Falk, Jewish UN humanitarian law expert on Free Gaza ship hijacking

I think I mentioned the Free Gaza movement at least once. More news today about the hijacking of the 7th of these ships who break the Israeli illegal blockade (I had the pleasure of being there for the arrival of the 3rd -- breath of fresh air and hope.)

UN's Richard Falk: IDF seizure of Gaza-bound ship is 'criminal' [Reuters. In Haaretz today]

A United Nations human rights investigator on Thursday called Israel's seizure of a ship carrying relief aid for the Gaza Strip "unlawful" and said its blockade of the territory constituted a "continuing crime against humanity". Israeli authorities on Tuesday intercepted the vessel, which was also carrying 21 pro-Palestinian activists, and said it would not be permitted to enter Gaza coastal waters because of security risks in the area and its existing naval blockade. Richard Falk, an American Jew and the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said the move was part of Israel's "cruel blockade of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza" in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting any form of collective punishment against "an occupied people".

Falk, who is an expert on international law, said Israel's two-year blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza restricted vital supplies such as food, medicine and fuel to "bare subsistence levels". The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in a report this week that Israel was also halting entry to Gaza of building materials and spare parts needed to repair damage from its 22-day invasion late last December. "Such a pattern of continuing blockade under these conditions amounts to such a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions as to constitute a continuing crime against humanity," Falk said in a statement released in Geneva. Prior to leaving Cyprus, the ship was inspected by Cypriot authorities in response to Israeli demands to determine whether it carried any weapons, according to the UN investigator. "None were found and Israeli authorities were so informed." "Nonetheless, the 21 peace activists on the boat were arrested, held in captivity and have been charged with 'illegal entry' to Israel even though they had no intention of going to Israel," Falk added.

***

The article goes on to give the retort of Israel's Ambassador to the UN, which contends that:

"Clearly the purpose of that ship was to create a buzz and serve as a propaganda vehicle against Israel"

That is called chutzpah, as the only reason the ship draws attention is because Israel not only kidnapped the people on the ship, but is choking Gaza and strangulating it. Let's remember one simple fact here: the ship left Cyprus, sailed international waters, with passengers as dangerous as a Nobel Prize Laureate, and tried to sail into a territory on which Israel has no claim, a.k.a. Gaza.

Oh - and it carried humanitarian goods - maybe some pasta, which Israel deems--in its wisdom as the 'natural' rulers of Arabs in Palestine--cannot be entrusted to the Palestinians of Gaza.

If you want another piece of irony, after hijacking and kidnapping the passengers of the ship and bringing them against their will to Israel, Israel charged them with "illegal entry."

If Iran did stuff like this, we would be SCREAMING and saying they are breaking international law, are trespassing beyond their national authority, they are a pariah state and must be brought to abide by the rules of human civilization.

With all due respect, I say the same goes for Israel. Period. It's not more complicated than that. Don't give me any incoherent security ramblings and justifications. This is a clear case of unlawful oppressive behavior.(1)

This conflict is not all that complicated once you look at things as they come.

I--for one--would like to see the US Ambassador to the UN call for the end of such behavior.

Period. The US will have no credibility in the Middle East until it does so -- apart from that of dollars, which I hear might run out if Beijing calls it off, and that of the gun.

If you are priviledged enough to be a citizen of a free country with some international clout, consider writing to your elected officials and asking them to respond to this outrageous action. (For US citizens, it's really easy by going to http://www.congress.org/).

Peace, one day. Happy July 4th to the Americans- hoping Palestinians can soon know in-dependence.

Elrig

(1) Of course I have a hidden agenda. It's not so much the fate of internationals on a goodwill mission that worries me. If we taken on that battle, and the next and the next and the next, pretty soon it's the entire premise of the subjection of the Gazans to the capriciousness of Israel that we want to take down. We don't want to improve the conditions in which an entire population is held hostage. We want the occupation to end. (And if you don't know that Gaza is occupied, you haven't been reading.)

ps: Those of you who visit somewhat regularly this site are of multiple origins and background: Humanist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, even a few goold old Leftists, and yes even a few Conservatives who deserve a medal for coming. For those of you enclined to believe we need a "Higher Power" to get us out of that mess while we try our best, "people of faith" [in the commonly accepted sense, which is a misnommer as I think more people are "of faith" than is accounted for], there's a site (Christian site) trying to encourage prayer for peace--for a real peace. Here's a plug for it: http://prayforrealpeace.blogspot.com/

Picture Source: http://students.stlawu.edu/theweave/images/FreeGaza003.jpg

The most moral army in the world

This video was shot about a year ago, and a judgement finally came through.

Watch it here in raw footage, or whatch on youtube with commentary.

The point is not this incident. The point is that it is not a rare event. It is the reflection of the concept of "damam mutar" ("permissible blood") in Hebrew. In this case, the point seems to have been only to "teach a lesson." How do you think that philosophy translated when troops (aka kids with guns) were sent into Gaza in December. Yes - nearly 1,400 deaths.

When a person, a recognized human being, goes crazy and gets violent, the police arrests him.
When an Arab demonstrates against illegal actions by Israel, he gets shot by rubber bullets.
If an Arab gets violent, the police, army, or any rambo with a gun simply kill him.
If a Palestinian reacts to settler violence, the army and police turn on him or let armed settlers settle the account.
Sometimes, you don't have to do anything to get killed.

Israel thinks that as long as it can avoid moral equivalency debates about Apartheid (we're way past this) or Nazi Germany (the forbidden comparison), it can hold its moral ground.
My view is that, no--Nazi policies and Israeli policies are clearly not the same. Genocide motivated by racial hatred is not the same as the conquest of land. The problem as I see it, is that ultimately to maintain the momentum for conquest, the control of the people, you cannot avoid drifting into racial hatred. It simply would be unbearable if an Arab were a person, with full rank and rights, created in the same divine image. And so, a group of people have to become less than human, so the conquest can continue. Their blood has to become acceptable collateral. And pretty soon your young people in uniform, or your colonists in their beards, simply don't see why they shouldn't shoot, or grab a rock to break a leg, humiliate or kill one of these lesser people. Look at the video - it's not the most horrible crime ever. But it is so cold-bloodedly calculated and implemented. You simply cannot do that to your equal.

So, genocide is not conquest of land. But guess what, racial hatred is racial hatred--under any sky. A bullet in the leg--a bullet in the head-- do the same thing to an Arab, a Jew, or a Goy.

And forgive me for saying this, but... we are talking about a political and national movement which claims its roots in the Jewish faith - not in national socialism! Since when is Judaism satisfied to simply not be morally equivalent to one of the most abject and inhuman political philosophies of history? We've come a long way down this road of perdition.

There's a key Jewish concept that comes to mind when I think of this, or when I rewatch this video. The concept is simple, it is called 'repentance.'

Shalom.

Elrig
ps: If you're going to reply that the Israeli judgement of this crime is sign that things are not perfect but that there is a justice, I'll ask you how many news from exactions of settlers you have read in the last 10 days? How many deaths in Ni'ilin in the last 3 months? How many home demolitions? What about Tristan Anderson? How about the number of lethal gun shots inflected by police and army? And finally -- do you think there would have been a trial had there not be a video camera?

Building just and democratic institutions - but whose exactly?

When world leaders speak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is of good form to ask a few things of the Palestinians, like building democratic institutions, strengthening the rule of law, and renouncing violence. Even Obama's speech (which was remarkable) did not fail to make those points.

Such requests are never made to the Israeli government.

The assumption is no doubt that Israel is "like us" (I'm not even sure we always meet our own standards by the way) -- except for this little problem of the occupation, settlements and of course being occasionally "heavy handed." As in 22 days, 300 dead kids. That's "heavy handed." Sometimes we even raise the tone and say "it's not helpful." Then Israel trembles. But basically, institutions are THEIR institutions and they are fine. Israel IS by nature democratic, and who are we to ask anything. And as for violence, well... one just has to defend oneself. (And were it not for the occupation and violation of international law, I would agree.)

Now, Obama told the Palestinians that violence does not resolve anything. (In this particular case, I agree. But I haven't seen the US, the UK, or Israel adopt non-violence as a national defense strategy yet. Calling for Gandhis and MLK's is nice, but I haven't seen the US name a Mennonite as head of the DOD either.)

When it comes to institutions, forget the fact that Palestine [did you notice that Obama used that State Department-forbidden word?] has had more successful free elections than any other Arab country around and that the opposition won the last one; forget the fact that we forced on them the institution of a Prime Minister then forced a reversal to a presidential regime by-passing the office of the Prime Minister (and pushed for a civil war in the process). Forget all these things. Palestinians need institution strengthening, well... because they are Palestinians and they can't be trusted to run their own country without our interference.(1)

When it comes to rule of law, let's not talk about the fact that the last Israeli President resigned under prosecution for rape. That would be rude and interfering. Let's not mention that Ehud Olmert had to resign because of charges of corruption or that the current foreign minister is already being investigated. We don't challenge allies with their petty internal problems. But of course Palestinian corruption is a "HUGE" problem and we--still "we"--must demand that they do something about it. Especially during an occupation - they should have plenty of time to deal with that after all.

What triggers this post is not just the constant irony and injustice of this maddening conflict, it is a little bit of news. Something only remarkable because it was caught on tape. It happens, not daily but weekly or monthly in the hills of Hebron, but usually there is no camera.

I invite you to read and tell me whether our concerns for the respect of the rule of law are well placed.

The Haaretz article is pasted below and can be accessed here online.

Elrig
(1) Believe me, I'm well aware of the weaknesses of Palestinian national institutions. I just don't think that they are comparatively worse than any other place. It does sadden me that some ministers and bureaucrats dream of nothing more than being the equivalent of their Egyptian equivalent and fail to see the richness of Palestinian civil society. But that's a topic for another day.

*******************
Prosecution drops indictment against settler filmed shooting Palestinians

The prosecution has announced that it is dropping the indictment against Ze'ev Braude, the West Bank settler who was alleged to have shot two Palestinians at close range during the evacuation of a disputed house in Hebron in December 2008, and was caught on film doing so.

Ze'ev Braude, 51, of Kiryat Arba, is alleged to have shot two Palestinians at close range during the evacuation of a disputed house in Hebron.

Braude, a Kiryat Arba resident, turned himself in to police last week after an activist with the B'Tselem human rights group caught him on film shooting at Palestinians at short range and hitting two.

During the evacuation of the house in Hebron, Braude approached the Matriya family residence, drew his gun and shouted at the family members to go inside, the indictment says.

Hosni Matriya, 44, went up to Braude and told to leave. Braude struck him and aimed his gun at him, said the indictment. Hosni's father, Abed el-Hai, 67, walked up and asked Braude to leave. Braude pushed el-Hai. Other family members came to help push Braude away and he fired at them. The first bullet passed close to one man's head and the second one hit Hosni's chest. A third bullet hit el-Hai's arm. El-Hai and two family members attacked Braude and stopped him from again firing his gun. They held him until Kiryat Arba residents arrived and took him away, the indictment says.

Hosni, who was shot in the chest, is awaiting surgery to take out shrapnel that remains around the wound. El-Hai, whose arm was broken, has been operated on twice and his arm has been set with screws.

The prosecution said that the evidence proves that "Braude initiated the incident at the plaintiff's house, which was out of his way. During the argument with the plaintiffs he struck his fist into the face of one of them. At this stage none of the plaintiffs was acting violently. The father of the family wrestled with him to stop the shooting - during the wrestling the defendant shot him as well."

Jamal Abu Safan, a relative of the injured Palestinian, told Haaretz that the court's decision shows "how racist Israel and its justice system are." He demanded that an independent body investigate the case.

Braude's lawyer, attorney Ariel Atari, responded that the Palestinian claiming to have been injured can be viewed in the video getting up after allegedly being shot and continuing to hurl stones and strike Braude.

Photo source: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH301/israeli_settlers_in_hebron_city_2-29116.gif

Obama's Speech

My last post commented on some anticipation of Obama's speech. Here's the full text of this speech.

It may be optimism on my part, but if there is action behind those words, something good may come of it. Even a cynic like myself has to find some hope in the "leader of the free world" addressing the ills of the region in this manner.

Okay, it's words for now. But eight years ago, the words (implied) from the man in the same seat were essentially, "hunting season is open -- shoot at will" followed by the blessing of Ariel Sharon as a "man of peace" (which even the Israelis laughed at) and culmination in a letter providing cover for settlement expansion. We've seen what followed.

Dreyfuss in The Nation provides a good analysis of the speech and I make mine his conclusion: "Okay, it's a speech. But it's a good start." I scrolled down and looked at some of the comments on Dreyfuss' text. I found one that is illustrative of the challenges ahead. Here's what that reader wrote:

"This was pure political spin in an art form. Obama ... will even help with the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people if it will draw him acceptance among those who are in greater number (the Muslims) ...Christians and Jews should be concerned about what levels this man will sink to, in selling out to Islam."

I'm not naive about where Islam is at in its history and the diversity of expressions it has found and--let's face it--as other religions have in the past and still do, it is faced with a few monsters it hasn't tamed yet. Yet, to hear/read Obama's speech and come out with the sense that Obama "will help with the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people" shows a degree of paranoia which is dangerous and pathological.

Unfortunately, this paranoia still exists and it drives a pathological action-reaction downward spiral of death and hopelessness. (See past blog entry.) This is why the US has such a role to play as the foremost ally of Israel in forcing change in Palestine and reassuring Israel. But reassuring does not mean enabling or legitimizing every crazy impulse.

For today however I will take this speech as a small possible sign of hope.
And pray that hope becomes reality.

Salaam - Shalom.

Elrig

Photo: A Palestinian shop owner displays mugs for sale with portraits of US President Barack Obama at a souvenir shop in Gaza City on Sunday (AP photo by Hatem Moussa). Source: www.jordantimes.com/?news=17168

Obama's coming speech in Cairo: Words and Deeds

President Obama is going to Cairo to pronounce a speech.

His fine oratorical skills not withstanding, and even possibly his good intentions cannot change the reality of power politics in the US. When President Bush (the statesman) put pressure and led to the Rome Conference on Israel/Palestine and then the Oslo agreement he was staunchly warned of the risk to become a "one term president." Whether his status as a one-term president had anything to do with this, or was the fluke result of Ross Perot is another discussion topic, but merely the threat that was made to him shows something of the sensitivity of the topic in American politics--I've commented before on the US Congress voting 90% in favor of resolutions which had no weight, except to make a statement of support against very questionable policies and actions. (When else does the Congress vote 90% in favor of anything?)

Robert Fisk writes a good column about the low expectations from the Arab world of Mr Obama's speech. What is needed is action: while comforting Israel that its core ally will remain its core ally, exert strong pressure to force a change of course--and by change I mean 180 degrees. The end of the deadly illusion that the Jewish State is mandated to rule the lives of Arabs on their own land, and ultimately to take that land.

Below are the concluding paragraphs from Fisk--you can read his full column here.

"Arabs, I find, have a very shrewd conception of what goes on in Washington – the lobbying, the power politics, the dressing up of false friendship in Rooseveltian language – even if ordinary Americans do not. They are aware that the "new" America of Obama looks suspiciously like the old one of Bush and his lads and ladies. First, Obama addresses Muslims on Al-Arabiya television. Then he addresses Muslims in Istanbul. Now he wants to address Muslims all over again in Cairo.

I suppose Obama could say: "I promise I will not make any decision until I first consult with you and the Jewish side" along with more promises about being a friend of the Arabs. Only that's exactly what Franklin Roosevelt told King Abdul Aziz on the deck of USS Quincy in 1945, so the Arabs have heard that one before. I guess we'll hear about terrorism being as much a danger to Arabs as to Israel – another dull Bush theme – and, Obama being a new President, we might also have a "we shall not let you down" theme.

But for what? I suspect that what the Arab world wants to hear – not their leaders, of course, all of whom would like to have a spanking new US air base on their property – is that Obama will take all his soldiers out of Muslim lands and leave them alone (American aid, doctors, teachers, etc, excepted). But for obvious reasons, Obama can't say that.

He can, and will, surely, try his global-Arab line; that every Arab nation will be involved in the new Middle East peace, a resurrection of the remarkably sane Saudi offer of full Arab recognition of Israel in return for an Israeli return to the 1967 borders in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242. Obama will be clearing this with King Abdullah on Wednesday, no doubt. And everyone will nod sagely and the newspapers of the Arab dictatorships will solemnly tip their hats to the guy and the New York Times will clap vigorously.

And the Israeli government will treat it all with the same amused contempt as Netanyahu treated Obama's demand to stop building Jewish colonies on Arab land and, back home in Washington, Congress will fulminate and maybe Obama will realise, just like the Arab potentates have realised, that beautiful rhetoric and paradise-promises never, ever, win against reality."

It's counter-intuitive, but in the big scheme of thing, this American disconnect between words and deeds (not an American exclusive, but an exceptionally weighty disconnect given the place of the US in today's world) will have far greater consequences than the bankrupcy of GM.

Until the moment of their crash, however, empires tend to concern themselves with things which cease to matter the minute after the crash.

Elrig

Palestine: is it time for Hello or Farewell?

Palestine is the place to go to if you're an avid natural pessimist like I am. But you always want to find hope and be an optimist if you are to survive. So what should we be now: optimistic or pessimistic?

I posted an innocuous Quick Update after reading David's blog (look right on this page ->) about a Freudian slip by the Israeli Ministry of Tourism in an advertisement in the London subway (see the BBC news report here). In the poster (see picture), the Palestinian Territories, which could become Palestine tomorrow, are simply wiped off the map ("oops, sorry, we forgot" was the heartfelt apology from the Embassy). At the same time, the chief of the Arab League restates what everyone knows, that peace is impossible with the settlements. Of course, Israel (and by that I mean the State of Israel and its traditional advocates in the US) strongly resists the newly rising US statements (not quite pressure yet) to, at least, freeze settlement activities. At the same time, Israel and supporters (the neo-cons are not dead, just "badly badly wounded") continue to suggest that Palestinians might just have to move or be integrated into Jordan (for the West Bank) or Egypt (for Gaza). Not that either party (Palestinians, Jordanians or Egyptians) is interested, but that doesn't stop Israel and US politicians from promoting the idea.

Informed voices keep saying louder and louder that "time is running out" for a peace agreement based on a two-state solution (while of course the one-state solution is further away than ever). What prompted my opening about pessimism and optimism is that even such high power players as Saeb Erekat (the Palestinian chief negotiator) don't seem to know which way to blow. In this Haaretz article, Erekat is presented as being "encouraged" by the meeting between Presidents Oabama (US, in case you missed that) and Abbas (president of the Palestinian non-state). I can't find it now, but I could swear I just saw an article covering the same interview, but emphasizing his statement that the chance for a negotiated agreement on a two-state settlement is "running out." Not so encouraged it seemed...

So are we on the edge of abysmal failure and disaster? Nakba, 2. Or are we at the dawn of new opportunities? Finally peace.

Ahmed Qureia (former Palestinian Prime Minister, known as Abu Ala, and chief negotiator for the PLO) even goes as far as proposing solutions in the event of the establishment of Palestine behind internationally recognized borders (Green Line) for Jewish settlers who don't want to leave their homes. These suggestions are not new (I heard Michael (Ala) Tarazi present them back in 2004); they are self-evident if you think people are people; and they are terrifying if you are naturally scared of any Arab institution, say nothing of living under Palestinian rule.

It seems we are on the edge of our seats and many things depend on what the United States will do and decide. And this hinges probably in part on what President Obama actually wants to do, but also on what his advisers and Cabinet members will help him achieve and negotiate with a US Congress, which is more supportive of Israeli policies than Israel itself.

I don't know which way we will go, and predicting failure is always a surer bet in the Middle East than putting one's own money on hope. But I will go with this Malysian writer who borrows from Obamesque litterature to speak of 'the audacity of hope in Palestine.' The reason I lean this way is because of analyses I've already made in the past: either we find a path to peace, or the alternative scenarios--a farewell to the idea of Palestine--will lead nowhere but to more chaos and destruction. (Read here on suicidal policies and here on a simple argument for the two state solution.)

If we--"we"--don't find the courage for a drastic turn in current policies (and in my view this includes both dialogue with Hamas and harsh choices for Israel--not an easy plan to sell) it won't just be "farewell Palestine," it will be "hello" to chaos and to more suffering. More suffering than we've seen so far, if we can imagine that. Probably not just for Palestinians.

Optimist? Pessimist?
Trying to be a "person of faith", I will pray as if I were an optimist. Sabah el-kheir ya Philistiin! Shalom wa Salaam for Israelis and Palestinians. We hope.


Elrig

Silencing Reality in Israel/Palestine- Thank you New York Times!

To be honest, the NYT is one of my favorite US daily newspapers -- at least when it comes to the Opinions Page. But here's a clear debunking of how it misdirects the news when there's some uncomfortable reality to be pushed aside. The following article shows how it's not always opposing truth and creating lies, but more gently reporting without reporting, not allowing a certain story line to emerge. When the facts cannot be denied (in this case the small problem of an ongoing conquest of land and displacement of Palestinian population), anything that would suggest something to be looked into needs to be just sidelined.

Just read for yourself how this is done in the case of the Netanyahu-Obama encounter. Concluding paragraphs below:

"This analytic piece concludes with two paragraphs of Israeli doubts about any dealings at all with Iran, and Israeli doubts about Obama. There is a rushed, single paragraph in the middle, on Palestine. No second analytic piece about Palestine as a subject of Monday's news conference has yet been posted at the New York Times on-line.

The Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and the Times analysis by David Sanger both tell the same story. It says that Iran is the major business between the U.S. and Israel in the coming year. The story is false, as an impartial viewer or reader of Monday's news conference will recognize. The giant gamble of the Times is that by repeating the story they can shape events and help to make it true. This double distortion was policy, not accident."

The current stalemate in Israel / Palestine rests on a huge lie. Yes, there are issues on the two sides, but no one thinks of the Palestinian political groups in totally dreamy fashion (if anything they are demonized more than is useful -- particularly Hamas). On the other hand, we treat the Israeli government as an a-priori innocent, progressive, trustworthy and peaceful entity. And that is the great lie.

The NYT is, for reasons of its own, part of that deception. This may not require grand conspiracies. A friend of mine once told me, "the best deception is self-deception."

Elrig

nb: picture borrowed from David's blog, who stole it from someone else.