submission, even if people wanted to submit. What's going to happen and what is happening is that unpredictable kinds of battles and chaos is erupting all over the place, and, you know, the government is constantly firefighting and trying to douse those flames.

But out of this chaos, something new has to come, and will come, because it cannot go on like this. And I don't know whether that thing will be worse or will be better, but it can't go on like this. You know, the kind of polythene bag over our heads has to burst open at some point. You know, we have to be allowed to breathe. And this kind of surveillance and drone attacks and all this that's being planned is not going to be able to hold down millions of people who are just getting impoverished and hungry and homeless.

ANJALI KAMAT: Arundhati, can you talk about the state of the media in India? You talk about the different institutions of democracy. How would you assess the Indian media, and what is its role in this landscape?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, if I had to talk about the—you know, I mean, the mainstream sort of corporate media, and if I were to have to make a kind of crude statement, I'd say that the mainstream media right now here is not a little to the right of Fox News. You know, that's what's going on here. There's a kind of nationalist howl that I find pretty terrifying. Having said that, I think that, you know, now all we're left with is to try and find some sane sort of bubbles within that. And there are those.

And, of course, the fact that India is a country where—I mean, forget the media; people don't—you know, people don't have access to water and food and basic healthcare. The kind of reach and that mesmeric spell that the media casts in, you know, developed countries, the media can't in India. In fact, I was actually—you know, when I was in this place, Chhattisgarh, Dantewada, where the war is unfolding, a senior policeman told me, "You know, Arundhati, as a policeman, I can tell you that the police are not going to be able to solve the problem of these indigenous, you know, these Adivasi people"—"Adivasi" is the word for tribal people—"and I have told the government that the problem with these people is that they don't have any greed. So, the way to solve the problem is to put a TV in every house. Then we'll be able to win this war."

So, you know, you have a situation where more and more people are just outside the barcode. You know, they are what you would call "illegible." And we have a very, very serious situation here, where now they are planning, you know, once again, to make a—what do you call it—a electronic ID card. Of course, once again, to people who don't have water, who don't have electricity, who don't have schools, but they will have ID cards, and people who don't have ID cards are not going to exist.

But, sorry, I moved away from your question, which was a question about the media. I fear the media greatly here. You know, sometimes, like you see after the attacks in Mumbai, the government was more mature than the media. The media was spoiling for war. It was really—you know, the media and the elite and the urban middle class were spoiling for war. They were just pushing for a war with Pakistan. And so, I'd say highly irresponsible, with very little basis in fact. And a lot of my book is really a response to how the media has behaved over the last few years on very, very crucial issues. And it's very troubling to live in a place where the media has actually no accountability.

ANJALI KAMAT: Arundhati, can you talk a little bit about encounter deaths? You mentioned this a little earlier in the program. What are police encounters, fake encounters? This is something that's quite common in India. But can you explain to our audience what you mean by "encounter deaths"?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, what happens now is that, you know, one of the ways in which people—the police and the security establishment deals with, you know, dissent, resistance and terrorism, or what they call terrorism, is to just deliver summary justice: kill people and say, oh, they were killed in an encounter, in cross-firing, or so on, and so on. So, in places like Kashmir and in the northeast, in Manipur and Nagaland, it's an old tradition. In places like Andhra Pradesh, they had, you know, many, many hundreds of encounter deaths.

And, in fact, recently, there was a photo essay of an encounter death in Manipur, where the, you know, security grid just—security forces just surrounded this young boy. And it was a photo essay, you know. He was unarmed. He was a former militant, I think, who had laid down his arms, and he was in the market. And you just saw a policeman pulling out his gun, shooting him, and then they said, oh, he was killed in crossfire, you know.

So, it's a very—you have people—we have cops here who are given medals for being encounter specialists. You know, so the more people they've killed, the more medals they'll get. And in places like Kashmir, they actually get promotions. So, in fact, it's something to be proud of, an encounter killing, for, you know, both the army as well as the police and the counterinsurgency forces.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Arundhati Roy. She's speaking to us from New Delhi, India. She has just published a new book called Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. Arundhati, why "listening to grasshoppers"?

ARUNDHATI ROY: Oh, it was the name of a lecture that I did in Turkey last year on the anniversary after the death of Hrant Dink, the Armenian journalist who was shot outside his office for daring to talk about the Armenian genocide of 1915, which you're not supposed to talk about in Turkey. And my lecture was really about the historical links between progress and genocide.

And "listening to grasshoppers" was—referred to the testimony an old lady called Araxie Barsamian, who's the friend—mother of my friend David Barsamian, who is Armenian and who talked about how, you know, the wheat had ripened in her village in 1915, and suddenly there was this huge swarm of grasshoppers that arrived. And the village elders were very worried about this and said it was a bad omen. And they were right, because a few months later, when the wheat had ripened, the Turks came, and that was the beginning of the Armenian genocide for her.

And so, I talk about—the whole lecture was really about how societies are prepared for genocide and how genocide is, you know, it's like part of free trade, and how, you know, genocides that are acknowledged, and denied, and prosecuted, all have to—all depend on world trade, and always have done, and about how I worry that a country like India, that is poised on the threshold of progress, could also be poised on the threshold of genocide.

And that essay was written in January of last year. And now, as you see, the troops are closing in on the forest areas where the poorest people live. And they will be sacrificed at the altar of progress, unless we manage to show the world that we have to find a different way of seeing and a different way of going about things.

But here in India, there's the smell of fascism in the air. Earlier, it was a kind of an anti-Muslim, religious fascism. Now we have a secular government, and it's a kind of right-wing ruthlessness, where people openly say, you know, every country that has progressed and is developed, whether you look at Europe or America or China or Russia, they have a quote-unquote "past," you know, they have a cruel past, and it's time that India stepped up to the plate and realized that there are some people that are holding back this kind of progress and that we need to be ruthless and move in, as Israel did recently in Gaza, as Sri Lanka has recently done with its hundreds of thousands of Tamils in concentration camps. So why not India? You know? Why not just do away with the poor so that we can be a proper superpower, instead of a super-poor superpower?

AMY GOODMAN: Arundhati Roy, we just have less than a minute. What gives you hope?

ARUNDHATI ROY: What gives me hope is the fact that this way of thinking is being resisted in a myriad ways in India, you know, from the poorest person in a loincloth in the forest saying, "We're going to fight," right up to me, who's at the other end, you know. And all of us are joined together by the determination that, even if we lose, we're going to fight, you know? And we're not going to just let this happen without doing everything we can to stop it. And that gives me a tremendous amount of hope.

AMY GOODMAN: Arundhati Roy, we thank you very much for being with us from, well, not far from your home, in New Delhi, India, in this international global exclusive broadcast on the publication of your book, Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers, published by Haymarket Books.


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Restoring the water supply

In this piece, activist David Shulman reports his experiences at a recent (and successful) action involving about 100 people attempting to restore the water supply to the town of Jinbah in the south Hebron hills by reopening the main access road to tanker traffic. The story of arbitrary road blocks and heavy-handed Israeli army control is familiar enough, but the obviously crucial nature of water resources makes lack of Palestinian control over shared resources, lack of investment in infrastructure, and deep divides in water consumption between Israeli citizens and Palestinians into a critical problem. Hebrew/Arabic speakers may like to view some footage of the action at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k2wpCZYZTE

And the Palestine Monitor maintains an informative fact sheet about water disparities at http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article14 .

Alistair Welchman

David Shulman, September 26, 2009 Jinbah, Water Convoy

Originally posted to NewProfile Google Group, but reprinted at http://kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=35871

Water—or rather the denial of water—is a potent weapon. Here in the south Hebron hills, a harsh, arid land of rock and thorn and sand, it may be the most potent of all. Without water no one can survive here more than a few hours. In the old days, before the Israeli occupation, the Palestinians scattered over these hills in caves and tiny khirbehs survived on their wells and reservoirs. By now they've lost a great many of the wells, some poisoned or stopped up or simply taken over by Israeli settlers, others filled with rocks and sand by the army during violent raids on the khirbehs in the late 90's and after. These days some water—not nearly enough—is brought in on a daily basis, more or less, by tankers that wind their way laboriously over the goat-paths. The main access route to Jinbah, a rough, rocky track that eventually links up with the main highway and the town of Yata, has been sealed off by the army—blocked, in fact, at 23 separate points by piles of rock
and earth or cut and rendered impassable where it meets a culvert. The army puts these roadblocks in place, and sometimes removes them, at will, for no apparent reason. Over a year ago they issued a document formally promising to open the track again, but they haven't done so. That's one reason we're here today.

It's expensive to bring in water by tanker to a place like Jinbah, a remote confabulation of black tents, stone goat-pens, and ruined caves. According to my friend 'Id, prices are pitched at between 150 and 200 Israeli shekels (roughly $40 to $50) just for hiring the tanker and the driver—a vast sum for these herders and peasant farmers—not including the water. One tanker-full won't last them more than a few days. If the old track were open, costs would be cut in half. We intend to open it today.

Why, you might ask, has the army closed the track in the first place? The standard excuse, which we hear from the soldiers at various moments through the day, is that they're fighting terrorism. They're always doing that, even in the absence of any living terrorists anywhere nearby. The only violence of note that afflicts the south Hebron hills comes from Israeli settlers. So maybe there's another reason. Not to put too fine a point on it, we have the general and persistent effort by the Israeli authorities, with the settlers in the lead, to dry up the Palestinian civilian population in this area—that is, to drive them from their homes. For our part, we're determined to help keep them on their land. That's the main reason we're here today.

As usual, the police and army aren't too happy about our arrival. They dog our steps repeatedly as we make our way south with two busloads of activists, some hundred people in all. At the main turn-off to Um Daraj, the road that will connect us to the water tankers and tractors already waiting for us deep in the desert, the soldiers are ready: several command cars, police vans and other vehicles, some officers, the standard grey-olive flotilla. Do they really think they can turn us back? We pour out of the buses and start walking rapidly up the road. You can see at a glance that we're too many for them, they can't possibly arrest us all, and they can't stop us. Soon we have left them far behind.

It's almost 11 in the morning and already very hot and getting hotter, and since we had to abandon our buses because of the soldiers we have a long walk past a few homes and pens for the flocks and then over the stark golden-white hills, down and up and down again. Soon we are alone in the desert, far from human habitation. The hills sweep and swirl almost as far as the eye can see; near the horizon, barely visible in the blinding light, a slight blue patch of the Dead Sea shimmers and hides, too vibrant to be real. After thirty or forty minutes, at the end of the road, the end of the world, tractors are waiting with attached metal-and-wood carts— called "platforms" in Hebrew-- to carry us still deeper in, to the glowing, desolate point where the heavy tankers are parked.

Maybe it's a mirage. I almost rub my eyes. How they did get here? I'm not used to such precision planning. Soon the caravan departs. Groaning and creaking and jiggling and shaking, veering madly from side to side, always threatening to overturn, the tractors, with tankers and platforms attached, crawl over the rocks and plow through thick layers of dust and sand. It's a long, punishing, breath-taking ride, and just when I start to feel I can't stand much more of it, we grind to a halt on a rise overlooking a steep stony descent into the wadi. Here the track has been cut. We jump down from the platforms, mill around aimlessly for a while, unsure of what should happen next. Suddenly I find 'Id, and we embrace. I haven't seen him for some weeks. How's life? Hard, as always. New houses are going up in the veteran settlement of Carmel, next to Umm al-Khair where 'Id leaves. So much for Obama's settlement freeze. The Palestinian shacks demolished some months back by the Occupation
authorities have not been rebuilt. There's no money, and no hope. Aside from that, 'Id says, if you don't identify yourself openly with one of the factions, Fatah or Hamas for example, the Palestinian Authority is likely to fire you from your job. It recently happened with about forty teachers. So it's really hard to find work. The good news is that his little daughter is starting to walk. He smiles, shy with happiness. There's nothing in the world like 'Id's smile.

A yellow back-hoe (we used to call it a bulldozer) goes into action on the slope, smoothing down what's left of the narrow track. We race down the hill to help with this rebuilding of the route; we search for heavy boulders to fill the wide gap on either side of the culvert. There is no dearth of boulders. It's hard on the back and, like much physical labor in the south Hebron hills, strangely rewarding. Finally the back-hoe rolls back and forth over the newly filled piece of track, compacting rock and dust, turning it into something akin to a road. Victorious, the back-hoe moves on, and the water tankers now slowly creep down the hill and pass us on their way to Jinbah. I feel like cheering, and I can see I'm not alone.

The black tents of Jinbah are clearly visible on the hill above us to our left. Can people really live out here in this ravishing wasteland? And assuming that the answer is yes, who in his right mind would want to drive them off, to starve them of water? At least, I say to myself, water is now on its way. But this, of course, is the moment the soldiers decide to turn up, eager to harass us. Possibly they want revenge for their failure to stop us at the turnoff. A heavy command car swoops down on us—they must have been waiting somewhere nearby—and heads straight for the back-hoe. It's immediately clear they need a victim, and they've chosen the Palestinian driver; equally clear that we have to prevent his arrest. We converge from all sides on the back-hoe. There's some shouting and arguing as the soldiers circle the machine, trying to reach the driver's cabin. We're too quick for them. I find myself climbing up, with Amiel and Assaf, to sit in the driver's seat, while the
driver himself is swiftly helped down into the protective crowd and then manages to slip away.
OK, I have to confess. I always wanted to drive one of these things. I don't have a clue how to do it, but I'm quite happy sitting there, peering down at the ruckus below, inspecting the many mysterious levers and gears. I could easily go on playing like this for some time, like my grandson Inbali when you put him behind the driver's wheel. I feel Assaf sliding something metallic and small into the pocket of my trousers: the ignition key. The soldiers mustn't find out that we still have the key, lest they impound the vehicle and drive it off to their base. That would be a true disaster: the owner of the back-hoe needs it every day, his livelihood depends on it and, once confiscated, the machine is all too likely to be parked in the army camp for four to eight weeks, as in previous cases we can remember. We are going to have to stay here to guard the machine. The soldiers, meanwhile, are angry and frustrated, since their prey has eluded them. They prowl around the back-hoe,
they bark and snarl. They must be hot: it's mid-day, and they're loaded down with an entire armory, machine-guns with grenade propellers, helmets, clips, and plenty of tear-gas canisters of different sizes and colors belted the whole length of their legs. I can't say I feel much sympathy for them at this time.

Maybe it's the relief that the driver is safe or the satisfaction we felt when the water tankers chugged by on their way to Jinbah or maybe it's the rage we feel because these soldiers have now announced to us that, by opening the track, we have committed a grave crime and will be punished. Maybe it's just a passing whim. Anyone, suddenly the desert air is resounding with the old cry of noble souls committed to doomed causes: No pasaran! I know it doesn't sound likely, but nothing is likely in south Hebron. The whole scene is a study in the surreal. I'm shouting, too. Actually, here's something else I always wanted to do. No pasaran! It's a little silly, I suppose—or is it? Anyway I'm really glad there are people here who remember what it means and who see the parallel. But our Palestinian friends are, for once, bewildered. What do these words signify? In my rusty Arabic, in the middle of all the hubbub, immersed in dust and sun, I try to explain, a two-minute historical
synopsis: once, in Spain, there was a civil war between the Fascists and people like us, who believe in freedom…..The older ones pass down my explanation to the children, there are many young children with us here today, and now they are calling it out with us, and maybe this time it will be true.

But clearly our plans are in some danger. There's all that water to be poured into the Jinbah reservoir, and there are four more khirbehs to the east and west waiting to receive their allotment. We're needed there. So the main body of activists heads off to the Jinbah encampment, leaving ten or twelve of us to guard the back-hoe with the soldiers for company.

The heat is intense. I had a liter and a half of mineral water with me, but at the height of the mini-confrontation I handed the bottle around and it came back empty. It's not clear how long we're going to have to wait things out. We make a quick inventory of our water reserves. They're dangerously low. It's another one of those south Hebron scenes, far from rare and absurd by any standard. Here we are, stranded in the middle of the desert in and around a back-hoe that we can't abandon, with no driver anywhere near but also nowhere to go, with minimal water supply, and with a jeep-full of grumpy and disoriented soldiers glowering at us helplessly. They also have no idea what to do or even, for the most part, why they are there, as we discover when we begin to engage them in conversation. Perhaps they have orders to wait here in ambush for the missing driver, who will sooner or later come back to reclaim his vehicle. The stand-off is complete: neither side can budge from its
position. It feels like a perfect condensation of the general stand-off in Palestine-Israel: terminal stasis, mental grid-lock, and no workable exit strategy. I confer with Amiel. He says he, too, can't imagine how this will end; perhaps it will be something unimaginable. All we can do is wait. Maybe Obama could solve it, I think to myself, though lately I've lost whatever hope I had that he would coerce Israel into making peace. I tell my friend Istvan, who has joined us today for the first time in the south Hebron hills, that on the basis of past experience I predict that at some point everyone will just get tired and go home, but I can't guess when this might happen. Could take hours. Istvan is in no hurry. He has brought along his Hebrew textbook, and we spend a while discussing the odd fate of vowels in Hebrew and Greek—the perfect topic for such occasions. If only I weren't so thirsty….

Suddenly, an apparition. Ezra, magically materializing, as always, out of thin air, pulls up in his car together with a tall, older man, perhaps 80 years old, who has something to say to the soldiers. His name is Benny Gefen, from Kabri in the Galilee. He doesn't waste words. In a deep voice, crisp with anger, he says to them: "For five years I served in the Palmach [the elite army before and during the 1948 war]. For twenty-nine years I did reserve duty in the paratroopers. My son was killed in the Golani reconnaissance unit on the Lebanese border. I want to tell you that today I am ashamed of the uniform I used to wear, the uniform you are wearing now. In the Palmach they always taught us: think of what the other is feeling, put yourself in his place. But you don't care what happens to the Palestinians. You deny them water, the most basic of all human needs, and you back up the settlers, who terrorize them every day. I'm ashamed." He turns away without another word, goes
back to the car, disappears, as if a Biblical prophet had wandered by for a moment. The soldiers, for the first time today, look a little nonplussed; one of them even, to my amazement and delight, appears to hang his head in shame. [See attached photo]

And after a while they clamber into their vehicle and drive away. This is our chance. We prepare to turn on the ignition and take off into the desert in the back-hoe, a dozen Ta'ayush activists and five or six Palestinian children flying toward freedom in the empty spaces as if we were in some black-comic action film. I rather like the idea, to tell the truth. Seems perfectly in harmony with the picaresque adventures of this day. But we're a minute or two too slow (none of us has driven a back-hoe before), and suddenly a new jeep full of soldiers comes bouncing over the rocks and takes its position on the hilltop above us. Too late. Stalemate resumes. We hear on the cellphones that the main group of activists has been stopped by the army just as they were about to move out to the other sites, and that the inevitable order declaring the whole area a Closed Military Zone has been issued. Clearly, a water convoy is a serious provocation. Later it turns out that Benny Gefen
emerged from the desert and delivered his sharp rebuke to the commanding officer there, too, and the officer, faced with so unequivocal a moral authority, had no choice but to back down.

Time passes, baked brittle, until at last we see one large contingent of our friends coming back to us, snaking over the track, and now the solution reveals itself: we will envelope the back-hoe on all sides and walk it past the soldiers (a driver has helpfully turned up); we will prevent them, by sheer numbers, from getting anywhere near it. It works like a charm. And though the military jeeps keep tailing us over the hills, soon we are back on a rickety platform tied to a tractor with two (not three) good wheels, jolting our way painfully and slowly over the rocks in the direction of the main road. Still thirsty: it's important on a day like this to know, in your own body, the torment of thirst in the desert. A good day's work. There's really no satisfaction quite like it. Maybe it does people good to taste the surreal—more real than anything real-- from time to time. Maybe years from now one of those soldiers will remember Benny Gefen's words, and they will change his
life. Maybe, just maybe, not all has been lost.

Our buses are ready to take us back the city, but there's one last picaresque scene. At the Al-Khadr terminal-checkpoint just south of Jerusalem, a young soldier comes aboard to check us out. "Where are you coming from?" he asks. From south Hebron. He scowls. "Jewish leftists….Pull over." He's invented a new category, a rather ugly one. There are, in his mind, good Jews (settlers and the like, and your run-of-the-mill paranoid nationalists), there are (uniformly bad) Palestinians, and there are, it now turns out, also bad Jews like us. Leftists. He wants to detain us. This is too much for Yehuda who leaps from the bus in search of the soldier's commanding officer. He's determined to lodge a complaint. The soldier refuses to give his name and serial number, as the law requires, and by now he's lost it, curses Yehuda, who responds with volcanic invective, and the verbal battle immediately spills over the huge terminal, back and forth, the cameras clicking, activists swarming
from the bus, until finally the commanding officer happens by-- a burly young Border Policeman, eager to calm things down and get the damned bus out of the terminal. The Border Police are not famous for their greatness of spirit or gentle ways, but this one surprises us. "Why are you so upset?" he asks Yehuda, disingenuous. "So what if he called you Jewish leftists? Aren't you proud of who you are? I'm a leftist myself, and proud of it, too."


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Atlanta Jews and Udi Aloni React to Toronto Film Festival

With the ending of the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) this past week, another stage for the struggles over Israeli-Palestinian narratives has closed, for now, at least. The Toronto Declaration, the protest letter signed by more than 1500 filmmakers, artists and other culture producers, succeeded in drawing attention to the Israel government's "Brand Israel" program, a deliberate effort to deploy Israeli arts and culture into the 'winning hearts and minds' front of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the protesters were widely condemned by Jewish leaders, among others, their message -- that they were protesting the Festival's collaboration with "Brand Israel" and not Israeli films -- did get through to some. Roger Ebert, the film critic, changed his mind after initially criticizing the protesters. Ebert wrote: "I thought of [the Festival's decision to showcase Tel Aviv] as an innocent goodwill gesture, but now realize it was part of a deliberate plan to "re-brand" Israel in Toronto, as a pilot for a larger such program. The Festival should never have agreed to be used like this." (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/09/tiff_8_the_destructive_grandst.html)

Jewish Peace News posted a few reports about the TIFF controversy in the past few weeks, including (http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-toronto-declaration-no.html) and (http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/2009/09/jvp-response-to-attacks-on-signers-of.html).

The signers of the Toronto Declaration were accused of many things, including blacklisting Israeli filmmakers and calling for a boycott of them, delegitimizing the city of Tel Aviv, and even calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. (Jewish Voice for Peace conveniently collected these accusations onto one page, which is hosted here: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_1212.shtml) I want to add to Jewish Peace News' reporting on the TIFF controversy by posting the following two responses to the accusations made against the signers of the Toronto Declaration:

1) A letter in support of Jane Fonda from Atlanta Jews "Atlanta Jews Reject Vilification and Stand Up for Jane Fonda" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-minkin/atlanta-jews-reject-vilif_b_285755.html)
2) Udi Aloni, "Seinfeld, you were wrong to condemn our Toronto protest" (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116151.html)

Letter from Atlanta Jews:

The extremist accusations made against the Toronto Declaration signatories aren't just empty talk but have real consequences in people's lives. After the accusations - including one by Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who said that "the Toronto Declaration was "nothing less than a call for the complete destruction of the Jewish state" - started to make their way around inboxes and media outlets, word got out that the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevent, or GCAPP, Jane Fonda's excellent Atlanta-based non-profit, might face repercussions. A number of prominent Jewish people in Atlanta spoke out in defense of Jane Fonda, her long relationship with Israel and important social justice work in Atlanta and beyond. The signers include prominent rabbis, a past president of the Jewish Federation, a member of the National Board of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and others. Their statement was published on the Huffington Post and picked up by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency
twice (http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/14/1007845/past-president-of-the-jewish-federation-of-greater-atlanta-says-jewish-atlantans-reject-vilification and http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/15/1007888/toronto-festival-calls-israeli-pr-strategy-into-question). It was published in this week's edition of the Atlanta Jewish Times.

In their statement, the Atlanta Jews focused on the need for open conversation about the state of Israel's behavior towards Palestinians. They emphasized that a person need not disagree with TIFF's decision to spotlight Tel Aviv or agree with the Toronto Declaration in order to absolutely oppose the "misrepresentations and accusations leveled against Jane Fonda" and the other signers. They say that "the claim that Fonda seeks Israel's destruction is shameless slander, pure and simple, and lobbing such an accusation makes it nearly impossible to hold an honest conversation about the present and future of Israel and the Palestinian Territories."

They defended the Toronto protesters' message that "ignoring one side's experience, no matter which side that is, is a surefire recipe for ongoing fighting and conflict. Not everyone agrees with that approach, but it's a valid one that aims for a just peace for all parties in the region."

This letter comes from the heart of mainstream Jewry and represents yet another opening in how American Jews talk about and relate to the state of Israel. It shows the willingness of this small group of people to defend an unpopular action and speak out on the very combustible issue of Israel, exposing themselves to condemnation and reproach from friends, family, community members and others. By taking a public stand against the demonizing of critics of the Israeli government, the signers of this letter have created more public space for holding real, honest conversations about Israel.

(Jane Fonda wrote her own statement clarifying her position on the issues raised in the Toronto Declaration. It's important to note that while she criticizes certain parts of the statement, she chose to keep her name signed onto it. You can read her full statement here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-fonda/expanding-the-narrative_b_286406.html)


Udi Aloni's letter:

In his response to the counter-declaration signed by Jerry Seinfeld, Sacha Baron Cohen and Natalie Portman, among others, Udi Aloni reiterates the points he has made before, challenging Israeli artists to refuse cooperation with "the Israeli propaganda machine," to refuse to be ambassadors for Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and noting that the directors of "Waltz with Bashir" and the new international hit, "Lebanon," have yet to speak out against the occupation or address their Palestinian victims in Lebanon.

The ongoing suffering of and assaults against Palestinian is where we should be looking. Aloni explains, "I am against all forms of boycott against arts, regardless of the political view it conveys, but it is my right to protest against the cynical use of artists, us in Israel and you, the Jewish-American artists. If it is real love of Israel which is in your hearts, please help us end the occupation, advise us on reaching a worldwide audience, correct us if you think we are overdoing it at times, but don't cooperate with the occupation itself."


On the eve of Yom Kippur, I wish for all of us - JPN readers, Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and Palestinians - to be written and sealed in the Book of Life, and may our commitments to justice, human rights and peace bear fruit beyond our wildest and most positive dreams in the coming year.

Sarah Anne Minkin

................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The battlefield of legitimacy

"Despite ... limitations," writes Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, "the [Goldstone] report is an historic contribution to the Palestinian struggle for justice, an impeccable documentation of a crucial chapter in their victimization under occupation. Its impact will be felt most impressively on the growing civil society movement throughout the world to impose cultural, sporting, and academic boycotts, as well as to discourage investment, trade, and tourism with Israel. It may yet be the case that as in the anti-apartheid struggle the shift in the relation of forces in the Palestinian favor will occur not through diplomacy or as a result of armed resistance, but on the symbolic battlefield of legitimacy that has become global in scope, what might be described as the new political relevance of moral and legal globalization."

Racheli Gai & Rela Mazali

-----------------------------------------

http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/09/21/why-the-goldstone-report-
matters/


Richard Falk: Why The Goldstone Report Matters

"So why did the Israeli government boycott the commission? The real answer is quite simple: they knew full well that the commission, any commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did reach."Uri Avnery (Israeli peace activist, and former Knesset member), "On the Goldstone Report" 19 Sept 2009

Richard Goldstone, former judge of South Aftica's Constitutional Court, the first prosecutor at The Hague on behalf of the International Criminal Court for Former Yugolavia, and anti-apartheid campaigner reports that he was most reluctant to take on the job of chairing the UN fact-finding mission charged with investigating allegations of war crimes committed by Israel and Hamas during the three week Gaza War of last winter. Goldstone explains that his reluctance was due to the issue being "deeply charged and politically loaded," and was overcome because he and his fellow commissioners were "professionals committed to an objective, fact-based investigation," adding that "above all, I accepted because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war," as well as the duty to protect civilians to the extent possible in combat zones. The four-person fact-finding mission was composed of widely respected and highly qualified individuals, including the distinguished international law scholar, Christine Chinkin, a professor at the London School of Economics. Undoubtedly adding complexity to Goldstone's decision is the fact that he is Jewish, with deep emotional and family ties to Israel and Zionism, bonds solidified by his long association with several organizations active in Israel.

Despite the impeccable credentials of the commission members, and the worldwide reputation of Richard Goldstone as a person of integrity and political balance, Israel refused cooperation from the outset. It did not even allow the UN undertaking to enter Israel or the Palestinian Territories, forcing reliance on the Egyptian government to facilitate entry at Rafah to Gaza. As Uri Avnery observes, however much Israel may attack the commission report as one-sided and unfair, the only plausible explanation of its refusal to cooperate with fact-finding and taking the opportunity to tell its side of the story was that it had nothing to tell that could hope to overcome the overwhelming evidence of the Israeli failure to carry out its attacks on Gaza last winter in accordance with the international law of war. No credible international commission could reach any set of conclusions other than those reached by the Goldstone Report on the central allegations.

In substantive respects the Goldstone Report adds nothing new. Its main contribution is to confirm widely reported and analyzed Israeli military practices during the Gaza War. There had been several reliable reports already issued, condemning Israel's tactics as violations of the laws of war and international humanitarian law, including by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a variety of respected Israeli human rights groups. Journalists and senior United Nations civil servants had reached similar conclusions. Perhaps, most damning of all the material available before the Goldstone Report was the publication of a document entitled "Breaking the Silence," containing commentaries by thirty members of the Israel Defense Forces who had taken part in Operation Cast Lead (the Israeli official name for the Gaza War). These soldiers spoke movingly about the loose rules of engagement issued by their commanders that explains why so little care was taken to avoid civilian casualties. The sense emerges from what these IDF soldiers who were in no sense critical of Israel or even of the Gaza War as such, that Israeli policy emerged out of a combination of efforts 'to teach the people of Gaza a lesson for their support of Hamas' and to keep IDF casualties as close to zero as possible even if meant massive death and destruction for innocent Palestinians.

Given this background of a prior international consensus on the unlawfulness of Operation Cast Lead, we must first wonder why this massive report of 575 pages has been greeted with such alarm by Israel and given so much attention in the world media. It added little to what was previously known. Arguably, it was more sensitive to Israel's contentions that Hamas was guilty of war crimes by firing rockets into its territory than earlier reports had been. And in many ways the Goldstone Report endorses the misleading main line of the Israeli narrative by assuming that Israel was acting in self-defense against a terrorist adversary. The report focuses its criticism on Israel's excessive and indiscriminate uses of force. It does this by examining the evidence surrounding a series of incidents involving attacks on civilians and non-military targets. The report also does draw attention to the unlawful blockade that has restricted the flow of food, fuel, and medical supplies to subsistence levels in Gaza before, during, and since Operation Cast Lead. Such a blockade is a flagrant instance of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention setting forth the legal duties of an occupying power.

All along Israel had rejected international criticism of its conduct of military operations in the Gaza War, claiming that the IDF was the most moral fighting force on the face of the earth. The IDF conducted some nominal investigations of alleged unlawful behavior that consistently vindicated the military tactics relied upon and steadfastly promised to protect any Israeli military officer or political leader internationally accused of war crimes. In view of this extensive background of confirmed allegation and angry Israeli rejection, why has the Goldstone Report been treated in Tel Aviv as a bombshell that is deeply threatening to Israel's stature as a sovereign state? Israel's president, Shimon Peres, calling the report "a mockery of history" that "fails to distinguish the aggressor and a state exercising the right of self-defense," insisting that it "legitimizes terrorist activity, the pursuit of murder and death." More commonly Israel's zealous defenders condemned the report as one-sided, biased, reaching foregone conclusions, and emanating from the supposedly bastion of anti-Israeli attitudes at the UN's Human Rights Council. This line of response to any criticism of Israel's behavior in occupied Palestine, especially if it comes from the UN or human rights NGOs is to cry "foul play!" and avoid any real look at the substance of the charges. It is an example of what I call 'the politics of deflection,' attempting to shift the attention of an audience away from the message to the messenger. The more damning the criticism, the more ferocious the response. From this perspective, the Goldstone Report obviously hit the bullsye!

Considered more carefully, there are some good reasons for Israel's panicked reaction to this damning report. First, it does come with the backing of an eminent international personality who cannot credibly be accused of anti-Israel bias, making it harder to deflect attention from the findings no matter how loud the screaming of 'foul play.' Any fair reading of the report would show that it was balanced, was eminently mindful of Israel's arguments relating to security, and indeed gave Israel the benefit of the doubt on some key issues. Secondly, the unsurprising findings are coupled with strong recommendations that do go well beyond previous reports. Two are likely causing the Israeli leadership great worry: the report recommends strongly that if Israel and Hamas do not themselves within six months engage in an investigation and followup action meeting international standards of objectivity with respect to these violations of the law of war, then the Security Council should be brought into the picture, being encouraged to consider referring the whole issue of Israeli and Hamas accountability to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Even if Israel is spared this indignity by the diplomatic muscle of the United States, and possibly some European governments, the negative public relations implications of a failure to abide by this report could be severe.

Thirdly, whatever happens in the UN System, and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the weight of the report will be felt by world public opinion. Ever since the Gaza War the solidity of Jewish support for Israel has been fraying at the edges, and this will likely now fray much further. More globally, a very robust boycott and divestment movement was gaining momentum ever since the Gaza War, and the Goldstone Report can only lend added support to such initiatives. There is a growing sense around the world that the only chance for the Palestinians to achieve some kind of just peace depends on the outcome over the symbols of legitimacy, what I have called the Legitimacy War. Increasingly, the Palestinians have been winning this second non-military war. Such a war fought on a global political battlefield is what eventually and unexpectedly undermined the apartheid regime in South Africa, and has become much more threatening to the Israeli sense of security than has armed Palestinian resistance.

A fourth reason for Israeli worry stemming from the report, is the green light given to national courts throughout the world to enforce international criminal law against Israelis suspects should they travel abroad and be detained for prosecution or extradition in some third country. Such individuals could be charged with war crimes arising from their involvement in the Gaza War. The report in this way encourages somewhat controversial reliance on what is known among lawyers as 'universal jurisdiction,' that is, the authority of courts in any country to detain for extradition or to prosecute individuals for violations of international criminal law regardless of where the alleged offenses took place. Reaction in the Israeli media reveals that Israeli citizens are already anxious about being apprehended during foreign travel. As one law commentator put it in the Israeli press, "From now on, not only soldiers should be careful when they travel abroad, but also ministers and legal advisers." It is well to recall that Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions calls on states throughout the world "to respect and ensure respect" for international humanitarian law "in all circumstances." Remembering the efforts in 1998 of several European courts to prosecute Augusto Pinochet for crimes committed while he was head of state in Chile, is a reminder that national courts can be used to prosecute political and military leaders for crimes committed elsewhere than in the territory of the prosecuting state.

Of course, Israel will fight back. It has already launched a media and diplomatic blitz designed to portray the report as so one-sided as to be unworthy of serious attention. The United States Government has already disappointingly appeared to endorse this view, and repudiate the central recommendation in the Goldstone Report that the Security Council be assigned the task of implementing its findings. The American Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, evidently told a closed session of the Security Council on September 16, just a day after the report was issued, that "[w]e have serious concerns about many recommendations in the report." Elaborating on this, Ambassador Rice indicated that the UN Human Rights Council, which has no implementing authority, is the only proper venue for any action to be taken on the basis of the report. The initial struggle will likely be whether to follow the recommendation of the report to have the Security Council refer the issues of accountability to the International Criminal Court, which could be blocked by a veto from the United States or other permanent members.

There are reasons to applaud the forthrightness and comprehensiveness of the report, its care, and scrupulous willingness to conclude that both Israel and Hamas seem responsible for behavior that appears to constitute war crimes, if not crimes against humanity. Although Israel has succeeded in having the issue of one-sidedness focus on fairness to Israel, there are also some reasons to insist that the report falls short of Palestinian hopes. For one thing, the report takes for granted, the dubious proposition that Israel was entitled to act against Gaza in self-defense, thereby excluding inquiry into whether crimes against the peace in the form of aggression had taken place by the launching of the attack. In this respect, the report takes no notice of the temporary ceasefire that had cut the rocket fire directed at Israel practically to zero in the months preceding the attacks, nor of Hamas' repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza. Further it was Israel that had seemed to provoke the breakdown of the ceasefire when it launched a lethal attack on Hamas militants in Gaza on November 4, 2008. Israel disregarded this seemingly available diplomatic alternative to war to achieve security on its borders. Recourse to war, even if the facts justify self-defense, is according to international law, a last resort. By ignoring Israel's initiation of a one-sided war the Goldstone Report accepts the dubious central premise of Operation Cast Lead, and avoids making a finding of aggression.

Also, disappointing was the failure of the report to comment upon the Israeli denial of a refugee option to the civilian population trapped in the tiny, crowded combat zone that constitutes the Gaza Strip. Israel closed all crossings during the period of the Gaza War, allowing only Gaza residents with foreign passports to leave. It is rare in modern warfare that civilians are not given the option to become refugees. Although there is no specific provision of the laws of war requiring a state at war to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, it seems like an elementary humanitarian requirement, and should at least have been mentioned either as part of customary international law or as a gap in the law that should be filled. The importance of this issue is reinforced by many accounts of the widespread post-traumatic stress experienced by the civilians in Gaza, especially children that comprise 53% of the population. One might also notice that the report accords considerable attention to Gilad Shalit, the one IDF prisoner held by Hamas in Gaza, recommending his release on humanitarian grounds, while making no comparable suggestion to Israel although it is holding thousands of Palestinians under conditions of harsh detention.

In the end, the Goldstone Report is unlikely to break the inter-governmental refusal to challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza or to induce the United Nations to challenge Israeli impunity in any meaningful way. Depending on backroom diplomacy, the United States may or may not be able to avoid playing a public role of shielding Israel from accountability for its behavior during the Gaza War or its continuing refusal to abide by international humanitarian law by lifting the blockade that continues to impinge daily upon the health of the entire population of Gaza.

Despite these limitations, the report is an historic contribution to the Palestinian struggle for justice, an impeccable documentation of a crucial chapter in their victimization under occupation. Its impact will be felt most impressively on the growing civil society movement throughout the world to impose cultural, sporting, and academic boycotts, as well as to discourage investment, trade, and tourism with Israel. It may yet be the case that as in the anti-apartheid struggle the shift in the relation of forces in the Palestinian favor will occur not through diplomacy or as a result of armed resistance, but on the symbolic battlefield of legitimacy that has become global in scope, what might be described as the new political relevance of moral and legal globalization.


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Friday, September 18, 2009

Update: Toronto Declaration - No Celebration of Occupation

An update from the organizers of the Toronto Declaration.
The declaration, with the attention and support it got, and despite (or perhaps because?) of the vicious backlash, has managed to move the spotlight from Tel Aviv, to the Israel/Palestine conflict. NOT what the "rebranding Israel" campaign was hoping for...

Note that the petition initiated by Jewish Voice for Peace, encouraging activists to stand against the ugly attacks, is part of the update.
Consider signing it and forwarding to others.

Racheli Gai.

Support for the "Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation" has been tremendous. We sincerely thank every individual and organization that has joined in our efforts. We also wanted to share some important updates with you regarding the Toronto Declaration:

Although TIFF co-director Cameron Bailey vehemently denied any links between the spotlight and Brand Israel, the Canadian Jewish News reported (Sept 16/09) that the Mayor of Tel Aviv confirmed the involvement of the Israeli government in TIFF's City-to-City Spotlight. According to the report, Mayor Ron Huldai "said that while the City to City program was initiated by the festival, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs was involved as part of its Brand Israel media and advertising campaign, which was launched last year." We are glad to see that the connections between the Spotlight and the Brand Israel campaign have been clarified; we had hoped these answers would come from TIFF directly.

A reminder: we are protesting because we could not stand idly by as Tel Aviv, the heart of Israel’s economic and military power, was being celebrated as if this was an apolitical decision. Palestinians in Gaza continue to live under a brutal Israeli siege that has turned Gaza into what countless observers have described as an open-air prison, with access even to food and medicine greatly restricted. We protested the spotlight to call attention to a humanitarian emergency and an ongoing crime. The UN fact finding mission on the Gaza conflict led by the renowned South African constitutional court judge Richard Goldstone has just concluded that Israel indeed committed war crimes in Gaza earlier this year, and further that there is evidence that Israel may have committed crimes against humanity. This was why we said "no celebration of Occupation," facts deliberately ignored in most press reports.

As you have no doubt heard, our petition is being falsely accused of "blacklisting" Israeli filmmakers. Anyone who had read the letter knows this is untrue. The irony is that we couldn't find a single newspaper to publish our letter, despite the fact that it is now an international phenomenon. And unlike our critics, we don't have the resources to buy advertisements that reiterate the editorial line that the newspaper has already taken. And yet, despite the bullying we are all facing, we have to remember that this is only a sideshow. Many Palestinian artists and filmmakers, denied freedom of movement by Israel's Occupation and pass system, are de facto boycotted, unable to communicate with their communities or travel freely. The double standard is mind-boggling and, slowly, these are the issues we are helping to put under a spotlight.

The stated goal of the Brand Israel campaign is to change the subject from these kinds of human rights abuses to more pleasant topics like art and medicine. Thanks to your work and support, in the case of the Toronto International Film Festival, the strategy has failed miserably. The JTA, the leading Jewish news agency, just reported that, "rather than talking about Israel's rich cinematic culture, the buzz this week in Toronto has centered on the one thing Israeli officials had sought to avoid: the conflict with the Palestinians." We firmly believe that is exactly where it belongs.

Because of your courage in speaking out early, you are now inspiring others to raise their voices as well. Yesterday, the respected U.S.-based non-profit Jewish Voices for Peace launched a petition in support of the signatories of the Toronto Declaration. The petition states: "I stand with you against the bullying attacks which are attempting to silence discussion and dissent regarding Israel. Thank you for your courageous stand. You speak for me." In less than 24 hours, roughly 7,000 people have added their names. Check out the petition here and encourage your friends to sign. http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/t/9047/p/dia/action/public/?action_key=1433 We're sure you will join us in thanking those signers as well.

So this is just an update to let you know that, despite all the overheated language and misinformation, our message is getting out and we are opening up the debate that should have happened at TIFF. We have managed to turn the Spotlight on the festival and asked it to take responsibility for the political choice it made to celebrate Tel Aviv and make TIFF this year, the year of the Gaza assault, a showpiece for the Brand Israel propaganda campaign.

Defamation, intimidation, and diversion won't stop us from protesting crimes that no amount of rebranding can erase. Please take the time to fight back against the misinformation: write letters, post comments, write op-eds and link to the original letter as much as you can, so people can judge for themselves.

For regular updates on the Toronto Declaration please visit: http://torontodeclaration.blogspot.com/


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net

Thursday, September 17, 2009

If I Forget Thee O Gaza

Nine months after the assault on Gaza, a high-level UN Fact Finding Mission presented substantial evidence for the claim that Israel committed numerous, systematic war crimes in the course of the assault. Notably, the mission also claimed the distinct complicity of the international community in these crimes, through its long-term, consistent extension of impunity to Israel's governments and military. Suspected war crimes, the mission says, were also committed by the Palestinian armed groups that targeted civilians in the southern part of Israel.

The work of the mission, headed by the internationally esteemed Justice Richard Goldstone, was obstructed by Israeli authorities which barred mission members from entering Israel and the Occupied Territories. Following the report, Israeli media and officials are retrospectively debating the wisdom of this policy.

The first item below is a press release issued by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, summarizing the gist of the report and providing links to the full 574 page document.

The following items offer a glimpse of various responses to the report in the influential Israeli daily Haaretz and of the range of the topics it has tabled.

The second item links to, and quotes from, a report on the mission's findings, published September 16th in Haaretz, illustrating both the impunity highlighted and condemned by the mission and indicating some of the report's potential ramifications for individual Israeli military commanders.

The third item links to, and quotes from, an opinion piece by Haaretz commentator Aluf Ben, interpreting the report as an added leverage point through which the US may manipulate Israel. Implicitly, and without condemnation, this view in fact reiterates the mission's claim that Israel's impunity, granted by the international community, played a major role in enabling its war crimes. Ben, in characteristic "national security" tones, warned that adopting the mission's findings could endanger the US in "set[ing] a precedent against other militaries fighting terror in civilian areas". Nevertheless, he subsequently criticizes Israel's excess in the assault on Gaza, though it remains unclear whether on grounds of injustice or imprudence. Still, reflecting an awareness of a possible, ongoing shift in international public opinion, Ben concludes that, "the most serious strategic threat Israel brought upon itself with the Gaza offensive … [is] that it saps international legitimacy for a
similar operation in the future."

The last three items are link to, and quote from, opinion pieces, published September 17th, including an Haaretz editorial, admonishing both politicians and the Israeli public to recognize the gravity of the mission's findings and, moreover, to act on them decisively.

In the fourth item, Amira Hass, unpacking and refuting Israel's regular set of strategies for shouting down accusations of war crimes (whether by human rights groups or the Goldstone mission), implies that failing to recognize and act on these accusations amounts to an admission that the criminal practices described in detail by the report are in fact normal procedure for the Israeli army and leadership.

In the fifth item, Gideon Levy exposes the groundlessness of implications that Judge Goldstone's work was prejudiced by anti-Israel or antisemitic sentiments and calls on the government to issue personal arrest warrants and initiate due process against the individuals bearing direct responsibility for the criminal acts in questionâ€"that is, against the former Prime Mininster, Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff.

The last item, the September 17th Haaretz editorial, makes a clear call to appoint a state investigative commission of the highest level.

Notably, all these commentators, both those who accept the mission's findings and those who argue against them, are united in noting the severe erosion of Israel's legitimacy in international public opinion. The report, researched, compiled and presented within this context, makes a major contribution to this process of erosion. In my view, however, it remains to be seen whether the impunity granted Israel by (most important) the US and Europe will indeed erode as well and whether this will lead to a future restriction of Israel's freedom of criminalinality.

Rela Mazali

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full report can be found on the web page of the Fact Finding Mission:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

For further media information: contact Doune Porter, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Tel: 1-917-367-3292 or +41-79-477-2576. Email: dporter@ohchr.org

PRESS RELEASE
15 September 2009

UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza conflict; calls for end to impunity

NEW YORK / GENEVA â€" The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.

The four members of the Mission* were appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council in April with a mandate to “To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

In compiling the 574- page report, which contains detailed analysis of 36 specific incidents in Gaza, as well as a number of others in the West Bank and Israel, the Mission conducted 188 individual interviews, reviewed more 10,000 pages of documentation, and viewed some 1,200 photographs, including satellite imagery, as well as 30 videos. The mission heard 38 testimonies during two separate public hearings held in Gaza and Geneva, which were webcast in their entirety. The decision to hear participants from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva rather than in situ was taken after Israel denied the Mission access to both locations. Israel also failed to respond to a comprehensive list of questions posed to it by the Mission. Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated with the Mission.

The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip. During the Israeli military operation, code-named “Operation Cast Lead,” houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were destroyed. Families are still
living amid the rubble of their former homes long after the attacks ended, as reconstruction has been impossible due to the continuing blockade. More than 1,400 people were killed during the military operation.

Significant trauma, both immediate and long-term, has been suffered by the population of Gaza. The Report notes signs of profound depression, insomnia and effects such as bed-wetting among children. The effects on children who witnessed killings and violence, who had thought they were facing death, and who lost family members would be long lasting, the Mission found, noting in its Report that some 30 per cent of children screened at UNRWA schools suffered mental health problems.

The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.

The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.

The report underlines that in most of the incidents investigated by it, and described in the report, loss of life and destruction caused by Israeli forces during the military operation was a result of disrespect for the fundamental principle of “distinction” in international humanitarian law that requires military forces to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects at all times. The report states that “Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, the Mission finds that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions.”

For example, Chapter XI of the report describes a number of specific incidents in which Israeli forces launched “direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome.” These are, it says, cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack and concludes they amount to war crimes. The incidents described include:
• Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;
• Seven incidents concerning “the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so;”
• The targeting of a mosque at prayer time, resulting in the death of 15 people.

A number of other incidents the Report concludes may constitute war crimes include a direct and intentional attack on the Al Quds Hospital and an adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza City.

The Report also covers violations arising from Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators, sometimes resulting in deaths, increased closures, restriction of movement and house demolitions. The detention of Palestinian Legislative Council members, the Report says, effectively paralyzed political life in the OPT.

The Mission found that through activities such as the interrogation of political activists and repression of criticism of its military actions, the Israeli Government contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent was not tolerated.

The Fact-Finding Mission also found that the repeated acts of firing rockets and mortars into Southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups “constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity,” by failing to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population. “The launching of rockets and mortars which cannot be aimed with sufficient precisions at military targets breaches the fundamental principle of distinction,” the report says. “Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population.”

The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks “have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel,” as well as “loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property, thereby eroding the economic and cultural life of the affected communities and severely affecting the economic and social rights of the population.”

The Mission urges the Palestinian armed groups holding the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to release him on humanitarian grounds, and, pending his release, give him the full rights accorded to a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions including visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Report also notes serious human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial executions of Palestinians, by the authorities in Gaza and by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action, the Report says. The Mission found the Government of Israel had not carried out any credible investigations into alleged violations. It recommended that the UN Security Council require Israel to report to it, within six months, on investigations and prosecutions it should carry out with regard to the violations identified in its Report. The Mission further recommends that the Security Council set up a body of independent experts to report to it on the progress of the Israeli investigations and prosecutions. If the experts’ reports do not indicate within six months that good faith, independent proceedings are taking place, the Security Council should refer the situation in Gaza to the ICC Prosecutor. The Mission recommends that the same independent expert body also report to the Security Council on proceedings undertaken by the relevant Gaza authorities with
regard to crimes committed by the Palestinian side. As in the case of Israel, if within six months there are no good faith independent proceedings conforming to international standards in place, the Council should refer the situation to the ICC Prosecutor.

* The members of the Fact Finding Mission are:
Justice Richard Goldstone, Head of Mission; former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa; former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Professor Christine Chinkin , Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science; member of the high-level fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun (2008).
Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders; member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004).
Colonel Desmond Travers , former Officer in Ireland’s Defence Forces; member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations.

The full report can be found on the web page of the Fact Finding Mission: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

For further media information: contact Doune Porter, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Tel: 1-917-367-3292 or +41-79-477-2576. Email: dporter@ohchr.org
---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115007.html

Last update - 14:15 16/09/2009

'UN report accusing Israel of war crimes is prize for terrorism'

By Haaretz Service

The defense establishment is making efforts to extend legal aid to officers who may face indictment on war crimes charges abroad, Israel Radio reported. …

The deputy foreign minister, who is currently on a trip to Washington, told Israel Radio that the U.S. and the European Union both opposed the UN commission of inquiry. …

[Deputy foreign minister] Ayalon said he planned to meet Wednesday with U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to discuss ways to minimize the report's damage to Israel before it is submitted to the Security Council for deliberations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1114919.html

Last update - 08:08 16/09/2009

Aluf Benn / In wake of Gaza probe, how can Israel go to war again?

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

If its findings and recommendations are accepted, the International Criminal Court in The Hague could call a summit meeting between the leaders of Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority on the defendants' stand.

But the ultimate adjudicator on the report's fate will be Barack Obama, who now has another whip with which to flay Benjamin Netanyahu - if you don't freeze the settlements and agree to concessions, legal proceedings will commence against those responsible for Operation Cast Lead. …

Second, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak (prime and defense ministers respectively during Cast Lead) erred in ignoring the Gazan population's suffering, and in allowing the death and destruction the IDF perpetrated during the Gaza campaign.

Lengthening the operation and choosing to send in ground forces - decisions which won widespread support among the Israeli public - wrought untold damage to Israel's international image, and bolstered the legitimacy of Hamas. …

Last, and perhaps most important, the Goldstone report reinforces the most serious strategic threat Israel brought upon itself with the Gaza offensive, in that it saps international legitimacy for a similar operation in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115232.html

Last update - 03:37 17/09/2009

Amira Hass / The one thing worse than denying the Gaza report

By Amira Hass, Haaretz Correspondent

… The Goldstone Commission's findings are in line with what anyone who didn't shut his or her eyes and ears to witness testimony already knows. … [But]
Like the Serbs of yore, we Israelis continue thinking it's the world that is wrong, and only we who are right.

Israel struck a civilian population that remains under its control, it didn't fulfill its obligation to distinguish between civilians and militants and used military force disproportionate with the tangible threat to its own civilians. Air Force drones and helicopters fired deadly missiles at civilians, many of them children; the Tank Corps and Navy shelled civilian neighborhoods with weapons not designed for precision strikes; soldiers received orders to fire on rescue crews; others fired on civilians carrying white flags; and others killed people in or near their homes. Troops used Gazans as human shields, soldiers detained civilians in abusive conditions, the army used white phosphorus shells in dense civilian areas and, on the eve of withdrawing, destroyed wide residential, industrial and agricultural areas.

There is only thing worse than denial - the admission that the IDF indeed acted as has been described, but that these actions are both normal and appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115240.html

Thu., September 17, 2009

Disgrace in The Hague

By Gideon Levy

… It has become superfluous to ask whether war crimes were committed in Gaza, because authoritative and clear-cut answers have already been given. So the follow-up question has to be addressed: Who's to blame? If war crimes were committed in Gaza, it follows that there are war criminals at large among us. They must be held accountable and punished.
…
Cast Lead was an unrestrained assault on a besieged, totally unprotected civilian population which showed almost no signs of resistance during this operation. It should have raised an immediate furor in Israel. It was a Sabra and Chatila, this time carried out by us. But there was a storm of protest in this country following Sabra and Chatila, whereas after Cast Lead mere citations were dished out.

It should have been enough just to look at the horrendous disparity in casualties - 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli - to shake the whole of Israeli society. There was no need to wait for Goldstone to understand that a terrible thing had occurred between the Palestinian David and the Israeli Goliath. But the Israelis preferred to look away, or stand with their children on the hills around Gaza and cheer on the carnage-causing bombs.
…
It would be better for Israel to summon up the courage to change course while there is still time, investigating the matter genuinely and not by means of the Israel Defense Forces' grotesque inquiries, without waiting for Goldstone.
…
Now that the report is on its way to the ICC and arrest warrants could soon be issued, all that remains to be done is to immediately set up a state inquiry commission in order to avert disgrace in The Hague.

-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115243.html

Thu., September 17, 2009

A committee of inquiry is needed

By Haaretz Editorial

… the best of those offering explanations will find it difficult to invalidate the findings of the Goldstone Commission - which analyzed dozens of incidents, interviewed 188 people and reviewed thousands of documents. Moreover, a good deal of the findings are consistent with a number of reports filed by voluntary groups, which pointed out violations of the rules of warfare and of human rights during the fighting and the prolonged siege of the Strip.

The cloud of Cast Lead will not dissipate on its own. Israel benefited from the decision to appoint a commission of inquiry following the Sabra and Chatila massacre that occurred during the first Lebanon war. Instead of a futile attempt to reject the report and undermine the legitimacy of the Goldstone Commission, the government would do better to establish a state commission of inquiry to thoroughly investigate the serious accusations that were placed this week on Israel's doorstep. Such a step could prevent a more severe entanglement.


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Alistair Welchman
------------
Jewish Peace News archive and blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
------------
Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to http://www.jewishpeacenews.net