Archive for the ‘Palestine’ Category

Inside Gaza: ‘The hospital morgues were already full. The dead were piled on top of each other outside’

December 28, 2008

By Sami Abdel-Shafi in Gaza city
The Independent, UK, Sunday, 28 December 2008

Change font size: A | A | A

I am safe, and yet I feel like a walking dead person. Everything around me shows it. It is hard to write something of any coherence while exposed to cold winter air and to the smell that lingers after the detonation of Israeli bombs. They must have been massive. During the bombing I opened all the windows around my apartment to avoid them imploding as a result of the vacuum shocks sweeping through Gaza City after each enormous bang. While the bombing continued, I jumped down two flights of stairs to my father’s house, to make sure he was OK. Should I open up all his windows too? That would expose the old man to the risk of illness. We have no medical care or medication. However, the risk from shattering glass was greater, so I opened them all.

Mobile phones did not work, because of electricity outages and the flood of attempted calls. I flipped the electricity generator on so that we could watch the news. We wanted to understand what was going on in our own neighbourhood. However, this was impossible. Israeli surveillance drones flew overhead, scrambling the reception. All I could do was step outside, where I found crowds of frantic people, lines of rising smoke and the smell of charred buildings and bodies that lay around targeted sites nearby. Somebody said the bombs had been launched in parallel raids over the entire Gaza Strip. What was the target here? Perhaps a police station about 200 metres away. Other bombs annihilated blocks less than a kilometre away, where one of the main police training centres stood. When the strikes began, a graduation ceremony for more than 100 recruits in a civil law enforcement programme was under way. These were the young men trained to organise traffic, instil civil safety and maintain law and order. Many of them were killed, it is said, in addition to the Gaza Strip’s police chief.

News came by word of mouth. There had been more than 150 deaths and more than 200 people were injured or missing under rubble after the first two hours of bombing. Israel had said it would continue the offensive and deepen it if necessary. Likewise, it was said that Hamas had launched more rockets at southern Israeli towns, causing one death and four injuries. Gaza had never seen anything like the numbers of dead bodies lying on its streets. Hospital morgues were already full. The dead were piled on top of each other outside.

Bombs targeting a Hamas security force building badly damaged an adjacent school, and several children were injured. We heard of many other targets around the Gaza Strip. It reminds me of the “shock and awe” campaign the Allies launched over Baghdad in 2003. But shock and awe did not bring stability or peace.

These bombs were launched by Israel, as we had known they would be. The world watched the situation simmer then boil over, but did nothing. There are some who believe that hell is divided into different classes. The ordinary people of Gaza have long been caught in the tormenting underworld. Now, if the world does not heed what has happened here, our situation will worsen. We will be trapped in the first class of hell.

Israeli jets kill ‘at least 225’ in strikes on Gaza

December 28, 2008

December 28, 2008

A Palestinian girl wounded in an Israeli missile strike is carried into the emergency area at Shifa hospital in Gaza City
Image :1 of 6

Israel yesterday launched its largest raid on Gaza with two waves of air attacks that killed at least 225 people and injured more than 700, according to Palestinian doctors.

Children on their way home from school and policemen parading for a graduation ceremony were the principal victims of a bloody few hours that left the territory in flames.

The short but brutal aerial blitz — codenamed Operation Cast Lead — was aimed at targets held by the Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas, which seized control of the Gaza Strip 18 months ago.

After weeks of rising tension and repeated Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli territory, the air force struck with warplanes and unmanned drones loaded with guided missiles.

They hit at least 100 security compounds and rocket-launching bases across the heavily populated Strip.

The strikes caused panic and confusion as black clouds of smoke rose above the territory. Most of those killed were security men — including Gaza’s police chief — but an unknown number of civilians were also among the dead.

One perfectly aimed missile demolished the Hamas-controlled Rafah police station. But the building next door was a school and several pupils were on the street outside when a huge explosion sent shards of shrapnel and concrete hurtling in all directions. Parents rushed into the streets frantically looking for their children.

The strikes on Gaza yesterday were unparalleled. Israeli warplanes screamed in from the sea across Gaza in wave after wave, pounding at least 30 security compounds in the strip controlled by the Hamas government.

Continued >>

Israel Wraps Up Preparations for Gaza Invasion

December 26, 2008

Olmert Tells Gazans This Is Their Last Chance to Remove Hamas From Power

Antiwar.com, Posted December 25, 2008

Just one day after Israel’s cabinet approved a “substantial and painful” military operation in the Gaza Strip, the military is reporting that it has completed preparations for the invasion, and is just waiting for more pleasant weather to begin its attacks. Though Defense Minister Ehud Barak only promised to make Hamas pay “a heavy price,” anonymous Israeli officials say the operation is likely to begin with a series of air strikes, culminating in a ground invasion.

Military Chief Gen. Ashkenazi promised the Israeli forces would “act with wisdom” in the invasion, and said he would leave “a new secure situation around the Gaza Strip.”

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, warned Gaza’s 1.5 million civilian residents that they would be in danger if they did not stop Hamas from launching missiles. Insisting that Israel’s military operations in Gaza were all “a result of Hamas’ activities,” Olmert said tens of thousands of Gaza children will be put in danger.

He also promised not to let Gaza slip into a humanitarian crisis, vowing to prevent any shortages of food or medicine. The promise is unlikely to carry much weight in the besieged strip, as Israel has spent much of the past month doing everything they can to prevent food and medicine from reaching the strip’s residents.

Related Stories

compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

Singing the Praise of Fruitless Peace Talks

December 23, 2008

Stuart Littlewood | uruknet.info, December 22, 2008

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrats’ new ‘shadow’ foreign secretary here in Britain, reports on his first trip to Palestine/Israel in TotallyJewish.com, a strange choice of platform for a self-styled ‘liberal’.

His biggest impression, he says, was optimism for the peace process: “I developed a strong sense that both sides trusted each other.”

But as far as I’m aware he didn’t meet the Palestine side – only the Fatah faction, whose cosiness with Israel is the stuff of scandal.

Last week, in a display of mutual admiration between US president Bush and Fatah’s president Abbas, Bush reportedly said: “People must recognise that we have made a good deal of progress” and Middle East peace talks are now “irreversible”. Abbas, whose days are also numbered, praised the outgoing US president saying: “There is no doubt that we will continue these efforts and the peace negotiations, but everything will be based on the foundation, and that foundation was laid by you during your time in office.”

But when Abbas’s team was asked if Bush would press Israel to ease its blockade of Gaza, it seemed the US president would not commit to negotiating an end to the siege. So we can see how devoted they actually are to the cause of peace.

Meanwhile the Quartet – America, the EU, Russia and the United Nations – says there’s no turning back from US-led talks between Israel and the Palestinians, despite their spectacular lack of progress.

So everyone in high places is singing from the same hymn-sheet in praise of a fruitless peace process.

They know perfectly well, of course, that the Israelis have for decades played for time, stringing the world along and whining that they have “no partner for peace” while continuing to seize and colonize all the land and water resources needed to fulfill the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean… or, some say, the Euphrates to the Nile. To that end the regime has endlessly violated UN resolutions, international law and the norms of human decency.

Respected Israeli expert Jeff Halper has warned that Israel intends to make its illegal occupation permanent, hence the frenzied rush to establish irreversible facts on the ground like the monstrous settlements and their supporting infrastructure, to press ahead with further demolition of Arab homes and more ethnic cleansing, and to fracture the remnants of Palestine so that they cannot possibly be drawn together to form a viable, independent state.

Anyone who bothers to read the manifestos of the Likud and Kadima parties understands that it is Israel which is no partner for peace, never was and probably never will be.

So, World leaders, what’s your game? Why should Palestinians have to talk to their tormentors? The path to peace is clearly marked in countless rulings by the United Nations and by the International Court of Justice. These are waiting to be implemented and enforced. Here are some examples…

• Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan of 1947 accepted by the Jews) declares Jerusalem, including Bethlehem and Beit Sahour, a corpus separatum – to be run under an international UN administration. This was reiterated in Resolution 303 a year later. We’re still waiting.
• Resolution 194: resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage. That was 60 years ago.
• Resolution 237: Israel to allow return of the ‘new’ 1967 Palestinian refugees.
• Resolution 242: emphasizes the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war and calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from land occupied in 1967.
• Resolution 252: declares ‘invalid’ Israel’s attempts to unify Jerusalem as the Jewish capital.
• Resolution 271: condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
• Resolution 298: deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem.
• Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
• Resolution 465: deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program.
• Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the Council’s order not to deport Palestinians.
• Resolution 471: expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are null and void.
• Resolution 478: censures Israel in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.
• Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
• Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.
• Resolution 641: deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.
• Resolution 673: deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
• Resolution 681: deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
• Resolution 694: deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
• Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.
• Resolution 799: ditto

The Fourth Geneva Convention is supposed to protect civilians under military occupation…. no violence to life or person, no cruelty or torture; no taking of hostages; no outrages upon personal dignity; no collective punishment, no sentencing or executions unless ordered by a properly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees demanded by civilised peoples.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice – that “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” – ruled that the Separation Wall is illegal and must be dismantled, and Israel must compensate Palestinians for damage. Furthermore, said the ICJ, all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall and to ensure Israel complies with international humanitarian law.

Israel is still building it.

The quarrel is clearly between the international community and Israel. So please, World leaders, spare us all this tosh about peace negotiations. There can be no peace while one party has his jackboot on the other’s throat. The major powers must first ensure all relevant UN resolutions are respected and international law enforced, not swept under the carpet. The time for Palestinians to sit down and talk is when Israel’s forces are pulled back, as required, behind the 1967 border.

What if Israel won’t comply? Easy: suspend trade and technical co-operation.

Mr Davey said when asked about his trip: “My one regret was not being allowed to visit Gaza, something I hope to put right as soon as my diary allows.” Not allowed to? By whom? Did the Israeli authorities stop him, just as they stopped a surgeon friend from entering Gaza a month ago with a team of medics, stopped the Pope’s nuncio and stopped the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Professor Richard Falk, who is due to report on the situation to the UN Human Rights Council in March?

Mr Davey didn’t explain. But expressing his intention to visit Gaza does him credit. He certainly won’t get a balanced view until he sees for himself and meets Hamas. I wish him well. We are in desperate need of champions for justice, a rare breed in international politics these days.

-Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

:: Article nr. 49812 sent on 23-dec-2008 10:50 ECT

www.uruknet.info?p=49812

MIDEAST: Death Penalty in Palestinian Territories Alarms Rights Groups

December 23, 2008

By Mel Frykberg | Inter Press Service

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Dec 23 (IPS) – New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has sent urgent letters to Palestinian leaders in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, urging them to commute the death sentences of 11 Palestinians currently awaiting execution.

The death-row inmates, including one who was a juvenile at the time of his conviction, were sentenced this year by Palestinian military and state security courts. Two of the inmates received trials that lasted just one day.

Joe Stork, the deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division, appealed to Gaza’s Hamas leader, and de facto Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas to urgently review the cases.

Under Palestinian law the penalties have to be either ratified or commuted by the PA president before they can be carried out.

“It’s deeply disturbing that Palestinian courts have resumed issuing death sentences at a time when the rest of world is moving toward abolishing capital punishment,” said Stork.

“President Abbas should make clear that he will commute all of these sentences when they arrive on his desk. Palestinian officials should announce an immediate moratorium on the death penalty and eliminate its use in Palestinian law.”

In separate letters to the Palestinian leaders, HRW also expressed concern about one of the defendants, Sa’id Jameel Zuhod, who was 17 when he together with three adults was found guilty of murdering and raping a child in Gaza in 2003.

In 2004 a Palestinian lower court sentenced Zuhod to life imprisonment on grounds of his youth. However, the Gaza Court of Appeals overturned this in 2005 and sentenced him to death. The sentence was upheld by the Gaza Court of Cassation in October this year.

HRW argued that if Zuhod’s execution goes ahead, the Palestinian territories will join the notorious club of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen in being the only governments to have executed juvenile offenders since 2005. Iran is the only country to have executed juveniles since 2007.

International human rights law prohibits the death penalty for all crimes committed by persons under age 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) puts stringent restrictions on when the death penalty can be used in cases involving adults.

The Palestinian Penal Code allows courts in the West Bank to impose the death penalty for 17 separate offences. In the Gaza Strip, 15 offences are subject to the death penalty.

According to the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PHRC), Palestinian law justifying the death sentence is based on the Jordanian Penal Code which applies to the West Bank and the Egyptian Penal Code which applies to Gaza. This followed the two countries’ occupation of the two respective territories following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

In addition to these two laws the application of the death penalty was reinforced by the Revolutionary Penal Law of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) of 1979.

However, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) has not ratified this law, especially as it relates to Palestinians accused of collaborating with Israel.

Many Palestinians who were sentenced to death by Palestinian courts or those who were arbitrarily executed, vigilante-style, by members of the resistance organisations were accused of treason by collaborating with Israeli death squads.

Despite the harsh attitude towards those accused of treason, the Angus Reid Global Monitor carried out a survey several years ago and found two-thirds of Palestinians reject the use of capital punishment.

The last time a Palestinian court sentenced someone to death or carried out an execution was in 2005. From 1994 to 2005 the PA issued 74 death sentences, some of which were commuted.

Israeli rights group B’tselem says that Palestinian military and state security courts, which pass many of the sentences, do not meet international standards of fairness before an independent and impartial court, in addition to violating human rights.

The courts are further accused of carrying out summary trials while the accused are denied access to effective legal counsel.

The late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat issued a presidential decree which established the state security courts without determining their mandates or the nature of the cases to be considered.

In 2001, in an attempt to partially overcome fierce international criticism for the application of the death penalty under its jurisdiction, the PA passed the Penal Procedures Law of 2001.

This enabled a condemned person to appeal the death sentence within 15 days of being sentenced. If this was rejected by the appeal court, the case would be referred to the PA president.

However, this new law didn’t preclude previous state security court death sentences, without the right to appeal, being carried out.

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) stated that Abbas followed the new law with a decree issued in 2005 requesting all death sentences before the notorious state security courts be re-tried before civilian courts. However, WCADP notes that this decree has not been followed through and that death sentences continue to be declared in “conditions that contravene both international standards and Palestinian national legislation.”

The Palestinian territories do not constitute a sovereign state and neither Palestinian leadership are signatories to international human rights treaties. However, HRW points out that both Hamas and the PA committed themselves to upholding international law in regard to human rights. (END/2008)

Israel Launches Global PR Campaign Ahead of Gaza Invasion

December 22, 2008

Israeli Envoys Instructed to Shore Up International Support for Attack

Antwar.com, December 21, 2008

Tonight it is being reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has instructed diplomats across the globe to launch what is being described as a “PR blitz” to shore up international support for an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. To that end Livni, the Kadima Party’s pick for Prime Minister in the upcoming election, will reportedly make phone calls to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and the foreign ministers of several major nations.

A six-month ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas-run Gaza Strip formally ended on Thursday, though in reality the two sides had been exchanging intermittent fire (and diplomatic accusations) since an early November Israeli raid on a house in central Gaza. Both sides have traded air strikes over the weekend, causing damage but no apparent deaths.

And while Israeli diplomats will be struggling to shore up international support for a prospective invasion, reports suggest that the decision has already been made. Citing a secret meeting on Thursday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel’s Ynet says the policy on Gaza is set, and actions will “depend only on the tactical conditions and the operational possibilities.” It also claims that it was at this meeting that the two agreed on the need to create an “international umbrella” of support for the attacks.

Related Stories

compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

Robert Fisk’s World: One missing word sowed the seeds of catastrophe

December 22, 2008

No one in 1967 thought the Arab-Israeli conflict would still be in progress 41 years later

The Independent, UK, Dec 20, 2008

Change font size: A | A | A

A nit-picker this week. And given the fact that we’re all remembering human rights, the Palestinians come to mind since they have precious few of them, and the Israelis because they have the luxury of a lot of them.

And Lord Blair, since he’ll be communing with God next week, might also reflect that he still – to his shame – hasn’t visited Gaza. But the nit-picking has got to be our old friend United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This, you’ll recall, was supposed to be the resolution that would guide all future peace efforts in the Middle East; Oslo was supposed to have been founded on it and all sorts of other processes and summits and road maps.

It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.

Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories – because the word “all” is missing and since the definite article “the” is missing before the word “territories”, its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps.

Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn’t say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later. And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong.

I’ve been going back through my files on 242 and discovered a most elucidating paper by John McHugo, who was a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University. He points out that pro-Israeli lawyers have been saying for some years that “Resolution 242 unanimously called for withdrawal from ‘territories’ rather than withdrawal from ‘all the territories’. Its choice of words was deliberate… they signify that withdrawal if required from some but not all the territories”.

McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242 and they make very unhappy reading. The French and Spanish versions of the text actually use the definite article. But the Brits – apparently following a bit of strong-arm tactics from the Americans – did not use “the”. Lord Caradon, our man at the UN, insisted on putting in the phrase about the “inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war” in order to stop the Israelis claiming that they could cherry-pick which lands to return and which to hand on to. Britain accepted Jordan’s rule over the West Back – the PLO were still shunned as super-terrorists at the time – but it did no good. Abba Eban, Israel’s man on the East River, did his best to persuade Caradon to delete both “the” and the bit about the inadmissability of territory through war. He won the first battle, but not the second.

That great American statesman George Ball was to recount how, when the Arabs negotiated over 242 in early November of 1967 – at the Waldorf Astoria (these guys knew how to pick the swankiest hotels for political betrayal) – the US ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, told King Hussein that America “could not guarantee that everything would be returned by Israel”. The Arabs distrusted Goldberg because he was known to be pro-Zionist, but Hussein was much comforted when US Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured him in Washington that the US “did not approve of Israeli retention of the West Bank”. Hussein was further encouraged when he met President Johnson who told him that Israeli withdrawal might take place in “six months”. Goldberg further boosted his confidence. “Don’t worry. They’re on board,” he said of the Israelis. Ho ho.

It’s intriguing to note that several other nations at the UN were troubled by the absence of “the”. The Indian delegate, for example, pointed out that the resolution referred to “all the territories – I repeat all the territories – occupied by Israel…” while the Soviet Union (which knew all about occupying other people’s countries) stated that “we understand the decision to mean the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel…”. President Johnson rebuffed the Soviets and bluntly refused to put the word “all” in the resolution. Bulgaria, not surprisingly, said much the same as the Soviets. Brazil expressed reservations – rightly so – about “the clarity of the wording”. The Argentinians “would have preferred a clearer text”. In other words, the future tragedy was spotted at the time. But we did nothing. The Americans had stitched it up and the Brits went along with it. The Arabs were not happy but foolishly – and typically – relied on Caradon’s assurances that “all” the territories was what 242 meant, even if it didn’t say so. Israel still fought hard to get rid of the “inadmissability” bit, even when it had got “the” out.

Ye gods! Talk about sewing the seeds of future catastrophe. Well, Colin Powell, when he was George W Bush’s secretary of state, gutlessly told US diplomats to call the West Bank “disputed” rather than “occupied” – which suited the Israelis just fine although, as McHugo pointed out, the Israelis might like to consider what would happen if the Arabs talked about those bits of Israel which were not included in the original UN partition plan as “disputed” as well. Besides, George W’s infamous letter to Ariel Sharon, saying he could, in effect, keep large bits of the West Bank, set the seal on Johnson’s deception.

McHugo mischievously adds that a mandatory warning in a city that says “dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park” clearly means that “all” dogs and “all” ponds are intended. These days, of course, we use walls to keep dogs out. Palestinians, too.

Richard Falk: My expulsion from Israel

December 21, 2008

When I arrived in Israel as a UN representative I knew there might be problems at the airport. And there were

On December 14, I arrived at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, Israel to carry out my UN role as special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories.

I was leading a mission that had intended to visit the West Bank and Gaza to prepare a report on Israel’s compliance with human rights standards and international humanitarian law. Meetings had been scheduled on an hourly basis during the six days, starting with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, the following day.

I knew that there might be problems at the airport. Israel had strongly opposed my appointment a few months earlier and its foreign ministry had issued a statement that it would bar my entry if I came to Israel in my capacity as a UN representative.

At the same time, I would not have made the long journey from California, where I live, had I not been reasonably optimistic about my chances of getting in. Israel was informed that I would lead the mission and given a copy of my itinerary, and issued visas to the two people assisting me: a staff security person and an assistant, both of whom work at the office of the high commissioner of human rights in Geneva.

To avoid an incident at the airport, Israel could have either refused to grant visas or communicated to the UN that I would not be allowed to enter, but neither step was taken. It seemed that Israel wanted to teach me, and more significantly, the UN a lesson: there will be no cooperation with those who make strong criticisms of Israel’s occupation policy.

After being denied entry, I was put in a holding room with about 20 others experiencing entry problems. At this point, I was treated not as a UN representative, but as some sort of security threat, subjected to an inch-by-inch body search and the most meticulous luggage inspection I have ever witnessed.

I was separated from my two UN companions who were allowed to enter Israel and taken to the airport detention facility a mile or so away. I was required to put all my bags and cell phone in a room and taken to a locked tiny room that smelled of urine and filth. It contained five other detainees and was an unwelcome invitation to claustrophobia. I spent the next 15 hours so confined, which amounted to a cram course on the miseries of prison life, including dirty sheets, inedible food and lights that were too bright or darkness controlled from the guard office.

Of course, my disappointment and harsh confinement were trivial matters, not by themselves worthy of notice, given the sorts of serious hardships that millions around the world daily endure. Their importance is largely symbolic. I am an individual who had done nothing wrong beyond express strong disapproval of policies of a sovereign state. More importantly, the obvious intention was to humble me as a UN representative and thereby send a message of defiance to the United Nations.

Israel had all along accused me of bias and of making inflammatory charges relating to the occupation of Palestinian territories. I deny that I am biased, but rather insist that I have tried to be truthful in assessing the facts and relevant law. It is the character of the occupation that gives rise to sharp criticism of Israel’s approach, especially its harsh blockade of Gaza, resulting in the collective punishment of the 1.5 million inhabitants. By attacking the observer rather than what is observed, Israel plays a clever mind game. It directs attention away from the realities of the occupation, practising effectively a politics of distraction.

The blockade of Gaza serves no legitimate Israeli function. It is supposedly imposed in retaliation for some Hamas and Islamic Jihad rockets that have been fired across the border at the Israeli town of Sderot. The wrongfulness of firing such rockets is unquestionable, yet this in no way justifies indiscriminate Israeli retaliation against the entire civilian population of Gaza.

The purpose of my reports is to document on behalf of the UN the urgency of the situation in Gaza and elsewhere in occupied Palestine. Such work is particularly important now as there are signs of a renewed escalation of violence and even of a threatened Israeli reoccupation.

Before such a catastrophe happens, it is important to make the situation as transparent as possible, and that is what I had hoped to do in carrying out my mission. Although denied entry, my effort will continue to use all available means to document the realities of the Israeli occupation as truthfully as possible.

• Richard Falk is professor of international law at Princeton University and the UN’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories

Israeli blockade ‘forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food’

December 21, 2008

UN fears irreversible damage is being done in Gaza as new statistics reveal the level of deprivation

Impoverished Palestinians on the Gaza Strip are being forced to scavenge for food on rubbish dumps to survive as Israel’s economic blockade risks causing irreversible damage, according to international observers.

Figures released last week by the UN Relief and Works Agency reveal that the economic blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza in July last year has had a devastating impact on the local population. Large numbers of Palestinians are unable to afford the high prices of food being smuggled through the Hamas-controlled tunnels to the Strip from Egypt and last week were confronted with the suspension of UN food and cash distribution as a result of the siege.

The figures collected by the UN agency show that 51.8% – an “unprecedentedly high” number of Gaza’s 1.5 million population – are now living below the poverty line. The agency announced last week that it had been forced to stop distributing food rations to the 750,000 people in need and had also suspended cash distributions to 94,000 of the most disadvantaged who were unable to afford the high prices being asked for smuggled food.

“Things have been getting worse and worse,” said Chris Gunness of the agency yesterday. “It is the first time we have been seeing people picking through the rubbish like this looking for things to eat. Things are particularly bad in Gaza City where the population is most dense.

“Because Gaza is now operating as a ‘tunnel economy’ and there is so little coming through via Israeli crossings, it is hitting the most disadvantaged worst.”

Gunness also expressed concern about the state of Gaza’s infrastructure, including its water and sewerage systems, which have not been maintained properly since Israel began blocking shipments of concrete into Gaza, warning of the risk of the spread of communicable diseases both inside and outside of Gaza.

“This is not a humanitarian crisis,” he said. “This is a political crisis of choice with dire humanitarian consequences.”

The revelations over the escalating difficulties inside Gaza were delivered a day after the end of the six-month ceasefire between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers, which had been brokered by Egypt in June, and follow warnings from the World Bank at the beginning of December that Gaza faced “irreversible” economic collapse.

The deteriorating conditions inside Gaza emerged as Tony Blair, Middle East envoy for the Quartet – US, Russia, the UN and the EU – warned explicitly yesterday that Israel’s policy of economic blockade, which had been imposed a year and a half ago when Hamas took power on the Gaza Strip, was reinforcing rather than undermining the party’s hold on power. In an interview in the Israeli newspaper Haartez, Blair warned that the collapse of Gaza’s legitimate economy under the impact of the blockade, while harming Gaza’s businessmen and ordinary people, had allowed the emergence of an alternative system based on smuggling through the Hamas-controlled tunnels. Hamas “taxed” the goods smuggled through the tunnels.

It was because of this that Blair wrote to Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, earlier this month demanding that Israel permit the transfer of cash into Gaza from the West Bank to prop up the legitimate economy.

“The present situation is not harming Hamas in Gaza but it is harming the people,” Blair said yesterday. Calling for a change in policy over Gaza, he added: “I don’t think that the current situation is sustainable; I think most people who would analyse it think the same.”

Blair’s comments came as an Israeli air strike against a rocket squad killed a Palestinian militant yesterday, the first Gaza death since Hamas formally declared an end to a six-month truce with Israel.

Also yesterday, a boat carrying a Qatari delegation, Lebanese activists and journalists from Israel and Lebanon sailed into Gaza City’s small port in defiance of a border blockade. It was the fifth such boat trip since the summer. The two Qatari citizens aboard the Dignity are from the government-funded Qatar Authority for Charitable Activities.

“We are here to represent the Qatar government and people,” said delegation member Aed al-Kahtani. “We will look into the needs of our brothers in Gaza, and find out what is the most appropriate way to bring in aid.”

The arrival of the delegation reflects the growing anger in the Arab world over the Gaza siege, directed at Israel but also at Egypt, which has allowed the border crossings at the southern end of the Strip to remain sealed.

On Friday, thousands of people joined a rally in Beirut organised by Lebanon’s Shia Hezbollah movement against Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Addressing the Beirut crowd, Hezbollah deputy leader Sheikh Naim Kassem called on Arab and Islamic governments to act to help lift the Gaza blockade, and urged Egypt to take an “historic stance” by opening its border crossing with Gaza.

“Silence on the [Gaza] blockade is disgraceful. Silence on the blockade amounts to participation in the [Israeli] occupation,” Kassem said.

Israel Deeply Wary of 2009 Anti-Racism Meet

December 20, 2008


By Wolfgang Kerler | Inter Press Service


UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 (IPS) – At their anti-racism conference in Geneva next April, United Nations member states may find themselves — once again — in a heated dispute over how to properly address the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the context of racism, xenophobia and racial discrimination.

Meant to assess and accelerate progress on the implementation of anti-racism measures adopted at the somewhat infamous 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa, the Durban Review Conference will now have to deal with renewed resentments among U.N. member states.

The Asian countries reminded all parties of what had happened seven years ago: In their contribution to a still to be discussed draft declaration for the review conference, they called Israel’s policies towards Palestinians “a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, [and] a form of genocide.”

Back in 2001, even a groundbreaking apology for slavery and colonialism by the developed world was not enough to save WCAR from being seen as a failure by many critics. Events at the forum of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) taking place parallel to the governmental negotiations had just been too tumultuous.

A number of NGOs — presumably backed by Iran and other Muslim countries — put through a final NGO declaration that condemned Israel with words similar to those now used by the Asian region: “apartheid”, “ethnic cleansings”, and “acts of genocide”. Clearly anti-Semitic cartoons and books were circulated at the forum — accompanied by statements that were equally anti-Semitic. To express their protest, Israel and the United States left WCAR.

Nevertheless, in early 2007, after the U.N. General Assembly had decided to hold a follow-up conference, Israel announced that it will take part in the Apr. 20-24, 2009 “Durban II” — as it is sometimes referred to — as long as there was no similar anti-Israel atmosphere. On Nov. 19, shortly after the release of the statements by the Asian region, Israel decided to withdraw from Durban II.

“It was perfectly predictable — and preventable,” Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, told IPS. “There is no country in the world that would want to willingly subject itself to a kangaroo court where it is demonised and delegitimised,” he added.

However, Navanethem Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and appointed secretary-general of Durban II, told the press that “the ambassador of Israel came to see me to say if the objectionable language is remedied, they will continue to participate.”

She stressed that “we are a long way from coming up with the draft outcome document for the Review Conference” and urged that all countries participate, asking: “How can you influence the outcome document unless you are there?”

In April, a group of 94 NGOs — including Human Rights First and the American United Nations Association, for example — released a statement on the core principles for Durban II, pledging to “reject hatred and incitement in all its forms, including anti-Semitism, to learn from the shortcomings of the 2001 WCAR.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW), an international human rights advocate, also published a position paper on the Durban Review Conference. It called on participants to avoid “a repeat of the conduct that so marred the 2001 conference” — especially the singling out of Israel as the focal point of hostility.

HRW “does not seek to exempt Israel from criticism of its human rights record”, but is rejecting “hyperbolic accusations that cannot be factually supported or singling out one government to the exclusion of other comparable offenders,” the paper said.

For example, human rights violations and discriminatory policies are reported across the world, including in Libya and Iran — which have been elected to chair and vice-chair the preparatory committee of the Durban Review Conference, respectively.

Worried that the single focus on the question of anti-Semitism might further flaw the legacy of WCAR — or “Durban I” — Ibrahim Wani, chief of the Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR), told IPS: “[While] there is no question about the highly insensitive displays and statements at the [2001] NGO-Forum, it is important to distinguish this forum from the inter-governmental process.”

“There is no allegation anywhere that the governmental meeting itself witnessed a display of anti-Semitism,” he stressed.

Wani, who is involved with the preparations for Durban II, added that “at the end of the day [the U.N. member states] were able to reach compromise on some key issues — the Israel-Palestinian question, the issue of reparations and apology for slavery and colonialism, or the issue of migration.” No offensive language could be found in the outcome document.

With the mechanism put in place within the U.N. system, the commitments the member states agreed on, and the framework of actions it provides to address racism, Wani called the “Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” (DDPA) “a significant step forward in historical terms.”

Another historic event that occurred immediately after conference doors closed in Durban might cause dissent at Durban II — the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Western counter-terrorism policies that followed.

Mourning the rise in Islamophobia since 2001, Muslim countries are pushing to include language regarding “defamation of religion” — especially of Islam — in the Durban II outcome document. Western countries oppose such claims, assuming that some states may want to excuse their own human rights violations — especially concerning freedom of speech – as “defamation of Islam”.