Middle East Updates
I am Nabi Saleh
Dear friends,
the village of An Nabi Saleh is one of the hundreds of Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank which is engaged in non-violent struggle againsts Israel's occupation. I first went to the village in December 2009, when the village began holding its non-violent demonstrations against the stealing of more of their land and water springs by the illegal Israeli colony of Halamish. Since that time, I have spent a lot of time in the village and befriended a number of the families, as a result the village and its residents are very special to me. I am so happy that Alison Ramer, a photographer and activist, who has lived in the village for some time and regularly attends the Friday demonstrations has involved the children of the village in a photographic project and exhibition, documenting the issues that not only effect their lives but also documenting the story of their village.
Please find below an article by Palestine Monitor on the project and exhibition, as well as two short videos about the project: one that explains what the project is about and allow the children of the village to introduce themselves and explain what they want to document and why and a second video of the opening night of the exhibition in Ramallah.
If you would like to keep informed about the struggle of the village and what is happening there, click here to go to the Nabi Saleh Solidarity website and click here to go to the Nabi Saleh Solidarity page on Facebook.
In solidarity,
Kim
*****************
*************
“I am Nabi Salih” — photo exhibition shows there is more to village than weekly protests
By Silvia Boarini : Palestine Monitor: September 13, 2011
The brainchild of Alison Ramer, the photo project “I am Nabi Salih” aims to show the human faces behind the iconic village, famous for it’s popular resistance movement.
Looking at the images covering the walls at the Academy of Arts in Ramallah, one might not realize that these photos were all taken by young adults, between the ages of 14 and 17.
The young artists, all from the now-iconic village of Nabi Salih, were handed digital cameras and under the guidance of internationally renowned Palestinian photographer and video maker Issa Freij, sought to document a different aspect of their daily surroundings.
“There are many aspects of Nabi Salih that I can show,” says Rawan Jalal Tamimi.
“I am Nabi Salih” manages to portray a side of the village that remains unknown even to the tireless Friday activist. More importantly, Ramer stresses, “it was a chance to do something other than just bringing more journalists or more NGOs to the village.”
Ramer’s relationship with Nabi Salih goes back a long way. She first arrived in Israel from the USA in 2006 as part of the Zionist Youth movement, but quickly decided she needed to explore both sides of the divide. She wanted to try and understand Palestine.
Her first port of call was Nabi Salih.
“The village has played a big part in educating me about the occupation,” she says.
Community leader Bassam Tamimi, currently imprisoned for participating in the Friday demonstrations, once told Ramer, “you came to remove the occupation from your mind.” And Ramer agrees. She says that is exactly what coming to Nabi Salih has done.
“The power is understanding how to take a photo that will attract people’s attention,” Issa Freij says.
The multi-layered context in which these children live–with daily military incursions, night raids, arrests and the aggression at Friday demonstrations–means that this participatory workshop has worked on different levels: both as an art project but also as trauma treatment, empowering the children to regain control of their world.
On the opening night of the exhibition in Ramallah, the excitement is palpable. Kids run around the gallery, eager to point out which set of pictures is theirs.
The young Rawan Jalal Tamimi points at a group of pictures depicting sparse, domestic interiors captured in beautiful lighting. One picture is of an old woman baking bread. “These are my photos,” she says proudly.
It was the first time she had a camera all to herself. She chose to document the poverty in Nabi Salih and the camera opened doors to a world she did not know.
“I discovered that nearly half of the people of Nabi Salih live at or below the poverty line,” she explains. “Now when I take photos I understand that there are many aspects of Nabi Salih that I can show.
She hopes that Palestinian officials will visit the exhibition. “There is no work and many families have low incomes. Officials should come here to really understand how it is,” she says.
Tamimi now also appreciates the power that comes with holding a camera. Seeing people looking at the photos on the wall has made her understand the potential of a picture, that it can carry a message to the outside world.
She points out that now, “I understand more about how people react to an exhibition and that you have to bring the right picture to the story you want to tell.”
“The village has played a big part in educating me about the occupation,” workshop producer Alison Ramer says.
Palestinian Video-maker Issa Freij, who run the workshops, nods as Tamimi says this. “That’s the power, he says, “understanding how to take a photo that will attract people’s attention.”
A veteran photojournalist and filmmaker, Freij was initially sceptical of teaching children, but now is convinced they are the best students. “It was hard to catch their attention at the beginning,” he says, “because they were not into photography. You know, this isn’t a game. It’s serious stuff and there are rules for it.”
The photos on the walls are all extremely good in terms of composition, exposure and focus but it is the wide range of subjects covered that really makes it stand out from the average participatory workshop exhibition.
“At the beginning we were choosing one subject for the whole group but the kids were going everywhere together all the time. And the village is only one street,” Freij laughs, “they were all coming back with the same photos.”
So themes were assigned. This forced the children to look into Nabi Salih, rather than at Nabi Salih. The subjects go far beyond the usual shots of soldiers but all analyze and reflect how the occupation impacts everyday life.
There are photos tackling the lack of playing space for children by portraying toddlers using weapon parts left over by the army as toys. One set of photos takes on the theme of water shortage and another one examines the problems of garbage disposal. These are issues that most children, from an early age, will already be familiar with here.
The cameras will remain with the children and the hope is they will keep on taking photos as a way of telling an alternative story of the village and of exposing the occupation.
This is an undertaking that may prove less dangerous, or fatal, than the weekly demonstrations but that, as they have learned, also has an impact.
This exhibition is now on display at The International Academy of Art Palestine, but is bound for a tour of Europe, the US and elsewhere. It has already widened the horizons of the participants and will go on to widen the horizons of viewers abroad for months to come.
the village of An Nabi Saleh is one of the hundreds of Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank which is engaged in non-violent struggle againsts Israel's occupation. I first went to the village in December 2009, when the village began holding its non-violent demonstrations against the stealing of more of their land and water springs by the illegal Israeli colony of Halamish. Since that time, I have spent a lot of time in the village and befriended a number of the families, as a result the village and its residents are very special to me. I am so happy that Alison Ramer, a photographer and activist, who has lived in the village for some time and regularly attends the Friday demonstrations has involved the children of the village in a photographic project and exhibition, documenting the issues that not only effect their lives but also documenting the story of their village.
Please find below an article by Palestine Monitor on the project and exhibition, as well as two short videos about the project: one that explains what the project is about and allow the children of the village to introduce themselves and explain what they want to document and why and a second video of the opening night of the exhibition in Ramallah.
If you would like to keep informed about the struggle of the village and what is happening there, click here to go to the Nabi Saleh Solidarity website and click here to go to the Nabi Saleh Solidarity page on Facebook.
In solidarity,
Kim
*****************
*************
“I am Nabi Salih” — photo exhibition shows there is more to village than weekly protests
By Silvia Boarini : Palestine Monitor: September 13, 2011
The brainchild of Alison Ramer, the photo project “I am Nabi Salih” aims to show the human faces behind the iconic village, famous for it’s popular resistance movement.
Looking at the images covering the walls at the Academy of Arts in Ramallah, one might not realize that these photos were all taken by young adults, between the ages of 14 and 17.
The young artists, all from the now-iconic village of Nabi Salih, were handed digital cameras and under the guidance of internationally renowned Palestinian photographer and video maker Issa Freij, sought to document a different aspect of their daily surroundings.
“There are many aspects of Nabi Salih that I can show,” says Rawan Jalal Tamimi.
“I am Nabi Salih” manages to portray a side of the village that remains unknown even to the tireless Friday activist. More importantly, Ramer stresses, “it was a chance to do something other than just bringing more journalists or more NGOs to the village.”
Ramer’s relationship with Nabi Salih goes back a long way. She first arrived in Israel from the USA in 2006 as part of the Zionist Youth movement, but quickly decided she needed to explore both sides of the divide. She wanted to try and understand Palestine.
Her first port of call was Nabi Salih.
“The village has played a big part in educating me about the occupation,” she says.
Community leader Bassam Tamimi, currently imprisoned for participating in the Friday demonstrations, once told Ramer, “you came to remove the occupation from your mind.” And Ramer agrees. She says that is exactly what coming to Nabi Salih has done.
“The power is understanding how to take a photo that will attract people’s attention,” Issa Freij says.
The multi-layered context in which these children live–with daily military incursions, night raids, arrests and the aggression at Friday demonstrations–means that this participatory workshop has worked on different levels: both as an art project but also as trauma treatment, empowering the children to regain control of their world.
On the opening night of the exhibition in Ramallah, the excitement is palpable. Kids run around the gallery, eager to point out which set of pictures is theirs.
The young Rawan Jalal Tamimi points at a group of pictures depicting sparse, domestic interiors captured in beautiful lighting. One picture is of an old woman baking bread. “These are my photos,” she says proudly.
It was the first time she had a camera all to herself. She chose to document the poverty in Nabi Salih and the camera opened doors to a world she did not know.
“I discovered that nearly half of the people of Nabi Salih live at or below the poverty line,” she explains. “Now when I take photos I understand that there are many aspects of Nabi Salih that I can show.
She hopes that Palestinian officials will visit the exhibition. “There is no work and many families have low incomes. Officials should come here to really understand how it is,” she says.
Tamimi now also appreciates the power that comes with holding a camera. Seeing people looking at the photos on the wall has made her understand the potential of a picture, that it can carry a message to the outside world.
She points out that now, “I understand more about how people react to an exhibition and that you have to bring the right picture to the story you want to tell.”
“The village has played a big part in educating me about the occupation,” workshop producer Alison Ramer says.
Palestinian Video-maker Issa Freij, who run the workshops, nods as Tamimi says this. “That’s the power, he says, “understanding how to take a photo that will attract people’s attention.”
A veteran photojournalist and filmmaker, Freij was initially sceptical of teaching children, but now is convinced they are the best students. “It was hard to catch their attention at the beginning,” he says, “because they were not into photography. You know, this isn’t a game. It’s serious stuff and there are rules for it.”
The photos on the walls are all extremely good in terms of composition, exposure and focus but it is the wide range of subjects covered that really makes it stand out from the average participatory workshop exhibition.
“At the beginning we were choosing one subject for the whole group but the kids were going everywhere together all the time. And the village is only one street,” Freij laughs, “they were all coming back with the same photos.”
So themes were assigned. This forced the children to look into Nabi Salih, rather than at Nabi Salih. The subjects go far beyond the usual shots of soldiers but all analyze and reflect how the occupation impacts everyday life.
There are photos tackling the lack of playing space for children by portraying toddlers using weapon parts left over by the army as toys. One set of photos takes on the theme of water shortage and another one examines the problems of garbage disposal. These are issues that most children, from an early age, will already be familiar with here.
The cameras will remain with the children and the hope is they will keep on taking photos as a way of telling an alternative story of the village and of exposing the occupation.
This is an undertaking that may prove less dangerous, or fatal, than the weekly demonstrations but that, as they have learned, also has an impact.
This exhibition is now on display at The International Academy of Art Palestine, but is bound for a tour of Europe, the US and elsewhere. It has already widened the horizons of the participants and will go on to widen the horizons of viewers abroad for months to come.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Remi Kanazi: This Poem Will Not End Apartheid
Palestinian-American poet Remi Kanazi: This poem will not end apartheid - a poem about BDS, which says more eloquently than I ever could why you should support the Palestinian initiated BDS campaign.
Kanzi peformed this poem at the Sept. 15, 2011 NYC rally for full Palestinian rights including the Right to Return all over Palestine/Israel.
Kanzi peformed this poem at the Sept. 15, 2011 NYC rally for full Palestinian rights including the Right to Return all over Palestine/Israel.
Categories: Middle East Updates
BDS protestors picket the Jewish National Fund in Melbourne
Dear friends,pro-Palestine campaigners and BDS activists held a successful picketed outside the annual Gala Dinner of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) at the Crown Casino in Melbourne.
As the call for the action noted:
TheJewish National Fund (JNF) is a quasi- government organisation in Israel thatbuys up land in Israel from Palestinians and refuses to sell or lease it tonon-Jews. Created in 1901 to acquire land for a Jewish State in Palestine, theJNF is most commonly known for its campaign to ‘plant a tree in Israel’ inorder to ‘make the desert bloom.’ However, the trees are not planted in abarren desert empty of inhabitants that Jewish people have come to populate andmake flourish. Lands were, and still are, obtained from their Palestinianinhabitants through exploitative land sales, forced removal or other apartheidstate policies.
Sadly despite the JNF being an instrument of Israeli Apartheid, the JNF
currently has tax exempt status in Australia and is supported by the majorpolitical parties. The JNF’s Gala dinner on Sept. 21 will be attended byVictoria’s Premier and the Israeli Ambassador to Australia. Protestors in line with the Palestinian initiated BDS campaign called for:
End the occupation of Palestine. Equal rights for Palestinians livingin Israel. Let the Palestinian refugees return.No Australian support for apartheid.End the JNF’s tax exempt status. In addition they called for: Australian state and Federalgovernments to break all economic, political and military ties with Israel and for Australia to Impose immediate sanctions on Israel.
Below is a copy of the media release issued by protestors.
For more information on the BDS campaign and the Stop the JNF campaign - click here.
The Stop the JNF campaign was established by a coalition of solidarity organizations around the world including Palestinian and Israeli groups, aims to expose the JNF’s violations of Palestinian rights and international law, promote civil and legal challenges to the JNF throughout Europe, the Americas and Australasia, seeking to annul the JNF’s charitable privileges and tax-exempt fundraising, and have JNF offices world-wide shut down
Visit the Stop the JNF website - click here
I have include a link to the also included a number of links, including my article which appeared in Direct Action about Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Bedouin. The articles outline the JNF role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and how the JNF and the Israeli state "greenwash" their actions.Jewish National Fund: Zionism, ethnic cleansing and environmental racism - click hereIsrael's ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Bedouin - click here Israel approves plan to uproot 30,000 Bedouins - click here
In solidarity, Kim
JNF Protest - 21 Sept 2011, Melbourne
Photos by Gin Gordon
BDSProtesters picket the Jewish National Fund
When: 6pm, Wednesday September 21.
Where: Crown Plaza. Cnr. Queenbridge St. and WhitemanSt. Soutbank.
The Jewish National Fund (JNF), a Zionist organisation set up toconfiscate Palestinian land and plants forests to hide the ruins of Palestinianvillages are having a gala dinner. The event will be attended by VictorianPremier Ted Ballieu and Israel’s Ambassador to Australia.
At $150 a head, this gala dinner is the biggest annual fundraiser forthe JNF. It will be attended an array of Australia’s “elite”collectively meeting to show their support for an organisation committed to theethnic cleansing of Palestine and whose constitution requires it to lease land ‘in perpetuity’only to ‘persons of Jewish religion, race or origin’.
Campaign Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA) will be there to show ouropposition to the JNF and the Australian governments political consensussupport for Israel and calling for the Victorian and Australian government tobreak all economic, military and political ties with the Israeli state.
James Crafti, a Jewish anti-Zionist and one of the 19 BDS protestorsarrested on July 1, sees the need to break Australia’s ties with Israel.
He said, “JNF functions have been attended by Labour and Liberal leader.Kevin Rudd has attended past JNF events and Ballieu is attending this one.Australia is the largest per-capita sponsor of the JNF internationally and thatis because Australian governments continue to back this apartheid state. Withinthe last three months, Baillieu wanted the ACCC to litigate against theBoycott, Divestments and Sanctions movement. He employed Zionist leader, JohnSearle, as chair of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissionand is a guest of honour at the JNF’s function. The agenda of this governmentis clear.”
Since its inception, the JNFhas played a key role in ethnically cleansing the indigenous Palestinianpopulation from their land. In the 1940s, units of the JNF were been responsible forcompiling what was known as the “village files”, a systematic collection ofdata about the geography, demographics, economy and political affiliations ofPalestinian villages, which was used to help ethnically cleanse more than750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948 during the Nakba.
Melanie Mayze, one of the rally organisers and a member of the CAIA saysit is important to make a stance against the JNF, saying "Today, the JNF continues to play a central role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestiniansbut now it is done under the cover of ‘enviornmentalism’”.
Mayze said: “In the last year,one Palestinian Bedouin village, al-Arakib has been demolished more than 30times by the JNF, so a forest can be built in its place. Atthis moment, the Israeli government are planning to forcibly move 30,000Palestinian Bedouin from 13 unrecoginised villages in the Negev”.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Nabi Saleh: Military whistleblower tells of 'indiscriminate' Israeli attacks
Dearfriends,please findbelow an article from The Independent, which confirms the indiscriminateattacks by the Israeli Occupation Forces on Palestinian non-violentdemonstrations. In particular, the article discusses the village of An NabiSaleh, a village I have spent a lot of time in and confirm that the militaryregularly fire on the unarmed and peaceful demonstrations. Despite theclaim by the Israeli military (repeated in this article) that they don't uselive ammunition, I have been in the village participating in the non-violentdemonstrations when the Israeli Occupation Forces have open fired on us withlive ammunition.
In solidarity,
Kim***Military whistleblower tells of 'indiscriminate' Israeli attacksTroops fired tear gas during a curfew in a West Bank village to stop peaceful demonstrations
By Donald Macintyre, Friday, 16 September 2011 The Independent
REUTERSPalestinian protesters run from tear gas fired by Israeli troops in Nabi Saleh in January 2010
Israeli troops fired tear gas indiscriminately and sometimes dangerously to enforce a daytime curfew inside a West Bank village to stop Palestinians holding a peaceful demonstration on their own land, a military whistleblower has told The Independent.
The soldier's insight into the methods of troops comes as the Israeli military prepares for demonstrations predicted when the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas submits an application for the recognition of statehood to the UN next week.
The testimony also reinforces a report by the human rights agency B'Tselem which argues that the way Israel deals with protests in the small village of Nabi Saleh is denying the "basic right" to demonstrate in the West Bank. The right to demonstrate is enshrined in international conventions ratified by Israel.
The soldier, a reservist NCO with extensive combat experience, was among more than 20 soldiers sent into the village more than two hours before a planned Friday demonstration in July, to try to quash protests before they began. The protests started in December 2009 after Jewish settlers appropriated a spring on privately-owned Nabi Saleh land.
The reservist, who originally testified to the veterans' organisation Breaking the Silence, told The Independent that they went into a house in the village and took a position on the roof. "The sun was very hot, but we had to keep our helmets on," he said. "Then some soldiers start getting bored and start shooting tear gas on people. Every guy who is not in his house or in the mosque is a target."
He said that 150 rounds of tear gas or stun grenades were fired during the day and one soldier boasted that he had fired a tear gas canister which passed within one centimetre of a resident's head.
Army rules prohibit firing canisters directly at people because they have caused serious injuries in the past. Another soldier travelling with the whistleblower in a military vehicle out of the village was left with an unfired tear gas canister.
"He should have fired it into an open field but we passed a grocery story with some people outside it with children. After we passed it he just turned round and fired it at them."
The reservist was given a week's preparation on the use of stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas. He had been impressed by a four to five -hour visit to the trainees by the Binyamin Brigade Commander Sa'ar Tzur who addressed "issues of ethics and human life, not just on our side but on the other side".
Some soldiers complained about the strictness of prohibitions – not always honoured, according to the leaders of the weekly Nabi Saleh protests – on the use of live ammunition. But Colonel Tzur "was very strict on the fact that these are the rules and that anyone who breaks them will pay for it".
But the battalion officer, a religious West Bank settler, was "exactly the opposite," he added. "At the base there was a mission statement signed by the Brigade Commander which said 'we need to maintain the fabric of life for the civilian population, Israelis and Palestinians.' The battalion officer crossed out the word 'Palestinians' and all the soldiers around started laughing."
The reservist's testimony supports B'Tselem's s main conclusions, including that the military makes "excessive use of crowd control weapons, primarily the firing of tear-gas canisters."
He said: "It was very difficult for me. I want to be in the army to defend my country. On the other hand I saw that the job I was doing did not have any connection with defending Israel."
He said that his unit was called to the village square when the battalion officer showed around 40 Palestinians and foreign activists a written order declaring the village a "closed military zone." The soldiers had earlier heard shouting elsewhere by demonstrators before they were almost immediately dispersed by border police firing tear gas. The reservist said the people in the square "were just standing there. The officer said to the soldiers: 'Everybody should get out of here. The Palestinians into their homes and the foreigners should get out. Anyone left should be arrested.' One Palestinian was arrested when a soldier decided that he had 'looked at him in a way he didn't like'."
As well as 35 Palestinian injuries in Nabi Saleh this year, there have been 80 detentions since the protests began, including of 18 minors, and protest leader Bassem Tamimi, currently awaiting military trial based largely on the interrogation of a 14-year-old boy arrested at home at gunpoint at 2am.
The military said it has "clear, detailed, and professional guidelines" for the use of tear gas to disperse "riots", and that after two years of "dangerous and violent riots" it declared the village a "closed military area" on Fridays to "prevent these riots before they turn into violent ones".
The military's tactics have varied. A 13-year-old Palestinian boy was seriously injured by a rubber-coated bullet fired at close range during protracted clashes between armed troops and stone-throwing youths observed last year by The Independent. Those clashes started when troops fired tear gas and rubber bullets on the hitherto peaceful march towards the spring.
The reservist said he had seen no stones thrown on the day he was there. adding: "If they want to stop people throwing stones at the spring, why don't [the troops] wait at the spring? Why are they coming into the village?" He added: "The headline of the whole Friday, as I see it, if the army won't be in the village nothing would happen because the demonstration was not violent."
In solidarity,
Kim***Military whistleblower tells of 'indiscriminate' Israeli attacksTroops fired tear gas during a curfew in a West Bank village to stop peaceful demonstrations
By Donald Macintyre, Friday, 16 September 2011 The Independent
REUTERSPalestinian protesters run from tear gas fired by Israeli troops in Nabi Saleh in January 2010
Israeli troops fired tear gas indiscriminately and sometimes dangerously to enforce a daytime curfew inside a West Bank village to stop Palestinians holding a peaceful demonstration on their own land, a military whistleblower has told The Independent.
The soldier's insight into the methods of troops comes as the Israeli military prepares for demonstrations predicted when the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas submits an application for the recognition of statehood to the UN next week.
The testimony also reinforces a report by the human rights agency B'Tselem which argues that the way Israel deals with protests in the small village of Nabi Saleh is denying the "basic right" to demonstrate in the West Bank. The right to demonstrate is enshrined in international conventions ratified by Israel.
The soldier, a reservist NCO with extensive combat experience, was among more than 20 soldiers sent into the village more than two hours before a planned Friday demonstration in July, to try to quash protests before they began. The protests started in December 2009 after Jewish settlers appropriated a spring on privately-owned Nabi Saleh land.
The reservist, who originally testified to the veterans' organisation Breaking the Silence, told The Independent that they went into a house in the village and took a position on the roof. "The sun was very hot, but we had to keep our helmets on," he said. "Then some soldiers start getting bored and start shooting tear gas on people. Every guy who is not in his house or in the mosque is a target."
He said that 150 rounds of tear gas or stun grenades were fired during the day and one soldier boasted that he had fired a tear gas canister which passed within one centimetre of a resident's head.
Army rules prohibit firing canisters directly at people because they have caused serious injuries in the past. Another soldier travelling with the whistleblower in a military vehicle out of the village was left with an unfired tear gas canister.
"He should have fired it into an open field but we passed a grocery story with some people outside it with children. After we passed it he just turned round and fired it at them."
The reservist was given a week's preparation on the use of stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas. He had been impressed by a four to five -hour visit to the trainees by the Binyamin Brigade Commander Sa'ar Tzur who addressed "issues of ethics and human life, not just on our side but on the other side".
Some soldiers complained about the strictness of prohibitions – not always honoured, according to the leaders of the weekly Nabi Saleh protests – on the use of live ammunition. But Colonel Tzur "was very strict on the fact that these are the rules and that anyone who breaks them will pay for it".
But the battalion officer, a religious West Bank settler, was "exactly the opposite," he added. "At the base there was a mission statement signed by the Brigade Commander which said 'we need to maintain the fabric of life for the civilian population, Israelis and Palestinians.' The battalion officer crossed out the word 'Palestinians' and all the soldiers around started laughing."
The reservist's testimony supports B'Tselem's s main conclusions, including that the military makes "excessive use of crowd control weapons, primarily the firing of tear-gas canisters."
He said: "It was very difficult for me. I want to be in the army to defend my country. On the other hand I saw that the job I was doing did not have any connection with defending Israel."
He said that his unit was called to the village square when the battalion officer showed around 40 Palestinians and foreign activists a written order declaring the village a "closed military zone." The soldiers had earlier heard shouting elsewhere by demonstrators before they were almost immediately dispersed by border police firing tear gas. The reservist said the people in the square "were just standing there. The officer said to the soldiers: 'Everybody should get out of here. The Palestinians into their homes and the foreigners should get out. Anyone left should be arrested.' One Palestinian was arrested when a soldier decided that he had 'looked at him in a way he didn't like'."
As well as 35 Palestinian injuries in Nabi Saleh this year, there have been 80 detentions since the protests began, including of 18 minors, and protest leader Bassem Tamimi, currently awaiting military trial based largely on the interrogation of a 14-year-old boy arrested at home at gunpoint at 2am.
The military said it has "clear, detailed, and professional guidelines" for the use of tear gas to disperse "riots", and that after two years of "dangerous and violent riots" it declared the village a "closed military area" on Fridays to "prevent these riots before they turn into violent ones".
The military's tactics have varied. A 13-year-old Palestinian boy was seriously injured by a rubber-coated bullet fired at close range during protracted clashes between armed troops and stone-throwing youths observed last year by The Independent. Those clashes started when troops fired tear gas and rubber bullets on the hitherto peaceful march towards the spring.
The reservist said he had seen no stones thrown on the day he was there. adding: "If they want to stop people throwing stones at the spring, why don't [the troops] wait at the spring? Why are they coming into the village?" He added: "The headline of the whole Friday, as I see it, if the army won't be in the village nothing would happen because the demonstration was not violent."
Categories: Middle East Updates
The story of Anna and Lina: solidarity, hope and human rights
Dear friends,
please find below an article from Haaretz called An Organic Bond by veteran Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy on IWPS & ISM volunteer Anna Weekes-Majavu and Lina Taamallah, the young Palestinian girl Anna donated a kidney too.
Anna and I have never met or spoken, but Anna is the person who was responsible for me going to Palestine for the first time and for me becoming active with the International Women's Peace Service (IWPS). IWPS was formed in 2001 at the height of the second Palestinian Intifada and in the immediate years that followed, IWPS issued a number of calls for women from around the world to join them on the ground in Palestine.
Anna, a South African activist with IWPS sent the call to activists here in Australia who had links with the anti-apartheid and South African struggle and it was through them that I came to hear about IWPS and the call for women to join them in Palestine.
The trip was to have a profound effect on me and to change my life in many ways. Before going to Palestine, I had already been active in Palestine solidarity work and I had a good understanding of the historical struggle, but as many activists has said - nothing can prepare you fully for what you experience and see on the ground.
Even though I have never had the opportunity to tell her so myself, I have always been grateful to Anna for being instrumental in helping get me to Palestine and introducing me to the amazing women of IWPS.
Anna and Lina's story, as Gideon Levy notes, is one which which has the ability to make us happy but still leave a bitter taste in our mouths. It also reveals the amazing commitment and dedication of so many Palestinian, Israeli and international activists that goes much further than just the political struggle which is shared together.
In the article, Anna down plays what she did for Lina saying: "It was nothing. The body does not need two kidneys. I did not do anything special. I don't think it was a noble act, as you said. I know the family and I have known Lina since she was born. I know the ordeals the family endured when they had to go through the hills by foot to get her to the hospital during the period of the curfew. It was only logical for me to donate a kidney for her. That was my duty. I just worry that Lina's kidney will function and that no problems will arise in another few years."
What is amazing about Anna's attitude is that it is shared by so many of the international activists I have been fortunate enough to meet and work with. It is also an attitude shared by many Israeli activists who each week put their bodies on the line to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. And it also is a common attitude among so many of the Palestinian activists I have worked with and meet in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The willingness to stand up for not only what you believe in but also to stand in solidarity with your fellow human beings, not only in political struggle but also in life and share their fate - is in my experience - a common currency among those who fight for human rights, not only in Palestine but around the world. As Che Guevara explained in 1967 in his message to the Tricontinental, solidarity "is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory". Anna and Lina's story is just one of the many ways this has been put into practice.
in solidarity, Kim
---------------------
An organic bond
By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 16 September 2011
Six years ago, Anna Weekes-Majavu donated a kidney to a Palestinian toddler. Since then, the South African-born peace activist has been prevented by the Israeli authorities from seeing the child whose life she saved.
This is a bad story with a happy ending. It's also a story that makes one happy, but still leaves a bit of a bitter taste in one's mouth.
It's the story of a Palestinian baby girl who was born during a period of unrelenting siege and curfew in her village and became ill, so that her parents had to carry her through the hills to a hospital. It's the story of a Palestinian infant who needed a kidney transplant but for whom no suitable donor was found in the family; finally, a courageous South African woman decided to donate one of her kidneys to the little girl. It's the story of how the donor got to Israel, after a complicated legal effort involving government authorities and after donations were collected to finance the operation. It's the story of a successful transplant and the girl's full and joyful recovery. But it is also a story that has something bad about it: At present, Israel is preventing the donor from visiting the girl whose life she saved.
Lina Taamallah Photo by: Miki Kratsman
It was Lina Taamallah's bad luck to be born on the day Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank, in the late winter of 2002. The delivery was in Rafadiyeh Hospital in Nablus. It was a rainy day, tanks and soldiers were everywhere, and most of the villages and towns were under curfew.
"It was a miracle that we made it to the hospital at all," recalls her father, Fareed, 37, who holds a master's degree in journalism and international relations from Birzeit University and works for the Palestinian Authority's elections commission. His wife, Amina, a housewife, gave birth to Lina by C-section.
A few months later, Lina fell ill. For a week it was impossible to get her out of the house and to a doctor because of the curfew in their village, Qira, near Salfit. Lina, who developed a high fever and had severe diarrhea, was treated according to telephone instructions by a pediatrician, using medicines in her parents' home.
In an article Fareed Taamallah published in The Los Angeles Times in May 2006, he described how his wife once had to carry Lina five kilometers through the hills of the West Bank to reach a doctor. In the wrenching article, Taamallah drew a connection between Lina's ordeal at that time and the kidney failure that afflicted her a few months later. When she was a year old, Lina contracted anemia. At first she was thought to be suffering from thalassemia, a blood disorder, but her parents had undergone genetic testing before the birth so that was ruled out. A few months later, Lina (who has three healthy siblings ) was diagnosed with renal failure. The family endured 16 hard months, in which she underwent dialysis every four hours, 24 hours a day, via a special machine suitable for infants.
Her physical development was arrested and her parents' life became unendurable. Distraught, they turned their home into a kind of miniature hospital and they themselves became a medical team: It was essential to ensure that Lina did not come down with any infection. "I can't bring myself to remember that period," Fareed says now. "It was a nightmare."
It was urgent to find a kidney donor for Lina, to save her life and then upgrade its quality. Her parents were willing to donate a kidney but were quickly found to be incompatible. Desperate, they looked for another solution. They examined the possibility of obtaining a kidney from Egypt or Pakistan, but discovered there are serious ethical problems about the way kidneys are harvested in those countries. Fareed says he did not know what to do.
Anna Weekes-Majavu Photo by: Miki Kratsman
Around this time, he met Anna Weekes (whose father is Jewish ), who later went by the name Majavu, from Cape Town; she was born in 1973. They met at a summer camp of Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists in the West Bank. Anna stayed with the family after the camp disbanded and became a good friend. She knew Lina almost from the day of the girl's birth. After a time, Anna was put on the Israeli authorities' blacklist and deported due to her pro-Palestinian activity in the West Bank; she was in Britain at the time Lina fell ill. Fareed informed her about the development by e-mail, and she replied immediately that she would donate a kidney.
"I didn't believe it. I thought she only wanted to express solidarity and friendship, and that the offer was meant just to make me happy," Fareed says. He thanked Anna politely and added that at that point, he and his wife were then undergoing tests to see if they could be donors. Two months later, Fareed wrote to Anna that both they were incompatible, and Anna repeated her offer and emphasized that she was perfectly serious.
Anna then suggested that the transplant be done in Britain, however, under British law, organs must be donated by a member of the family. She decided to come to Israel for a compatibility check, and entered using a different passport which she carried legally. She underwent the examination in a private hospital in Nablus, in the meantime taking part in demonstrations against the separation fence in Bil'in and Budrus - and was again deported. She was found to be compatible.
"Now we had a compatible donor but one who could not enter the country," Fareed recalls, going on to describe the family's ordeal to save his daughter's life: They considered having the operation done in South Africa, Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan, but discovered that in all these countries the donor had to be from the family. They found that the most suitable place for the transplant was Israel, where organs can be donated by people who are not family members after a professional committee considers the motives for the donation.
A few devoted friends of Fareed's - Israeli peace activists who had heard about Lina's illness - rallied to the cause. "We now faced two battles," Fareed explains, "the battle to get Anna into the country and the battle to raise $40,000 to pay for the transplant." They had to choose between Schneider Children's Medical Center in Petah Tikva and Hadassah University Hospital in Ein Karem, Jerusalem. With the help of local friends, they chose the latter, which offered to do the operation at a discount. After lobbying, the Palestinian Authority agreed to cover half the cost of the transplant, the Peres Center for Peace also contributed and the rest was obtained through private donations. All that remained was to bring in Anna.
Attorney Gabi Lasky, who specializes in human rights cases, conducted negotiations with the Interior Ministry for Anna to be allowed to enter the country because of the special humanitarian situation. The authorities finally relented - on condition that Anna go directly from the airport to the hospital, have the kidney harvested and then return directly to the airport. Fareed himself was (and still is ) barred from entering Israel, and Lina's mother took her for the preliminary tests at the hospital alone.
In September 2005, Lina entered Hadassah. Anna arrived from South Africa - after she was interrogated for several hours at the airport - and the operation was performed on October 2, 2005. Lina was three years old at the time. Her father also finally received a permit to be with her at the hospital. On the day of the operation, Anna's fiance, Mandisi Majavu, arrived to be with her at the hospital.
The transplant was successfully performed by Prof. Ahmed Eid, head of the department of surgery at Hadassah in Ein Karem. Anna was discharged after a week and taken to Qira for recovery. She stayed there for about a month and flew home to South Africa on the day Lina was discharged. "We only had a few hours when the two of them were together," Fareed relates.
On the last night of Anna's stay in the village, the family held an improvised wedding reception for her and her fiance, who would be married a few weeks later in South Africa. The photos of the party in the family album reflect tremendous joy: Anna in a colorful and traditional embroidered Palestinian dress; Mandisi in a kaffiyeh and galabiya, both pure white, rolling amber beads with his fingers.
A short while later at the airport, Anna was again interrogated for a few hours before being allowed to leave. The security people told her she would never be allowed into Israel again. She did not sign any document, she said this week. Since then, she and Mandisi have become the parents of a daughter in South Africa. Her name: Bil'in Nkwenkwezi.
Lina recovered fully. We met her this week in the family's second home, in an affluent suburb of El Bireh, next to Ramallah. She is a charming girl, full of life. One cannot see any outward signs of what she went through. She is in the fourth grade in the American School of Palestine, which is near her home.
Every few months she goes to Hadassah for a checkup, and because her father cannot enter Israel, an Israeli volunteer takes her from the checkpoint to the hospital. It's usually Shraga Gorny, a 76-year-old Jerusalemite. Gorny, an electronics engineer, worked for 41 years at the Hebrew University and for the past 10, did medical research at Hadassah. Gorny regularly volunteers to drive Palestinian children for medical treatment at the hospital, which is how he met Lina and her family and got to know them well. (He is one of a group of Israelis - among them Herzliya-based peace activist Dorothy Naor - involved in such efforts. )
A few weeks ago, Gorny wrote me: "The girl who was like a matchstick before the transplant now looks beautiful and blooming."
According to Fareed, Lina is not yet able to appreciate what Anna did for her. For her part, Anna told me this week, on the phone from Cape Town: "It was nothing. The body does not need two kidneys. I did not do anything special. I don't think it was a noble act, as you said. I know the family and I have known Lina since she was born. I know the ordeals the family endured when they had to go through the hills by foot to get her to the hospital during the period of the curfew. It was only logical for me to donate a kidney for her. That was my duty. I just worry that Lina's kidney will function and that no problems will arise in another few years."
Anna is now a journalist in South Africa and raising Bil'in. Meanwhile, in a few weeks, the family will celebrate the sixth anniversary of the transplant. They celebrate Lina's rebirth every year and their dream is for Anna to join them. Lina has never met Anna since the operation, but Anna is still banned from entering Israel.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry's Population and Immigration Authority sent the following response to Haaretz: "An examination of the details shows that there is no request by Mrs. Weekes to enter Israel. The interrogation she underwent when she left the country was not carried out by a representative of the authority, so, accordingly, in the absence of a reason of which we are not aware, there is nothing to prevent her from visiting Israel. "It should be clarified that if she wishes to enter the territories of the Palestinian Authority," the spokeswoman continues, "she must arrange this with the coordinator of government activities in the territories. It is also desirable to check the question of why she was delayed [at the airport] with the relevant authorities."
The Shin Bet security service provided this response to Haaretz: "Usually, the person authorized to either permit or deny the entry of Mrs. Weekes into Israel would be the interior minister, or someone associated with him. At this time, it is not his intention to recommend, to any authorized figure, to object to her entry unless negative up-to-date security-related information about her is received which would change his position."
please find below an article from Haaretz called An Organic Bond by veteran Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy on IWPS & ISM volunteer Anna Weekes-Majavu and Lina Taamallah, the young Palestinian girl Anna donated a kidney too.
Anna and I have never met or spoken, but Anna is the person who was responsible for me going to Palestine for the first time and for me becoming active with the International Women's Peace Service (IWPS). IWPS was formed in 2001 at the height of the second Palestinian Intifada and in the immediate years that followed, IWPS issued a number of calls for women from around the world to join them on the ground in Palestine.
Anna, a South African activist with IWPS sent the call to activists here in Australia who had links with the anti-apartheid and South African struggle and it was through them that I came to hear about IWPS and the call for women to join them in Palestine.
The trip was to have a profound effect on me and to change my life in many ways. Before going to Palestine, I had already been active in Palestine solidarity work and I had a good understanding of the historical struggle, but as many activists has said - nothing can prepare you fully for what you experience and see on the ground.
Even though I have never had the opportunity to tell her so myself, I have always been grateful to Anna for being instrumental in helping get me to Palestine and introducing me to the amazing women of IWPS.
Anna and Lina's story, as Gideon Levy notes, is one which which has the ability to make us happy but still leave a bitter taste in our mouths. It also reveals the amazing commitment and dedication of so many Palestinian, Israeli and international activists that goes much further than just the political struggle which is shared together.
In the article, Anna down plays what she did for Lina saying: "It was nothing. The body does not need two kidneys. I did not do anything special. I don't think it was a noble act, as you said. I know the family and I have known Lina since she was born. I know the ordeals the family endured when they had to go through the hills by foot to get her to the hospital during the period of the curfew. It was only logical for me to donate a kidney for her. That was my duty. I just worry that Lina's kidney will function and that no problems will arise in another few years."
What is amazing about Anna's attitude is that it is shared by so many of the international activists I have been fortunate enough to meet and work with. It is also an attitude shared by many Israeli activists who each week put their bodies on the line to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. And it also is a common attitude among so many of the Palestinian activists I have worked with and meet in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The willingness to stand up for not only what you believe in but also to stand in solidarity with your fellow human beings, not only in political struggle but also in life and share their fate - is in my experience - a common currency among those who fight for human rights, not only in Palestine but around the world. As Che Guevara explained in 1967 in his message to the Tricontinental, solidarity "is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory". Anna and Lina's story is just one of the many ways this has been put into practice.
in solidarity, Kim
---------------------
An organic bond
By Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 16 September 2011
Six years ago, Anna Weekes-Majavu donated a kidney to a Palestinian toddler. Since then, the South African-born peace activist has been prevented by the Israeli authorities from seeing the child whose life she saved.
This is a bad story with a happy ending. It's also a story that makes one happy, but still leaves a bit of a bitter taste in one's mouth.
It's the story of a Palestinian baby girl who was born during a period of unrelenting siege and curfew in her village and became ill, so that her parents had to carry her through the hills to a hospital. It's the story of a Palestinian infant who needed a kidney transplant but for whom no suitable donor was found in the family; finally, a courageous South African woman decided to donate one of her kidneys to the little girl. It's the story of how the donor got to Israel, after a complicated legal effort involving government authorities and after donations were collected to finance the operation. It's the story of a successful transplant and the girl's full and joyful recovery. But it is also a story that has something bad about it: At present, Israel is preventing the donor from visiting the girl whose life she saved.
Lina Taamallah Photo by: Miki Kratsman
It was Lina Taamallah's bad luck to be born on the day Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank, in the late winter of 2002. The delivery was in Rafadiyeh Hospital in Nablus. It was a rainy day, tanks and soldiers were everywhere, and most of the villages and towns were under curfew.
"It was a miracle that we made it to the hospital at all," recalls her father, Fareed, 37, who holds a master's degree in journalism and international relations from Birzeit University and works for the Palestinian Authority's elections commission. His wife, Amina, a housewife, gave birth to Lina by C-section.
A few months later, Lina fell ill. For a week it was impossible to get her out of the house and to a doctor because of the curfew in their village, Qira, near Salfit. Lina, who developed a high fever and had severe diarrhea, was treated according to telephone instructions by a pediatrician, using medicines in her parents' home.
In an article Fareed Taamallah published in The Los Angeles Times in May 2006, he described how his wife once had to carry Lina five kilometers through the hills of the West Bank to reach a doctor. In the wrenching article, Taamallah drew a connection between Lina's ordeal at that time and the kidney failure that afflicted her a few months later. When she was a year old, Lina contracted anemia. At first she was thought to be suffering from thalassemia, a blood disorder, but her parents had undergone genetic testing before the birth so that was ruled out. A few months later, Lina (who has three healthy siblings ) was diagnosed with renal failure. The family endured 16 hard months, in which she underwent dialysis every four hours, 24 hours a day, via a special machine suitable for infants.
Her physical development was arrested and her parents' life became unendurable. Distraught, they turned their home into a kind of miniature hospital and they themselves became a medical team: It was essential to ensure that Lina did not come down with any infection. "I can't bring myself to remember that period," Fareed says now. "It was a nightmare."
It was urgent to find a kidney donor for Lina, to save her life and then upgrade its quality. Her parents were willing to donate a kidney but were quickly found to be incompatible. Desperate, they looked for another solution. They examined the possibility of obtaining a kidney from Egypt or Pakistan, but discovered there are serious ethical problems about the way kidneys are harvested in those countries. Fareed says he did not know what to do.
Anna Weekes-Majavu Photo by: Miki Kratsman
Around this time, he met Anna Weekes (whose father is Jewish ), who later went by the name Majavu, from Cape Town; she was born in 1973. They met at a summer camp of Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists in the West Bank. Anna stayed with the family after the camp disbanded and became a good friend. She knew Lina almost from the day of the girl's birth. After a time, Anna was put on the Israeli authorities' blacklist and deported due to her pro-Palestinian activity in the West Bank; she was in Britain at the time Lina fell ill. Fareed informed her about the development by e-mail, and she replied immediately that she would donate a kidney.
"I didn't believe it. I thought she only wanted to express solidarity and friendship, and that the offer was meant just to make me happy," Fareed says. He thanked Anna politely and added that at that point, he and his wife were then undergoing tests to see if they could be donors. Two months later, Fareed wrote to Anna that both they were incompatible, and Anna repeated her offer and emphasized that she was perfectly serious.
Anna then suggested that the transplant be done in Britain, however, under British law, organs must be donated by a member of the family. She decided to come to Israel for a compatibility check, and entered using a different passport which she carried legally. She underwent the examination in a private hospital in Nablus, in the meantime taking part in demonstrations against the separation fence in Bil'in and Budrus - and was again deported. She was found to be compatible.
"Now we had a compatible donor but one who could not enter the country," Fareed recalls, going on to describe the family's ordeal to save his daughter's life: They considered having the operation done in South Africa, Egypt, Jordan or Pakistan, but discovered that in all these countries the donor had to be from the family. They found that the most suitable place for the transplant was Israel, where organs can be donated by people who are not family members after a professional committee considers the motives for the donation.
A few devoted friends of Fareed's - Israeli peace activists who had heard about Lina's illness - rallied to the cause. "We now faced two battles," Fareed explains, "the battle to get Anna into the country and the battle to raise $40,000 to pay for the transplant." They had to choose between Schneider Children's Medical Center in Petah Tikva and Hadassah University Hospital in Ein Karem, Jerusalem. With the help of local friends, they chose the latter, which offered to do the operation at a discount. After lobbying, the Palestinian Authority agreed to cover half the cost of the transplant, the Peres Center for Peace also contributed and the rest was obtained through private donations. All that remained was to bring in Anna.
Attorney Gabi Lasky, who specializes in human rights cases, conducted negotiations with the Interior Ministry for Anna to be allowed to enter the country because of the special humanitarian situation. The authorities finally relented - on condition that Anna go directly from the airport to the hospital, have the kidney harvested and then return directly to the airport. Fareed himself was (and still is ) barred from entering Israel, and Lina's mother took her for the preliminary tests at the hospital alone.
In September 2005, Lina entered Hadassah. Anna arrived from South Africa - after she was interrogated for several hours at the airport - and the operation was performed on October 2, 2005. Lina was three years old at the time. Her father also finally received a permit to be with her at the hospital. On the day of the operation, Anna's fiance, Mandisi Majavu, arrived to be with her at the hospital.
The transplant was successfully performed by Prof. Ahmed Eid, head of the department of surgery at Hadassah in Ein Karem. Anna was discharged after a week and taken to Qira for recovery. She stayed there for about a month and flew home to South Africa on the day Lina was discharged. "We only had a few hours when the two of them were together," Fareed relates.
On the last night of Anna's stay in the village, the family held an improvised wedding reception for her and her fiance, who would be married a few weeks later in South Africa. The photos of the party in the family album reflect tremendous joy: Anna in a colorful and traditional embroidered Palestinian dress; Mandisi in a kaffiyeh and galabiya, both pure white, rolling amber beads with his fingers.
A short while later at the airport, Anna was again interrogated for a few hours before being allowed to leave. The security people told her she would never be allowed into Israel again. She did not sign any document, she said this week. Since then, she and Mandisi have become the parents of a daughter in South Africa. Her name: Bil'in Nkwenkwezi.
Lina recovered fully. We met her this week in the family's second home, in an affluent suburb of El Bireh, next to Ramallah. She is a charming girl, full of life. One cannot see any outward signs of what she went through. She is in the fourth grade in the American School of Palestine, which is near her home.
Every few months she goes to Hadassah for a checkup, and because her father cannot enter Israel, an Israeli volunteer takes her from the checkpoint to the hospital. It's usually Shraga Gorny, a 76-year-old Jerusalemite. Gorny, an electronics engineer, worked for 41 years at the Hebrew University and for the past 10, did medical research at Hadassah. Gorny regularly volunteers to drive Palestinian children for medical treatment at the hospital, which is how he met Lina and her family and got to know them well. (He is one of a group of Israelis - among them Herzliya-based peace activist Dorothy Naor - involved in such efforts. )
A few weeks ago, Gorny wrote me: "The girl who was like a matchstick before the transplant now looks beautiful and blooming."
According to Fareed, Lina is not yet able to appreciate what Anna did for her. For her part, Anna told me this week, on the phone from Cape Town: "It was nothing. The body does not need two kidneys. I did not do anything special. I don't think it was a noble act, as you said. I know the family and I have known Lina since she was born. I know the ordeals the family endured when they had to go through the hills by foot to get her to the hospital during the period of the curfew. It was only logical for me to donate a kidney for her. That was my duty. I just worry that Lina's kidney will function and that no problems will arise in another few years."
Anna is now a journalist in South Africa and raising Bil'in. Meanwhile, in a few weeks, the family will celebrate the sixth anniversary of the transplant. They celebrate Lina's rebirth every year and their dream is for Anna to join them. Lina has never met Anna since the operation, but Anna is still banned from entering Israel.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry's Population and Immigration Authority sent the following response to Haaretz: "An examination of the details shows that there is no request by Mrs. Weekes to enter Israel. The interrogation she underwent when she left the country was not carried out by a representative of the authority, so, accordingly, in the absence of a reason of which we are not aware, there is nothing to prevent her from visiting Israel. "It should be clarified that if she wishes to enter the territories of the Palestinian Authority," the spokeswoman continues, "she must arrange this with the coordinator of government activities in the territories. It is also desirable to check the question of why she was delayed [at the airport] with the relevant authorities."
The Shin Bet security service provided this response to Haaretz: "Usually, the person authorized to either permit or deny the entry of Mrs. Weekes into Israel would be the interior minister, or someone associated with him. At this time, it is not his intention to recommend, to any authorized figure, to object to her entry unless negative up-to-date security-related information about her is received which would change his position."
Categories: Middle East Updates
Welcome to Apartheid Street - Occupied Palestine
HEBRON (Reuters) -- Palestinians changed the name of Hebron's Shuhada street to Apartheid Street on Wednesday, to protest the prevailing conditions in areas of the West Bank town which are controlled by Israeli troops.
Aide to Hebron's Governor, Rafiq al-Jabari, said the name change would remain in effect until what he described as apartheid-like conditions had been eradicated in Hebron.
"At the entrance of Shuhada Street, we announce the temporary change of the name of the street to Apartheid Street, until the end of the Apartheid segregation that is enforced by the settlers under the protection of occupation soldiers," he said.
The road has often been a focus of friction between Hebron's Palestinian majority and the small group of Jewish settlers living in the town.
The road was first closed in 1994, after a settler killed 29 Palestinians in the mosque marking the burial place of biblical patriarch Abraham, revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims.
An Israeli checkpoint which was built in the entrance of the street dates back to the September 2000 Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Israeli restrictions on movement and access, many of them dating back to the uprising, have turned parts of the old city into a ghost town. Poverty has risen in a city that was traditionally an engine of the Palestinian economy.
One resident of the street, Palestinian Issa Amr, says life among the Israeli soldiers and settlers, who first arrived on his street in 1984, has become almost unbearable.
"We want to change the name Shuhada Street to Apartheid Street, to show that Palestinians suffer in this street. We are suffering from the theft of our rights and attacks against our properties, our children and our elders.
"In a street where we live, we are not allowed to walk in it or drive in it, we are not allowed to walk with animals in it. This is racist segregation," said Amr, an organizer of the Palestinian grassroots group Youth Against Settlements.
Around 800 Jewish settlers live among 30,000 Palestinians in the parts of the ancient city that are under Israeli control.
Reports of physical violence and stone-throwing from both sides signal deep hostility between the settlers and the Palestinians.
Hebron, dotted with Jewish settlements and divided into zones of Israeli and Palestinian control, is a microcosm of the occupied West Bank, where the Palestinians have self-rule over islands of territory surrounded by areas of Israeli control.
Hebron was split into areas of Palestinian and Israeli control by agreement in 1997.
The Israeli-controlled "H2" area includes the settlements and the mosque and synagogue housed at Abraham's burial site, referred to as Tomb of the Patriarchs by Israelis and the Ibrahami Mosque by Palestinians. The Palestinian area of control, where another 170,000 Palestinians live, is called "H1".
Israeli restrictions on movement and access, many of them dating back to the Palestinian uprising at the start of the decade, have turned parts of H2 into a ghost town. Poverty has risen in a city that was traditionally an engine of the Palestinian economy.
Israel has said the Hebron settlements would be among those it would seek to keep in any peace deal, suggesting that more remote enclaves could be evacuated and that it would cede other land to the Palestinians in compensation.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Some Greens MPs show they have principle and guts, while others show they are cowards and have no principles.
Dear friends,
on 15 September, David Clarke, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly moved a motion condemning the Palestinian initiated Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Clarke, well-known for his Christian fundamentalist has been accused of anti-semitism himself in the past, including by the Zionists involved in the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australian Jewish News.
Shamefully, many member of the Greens have decided to throw their principles out the window, more worried about their own electoral backsides than supporting justice and human rights. Other than Greens Senator, Lee Rhiannon and NSW Greens councillor, Fiona Green and former Greens NSW MP, Sylvia Hale, many of the Greens have sought to duck and cover over Palestine and BDS.
Two NSW MP who have had the guts to not do this and are prepared to show they do have principles and that they are not willing to throw the Palestinian people out the window is Dr John Kaye and David Shoebridge. It is unfortunate that their fellow party members and parliamentary colleagues, in both the Federal and NSW state parliament, such as Jeremy Buckingham (Federal), Cate Faehrman and Jan Barham (both NSW state parliament) did not have the same guts or principles. Disgustingly, both Faehrman and Barnham revealed their absolutely lack of support for Palestinian human rights and voted in support of the Clarke motion, while Kaye and Shoebridge stood up for human rights and voted against it.
Please find below Kaye's parliamentary response to to Clarke's appalling motion. For a full transcript of the parliamentary discussion, you can read the full transcript of Handsard here. which includes David Shoebridge's comments, as well as the sychophantic support for Clarke's motion expressed by other pro-Zionist members of the NSW parliament and the plethora of ill-informed lies and distortions about BDS.
in solidarity, Kim
***
ANTI-ISRAEL BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) notes with concern the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against
legitimate businesses operating in Australia which provide jobs to hundreds of Australians,
(b) calls on all members to condemn the targeting of Max Brenner Chocolate Cafes by anti-Israel
protestors,
(c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS campaign has descended into
anti-Semitism, and
(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
Dr JOHN KAYE: There is direct evidence that the anti-boycott, divestment and sanction side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections, the Australian Protectionist Party—and not just fascist connections, but connections to holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to exploit the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust and the many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on the record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 the New South Wales Greens supported the boycott, divestment and sanction mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there and if Trevor Khan could find it surely anybody could find it.
<7>
The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli Government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that the boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa—the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era, where human rights were no longer determined upon the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose boycotts, divestments and sanctions, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and they are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it—as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support boycotts, divestment and sanctions are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded in fact. It should not be founded in a fantasy borne of ideology.
The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those who called an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than those of us who have criticised the Syrian Government and its policies and called for boycotts against that government—as the mover of the motion and I did at a meeting in this Chamber two nights ago. That does not make the Hon. David Clarke or me anti-Syrian; it makes us concerned for the systematic abuse of human rights in Syria. Those of us who support boycotts, divestments and sanctions are not anti-Israel, are not anti-Semitic and are not anti-Jewish; we are concerned about the systematic abuse of human rights.
I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate and other senators voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I am not the only person of Jewish extraction who believes this. Vivienne Porzsolt is a spokesperson for Jews Against the Occupation in Sydney, and she has worked for years for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In April this year she wrote:
I know many Jews feel deeply threatened by the boycott, divestments sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
It feels like a threat to eliminate Israel. For so many Jews, Israel is a guarantee of survival, so BDS is a threat to Jewish survival and ipso facto anti-Semitic.
But principled opposition to the state of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel are not anti-Semitic. BDS is not aimed at Israel or Israelis or Jews as such; it is aimed at the institutions of the state of Israel until it abides by international law.
She goes on to say:
Israel is in breach of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in so many ways: torture, collective punishment, transferring settlers to land under occupation, refusal to allow Palestinians displaced in the wars of 1948 and 1967 to return to the land of their birth, disproportionate response to attacks, illegal destruction of Palestinian homes, crops and olive groves; continuing alienation of land; the illegal blockade of Gaza; the systematic discrimination in access to land, education and resources within Israel and ongoing military occupation.
It is fundamentally dishonest to attack opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic. It is intended to silence legitimate criticism. It also makes it impossible to challenge the real anti-Semitism that is, unfortunately, on the increase.
...
Jews Against the Occupation supports the broad-based call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel until it abides by international law.
...
It is the only non-violent way to put real pressure on Israel. It is in the proud tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Criticism of Israel in the name of justice and human rights is much more in line with traditional Jewish ethics than the narrow focus of the shortest Zionist movement.
"Never again" must mean "never again" for all people, not just Jews.
I echo Vivienne Porzsolt's words. She is saying that there is a range of opinions amongst Jews with respect to the Middle East. Those who seek to say that the Jewish community is 100 per cent opposed to the boycotts, divestments and sanctions are simply wrong. The mover of the motion seeks to close the attack on the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign under the mantle of anti-Semitism. But the accusation surely does not sit comfortably with him. He is the same David Clarke who twice—once in April 2005 and then in April 2007—attended a commemoration of the rise of the fascist Ustasha Government into power in Croatia in April 1941. He is the same David Clarke who was reprimanded by the chief executive officer of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Mr Vic Alhadeff, who I acknowledge is present in the gallery today. In the Jewish News of 26 April 2007, Mr Alhadeff said of the Hon. David Clarke:
The function—
that is, the function attended by Mr Clarke—
celebrated Hitler's establishment of the Nazi state of Croatia ... This is a state that supported the Jasenovac extermination camp,
where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, including 60,000 Jews ... It is very troubling that such a brutal regime still finds support in democratic Australia.
There is no excuse for the Hon. David Clarke moving this motion when he so shamefully supported the celebration of the Nazi regime in Croatia. Like so many who come from the extreme Right, today he finds himself with the fanatical support of Israel. He joins with groups such as the Australian Protectionist Party and others in opposing the boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign. Many in the Jewish community will be shocked to see the way the Hon. David Clarke summons up the memory of the Holocaust when his mentor—
The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: I take exception to some of the comments made by Dr John Kaye. I find the comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr John Kaye is well past the point of merely addressing the motion. He is making serious reflections on the Hon. David Clarke, who has taken exception to them. The Hon. David Clarke, who moved the motion, will have an opportunity to respond to the comments of Dr John Kaye in his reply. However, if Dr John Kaye wishes to continue to explore these matters he should do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made my ruling. Mr David Shoebridge will not canvass my ruling by taking a further point of order.
<8>
Dr JOHN KAYE: Use of the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes, as has been done in the Chamber today, is unconscionable. It is unconscionable because it holds to ransom the memory of people who cannot speak for themselves, the many people who were fine supporters of social justice and who stood up for the rights of other oppressed people. I cannot support this motion. Earlier this week Bob Brown, Christine Milne and the other Greens senators voted against the motions put forward by Senator Boswell and Senator Abetz. I will follow their lead and vote against this motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph (a).
The boycott, divestment and sanction movement is a valid expression of democracy. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that the boycotts did not in any way interfere with company profits. It is a legitimate way for individuals to protest. It is a way for individuals to say that they cannot tolerate the treatment of the Palestinian people, just as they cannot tolerate the treatment of other people who are abused around the world. If the Hon. David Clarke and supporters of this motion were serious about supporting the future of the Jewish people they would desist in giving unqualified support to Israel. The future of the Jewish people in the Middle East will be determined by a settlement that respects the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Those who live outside Israel, who give that unqualified support and refuse to tolerate any criticism of Israel, do the Jewish people no favour. All they do is create an environment in which the Jewish people and the state of Israel continue to operate without respect for the human rights of the Palestinian people. As long as that continues there will not be peace or human rights in the Middle East. This motion does nothing to advance the cause of human rights and peace in the Middle East; it works against them. This motion does nothing to respect the systemic denial of the Palestinians in the Middle East, and it does nothing to respect the rights of Australians to legitimately protest when they see injustice internationally. I am opposed to the motion.
on 15 September, David Clarke, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly moved a motion condemning the Palestinian initiated Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Clarke, well-known for his Christian fundamentalist has been accused of anti-semitism himself in the past, including by the Zionists involved in the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australian Jewish News.
Shamefully, many member of the Greens have decided to throw their principles out the window, more worried about their own electoral backsides than supporting justice and human rights. Other than Greens Senator, Lee Rhiannon and NSW Greens councillor, Fiona Green and former Greens NSW MP, Sylvia Hale, many of the Greens have sought to duck and cover over Palestine and BDS.
Two NSW MP who have had the guts to not do this and are prepared to show they do have principles and that they are not willing to throw the Palestinian people out the window is Dr John Kaye and David Shoebridge. It is unfortunate that their fellow party members and parliamentary colleagues, in both the Federal and NSW state parliament, such as Jeremy Buckingham (Federal), Cate Faehrman and Jan Barham (both NSW state parliament) did not have the same guts or principles. Disgustingly, both Faehrman and Barnham revealed their absolutely lack of support for Palestinian human rights and voted in support of the Clarke motion, while Kaye and Shoebridge stood up for human rights and voted against it.
Please find below Kaye's parliamentary response to to Clarke's appalling motion. For a full transcript of the parliamentary discussion, you can read the full transcript of Handsard here. which includes David Shoebridge's comments, as well as the sychophantic support for Clarke's motion expressed by other pro-Zionist members of the NSW parliament and the plethora of ill-informed lies and distortions about BDS.
in solidarity, Kim
***
ANTI-ISRAEL BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(a) notes with concern the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against
legitimate businesses operating in Australia which provide jobs to hundreds of Australians,
(b) calls on all members to condemn the targeting of Max Brenner Chocolate Cafes by anti-Israel
protestors,
(c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS campaign has descended into
anti-Semitism, and
(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.
Dr JOHN KAYE: There is direct evidence that the anti-boycott, divestment and sanction side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections, the Australian Protectionist Party—and not just fascist connections, but connections to holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to exploit the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust and the many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.
Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on the record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 the New South Wales Greens supported the boycott, divestment and sanction mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there and if Trevor Khan could find it surely anybody could find it.
<7>
The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli Government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.
The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that the boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa—the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era, where human rights were no longer determined upon the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.
I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose boycotts, divestments and sanctions, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and they are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it—as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support boycotts, divestment and sanctions are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded in fact. It should not be founded in a fantasy borne of ideology.
The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those who called an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than those of us who have criticised the Syrian Government and its policies and called for boycotts against that government—as the mover of the motion and I did at a meeting in this Chamber two nights ago. That does not make the Hon. David Clarke or me anti-Syrian; it makes us concerned for the systematic abuse of human rights in Syria. Those of us who support boycotts, divestments and sanctions are not anti-Israel, are not anti-Semitic and are not anti-Jewish; we are concerned about the systematic abuse of human rights.
I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate and other senators voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I am not the only person of Jewish extraction who believes this. Vivienne Porzsolt is a spokesperson for Jews Against the Occupation in Sydney, and she has worked for years for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In April this year she wrote:
I know many Jews feel deeply threatened by the boycott, divestments sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
It feels like a threat to eliminate Israel. For so many Jews, Israel is a guarantee of survival, so BDS is a threat to Jewish survival and ipso facto anti-Semitic.
But principled opposition to the state of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel are not anti-Semitic. BDS is not aimed at Israel or Israelis or Jews as such; it is aimed at the institutions of the state of Israel until it abides by international law.
She goes on to say:
Israel is in breach of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in so many ways: torture, collective punishment, transferring settlers to land under occupation, refusal to allow Palestinians displaced in the wars of 1948 and 1967 to return to the land of their birth, disproportionate response to attacks, illegal destruction of Palestinian homes, crops and olive groves; continuing alienation of land; the illegal blockade of Gaza; the systematic discrimination in access to land, education and resources within Israel and ongoing military occupation.
It is fundamentally dishonest to attack opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic. It is intended to silence legitimate criticism. It also makes it impossible to challenge the real anti-Semitism that is, unfortunately, on the increase.
...
Jews Against the Occupation supports the broad-based call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel until it abides by international law.
...
It is the only non-violent way to put real pressure on Israel. It is in the proud tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Criticism of Israel in the name of justice and human rights is much more in line with traditional Jewish ethics than the narrow focus of the shortest Zionist movement.
"Never again" must mean "never again" for all people, not just Jews.
I echo Vivienne Porzsolt's words. She is saying that there is a range of opinions amongst Jews with respect to the Middle East. Those who seek to say that the Jewish community is 100 per cent opposed to the boycotts, divestments and sanctions are simply wrong. The mover of the motion seeks to close the attack on the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign under the mantle of anti-Semitism. But the accusation surely does not sit comfortably with him. He is the same David Clarke who twice—once in April 2005 and then in April 2007—attended a commemoration of the rise of the fascist Ustasha Government into power in Croatia in April 1941. He is the same David Clarke who was reprimanded by the chief executive officer of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Mr Vic Alhadeff, who I acknowledge is present in the gallery today. In the Jewish News of 26 April 2007, Mr Alhadeff said of the Hon. David Clarke:
The function—
that is, the function attended by Mr Clarke—
celebrated Hitler's establishment of the Nazi state of Croatia ... This is a state that supported the Jasenovac extermination camp,
where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, including 60,000 Jews ... It is very troubling that such a brutal regime still finds support in democratic Australia.
There is no excuse for the Hon. David Clarke moving this motion when he so shamefully supported the celebration of the Nazi regime in Croatia. Like so many who come from the extreme Right, today he finds himself with the fanatical support of Israel. He joins with groups such as the Australian Protectionist Party and others in opposing the boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign. Many in the Jewish community will be shocked to see the way the Hon. David Clarke summons up the memory of the Holocaust when his mentor—
The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: I take exception to some of the comments made by Dr John Kaye. I find the comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr John Kaye is well past the point of merely addressing the motion. He is making serious reflections on the Hon. David Clarke, who has taken exception to them. The Hon. David Clarke, who moved the motion, will have an opportunity to respond to the comments of Dr John Kaye in his reply. However, if Dr John Kaye wishes to continue to explore these matters he should do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made my ruling. Mr David Shoebridge will not canvass my ruling by taking a further point of order.
<8>
Dr JOHN KAYE: Use of the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes, as has been done in the Chamber today, is unconscionable. It is unconscionable because it holds to ransom the memory of people who cannot speak for themselves, the many people who were fine supporters of social justice and who stood up for the rights of other oppressed people. I cannot support this motion. Earlier this week Bob Brown, Christine Milne and the other Greens senators voted against the motions put forward by Senator Boswell and Senator Abetz. I will follow their lead and vote against this motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph (a).
The boycott, divestment and sanction movement is a valid expression of democracy. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that the boycotts did not in any way interfere with company profits. It is a legitimate way for individuals to protest. It is a way for individuals to say that they cannot tolerate the treatment of the Palestinian people, just as they cannot tolerate the treatment of other people who are abused around the world. If the Hon. David Clarke and supporters of this motion were serious about supporting the future of the Jewish people they would desist in giving unqualified support to Israel. The future of the Jewish people in the Middle East will be determined by a settlement that respects the human rights of the Palestinian people.
Those who live outside Israel, who give that unqualified support and refuse to tolerate any criticism of Israel, do the Jewish people no favour. All they do is create an environment in which the Jewish people and the state of Israel continue to operate without respect for the human rights of the Palestinian people. As long as that continues there will not be peace or human rights in the Middle East. This motion does nothing to advance the cause of human rights and peace in the Middle East; it works against them. This motion does nothing to respect the systemic denial of the Palestinians in the Middle East, and it does nothing to respect the rights of Australians to legitimately protest when they see injustice internationally. I am opposed to the motion.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Kate Ausburn: Conversations with BDS counter-protesters in Newtown
Dear Friends,
Sydney independent journalist Kate Ausburn has published the following article/interviews on the counter BDS protest which took place in Sydney on Sept 10. As Antony Loewenstein notes in his re-post of Ausburn's article "As the BDS movement grows in Australia – the hysteria in the corporate media and political elites suggest panic stations – it’s important to understand what those opposed to full Palestinian rights are arguing. Sydney journalist Kate Auburn attended a rally last weekend in Sydney and documented the following. Note the paranoia, mis-information, Nazi comparisons and inability to even accept that Palestine exists". In Melbourne, I experience a similar situation while attending the BDS action here on Friday 9th Sept.
A small group of Zionists and extreme right wing nationalists were in attendance (perhaps a half a dozen). As I was filming the rally as it moved off to march through the city, I caught on video one of the woman among the Zionist group. She was handing out leaflets and singing out in a sing song voice "Palestine does not exist Palestine does not exist". Earlier during the demonstration, another woman from the group physically assaulted on of the invited speakers, Aboriginal elder, Robbie Thorpe. BDS activists had to non-violently step in and stop the woman from assaulting him a second and third time (I hope to have video of the action edited up on the web in the next few days which includes image of both the woman denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people and the assault on Robbie Thorpe).
Ausburn's article provides a good insight into not only the politics but also the paranoia of many Zionist and rightwing-extremist nationalists counter protestors. As Jeff Sparrow notes in his article on the ABC's Drum, there is a growing alliance between the two (see his article here) Noticably in the last week or so, a number have claimed that a number of the chants being used at the BDS actions were either supposedly calling for the destruction of Israel/one state solution or are accusing the Jewish people of "blood libel".
According to Zionist and anti-BDS opponents, the chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a call for the destruction of the Israeli state. However, as one Sydney BDS activist recently pointed out in a discussion I was involved in in a social networking site, this is a very deliberately distorted reading of the chant. The activist pointed out that in relation to this chant "Freedom can mean freedom from discrimination and oppression for the Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as freedom for those under occupation". Personally, I have never viewed the chant as having anything to do with either calling for the destruction of Israel or a one state solution, instead I have always viewed it as simply being a call for freedom of the Palestinian people, nothing more and nothing less. The paranoia of Zionists and their rightwing nationalist supporters, however, has certainly reached new lows with their new claim that the chant "Max Brenner, come off it, there's blood in your hot chocolate" is supposedly a form of blood libel. For those, who are unaware, blood libel refers to the anti-Semitic accusation and superstition that was rife in the Middle Ages which claimed that supposedly Jewish people use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals and for baking matzos for Passover.
The chant "Brenner, come of it, there's blood in your hot chocolate", however, has nothing to do with this appalling anti-Semitic accusation. Not only does BDS not target "Jewish" businesses, it is virulently opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As has been explained time and time again, BDS does not target Jewish businesses and nor does it target business simply because of the nationality of the owner/management. Instead, a business must actively profit from or support the Israeli state's apartheid and occupation policies.
As noted previously, Max Brenner Chocolate has been a focus for BDS action in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because it is owned by the Strauss Group — one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies, which actively supports Israel's military occupation forces. On its website, the Strauss Group emphasizes its support for the Israeli military, providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers. Strauss boasts support for the Golani and Givati Brigades, which were heavily involved in Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in the Winter of 2008-09, which resulted in the killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, the majority civilians, including approximately 350 children. While Strauss has removed information about their support for the Golani and Givati brigades from their English language website, information about the company’s support for both brigades remains on their Hebrew language site.
As a result, the chant has nothing to do with anyone or any business being Jewish. In addition, it is a chant which is in the long tradition of anti-war and human rights chants that have been used for many years in the anti-war movements and human rights campaigns. During the East Timorese struggle for freedom from the brutal Indonesian military occupation which was imposed on them for more than 25 years, one of the common slogans and chants used by Australian activists was "No blood for Oil", referring to the fact that the Australian government had turned a blind eye to the Indonesian state's human rights abuses and the mass murder of East Timorese being carried out by the Indonesian military because the Australian government was more interested in gain control of large areas of the Timor Sea gas and oil fields.
Similarly when the US staged it invasion of Iraq in 1991, a common slogan and chant at anti-war actions in the USA, Australia and around the world was "No blood for Oil" highlighting the fact that the USA was willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to gain control of the middle east oil fields. The slogan and chant was re-used when the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq in 2003.
In relation to the BDS protests focusing on Max Brenner, the chant seeks to highlight that Brenner/Strauss is a company which actively and proudly supports the Israeli military which is actively oppressing the Palestinian people and the fact that Israel's military occupation forces, such as the Givati and Golani brigade, who Strauss (Brenner's parent company) support have repeated been engaged in actions which have resulted in the death of thousands of Palestinians in not only in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but also in Lebanon (the Golani brigade was the Israeli military force which secured the perimeter of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp so that their allies in the Lebanese Phalange could carry out the massacre of 3000 Palestinian refugees in the camp. For more information on the massacre, see Robert Fisk's account of massacre here. Fisk was one of the first western journalist to arrive on the scene. You can also read my 2007 article on the Sabra and Shatila massacres here)
As a result the claims that this chant is supposedly a "blood libel" is a complete and deliberate false assertion. This claim/assertion is being enacted and used by Zionists and their supporters in the same way that the repeated slurs of anti-semitism and Nazism against the BDS movement are being used. Not only are they completely disingenuous but they are a cynical attempt to falsely paint the BDS movement and protestors as anti-Semitic and to try and silence pro-BDS and pro-Palestine voices. As Jewish Australian journalist, Antony Loewenstein noted in articles and on twitter, those using Nazis and anti-Semitic slurs against the BDS movement and BDS activists are not only cheapening the memory of those who died in the Holocaust but are also setting up a situation to make it more difficult to fight real ant-Semitism when it occurs (see Loewenstein's article Enough with the Nazi Slurs here)
****************************
Conversations with BDS counter-protesters in Newtown
.
by Kate Ausburn On September 13th, 2011
Visit Kate Ausburn's blog here
At the BDS protest outside of Max Brenner in Newtown this past weekend I took the opportunity to have a chat to those amongst the counter-protest crowd. I wanted to find out what had made then join the protests against the BDS.
Because there are a range of reasons that people have come out to protest against the BDS Max Brenner campaign, I have noted what people were wearing when I spoke with them. I felt it relevant as it can give an indication of their motivation to rally; for example, those in Australian flag gear were openly Australian Protectionist Party aligned. There were a number of people in “I love Max Brenner” tshirts, I’ve heard these were printed by Newtown anti-Burqa muralist Sergio Redegalli, but I can’t confirm that, though Sergio was amongst the anti-BDS crowd sporting one such tshirt. There were also those in plain clothes who I spoke with too.
The first person I approached was the man I’d spoken with before the rally. He had been pulling down BDS rally posters near the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and a passerby asked him what he was doing, he was soon yelling at the passerby and BDS rally goers who had gathered. He wasn’t so keen to explain why he was counter-protesting however, simply telling me, “There are a lot of people who could say it more clearly than I would.”
I did have luck elsewhere however.
Person in plain clothes: I’m a Holocaust survivor, I was raised in Poland, I was born in Poland before the war. In Poland my parents were exposed to a lot of anti-Semitism and they were forced out of their village in Poland. Fortunately, we emigrated to Australia. Australia is my home. I love it. And these demonstrators, what they are chanting, for me, is offensive, they are chanting things like there is blood in my chocolate. Blood in my chocolate refers to, it’s um, it’s a blood libel that the Nazis used to justify the massacre of 6 million Jews. Blood in my chocolate refers to Christian children’s blood that the Nazis said the Jews used to make their food, which is really abhorrent to me, and it’s vile. What they want is for Israel not to exist. They are chanting the Hamas mantra. The Hamas mantra is that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, which means that the Jews that live in Israel would be subject to another genocide. My people have already been subject to a genocide. And Max Brenner has nothing to do with it, they have a very tenuous relationship with the Strauss Group in Israel. It’s so tenuous you can compare it to McDonalds and America. I think they are a bunch of anarchists and trouble-rousers.
Now into the thick of the Australian Protection Party front-line:
Woman in Australian flag bandana: I’m here to support Max Brenner. I’m here with my friend today, I’m not a member of the APP (Australian Protectionist Party). Max Brenner supplies the Israel Defense Army [sic] with chocolate and stuff …
Me: So that would be a good thing?
Woman in Australian flag bandana: Yeah. It is. There’s no such thing as Palestine.
Woman’s APP friend [pointing at BDS rally]: It’s very ignorant. Uneducated. This business is paying Australian taxes. He’s employing Australian people, paying his taxes, doing the right thing.
And over to the “I love Max Brenner” crew stood beside the APP:
Me: Do you want to tell me why you’re here today?
Man in “I love Max Brenner” tshirt: Yeah. Because hate towards Israel is growing right across the Western world, not only the Middle East, ok? And if you let it grow like that, without standing up against that trend you’re going to have a repeat of history. I believe if you talk to these people over the other side of the road here individually you’ll find they are grossly ignorant of the facts. They don’t know Middle Eastern history, they don’t even know the history of the West. They’re over there because somebody has told them things that they haven’t examined themselves and uh, they think maybe they are doing the right thing in what they are doing but it’s going to… all it’s going to produce is what we’ve had in the past.
Me: What should happen to Palestine?
Him: Well. They’re yelling out over there ‘Free Palestine’, well, ok, free it from Hamas. You know, read the Hamas charter, the Hamas charter is a foundational document for the Palestinian people at the moment. They voted Hamas in. Have you read the Hamas charter? I’ve read it. And when I read… within there I see a hatred and something that will feed hatred against a people called the Jews and a state called Israel. And it’s obvious to see if you look in the Middle East, what is the free country in the Middle East? What country has freedom of speech, freedom of association?
[few seconds of indecipherable comments due to loud chanting]
I think this. If someone is firing rockets at me, almost daily, and if someone has a charter that says the Israelis must be obliterated, literally, that’s what it says, it quotes Hasan al-Banna in the Hamas Charter, and it says that Israel must be obliterated, not we want our own separate state -
Me: So is the current situation the best way to resolve that?
Him: I don’t understand your question.
Me: Settlement expansion in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza.
Second man, interjecting: How old are you?
Me: 25.
Second man: I’m a bit older. I’m coming close to 60. That land wasn’t Palestine before. It was Jordan, Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for them, but when its the Israelis they say ‘yes it’s my land’ [a couple of seconds indecipherable] it’s all bullshit, it’s never been occupied, it’s been occupied by Jordan [indecipherable] it’s all propaganda, I was born there, I’ve been in two wars.
Me: Where were you born?
Second man: I was born in Israel, my dear, I’ve been in two wars. It was occupied by Jordan, they have Jordanians, not Palestinians. It’s been disputed over the last century.
Me: Ok so are you guys going to keep coming back to these protests?
Second man: This is a free country, they can’t come and do this, this is ridiculous. I don’t know why they do this, they’re idiots.
And back to the plain clothed folk. This young woman approached me asking if she could explain why she was there:
Young woman in plain clothes: This situation is a mess, it’s a real mess.
Me: What situation, the rallies, Israel-Palestine?
Young woman: The rallies, the Middle East. We’re not going to solve problems by fighting and screaming at each other across the street. We need to build bridges and stop fighting. I think both sides have a just claim to the land and both sides need to make concessions. I think the Israelis should share Jerusalem, because the Palestinians have a claim to that land. The Palestinians need to let go of the right of return. And I think that can happen. But basically, both sides are being stubborn and they are both digging their heels in and preventing peace. So yeah, we just need to not hate each other so much, and here in Australia there is no reason to hate.
Me: Did you come on purpose today or were you just walking by?
Young woman: No, I came on purpose.
Me: To, which one?
Young woman: Uh. I believe, I, well. Well I’m a Jew. I believe Israel has the right to exist where it is, I believe that there should be a two-state solution. I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements that in the two-state solution won’t fall into Israel, because I mean, the place is going to get divided. Some of the settlements will become Palestinian territory and some will become Israeli. I think they should stop building for the moment while they are trying to make peace.
I had other conversations that touched on similar concerns (ie. Hamas is actually the problem, Palestinian doesn’t exist, BDS protesters want to obliterate Israel, BDS protesters ignorant of situations, as well as those who were insistent it was anti-Jew not anti-Israel etc). There were the two young men who had dropped by on their way home from work, they said they just didn’t like “greens”, pointing toward the BDS protesters. I also had one woman speak at me for several minutes about how the Bible had proved the land of Israel was given over to the Jews and so on. Others still simply waved Omo or Lux in my face when they realised I was probably not there to rally along side them (one APP slogan was ‘smelly ferals go away’, so they taunted BDS protesters with cleaning products like laundry detergent and soap).
Sydney independent journalist Kate Ausburn has published the following article/interviews on the counter BDS protest which took place in Sydney on Sept 10. As Antony Loewenstein notes in his re-post of Ausburn's article "As the BDS movement grows in Australia – the hysteria in the corporate media and political elites suggest panic stations – it’s important to understand what those opposed to full Palestinian rights are arguing. Sydney journalist Kate Auburn attended a rally last weekend in Sydney and documented the following. Note the paranoia, mis-information, Nazi comparisons and inability to even accept that Palestine exists". In Melbourne, I experience a similar situation while attending the BDS action here on Friday 9th Sept.
A small group of Zionists and extreme right wing nationalists were in attendance (perhaps a half a dozen). As I was filming the rally as it moved off to march through the city, I caught on video one of the woman among the Zionist group. She was handing out leaflets and singing out in a sing song voice "Palestine does not exist Palestine does not exist". Earlier during the demonstration, another woman from the group physically assaulted on of the invited speakers, Aboriginal elder, Robbie Thorpe. BDS activists had to non-violently step in and stop the woman from assaulting him a second and third time (I hope to have video of the action edited up on the web in the next few days which includes image of both the woman denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people and the assault on Robbie Thorpe).
Ausburn's article provides a good insight into not only the politics but also the paranoia of many Zionist and rightwing-extremist nationalists counter protestors. As Jeff Sparrow notes in his article on the ABC's Drum, there is a growing alliance between the two (see his article here) Noticably in the last week or so, a number have claimed that a number of the chants being used at the BDS actions were either supposedly calling for the destruction of Israel/one state solution or are accusing the Jewish people of "blood libel".
According to Zionist and anti-BDS opponents, the chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a call for the destruction of the Israeli state. However, as one Sydney BDS activist recently pointed out in a discussion I was involved in in a social networking site, this is a very deliberately distorted reading of the chant. The activist pointed out that in relation to this chant "Freedom can mean freedom from discrimination and oppression for the Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as freedom for those under occupation". Personally, I have never viewed the chant as having anything to do with either calling for the destruction of Israel or a one state solution, instead I have always viewed it as simply being a call for freedom of the Palestinian people, nothing more and nothing less. The paranoia of Zionists and their rightwing nationalist supporters, however, has certainly reached new lows with their new claim that the chant "Max Brenner, come off it, there's blood in your hot chocolate" is supposedly a form of blood libel. For those, who are unaware, blood libel refers to the anti-Semitic accusation and superstition that was rife in the Middle Ages which claimed that supposedly Jewish people use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals and for baking matzos for Passover.
The chant "Brenner, come of it, there's blood in your hot chocolate", however, has nothing to do with this appalling anti-Semitic accusation. Not only does BDS not target "Jewish" businesses, it is virulently opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As has been explained time and time again, BDS does not target Jewish businesses and nor does it target business simply because of the nationality of the owner/management. Instead, a business must actively profit from or support the Israeli state's apartheid and occupation policies.
As noted previously, Max Brenner Chocolate has been a focus for BDS action in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because it is owned by the Strauss Group — one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies, which actively supports Israel's military occupation forces. On its website, the Strauss Group emphasizes its support for the Israeli military, providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers. Strauss boasts support for the Golani and Givati Brigades, which were heavily involved in Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in the Winter of 2008-09, which resulted in the killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, the majority civilians, including approximately 350 children. While Strauss has removed information about their support for the Golani and Givati brigades from their English language website, information about the company’s support for both brigades remains on their Hebrew language site.
As a result, the chant has nothing to do with anyone or any business being Jewish. In addition, it is a chant which is in the long tradition of anti-war and human rights chants that have been used for many years in the anti-war movements and human rights campaigns. During the East Timorese struggle for freedom from the brutal Indonesian military occupation which was imposed on them for more than 25 years, one of the common slogans and chants used by Australian activists was "No blood for Oil", referring to the fact that the Australian government had turned a blind eye to the Indonesian state's human rights abuses and the mass murder of East Timorese being carried out by the Indonesian military because the Australian government was more interested in gain control of large areas of the Timor Sea gas and oil fields.
Similarly when the US staged it invasion of Iraq in 1991, a common slogan and chant at anti-war actions in the USA, Australia and around the world was "No blood for Oil" highlighting the fact that the USA was willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to gain control of the middle east oil fields. The slogan and chant was re-used when the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq in 2003.
In relation to the BDS protests focusing on Max Brenner, the chant seeks to highlight that Brenner/Strauss is a company which actively and proudly supports the Israeli military which is actively oppressing the Palestinian people and the fact that Israel's military occupation forces, such as the Givati and Golani brigade, who Strauss (Brenner's parent company) support have repeated been engaged in actions which have resulted in the death of thousands of Palestinians in not only in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but also in Lebanon (the Golani brigade was the Israeli military force which secured the perimeter of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp so that their allies in the Lebanese Phalange could carry out the massacre of 3000 Palestinian refugees in the camp. For more information on the massacre, see Robert Fisk's account of massacre here. Fisk was one of the first western journalist to arrive on the scene. You can also read my 2007 article on the Sabra and Shatila massacres here)
As a result the claims that this chant is supposedly a "blood libel" is a complete and deliberate false assertion. This claim/assertion is being enacted and used by Zionists and their supporters in the same way that the repeated slurs of anti-semitism and Nazism against the BDS movement are being used. Not only are they completely disingenuous but they are a cynical attempt to falsely paint the BDS movement and protestors as anti-Semitic and to try and silence pro-BDS and pro-Palestine voices. As Jewish Australian journalist, Antony Loewenstein noted in articles and on twitter, those using Nazis and anti-Semitic slurs against the BDS movement and BDS activists are not only cheapening the memory of those who died in the Holocaust but are also setting up a situation to make it more difficult to fight real ant-Semitism when it occurs (see Loewenstein's article Enough with the Nazi Slurs here)
****************************
Conversations with BDS counter-protesters in Newtown
.
by Kate Ausburn On September 13th, 2011
Visit Kate Ausburn's blog here
At the BDS protest outside of Max Brenner in Newtown this past weekend I took the opportunity to have a chat to those amongst the counter-protest crowd. I wanted to find out what had made then join the protests against the BDS.
Because there are a range of reasons that people have come out to protest against the BDS Max Brenner campaign, I have noted what people were wearing when I spoke with them. I felt it relevant as it can give an indication of their motivation to rally; for example, those in Australian flag gear were openly Australian Protectionist Party aligned. There were a number of people in “I love Max Brenner” tshirts, I’ve heard these were printed by Newtown anti-Burqa muralist Sergio Redegalli, but I can’t confirm that, though Sergio was amongst the anti-BDS crowd sporting one such tshirt. There were also those in plain clothes who I spoke with too.
The first person I approached was the man I’d spoken with before the rally. He had been pulling down BDS rally posters near the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and a passerby asked him what he was doing, he was soon yelling at the passerby and BDS rally goers who had gathered. He wasn’t so keen to explain why he was counter-protesting however, simply telling me, “There are a lot of people who could say it more clearly than I would.”
I did have luck elsewhere however.
Person in plain clothes: I’m a Holocaust survivor, I was raised in Poland, I was born in Poland before the war. In Poland my parents were exposed to a lot of anti-Semitism and they were forced out of their village in Poland. Fortunately, we emigrated to Australia. Australia is my home. I love it. And these demonstrators, what they are chanting, for me, is offensive, they are chanting things like there is blood in my chocolate. Blood in my chocolate refers to, it’s um, it’s a blood libel that the Nazis used to justify the massacre of 6 million Jews. Blood in my chocolate refers to Christian children’s blood that the Nazis said the Jews used to make their food, which is really abhorrent to me, and it’s vile. What they want is for Israel not to exist. They are chanting the Hamas mantra. The Hamas mantra is that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, which means that the Jews that live in Israel would be subject to another genocide. My people have already been subject to a genocide. And Max Brenner has nothing to do with it, they have a very tenuous relationship with the Strauss Group in Israel. It’s so tenuous you can compare it to McDonalds and America. I think they are a bunch of anarchists and trouble-rousers.
Now into the thick of the Australian Protection Party front-line:
Woman in Australian flag bandana: I’m here to support Max Brenner. I’m here with my friend today, I’m not a member of the APP (Australian Protectionist Party). Max Brenner supplies the Israel Defense Army [sic] with chocolate and stuff …
Me: So that would be a good thing?
Woman in Australian flag bandana: Yeah. It is. There’s no such thing as Palestine.
Woman’s APP friend [pointing at BDS rally]: It’s very ignorant. Uneducated. This business is paying Australian taxes. He’s employing Australian people, paying his taxes, doing the right thing.
And over to the “I love Max Brenner” crew stood beside the APP:
Me: Do you want to tell me why you’re here today?
Man in “I love Max Brenner” tshirt: Yeah. Because hate towards Israel is growing right across the Western world, not only the Middle East, ok? And if you let it grow like that, without standing up against that trend you’re going to have a repeat of history. I believe if you talk to these people over the other side of the road here individually you’ll find they are grossly ignorant of the facts. They don’t know Middle Eastern history, they don’t even know the history of the West. They’re over there because somebody has told them things that they haven’t examined themselves and uh, they think maybe they are doing the right thing in what they are doing but it’s going to… all it’s going to produce is what we’ve had in the past.
Me: What should happen to Palestine?
Him: Well. They’re yelling out over there ‘Free Palestine’, well, ok, free it from Hamas. You know, read the Hamas charter, the Hamas charter is a foundational document for the Palestinian people at the moment. They voted Hamas in. Have you read the Hamas charter? I’ve read it. And when I read… within there I see a hatred and something that will feed hatred against a people called the Jews and a state called Israel. And it’s obvious to see if you look in the Middle East, what is the free country in the Middle East? What country has freedom of speech, freedom of association?
[few seconds of indecipherable comments due to loud chanting]
I think this. If someone is firing rockets at me, almost daily, and if someone has a charter that says the Israelis must be obliterated, literally, that’s what it says, it quotes Hasan al-Banna in the Hamas Charter, and it says that Israel must be obliterated, not we want our own separate state -
Me: So is the current situation the best way to resolve that?
Him: I don’t understand your question.
Me: Settlement expansion in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza.
Second man, interjecting: How old are you?
Me: 25.
Second man: I’m a bit older. I’m coming close to 60. That land wasn’t Palestine before. It was Jordan, Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for them, but when its the Israelis they say ‘yes it’s my land’ [a couple of seconds indecipherable] it’s all bullshit, it’s never been occupied, it’s been occupied by Jordan [indecipherable] it’s all propaganda, I was born there, I’ve been in two wars.
Me: Where were you born?
Second man: I was born in Israel, my dear, I’ve been in two wars. It was occupied by Jordan, they have Jordanians, not Palestinians. It’s been disputed over the last century.
Me: Ok so are you guys going to keep coming back to these protests?
Second man: This is a free country, they can’t come and do this, this is ridiculous. I don’t know why they do this, they’re idiots.
And back to the plain clothed folk. This young woman approached me asking if she could explain why she was there:
Young woman in plain clothes: This situation is a mess, it’s a real mess.
Me: What situation, the rallies, Israel-Palestine?
Young woman: The rallies, the Middle East. We’re not going to solve problems by fighting and screaming at each other across the street. We need to build bridges and stop fighting. I think both sides have a just claim to the land and both sides need to make concessions. I think the Israelis should share Jerusalem, because the Palestinians have a claim to that land. The Palestinians need to let go of the right of return. And I think that can happen. But basically, both sides are being stubborn and they are both digging their heels in and preventing peace. So yeah, we just need to not hate each other so much, and here in Australia there is no reason to hate.
Me: Did you come on purpose today or were you just walking by?
Young woman: No, I came on purpose.
Me: To, which one?
Young woman: Uh. I believe, I, well. Well I’m a Jew. I believe Israel has the right to exist where it is, I believe that there should be a two-state solution. I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements that in the two-state solution won’t fall into Israel, because I mean, the place is going to get divided. Some of the settlements will become Palestinian territory and some will become Israeli. I think they should stop building for the moment while they are trying to make peace.
I had other conversations that touched on similar concerns (ie. Hamas is actually the problem, Palestinian doesn’t exist, BDS protesters want to obliterate Israel, BDS protesters ignorant of situations, as well as those who were insistent it was anti-Jew not anti-Israel etc). There were the two young men who had dropped by on their way home from work, they said they just didn’t like “greens”, pointing toward the BDS protesters. I also had one woman speak at me for several minutes about how the Bible had proved the land of Israel was given over to the Jews and so on. Others still simply waved Omo or Lux in my face when they realised I was probably not there to rally along side them (one APP slogan was ‘smelly ferals go away’, so they taunted BDS protesters with cleaning products like laundry detergent and soap).
Categories: Middle East Updates
Film: Some of my best friends are Zionists
Initial Development Trailer: Some of My Best Friends Are Zionists from Open Letter Productions on Vimeo.
Open Letter Productions presents a trailer for their upcoming film "Some of My Best Friends Are Zionists" - documentary-in-progress by Bruce Robbins and Jeff Boyar which is a discussion with a range of Jewish people about why they are no longer Zionists.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Max Brenner and the Strauss Group: yes, Brenner is an Israeli owned company
Dear friends,
some of you may have seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald on the recent BDS action outside of Max Brenner in Newtown in Sydney (you can read the article here)
In the article, the chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, is quoted as criticising the BDS protest saying:
''Why are these extremists targeting a legitimate Australian-owned business?''
I have also had a couple of people ask me for clarification on this, so here is some information that may be useful (as far as I can ascertain, Brenner is not a franchise but is a subsidiary of Strauss - that is it is owned and controlled by Strauss)
Max Brenner Chocolate has been a focus for BDS action in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because it is owned by the Strauss Group — one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies, which actively supports Israel's military occupation forces. On its website, the Strauss Group emphasizes its support for the Israeli military, providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers.
Strauss boasts support for the Golani and Givati Brigades, which were heavily involved in Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in the Winter of 2008-09, which resulted in the killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, the majority civilians, including approximately 350 children. While Strauss has removed information about their support for the Golani and Givati brigades from their English language website, information about the company’s support for both brigades remains on their Hebrew language site.
In solidarity, Kim
************
According to Bloomberg Business week: "Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a restaurant that focuses on chocolate products. Its menu includes chocolate waffles and crepes, fondues, sweets, desserts, ice creams, hot chocolate drinks, choctails, cocktails, smoothies, coffee and tea, appetizers, entree salads, sandwiches, breakfast, brunch cocktails, chocolate martinis, and wine. The company also offers chocolate products for kids. It offers its products through stores, as well as online. Max Brenner, Ltd. was founded in 1996 and is based in New York, New York. It has locations in the United States, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Israel. Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Strauss Group Ltd. (Bloomberg Business Week published on Sept 4, 2011, click here for article)
Max Brenner's Australian website on its contact page states: "Please note that all Australian Max Brenner Chocolate Bars are company owned and we do not currently franchise" (see contact page here)
When you go to the Strauss global website - it states on its front page that Strauss is "one company with 5 businesses" and then list the 5 business, one of which being Max Brenner (click here)
Strauss corporate structure is also listed on the Strauss global website and it clearly notes that Brenner is part of their company, including the companies in Australia (click here)
Also other links about Strauss/Max Brenner
http://duns100.dundb.co.il/ts.cgi?tsscript=comp_eng&duns=600008874
and
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/StraussElite-Group-Company-History.html
some of you may have seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald on the recent BDS action outside of Max Brenner in Newtown in Sydney (you can read the article here)
In the article, the chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, is quoted as criticising the BDS protest saying:
''Why are these extremists targeting a legitimate Australian-owned business?''
I have also had a couple of people ask me for clarification on this, so here is some information that may be useful (as far as I can ascertain, Brenner is not a franchise but is a subsidiary of Strauss - that is it is owned and controlled by Strauss)
Max Brenner Chocolate has been a focus for BDS action in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because it is owned by the Strauss Group — one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies, which actively supports Israel's military occupation forces. On its website, the Strauss Group emphasizes its support for the Israeli military, providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers.
Strauss boasts support for the Golani and Givati Brigades, which were heavily involved in Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in the Winter of 2008-09, which resulted in the killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, the majority civilians, including approximately 350 children. While Strauss has removed information about their support for the Golani and Givati brigades from their English language website, information about the company’s support for both brigades remains on their Hebrew language site.
In solidarity, Kim
************
According to Bloomberg Business week: "Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a restaurant that focuses on chocolate products. Its menu includes chocolate waffles and crepes, fondues, sweets, desserts, ice creams, hot chocolate drinks, choctails, cocktails, smoothies, coffee and tea, appetizers, entree salads, sandwiches, breakfast, brunch cocktails, chocolate martinis, and wine. The company also offers chocolate products for kids. It offers its products through stores, as well as online. Max Brenner, Ltd. was founded in 1996 and is based in New York, New York. It has locations in the United States, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Israel. Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Strauss Group Ltd. (Bloomberg Business Week published on Sept 4, 2011, click here for article)
Max Brenner's Australian website on its contact page states: "Please note that all Australian Max Brenner Chocolate Bars are company owned and we do not currently franchise" (see contact page here)
When you go to the Strauss global website - it states on its front page that Strauss is "one company with 5 businesses" and then list the 5 business, one of which being Max Brenner (click here)
Strauss corporate structure is also listed on the Strauss global website and it clearly notes that Brenner is part of their company, including the companies in Australia (click here)
Also other links about Strauss/Max Brenner
http://duns100.dundb.co.il/ts.cgi?tsscript=comp_eng&duns=600008874
and
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/StraussElite-Group-Company-History.html
Categories: Middle East Updates
"You are either with life or against it - Affirm Life" - a poem by Suheir Hammad
Palestinian American spoken word artist, Suheir Hammad on the tragedy of the North American 9/11, terrorism, mourning for those killed in the Towers and the demonisation of Arab and Muslim Americans.
Categories: Middle East Updates
The Other 9/11 - Chile - Coup d'état - September 11, 1973
On September 11, 1973 a military coup was started by General Augusto Pinochet that ousted the democratically elected President Salvador Allende of Chile. Allende's was the first democratically elected Marxist government in the world. This documentary produced by BBC Four is a chronicle of the event from witnesses and archive footage. A chilling and moving account of the day by perpetrators, as well as those at receiving end, who survived to tell this story of a defining moment in Chile's history. It changed Chile forever. It is the only full length (almost 1 hour) documentary in English on it. Also, it is the only documentary that takes into account both sides of the story.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Free speech and the Irvine 11: criminal court case against American Muslim Students who protested against the Israeli Ambassador begins
Dear friends,
as many of you will be aware, the court case against the "Irvine 11" began this week in Orange County in the United States. In February 2010, 11 students interrupt a speech given by Israeli Ambassador, Michael Oren, on the Irvine campus of the University of California. The students, from the Muslims Student Association, sought to protest Israel's brutal assault on Gaza in 2008/2009 which resulted in the death of almost 1400 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians, including 350 children.
For more than a year a witch hunt has been conducted against the young protestors. They have been charged with a misdemeanor conspiracy to commit a crime and misdemeanor disruption of a meeting. A month or two ago charges were dropped against one of the students because the District Attorney had filed charges against the student using privileged information (for more information, click here)
As the students and their supporters have noted, protest similar to theirs take place all the time in the United States, with students and political activitist engagingusing similar tactics to protest a variety of issues, both before and after the February protest by the Irvine 11. However, no other prosecution has been brought against protesters in the same manner they have been against the 11, clearly revealing that the political nature of the prosecution and that freedom of speech does not extend to Muslim students, particularly those who protest against Israel.
Please find below a great video of the press conference in support of the Irvine 11, who are currently being prosecuted in the United States for disrupting the speech of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at the Irvine campus of University of California.
Electronic Intifada has also run a recap of the opening day of the trial, which I have included below.
In solidarity, Kim
----
Recap of first day of Irvine 11 trial: "no unlawful act was committed"
09/08/2011
by Electronic Intifada
(original EI article contains embedded links not included here. To access original EI article, please click link embedded in the EI name above)
Today’s opening statements in the Irvine 11 trial included explicit deconstruction by the defense team of the Orange County District Attorney’s argument that the Muslim students who protested an Israeli official’s speech last year did so in violation of a California penal code for conspiracy.
“You cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed,” stated a defense attorney in the courtroom today.
The trial, now underway in the Orange County courthouse in Santa Ana, California, focuses on the prosecution’s claim that the students violated the penal code that could send the students to jail for up to two years on two misdemeanor counts: conspiracy to disrupt a meeting, and disruption of a meeting.
Kifah Shah, media coordinator and spokesperson for the Irvine 11 solidarity group, Stand With the Eleven, told The Electronic Intifada that approximately 100 supporters packed the courtroom after attending a press conference outside of the courthouse. Several major media organizations also attended the pre-trial debriefing, which was organized by local community leaders from such groups as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and several interfaith leaders and professors at UC Irvine.
The LA Times’ Orange County-based Daily Pilot reported that Father Wilfredo Benitez of the Saint Anselm of Canterbury Episcopal Church stated at the press conference that “[t}his smells of persecution. In a free country … this should simply not be happening.” The report continued:
Moutaz Herzallah, whose son Taher is among the defendants, said Rackauckas “threw the [U.S.] Constitution in the trash” when he decided to press charges.
Moutaz Herzallah, who is from Gaza, said he immigrated to the United States “to have peace, dignity and honor” and that the D.A. should be prosecuted for his disregard of the Constitution.
Shah said that the opening day of the trial “went really well.”
“There were a lot of people there, and a lot of community members came out to support. There was a sentiment of eagerness in the room awaiting and anticipating justice. There was a hopeful feeling,” she added.
I asked her if she had a sense of whether the selected jurors were given a clear picture of what went on during Ambassador Oren’s speech that has led to the prosecution of the students, following the opening statements by the defense and prosecution teams.
Shah replied:
Yes. They went over what happened and explained it thoroughly to the jury. They went through exactly what happened, and obviously in their own terms. In terms of the opening statements, the prosecution is arguing that this was a “heckler veto” — meaning that individuals don’t like what’s being said, and decide to “veto” a speech. The prosecution lawyer reiterated that the students tried to “shut down” the event, to provide the evidence during his statements that [the protest] was a conspiracy. He also went over the fact that they belong to a group, the Muslim Student Union (MSU), and that these defendants “conspired together as a group to enact a heckler’s veto.”
He said that the MSU “was not happy” that the ambassador, Michael Oren, was coming to campus, and “they didn’t want to debate the ambassador — they decided they wanted to shut down the event within the guise of acting as individuals. They wanted to shut him down.” Like I said, he repeatedly asserted that the Irvine 11 wanted to shut down the event.
The other part is that he also talked about that it’s the act itself that the jury will deliberate upon, and not the content of the speech. He added that in the beginning of [Oren’s event] itself, the chair of the Political Science department had stated that we “expect and relish debate on campus, but will expect nothing but civility and courtesy” [from the audience]. And then he said that even the Chancellor, when the protest began, that “this is outrageous, and this violates the rules.” So the prosecuting attorney chose these statements in particular to tell a story to the jury — that this was a violation of rules, that this was a conspiracy to shut down the event.
The defense attorneys also laid out what the defendants did during the protest, and what that looked like for them. What was really hit it on the head was that [defense attorney] Reem Salahi stated exactly what was written on the index cards [from which the students read during their protest]. This was a concerted, calculated effort — it was not their intention to resist removal, they were not trying to stall or prolong anything — they simply wrote down what they wanted to say on their index cards, said what they had to say, which amounted in total for each of them just a few seconds, which took up a cumulative five minutes including the jeers from the crowd.
In their emails [that were subpoenaed during the investigation], the students were talking about not resisting, being nonviolent, acting with a certain demeanor — the defense was illustrating how it wasn’t their intention in any way to “shut down” the event. At the end of the event, even Michael Oren had said that he wished the students who protested and were removed from the ballroom “had stayed … it was that group that I wanted to address.”
The defense said really well that “you cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed.” So what the prosecution has is a conspiracy to commit a crime, and then the actual committing of that crime. But in terms of whether or not a crime was committed, we’re looking at CA Penal Code section 403 which states that there is a violation if a meeting has been disturbed or broken up. However, there was not a crime that was committed here — Oren did finish his speech, at the end of which he stated that he wished the students had stayed.
Another argument is that Oren wasn’t able to do a question and answer — but if you look at how the event was advertised, they didn’t even say that there was an intention that there was going to be a question and answer section to Oren’s speech. The penal code was not violated. That means that the prosecution’s argument of a “shut down” didn’t happen.
In closing, I asked Shah to talk about the solidarity efforts of her campaign, Stand With the Eleven.
Well, even from the opening statements, this is a political opportunity for the district attorney’s office — everyone knows he’s running for re-election, and I really think that if this is selective prosecution, it’s really important to remember that now it’s not just about these ten students, but it’s significant for all Americans at this point. The precedent that is set concerns everyone’s rights to free speech.
The district attorney is the one who’s committing egregious acts of intolerance and persecution. It’s not about these ten students in a courtroom anymore, now it’s about every American and everyone’s rights to free speech.
The Electronic Intifada will continue to update our readers on the Irvine 11 trial. The verdict is set for 23 September.
as many of you will be aware, the court case against the "Irvine 11" began this week in Orange County in the United States. In February 2010, 11 students interrupt a speech given by Israeli Ambassador, Michael Oren, on the Irvine campus of the University of California. The students, from the Muslims Student Association, sought to protest Israel's brutal assault on Gaza in 2008/2009 which resulted in the death of almost 1400 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians, including 350 children.
For more than a year a witch hunt has been conducted against the young protestors. They have been charged with a misdemeanor conspiracy to commit a crime and misdemeanor disruption of a meeting. A month or two ago charges were dropped against one of the students because the District Attorney had filed charges against the student using privileged information (for more information, click here)
As the students and their supporters have noted, protest similar to theirs take place all the time in the United States, with students and political activitist engagingusing similar tactics to protest a variety of issues, both before and after the February protest by the Irvine 11. However, no other prosecution has been brought against protesters in the same manner they have been against the 11, clearly revealing that the political nature of the prosecution and that freedom of speech does not extend to Muslim students, particularly those who protest against Israel.
Please find below a great video of the press conference in support of the Irvine 11, who are currently being prosecuted in the United States for disrupting the speech of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at the Irvine campus of University of California.
Electronic Intifada has also run a recap of the opening day of the trial, which I have included below.
In solidarity, Kim
----
Recap of first day of Irvine 11 trial: "no unlawful act was committed"
09/08/2011
by Electronic Intifada
(original EI article contains embedded links not included here. To access original EI article, please click link embedded in the EI name above)
Today’s opening statements in the Irvine 11 trial included explicit deconstruction by the defense team of the Orange County District Attorney’s argument that the Muslim students who protested an Israeli official’s speech last year did so in violation of a California penal code for conspiracy.
“You cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed,” stated a defense attorney in the courtroom today.
The trial, now underway in the Orange County courthouse in Santa Ana, California, focuses on the prosecution’s claim that the students violated the penal code that could send the students to jail for up to two years on two misdemeanor counts: conspiracy to disrupt a meeting, and disruption of a meeting.
Kifah Shah, media coordinator and spokesperson for the Irvine 11 solidarity group, Stand With the Eleven, told The Electronic Intifada that approximately 100 supporters packed the courtroom after attending a press conference outside of the courthouse. Several major media organizations also attended the pre-trial debriefing, which was organized by local community leaders from such groups as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and several interfaith leaders and professors at UC Irvine.
The LA Times’ Orange County-based Daily Pilot reported that Father Wilfredo Benitez of the Saint Anselm of Canterbury Episcopal Church stated at the press conference that “[t}his smells of persecution. In a free country … this should simply not be happening.” The report continued:
Moutaz Herzallah, whose son Taher is among the defendants, said Rackauckas “threw the [U.S.] Constitution in the trash” when he decided to press charges.
Moutaz Herzallah, who is from Gaza, said he immigrated to the United States “to have peace, dignity and honor” and that the D.A. should be prosecuted for his disregard of the Constitution.
Shah said that the opening day of the trial “went really well.”
“There were a lot of people there, and a lot of community members came out to support. There was a sentiment of eagerness in the room awaiting and anticipating justice. There was a hopeful feeling,” she added.
I asked her if she had a sense of whether the selected jurors were given a clear picture of what went on during Ambassador Oren’s speech that has led to the prosecution of the students, following the opening statements by the defense and prosecution teams.
Shah replied:
Yes. They went over what happened and explained it thoroughly to the jury. They went through exactly what happened, and obviously in their own terms. In terms of the opening statements, the prosecution is arguing that this was a “heckler veto” — meaning that individuals don’t like what’s being said, and decide to “veto” a speech. The prosecution lawyer reiterated that the students tried to “shut down” the event, to provide the evidence during his statements that [the protest] was a conspiracy. He also went over the fact that they belong to a group, the Muslim Student Union (MSU), and that these defendants “conspired together as a group to enact a heckler’s veto.”
He said that the MSU “was not happy” that the ambassador, Michael Oren, was coming to campus, and “they didn’t want to debate the ambassador — they decided they wanted to shut down the event within the guise of acting as individuals. They wanted to shut him down.” Like I said, he repeatedly asserted that the Irvine 11 wanted to shut down the event.
The other part is that he also talked about that it’s the act itself that the jury will deliberate upon, and not the content of the speech. He added that in the beginning of [Oren’s event] itself, the chair of the Political Science department had stated that we “expect and relish debate on campus, but will expect nothing but civility and courtesy” [from the audience]. And then he said that even the Chancellor, when the protest began, that “this is outrageous, and this violates the rules.” So the prosecuting attorney chose these statements in particular to tell a story to the jury — that this was a violation of rules, that this was a conspiracy to shut down the event.
The defense attorneys also laid out what the defendants did during the protest, and what that looked like for them. What was really hit it on the head was that [defense attorney] Reem Salahi stated exactly what was written on the index cards [from which the students read during their protest]. This was a concerted, calculated effort — it was not their intention to resist removal, they were not trying to stall or prolong anything — they simply wrote down what they wanted to say on their index cards, said what they had to say, which amounted in total for each of them just a few seconds, which took up a cumulative five minutes including the jeers from the crowd.
In their emails [that were subpoenaed during the investigation], the students were talking about not resisting, being nonviolent, acting with a certain demeanor — the defense was illustrating how it wasn’t their intention in any way to “shut down” the event. At the end of the event, even Michael Oren had said that he wished the students who protested and were removed from the ballroom “had stayed … it was that group that I wanted to address.”
The defense said really well that “you cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed.” So what the prosecution has is a conspiracy to commit a crime, and then the actual committing of that crime. But in terms of whether or not a crime was committed, we’re looking at CA Penal Code section 403 which states that there is a violation if a meeting has been disturbed or broken up. However, there was not a crime that was committed here — Oren did finish his speech, at the end of which he stated that he wished the students had stayed.
Another argument is that Oren wasn’t able to do a question and answer — but if you look at how the event was advertised, they didn’t even say that there was an intention that there was going to be a question and answer section to Oren’s speech. The penal code was not violated. That means that the prosecution’s argument of a “shut down” didn’t happen.
In closing, I asked Shah to talk about the solidarity efforts of her campaign, Stand With the Eleven.
Well, even from the opening statements, this is a political opportunity for the district attorney’s office — everyone knows he’s running for re-election, and I really think that if this is selective prosecution, it’s really important to remember that now it’s not just about these ten students, but it’s significant for all Americans at this point. The precedent that is set concerns everyone’s rights to free speech.
The district attorney is the one who’s committing egregious acts of intolerance and persecution. It’s not about these ten students in a courtroom anymore, now it’s about every American and everyone’s rights to free speech.
The Electronic Intifada will continue to update our readers on the Irvine 11 trial. The verdict is set for 23 September.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Lives in the Balance by Jackson Browne
Dear friends,
Jackson Browne wrote this song in 1986, the year the Reagan Administration bombed Tripoli. I986 was also the same year that "Contra-gate" became a public scandal in which the CIA was exposed for selling arms to Iran to fund the contra -war in Nicaragua.
In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front over threw the US backed dictator Samoza. Over the next decade, the Carter and Reagan Administrations sought to bring down the popular socialist movement, which introduced reforms which benefit the ordinary peasanst and workers of Nicaragua, including land reforms, health care and education. In 1981, a US State Department insider boasted that the Reagan Administration would "turn Nicaragua into the Albania of Central America" - that is, poor, isolated and politically radical - so that the Sandinista dream of creating a new, more exemplary political mode of social equality for Latin America would be in ruins.
1986 also marked the midpoint of the El Salvador civil war, which was feuled by the US government funding the military junta to the tune of $7billion over 10 years.
Browne's song could equally as well have been written about the Bush or Obama administrations and its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its intervention into the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Browne's song, unfortunately, remains today as current as ever...
In solidarity, Kim
Jackson Browne wrote this song in 1986, the year the Reagan Administration bombed Tripoli. I986 was also the same year that "Contra-gate" became a public scandal in which the CIA was exposed for selling arms to Iran to fund the contra -war in Nicaragua.
In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front over threw the US backed dictator Samoza. Over the next decade, the Carter and Reagan Administrations sought to bring down the popular socialist movement, which introduced reforms which benefit the ordinary peasanst and workers of Nicaragua, including land reforms, health care and education. In 1981, a US State Department insider boasted that the Reagan Administration would "turn Nicaragua into the Albania of Central America" - that is, poor, isolated and politically radical - so that the Sandinista dream of creating a new, more exemplary political mode of social equality for Latin America would be in ruins.
1986 also marked the midpoint of the El Salvador civil war, which was feuled by the US government funding the military junta to the tune of $7billion over 10 years.
Browne's song could equally as well have been written about the Bush or Obama administrations and its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its intervention into the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Browne's song, unfortunately, remains today as current as ever...
In solidarity, Kim
Categories: Middle East Updates
Gisha and Free Gaza Movement respond to the Palmer Report's whitewash of the Israeli attack on the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla
Dear friends,
as you will have probably heard, a leaked copy of the Palmer report has been obtained by the New York Times. The Palmer Commission was appointed by the UN Secretary General to investigage events surround the murderous attack on the Gaza flotilla in 2010.
According to the New York Times, the Palmer report makes the following assertions:
* Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is "both legal and appropriate".
* the report "takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza"
* the report takes a hard line on the flotilla, asserting it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.”
* But the Israeli navy boarded the flotilla was "excessive and unreasonable"
* that there was “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection.
* the loss of life due to the Israeli military's "excessive and unreasonable" force was "unacceptable" and that the Israeli military treatment of passengrs was "abusive"
You can access the full NYT article here.
However, it is important to note that New York Times states the "report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law".
In other words, the Palmer Commission written after assessing from any of the flotilla participants or even from any of the media upon the flotilla. Thus as the NYT notes, it can not be classified as definitive in relation to either FACT or international LAW, instead it relies upon the deeply biased report by the Israeli military and state, with their assertions that the blockade is legal and that they acted appropriately.
Amnesty International pointed out in January this year, that the Israeli Turkel report was deeply flawed. Amnesty International also pointed out that the Turkel Report used "Highly contentious legal arguments were used by the Commission to argue for the applicability of international humanitarian law to the raid, rather than international human rights law or law enforcement standards" (see Amnesty International report here)
Gisha, the Israeli based Legal Centre for Freedom of Movement and the Free Gaza Movement has issued the following statement and briefing papers in relation to the media reportage of the leaked Palmer Report. Gisha's briefing paper in particular address the legal issues relating to Israel's blockade. The FGM address the broader political whitewish of the report.
I have also included two videos, which include raw footage shot by Iara Lee that was taken at the time of the Israeli attack on the Mari Marmara. As Lee, outlines in the first video which includes an interview with Democracy Now, she had to smuggle out her footage, as Israel confiscated nearly all the footage and discs and refused to return it. This footage and photographs stolen the Israeli military were not made available to the UN Palmer Commission.
In solidarity,
Kim
-------------------------
Q&A on the Palmer report
by Gisha
The Palmer Commission, appointed by the UN secretary-general to investigate the events surrounding the Gaza flotilla in 2010, is supposed to publish its report tomorrow (we’re not holding our breath or putting much weight on it, since it’s been delayed several times already to give Israel and Turkey a chance to come to “an agreement on language”). According to media reports, the commission is likely to find that Israel was within its rights to stop the vessels on their approach to Gaza, but will criticize the excessive use of force during the operation. Below, Gisha offers responses to several questions regarding legal status of the flotilla, the closure, and the connection between the two.
1. According to international law, is Israel permitted to block sea access and stop vessels heading for the Gaza Strip?
Yes, but at the same time it must allow the free passage of goods by alternative channels. Israel has prevented maritime access to the Gaza Strip since 1967 by virtue of its authority as an occupying power and in accordance with the laws of occupation as defined by international law. These laws continue to apply to the Gaza Strip following the implementation of Israel’s Disengagement Plan in 2005, since Israel still controls key aspects of life in the area. The laws of occupation permit Israel to decide through which channels goods and people will enter and leave the Gaza Strip. Although Israel has invited vessels to unload their cargo at Ashdod Port, it does not allow all the civilian goods on board to enter the Gaza Strip by land after security inspection.
2. Does that imply that Israel’s maritime closure of the Gaza Strip is lawful?
No. In our opinion, the legality of the maritime closure must be considered in the context of the overall closure of the Gaza Strip, which is also enforced by air and land. In this context, Israel has failed to meet its legal obligations. It is a fundamental principle of international law that with control comes responsibility; this in order to avoid a situation where no side takes responsibility for the protection of civilians during wartime or in situations of occupation. Accordingly, the substantial control Israel exercises over the crossings into the Gaza Strip imposes an equally substantial responsibility to permit the movement of people and goods at the level required in order to maintain the proper functioning of the economy, the health and education systems, and other aspects of civilian life. Israel is permitted to prevent the passage of merchandise or people only if there is a concrete security reason for doing so, and even then it must strike a balance between its security needs and its obligation to maintain normal life in the occupied territory. By preventing the passage of civilians and goods of a civilian nature to and from the Gaza Strip, Israel has paralyzed the economy of the area and caused substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, it has violated its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful.
3. So according to this principle, during a violent conflict it is not permissible to use sanctions and other economic tools that hamper the enemy’s war effort but which also injure the population?
Not exactly. The case of the Gaza Strip differs substantially from sanctions imposed by one state on another. The closure of the Gaza Strip does not merely restrict the commercial relations of the area with Israel, but with the entire world. Accordingly, the closure cannot be considered to be the realization of Israel’s sovereign right not to maintain commercial relations with the area. The imposition of sanctions on commerce between the Gaza Strip and third countries is permissible only with the agreement of these countries, or in accordance with a binding resolution of the United Nations. Such action certainly deviates from Israel’s authority. Moreover, the closure does not meet the legal definition of a siege, which may be imposed in accordance with international law for a fixed period and in order to secure a defined military objective. To the best of our knowledge, the protracted closure has no defined military objective; additionally, it does not permit the free passage of civilians from the besieged area as required by law.
4. But after the flotilla, the restrictions were relaxed. Doesn’t that mean that the closure is lawful now?
No. Following the 2010 flotilla, the State of Israel introduced certain relaxations in the closure policy. The prohibition against the transfer of consumer products and raw materials was abolished; Israel permitted approximately 1,000 exits per month by merchants from the Gaza Strip to Israel and the West Bank; and certain localized gestures were announced, including allowing entrance of building materials for international organizations and the export of negligible quantities of merchandise produced in the Gaza Strip. The sweeping prohibitions on the passage of people between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank apart from “humanitarian exceptions”, on the entrance of building materials for the private sector and export or sale of goods outside the Strip remained in force. The relaxations which were implemented are important, but fall far short of what is needed in order to permit economic and social recovery in the Gaza Strip, and fail to meet Israel’s legal obligations, as we have explained. In order to render its policy toward the Gaza Strip lawful, Israel must lift the sweeping restrictions that remain and allow transfer of construction materials, export of goods and travel of people between Gaza and the West Bank, subject to individual security inspections.
*****
Iara Lee speaks with Democracy Now about the Israeli attack on the Marvi Marmara and the release of her raw footage of the shot on the Mari Marimara and smuggled out.
Warning: footage may cause distress to some viewers.
The Palmer/Uribe Report: Another attempt by Israel to whitewash murder
by The Free Gaza Movement on September 1, 2011
On May 31, 2010, Israeli commandos brutally attacked Freedom Flotilla 1, killing eight Turkish and one American passenger on board the Mavi Marmara, most having been killed at close range, execution style.. They injured more than 50 other passengers, both on the Mavi Marmara and on the other four boats sailing to the embattled territory of Gaza to bring the attention of the world to Israel’s illegal blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians. Not only were our passengers murdered and maimed, but the Israeli government has refused to return over $1 million in money and equipment, including cameras and videos which are of evidential value.
In the 15 months since Israel’s unwarranted attack on five boats carrying human rights watchers, Israel has been trying to spin the story that their well-armed soldiers were the victims and we were the aggressors. Several reports have already been written, most squarely blaming Israel for its attack on unarmed civilians.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission took evidence from 112 eyewitnesses, reviewed forensic evidence, including autopsy reports and inspected the Mavi. It found that, because a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza, Israel's blockade is ulawful and ‘cannot be sustained in law…regardless of the grounds” used as justification. Israel’s blockade is collective punishment and in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, inflicting civilian damage disproportionate to any military advantage. Therefore, since Freedom Flotilla 1 neither presented an imminent threat to Israel nor was designed to contribute to any war effort against Israel, intercepting the flotilla was ‘clearly unlawful’ andcould not be justified as self-defense.
Israel refused to cooperate with this UN panel even though the United Nations and governments all around the world called for just such an independent investigation of the events.
Instead, the Israeli government set up its own investigatory panel, The Turkel Commission, led by Israeli retired Supreme Court Judge Jacob Turkel and three other Israelis issued a report on January 23, 2011 exonerating the commandos, then saying the blockade was legal. The commission did not interview a single passenger or crew member from any of the boats but only received testimony from the Israeli military.
On January 28, 2011, Amnesty International condemned the Turkel findings as no more than a whitewash. “Despite being nearly 300 pages long, the report crucially fails to explain how the activists died and what conclusions the Commission reached regarding the IDF’s specific actions in each case.”
Free Gaza shares Amnesty International's analysis that the conflict between the Israeli armed forces and unarmed civilians was NOT armed conflict, making international humanitarian law (IHL) the wrong framework; international human rights law and law enforcement norms should have been applied, which would have made the use of force – and especially lethal force –an act of last resort.
Now there is the Palmer/Uribe report due to be released tomorrow, which apparently adopts the same faulty IHL framework. According to Audrey Bomse, Board member and Legal Adviser to Free Gaza: “If the leaks we've heard from Israeli officials are correct, the holes in this report are big enough to sail a flotilla of ships through. There are serious problems with the Panel’s composition, mandate and legal analysis. But most disturbing of all is the fact that the Secretary General’s Panel apparently condones Israel’s gross violations of the human and national rights of the Palestinian people and the rights of those in solidarity with them.”
The Panel has 4 members, one from Israel and one from Turkey, plus Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand and ex-president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. The choice of Uribe as vice-chairman is suspect, given his intimate association with the military and paramilitary practice of murdering civilians in Colombia. The Panel, was only tasked to review the reports of the national investigations by Turkey and Israel (the Turkel Committee), not to conduct an in-depth objective investigation. Its ultimate goal, was to “positively affect the relationship between Turkey and Israel.”
International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of armed conflict) is the wrong legal framework to be used as the basis for judging the lawfulness of the actions taken by Israel both against the civilian population of Gaza (the blockade) and against those resisting the boarding of the MM. The conflict between the Israeli navy and unarmed civilians on the Mavi Marmara was not armed conflict. International human rights law and law enforcement norms should have been applied, which would have made the use of force – and especially lethal force –an act of last resort. Nor should the legality of the blockade of occupied Gaza be analyzed in the framework of the law of armed conflict.
If indeed the Uribe Rport has concluded that the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza - a serious measure of war - is legal and in accordance with international law, then this Report will contradict numerous other UN reports and resolutions, most recently that of the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission, on the issue of the legality of the Gaza siege.
As the Human Rights Council Fact‐Finding Mission observed, “public confidence in any investigative process ... is not enhanced when the subject of the investigation either investigates himself or plays a pivotal role in the process.”
***
Raw footage shot by Iara Lee on the Mari Marmara (approx 62 minutes)
Warning: footage may cause distress to some viewers.
as you will have probably heard, a leaked copy of the Palmer report has been obtained by the New York Times. The Palmer Commission was appointed by the UN Secretary General to investigage events surround the murderous attack on the Gaza flotilla in 2010.
According to the New York Times, the Palmer report makes the following assertions:
* Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is "both legal and appropriate".
* the report "takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza"
* the report takes a hard line on the flotilla, asserting it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.”
* But the Israeli navy boarded the flotilla was "excessive and unreasonable"
* that there was “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection.
* the loss of life due to the Israeli military's "excessive and unreasonable" force was "unacceptable" and that the Israeli military treatment of passengrs was "abusive"
You can access the full NYT article here.
However, it is important to note that New York Times states the "report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law".
In other words, the Palmer Commission written after assessing from any of the flotilla participants or even from any of the media upon the flotilla. Thus as the NYT notes, it can not be classified as definitive in relation to either FACT or international LAW, instead it relies upon the deeply biased report by the Israeli military and state, with their assertions that the blockade is legal and that they acted appropriately.
Amnesty International pointed out in January this year, that the Israeli Turkel report was deeply flawed. Amnesty International also pointed out that the Turkel Report used "Highly contentious legal arguments were used by the Commission to argue for the applicability of international humanitarian law to the raid, rather than international human rights law or law enforcement standards" (see Amnesty International report here)
Gisha, the Israeli based Legal Centre for Freedom of Movement and the Free Gaza Movement has issued the following statement and briefing papers in relation to the media reportage of the leaked Palmer Report. Gisha's briefing paper in particular address the legal issues relating to Israel's blockade. The FGM address the broader political whitewish of the report.
I have also included two videos, which include raw footage shot by Iara Lee that was taken at the time of the Israeli attack on the Mari Marmara. As Lee, outlines in the first video which includes an interview with Democracy Now, she had to smuggle out her footage, as Israel confiscated nearly all the footage and discs and refused to return it. This footage and photographs stolen the Israeli military were not made available to the UN Palmer Commission.
In solidarity,
Kim
-------------------------
Q&A on the Palmer report
by Gisha
The Palmer Commission, appointed by the UN secretary-general to investigate the events surrounding the Gaza flotilla in 2010, is supposed to publish its report tomorrow (we’re not holding our breath or putting much weight on it, since it’s been delayed several times already to give Israel and Turkey a chance to come to “an agreement on language”). According to media reports, the commission is likely to find that Israel was within its rights to stop the vessels on their approach to Gaza, but will criticize the excessive use of force during the operation. Below, Gisha offers responses to several questions regarding legal status of the flotilla, the closure, and the connection between the two.
1. According to international law, is Israel permitted to block sea access and stop vessels heading for the Gaza Strip?
Yes, but at the same time it must allow the free passage of goods by alternative channels. Israel has prevented maritime access to the Gaza Strip since 1967 by virtue of its authority as an occupying power and in accordance with the laws of occupation as defined by international law. These laws continue to apply to the Gaza Strip following the implementation of Israel’s Disengagement Plan in 2005, since Israel still controls key aspects of life in the area. The laws of occupation permit Israel to decide through which channels goods and people will enter and leave the Gaza Strip. Although Israel has invited vessels to unload their cargo at Ashdod Port, it does not allow all the civilian goods on board to enter the Gaza Strip by land after security inspection.
2. Does that imply that Israel’s maritime closure of the Gaza Strip is lawful?
No. In our opinion, the legality of the maritime closure must be considered in the context of the overall closure of the Gaza Strip, which is also enforced by air and land. In this context, Israel has failed to meet its legal obligations. It is a fundamental principle of international law that with control comes responsibility; this in order to avoid a situation where no side takes responsibility for the protection of civilians during wartime or in situations of occupation. Accordingly, the substantial control Israel exercises over the crossings into the Gaza Strip imposes an equally substantial responsibility to permit the movement of people and goods at the level required in order to maintain the proper functioning of the economy, the health and education systems, and other aspects of civilian life. Israel is permitted to prevent the passage of merchandise or people only if there is a concrete security reason for doing so, and even then it must strike a balance between its security needs and its obligation to maintain normal life in the occupied territory. By preventing the passage of civilians and goods of a civilian nature to and from the Gaza Strip, Israel has paralyzed the economy of the area and caused substantial damage to key aspects of civilian life. In so doing, it has violated its obligations under international law, rendering its policy of closure – including the maritime closure – unlawful.
3. So according to this principle, during a violent conflict it is not permissible to use sanctions and other economic tools that hamper the enemy’s war effort but which also injure the population?
Not exactly. The case of the Gaza Strip differs substantially from sanctions imposed by one state on another. The closure of the Gaza Strip does not merely restrict the commercial relations of the area with Israel, but with the entire world. Accordingly, the closure cannot be considered to be the realization of Israel’s sovereign right not to maintain commercial relations with the area. The imposition of sanctions on commerce between the Gaza Strip and third countries is permissible only with the agreement of these countries, or in accordance with a binding resolution of the United Nations. Such action certainly deviates from Israel’s authority. Moreover, the closure does not meet the legal definition of a siege, which may be imposed in accordance with international law for a fixed period and in order to secure a defined military objective. To the best of our knowledge, the protracted closure has no defined military objective; additionally, it does not permit the free passage of civilians from the besieged area as required by law.
4. But after the flotilla, the restrictions were relaxed. Doesn’t that mean that the closure is lawful now?
No. Following the 2010 flotilla, the State of Israel introduced certain relaxations in the closure policy. The prohibition against the transfer of consumer products and raw materials was abolished; Israel permitted approximately 1,000 exits per month by merchants from the Gaza Strip to Israel and the West Bank; and certain localized gestures were announced, including allowing entrance of building materials for international organizations and the export of negligible quantities of merchandise produced in the Gaza Strip. The sweeping prohibitions on the passage of people between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank apart from “humanitarian exceptions”, on the entrance of building materials for the private sector and export or sale of goods outside the Strip remained in force. The relaxations which were implemented are important, but fall far short of what is needed in order to permit economic and social recovery in the Gaza Strip, and fail to meet Israel’s legal obligations, as we have explained. In order to render its policy toward the Gaza Strip lawful, Israel must lift the sweeping restrictions that remain and allow transfer of construction materials, export of goods and travel of people between Gaza and the West Bank, subject to individual security inspections.
*****
Iara Lee speaks with Democracy Now about the Israeli attack on the Marvi Marmara and the release of her raw footage of the shot on the Mari Marimara and smuggled out.
Warning: footage may cause distress to some viewers.
The Palmer/Uribe Report: Another attempt by Israel to whitewash murder
by The Free Gaza Movement on September 1, 2011
On May 31, 2010, Israeli commandos brutally attacked Freedom Flotilla 1, killing eight Turkish and one American passenger on board the Mavi Marmara, most having been killed at close range, execution style.. They injured more than 50 other passengers, both on the Mavi Marmara and on the other four boats sailing to the embattled territory of Gaza to bring the attention of the world to Israel’s illegal blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians. Not only were our passengers murdered and maimed, but the Israeli government has refused to return over $1 million in money and equipment, including cameras and videos which are of evidential value.
In the 15 months since Israel’s unwarranted attack on five boats carrying human rights watchers, Israel has been trying to spin the story that their well-armed soldiers were the victims and we were the aggressors. Several reports have already been written, most squarely blaming Israel for its attack on unarmed civilians.
The UN Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission took evidence from 112 eyewitnesses, reviewed forensic evidence, including autopsy reports and inspected the Mavi. It found that, because a humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza, Israel's blockade is ulawful and ‘cannot be sustained in law…regardless of the grounds” used as justification. Israel’s blockade is collective punishment and in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, inflicting civilian damage disproportionate to any military advantage. Therefore, since Freedom Flotilla 1 neither presented an imminent threat to Israel nor was designed to contribute to any war effort against Israel, intercepting the flotilla was ‘clearly unlawful’ andcould not be justified as self-defense.
Israel refused to cooperate with this UN panel even though the United Nations and governments all around the world called for just such an independent investigation of the events.
Instead, the Israeli government set up its own investigatory panel, The Turkel Commission, led by Israeli retired Supreme Court Judge Jacob Turkel and three other Israelis issued a report on January 23, 2011 exonerating the commandos, then saying the blockade was legal. The commission did not interview a single passenger or crew member from any of the boats but only received testimony from the Israeli military.
On January 28, 2011, Amnesty International condemned the Turkel findings as no more than a whitewash. “Despite being nearly 300 pages long, the report crucially fails to explain how the activists died and what conclusions the Commission reached regarding the IDF’s specific actions in each case.”
Free Gaza shares Amnesty International's analysis that the conflict between the Israeli armed forces and unarmed civilians was NOT armed conflict, making international humanitarian law (IHL) the wrong framework; international human rights law and law enforcement norms should have been applied, which would have made the use of force – and especially lethal force –an act of last resort.
Now there is the Palmer/Uribe report due to be released tomorrow, which apparently adopts the same faulty IHL framework. According to Audrey Bomse, Board member and Legal Adviser to Free Gaza: “If the leaks we've heard from Israeli officials are correct, the holes in this report are big enough to sail a flotilla of ships through. There are serious problems with the Panel’s composition, mandate and legal analysis. But most disturbing of all is the fact that the Secretary General’s Panel apparently condones Israel’s gross violations of the human and national rights of the Palestinian people and the rights of those in solidarity with them.”
The Panel has 4 members, one from Israel and one from Turkey, plus Geoffrey Palmer, former prime minister of New Zealand and ex-president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe. The choice of Uribe as vice-chairman is suspect, given his intimate association with the military and paramilitary practice of murdering civilians in Colombia. The Panel, was only tasked to review the reports of the national investigations by Turkey and Israel (the Turkel Committee), not to conduct an in-depth objective investigation. Its ultimate goal, was to “positively affect the relationship between Turkey and Israel.”
International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of armed conflict) is the wrong legal framework to be used as the basis for judging the lawfulness of the actions taken by Israel both against the civilian population of Gaza (the blockade) and against those resisting the boarding of the MM. The conflict between the Israeli navy and unarmed civilians on the Mavi Marmara was not armed conflict. International human rights law and law enforcement norms should have been applied, which would have made the use of force – and especially lethal force –an act of last resort. Nor should the legality of the blockade of occupied Gaza be analyzed in the framework of the law of armed conflict.
If indeed the Uribe Rport has concluded that the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza - a serious measure of war - is legal and in accordance with international law, then this Report will contradict numerous other UN reports and resolutions, most recently that of the Human Rights Council Fact-Finding Mission, on the issue of the legality of the Gaza siege.
As the Human Rights Council Fact‐Finding Mission observed, “public confidence in any investigative process ... is not enhanced when the subject of the investigation either investigates himself or plays a pivotal role in the process.”
***
Raw footage shot by Iara Lee on the Mari Marmara (approx 62 minutes)
Warning: footage may cause distress to some viewers.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Video: Omar Barghouti speaks about BDS
video by sternchenproductions; Jul 13, 2011
Omar Barghouti is an independent Palestinian political and cultural analyst whose opinion columns have appeared in several publications. He is also a human rights activist involved in civil struggle to end oppression and conflict in Palestine. Barghouti is a founding member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, PACBI.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Twittering about Palestine, politics, life, the universe and everything ...
Dear friends,
I have finally succumbed and joined twitter. I am pretty new to all this so I have no idea what I will tweet about or how often, but no doubt once I get the hang of this new fandangled thing, there will be tweets about Palestine, as well as politics both here in Australia and internationally. Hopefully, in the words of the late, great Douglas Adams, there will also be some about life, the universe and everything (even if the answer is 42! :)
If you are interested, you can follow me at @rafiqa65
in solidarity, Kim
I have finally succumbed and joined twitter. I am pretty new to all this so I have no idea what I will tweet about or how often, but no doubt once I get the hang of this new fandangled thing, there will be tweets about Palestine, as well as politics both here in Australia and internationally. Hopefully, in the words of the late, great Douglas Adams, there will also be some about life, the universe and everything (even if the answer is 42! :)
If you are interested, you can follow me at @rafiqa65
in solidarity, Kim
Categories: Middle East Updates
Murdoch Press and the Fictional Jewish Chocolatier
Dear friends,
an excellent piece published on Palestine Chronicle and written by my friend Samah Sabawi discussing the Murdoch media's appalling coverage of BDS and the Max Brenner protests in Melbourne. As Samah notes if you are looking an accurate representation of what the BDS campaign is about or what is really happening in relation to the Max Brenner protests you are not going to find it the pages of The Australian.
In solidarity,
Kim
****
Murdoch Press and the Fictional Jewish Chocolatier
By Samah Sabawi: Palestine Chronicle: 26 August 2011
The Murdoch press in its zeal to attack the Palestinian Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) campaign has misrepresented facts and even ran an entire article quoting a fictional character that simply does not exist. The invention of Max Brenner the Jewish chocolatier demonstrated the lack of integrity and journalistic ethics employed within the Murdoch press's campaign against the pro-Palestinian advocacy groups who have called for a boycott of the Israeli owned Max Brenner chocolate franchise.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, senior reporter Cameron Stewart (The Australian: August 20, 2011) still referred to the protests against the Max Brenner franchise as “marching on a Jewish-owned chocolate shop” and repeated the claim that BDS aim to “harm a legal Jewish business”. This deliberate misrepresentation of the corporate Israeli franchise directly link to the military and of the BDS protests is part of a larger campaign by The Australian that is carefully orchestrated to play on Jewish stereotypes and to shamelessly manipulate the emotions of the Jewish community creating an atmosphere of fear, mistrust and hostility.
Most astounding was the article’s reference to Max Brenner as “the man whose real name is Oded Brenner”. This is very revealing of the journalistic spin used to distract and misinform readers about these legitimate protests. Putting the spotlight on the man behind the name behind the cooperation is a cheap tactic, a diversion meant to humanize a corporate entity for the purposes of adding to the demonization of the protestors. But wait, there is more!
The Australian pursuit of the Max Brenner story has indeed gone too far. The same reporter Cameron Stewart (August 13, 2011) tried to further humanize the franchise by running an article entitled “Targeted chocolatier Max Brenner 'a man of peace'”. In this article Stewart wrote “it seems Max Brenner, the company's founder, is perplexed and dismayed at finding himself as an unwitting symbol of the Palestinian-Israel conflict.” But, the missing truth from this heart wrenching story of a Jewish chocolatier trying to survive in the big anti-Semitic world is that the man doesn't exist.
Max Brenner, the corporate entity, was founded in 1996 in Ra'anana Israel, by Max Fichtman and Oded Brenner, using a conjunction of their names. Max Fichtmann is no longer associated with the Max Brenner entity. Oded Brenner remains. Since 2001, the company has become a part of Strauss Group: a cooperation that supports Israel’s military. There was never a Jewish chocolatier named Max Brenner yet the Australian senior reporter Cameron Stewart dedicated an entire article about this non-existent ‘man of peace’.
It seems The Australian will do what it can to paint the BDS advocates as “radical” “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Israeli bullies” while ignoring the reasons behind the boycott call – Israel’s atrocious treatment of the Palestinian people, its land and water theft, its violence and terror against the population it occupies and its system of discrimination which has been likened by leading human rights organizations and advocates to the apartheid system which once plagued South Africa.
The campaign for BDS is not “radical” unless in the views of The Australian calling for international law to be respected is a radical notion, but is affective and perhaps this is the greater danger and the reason why the right leaning newspaper The Australian is leading the fight against it.
In demanding equality for Palestinians and Jews, BDS poses a great danger for Israel, a state that defines itself along ethnocentric lines and considers all non-Jews, including citizens of the state, a demographic threat.
It is worth mentioning that I had a lovely cup of coffee just yesterday in St. Kilda in an area surrounded by Jewish owned businesses where I enjoyed an environment that was peaceful and pleasant. The good news is that there is no call to march on Jewish-owned businesses by any group of people. But also worth knowing is that if indeed Jewish businesses were ever targeted by any group I would not be surprised to find the same human rights advocates who are marching against Israel today standing to defend the Jewish community’s right to live free of racism and intolerance. These are the values held by the BDS movement: non- violence, equality, justice for all and zero tolerance for all forms of racism and discrimination. But you would never know that, if your primary source of information is The Australian newspaper.
- Samah Sabawi is a Palestinian writer and is Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
an excellent piece published on Palestine Chronicle and written by my friend Samah Sabawi discussing the Murdoch media's appalling coverage of BDS and the Max Brenner protests in Melbourne. As Samah notes if you are looking an accurate representation of what the BDS campaign is about or what is really happening in relation to the Max Brenner protests you are not going to find it the pages of The Australian.
In solidarity,
Kim
****
Murdoch Press and the Fictional Jewish Chocolatier
By Samah Sabawi: Palestine Chronicle: 26 August 2011
The Murdoch press in its zeal to attack the Palestinian Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) campaign has misrepresented facts and even ran an entire article quoting a fictional character that simply does not exist. The invention of Max Brenner the Jewish chocolatier demonstrated the lack of integrity and journalistic ethics employed within the Murdoch press's campaign against the pro-Palestinian advocacy groups who have called for a boycott of the Israeli owned Max Brenner chocolate franchise.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, senior reporter Cameron Stewart (The Australian: August 20, 2011) still referred to the protests against the Max Brenner franchise as “marching on a Jewish-owned chocolate shop” and repeated the claim that BDS aim to “harm a legal Jewish business”. This deliberate misrepresentation of the corporate Israeli franchise directly link to the military and of the BDS protests is part of a larger campaign by The Australian that is carefully orchestrated to play on Jewish stereotypes and to shamelessly manipulate the emotions of the Jewish community creating an atmosphere of fear, mistrust and hostility.
Most astounding was the article’s reference to Max Brenner as “the man whose real name is Oded Brenner”. This is very revealing of the journalistic spin used to distract and misinform readers about these legitimate protests. Putting the spotlight on the man behind the name behind the cooperation is a cheap tactic, a diversion meant to humanize a corporate entity for the purposes of adding to the demonization of the protestors. But wait, there is more!
The Australian pursuit of the Max Brenner story has indeed gone too far. The same reporter Cameron Stewart (August 13, 2011) tried to further humanize the franchise by running an article entitled “Targeted chocolatier Max Brenner 'a man of peace'”. In this article Stewart wrote “it seems Max Brenner, the company's founder, is perplexed and dismayed at finding himself as an unwitting symbol of the Palestinian-Israel conflict.” But, the missing truth from this heart wrenching story of a Jewish chocolatier trying to survive in the big anti-Semitic world is that the man doesn't exist.
Max Brenner, the corporate entity, was founded in 1996 in Ra'anana Israel, by Max Fichtman and Oded Brenner, using a conjunction of their names. Max Fichtmann is no longer associated with the Max Brenner entity. Oded Brenner remains. Since 2001, the company has become a part of Strauss Group: a cooperation that supports Israel’s military. There was never a Jewish chocolatier named Max Brenner yet the Australian senior reporter Cameron Stewart dedicated an entire article about this non-existent ‘man of peace’.
It seems The Australian will do what it can to paint the BDS advocates as “radical” “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Israeli bullies” while ignoring the reasons behind the boycott call – Israel’s atrocious treatment of the Palestinian people, its land and water theft, its violence and terror against the population it occupies and its system of discrimination which has been likened by leading human rights organizations and advocates to the apartheid system which once plagued South Africa.
The campaign for BDS is not “radical” unless in the views of The Australian calling for international law to be respected is a radical notion, but is affective and perhaps this is the greater danger and the reason why the right leaning newspaper The Australian is leading the fight against it.
In demanding equality for Palestinians and Jews, BDS poses a great danger for Israel, a state that defines itself along ethnocentric lines and considers all non-Jews, including citizens of the state, a demographic threat.
It is worth mentioning that I had a lovely cup of coffee just yesterday in St. Kilda in an area surrounded by Jewish owned businesses where I enjoyed an environment that was peaceful and pleasant. The good news is that there is no call to march on Jewish-owned businesses by any group of people. But also worth knowing is that if indeed Jewish businesses were ever targeted by any group I would not be surprised to find the same human rights advocates who are marching against Israel today standing to defend the Jewish community’s right to live free of racism and intolerance. These are the values held by the BDS movement: non- violence, equality, justice for all and zero tolerance for all forms of racism and discrimination. But you would never know that, if your primary source of information is The Australian newspaper.
- Samah Sabawi is a Palestinian writer and is Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Categories: Middle East Updates
Loewenstein on BDS and the Max Brenner protests: Enough with the Nazi Slurs
As mentioned in my introduction to Michael Brull's article in my previous post, Brull's article is the first article to appear in the Australian “mainstream” media which has actively challenged the demonization of the BDS campaign and the Max Brenner protests in Melbourne. Brull, while being publicly on the record as not being a supporter of BDS, correctly points out that there is a concerted and undemocratic attempt to not only crush the Melbourne Max Brenner BDS protests but also that this attempted to forcibly crush the protests has been aided by the Murdoch Press in their relentless promotion/accusation that BDS and the protests are equivalent to Nazism.
Yesterday on the New Matilda webjournal, another well-known Australian Jewish blogger and author, Antony Loewenstein published an article addressing head-on use of the Nazi slurs being thrown around in an attempt to discredit BDS and the Max Brenner protests in Melbourne. Loewenstein, who is a non-Zionist and a supporter of the Palestinian BDS campaign, notes that not only are the Nazi accusations false but that Australian Zionists have cheered and supported the accusations in order to distract from Israel’s anti-democratic behaviour. Loewenstein points out that falsely accusations are not only offensive but also have the effect of undermining the ability to challenge real anti-Semitism when it does occur.
Please find below Loewenstein's New Matilda article (Loewenstein's article, like Brull's has a number of links in it. For some reason, however, the links did not automatically transfer when I posted the article here, so I have included a link to the New Matilda website and the original article, so you can check out the links)
In solidarity, Kim
***
Enough With The Nazi Slurs
By Antony Loewenstein, New Matilda, 25 August 2011
Equating the BDS movement with Nazism is both offensive and outrageous. So why aren't members of the Jewish community speaking out on this, asks Antony Loewenstein
Joseph Stalin changed his name and so did New South Wales Federal Greens MP Lee Rhiannon.
Stalin, writes Alan Howe, executive editor and columnist with Rupert Murdoch’s Herald Sun, was "perhaps the 20th century’s greatest murderer".
Rhiannon backs the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and, argues Howe, people should know about "the 1930s where violent protests against Jewish traders may end. It was a colourful time of brownshirts, blackshirts and yellow Stars of David".
In this fashion, Rhiannon is likened to a supporter of fascism and remains "against the only democracy in the Middle East and the one country in which the region’s Arabs are guaranteed safety".
Welcome to the level of debate in Australia over the Israel/Palestine conflict. The last months have seen a litany of public figures that should know better accusing anybody associated with the BDS movement of embracing Nazism, anti-Semitism and outright Jew-hatred.
It shames the Australian Jewish establishment that no leading voices have challenged this odious and absurd comparison. Instead, they’ve cheered it on, coordinating nationally, with the support of an Israeli government desperate to distract from its own anti-democratic practices.
The Australian Jewish News has editorialised that boycotting Jewish businesses here will remind Jews of similar Nazi tactics in Germany and Austria in the 1930s. How on earth will the paper cover real anti-Semitism when they so casually compare today’s behaviour to Hitler’s Third Reich?
Back in early July, 19 pro-Palestinian activists were arrested and charged for protesting in front of a Max Brenner chocolate shop in Melbourne. Max Brenner was targeted because its parent company Strauss Group supports elements of the IDF accused of war crimes in both the West Bank and Gaza.
This campaign has continued globally for years. For example, a reader of my website in 2009 sent me a copy of a letter they sent to Max Brenner outlining the reasons the company was a legitimate target for boycott.
The Victorian Government recently continued to threaten the activists with further legal punishment, imprisonment and fines.
Max Brenner’s parent company Strauss Group is an openly political business that proudly states on its Hebrew website that "We see a mission and need to continue to provide our soldiers with support, to enhance their quality of life and service conditions, and sweeten their special moments". Some of these soldiers were directly implicated in war crimes allegations during incursions into the West Bank and the invasion of Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.
In late July, The Australian reported the campaign against the BDS movement in Australia with a story called, "Anti-Jew protest condemned". Federal Labor MP Michael Danby, journalist Jana Wendt and union head Paul Howes met for a hot chocolate inside a Max Brenner shop in Melbourne, condemned the "violent" protest against the shop and again talked about Nazi Germany. Former Labor Party president Warren Mundine was quoted by journalist Leo Shanahan as saying BDS was not "not anti-Israel but anti-Jewish".
Howes said the protesters were "mimicking the behaviour of the Nazi thugs" and it was necessary to "nip this in the bud". Howes said most people who voted for the Greens had no idea how "xenophobic" its policies were. Not one journalist asked him whether he truly believed waving placards outside a shop in Melbourne is akin to the Gestapo arresting and murdering millions of Jews in the gas chambers. And no Jewish leaders took him to task for the comparison.
Last weekend’s article by The Australian’s Cameron Stewart allowed this misperception to perpetuate. Like Shanahan, Stewart quoted Wendt as saying that, "As the daughter of refugees whose lives were critically affected by both fascism and communism, I’m grateful for what Australia has to offer".
A week later, the Victorian Government announced that it was investigating "anti-Israel activists" — by asking the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) if the BDS-ers were breaking federal law by "threatening" Israeli stores.
The state’s Consumer Affairs Minister Michael O’Brien raised the spectre of 20th century attacks on Jewish businesses and claimed BDS was a threat to democratic order. Bizarrely, he singled out the Maritime Union Of Australia, Geelong Trades Hall Council, the Green Left Weekly magazine, Australians for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. For the record, Australians for Palestine had nothing to do with the BDS protest against Max Brenner, though they do back BDS.
The Australian followed up with a story recently headlined, "Targeted chocolatier ‘a man of peace’". "Max Brenner says he is a man of peace who hates all forms of violence," the article says. Reporter Cameron Stewart doesn’t mention the serious allegations against the IDF soldiers supported by Max Brenner. (And besides, Max Brenner is the name of the business — not of the company owner. Actually, it’s an amalgam of two names.)
One of the activists interviewed by Stewart, Kim Bullimore, spokesperson for Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, told me that little of what she said to the journalist ended up in the article.
The Australian editorialised further on the matter last week by arguing "for any student of 20th-century history there is something deeply offensive about targeting a Jewish-owned business".
And the Jewish establishment said nothing.
BDS is a peaceful, non-violent movement, like that which campaigned against apartheid South Africa. It aims to put pressure on a state that refuses to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
What Australian politicians will not acknowledge is the real face of modern Israel. Calling for BDS inside Israel is now illegal. As an Arab member of parliament recently told the New York Times, a member of the Knesset wanted to sue him for simply calling for a boycott against the illegal settlement of Ariel. This is in "democratic" Israel.
With Israel announcing yet more illegal colonies in the West Bank, the international community has a clear choice: engage in empty rhetoric about "democratic" Israel or find alternative ways to target a state with one of the most unequal class systems in the developed world.
Australian politicians and all public figures should be strongly challenged on comparing BDS to fascist hoodlums, and rejected.
Yesterday on the New Matilda webjournal, another well-known Australian Jewish blogger and author, Antony Loewenstein published an article addressing head-on use of the Nazi slurs being thrown around in an attempt to discredit BDS and the Max Brenner protests in Melbourne. Loewenstein, who is a non-Zionist and a supporter of the Palestinian BDS campaign, notes that not only are the Nazi accusations false but that Australian Zionists have cheered and supported the accusations in order to distract from Israel’s anti-democratic behaviour. Loewenstein points out that falsely accusations are not only offensive but also have the effect of undermining the ability to challenge real anti-Semitism when it does occur.
Please find below Loewenstein's New Matilda article (Loewenstein's article, like Brull's has a number of links in it. For some reason, however, the links did not automatically transfer when I posted the article here, so I have included a link to the New Matilda website and the original article, so you can check out the links)
In solidarity, Kim
***
Enough With The Nazi Slurs
By Antony Loewenstein, New Matilda, 25 August 2011
Equating the BDS movement with Nazism is both offensive and outrageous. So why aren't members of the Jewish community speaking out on this, asks Antony Loewenstein
Joseph Stalin changed his name and so did New South Wales Federal Greens MP Lee Rhiannon.
Stalin, writes Alan Howe, executive editor and columnist with Rupert Murdoch’s Herald Sun, was "perhaps the 20th century’s greatest murderer".
Rhiannon backs the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and, argues Howe, people should know about "the 1930s where violent protests against Jewish traders may end. It was a colourful time of brownshirts, blackshirts and yellow Stars of David".
In this fashion, Rhiannon is likened to a supporter of fascism and remains "against the only democracy in the Middle East and the one country in which the region’s Arabs are guaranteed safety".
Welcome to the level of debate in Australia over the Israel/Palestine conflict. The last months have seen a litany of public figures that should know better accusing anybody associated with the BDS movement of embracing Nazism, anti-Semitism and outright Jew-hatred.
It shames the Australian Jewish establishment that no leading voices have challenged this odious and absurd comparison. Instead, they’ve cheered it on, coordinating nationally, with the support of an Israeli government desperate to distract from its own anti-democratic practices.
The Australian Jewish News has editorialised that boycotting Jewish businesses here will remind Jews of similar Nazi tactics in Germany and Austria in the 1930s. How on earth will the paper cover real anti-Semitism when they so casually compare today’s behaviour to Hitler’s Third Reich?
Back in early July, 19 pro-Palestinian activists were arrested and charged for protesting in front of a Max Brenner chocolate shop in Melbourne. Max Brenner was targeted because its parent company Strauss Group supports elements of the IDF accused of war crimes in both the West Bank and Gaza.
This campaign has continued globally for years. For example, a reader of my website in 2009 sent me a copy of a letter they sent to Max Brenner outlining the reasons the company was a legitimate target for boycott.
The Victorian Government recently continued to threaten the activists with further legal punishment, imprisonment and fines.
Max Brenner’s parent company Strauss Group is an openly political business that proudly states on its Hebrew website that "We see a mission and need to continue to provide our soldiers with support, to enhance their quality of life and service conditions, and sweeten their special moments". Some of these soldiers were directly implicated in war crimes allegations during incursions into the West Bank and the invasion of Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.
In late July, The Australian reported the campaign against the BDS movement in Australia with a story called, "Anti-Jew protest condemned". Federal Labor MP Michael Danby, journalist Jana Wendt and union head Paul Howes met for a hot chocolate inside a Max Brenner shop in Melbourne, condemned the "violent" protest against the shop and again talked about Nazi Germany. Former Labor Party president Warren Mundine was quoted by journalist Leo Shanahan as saying BDS was not "not anti-Israel but anti-Jewish".
Howes said the protesters were "mimicking the behaviour of the Nazi thugs" and it was necessary to "nip this in the bud". Howes said most people who voted for the Greens had no idea how "xenophobic" its policies were. Not one journalist asked him whether he truly believed waving placards outside a shop in Melbourne is akin to the Gestapo arresting and murdering millions of Jews in the gas chambers. And no Jewish leaders took him to task for the comparison.
Last weekend’s article by The Australian’s Cameron Stewart allowed this misperception to perpetuate. Like Shanahan, Stewart quoted Wendt as saying that, "As the daughter of refugees whose lives were critically affected by both fascism and communism, I’m grateful for what Australia has to offer".
A week later, the Victorian Government announced that it was investigating "anti-Israel activists" — by asking the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) if the BDS-ers were breaking federal law by "threatening" Israeli stores.
The state’s Consumer Affairs Minister Michael O’Brien raised the spectre of 20th century attacks on Jewish businesses and claimed BDS was a threat to democratic order. Bizarrely, he singled out the Maritime Union Of Australia, Geelong Trades Hall Council, the Green Left Weekly magazine, Australians for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. For the record, Australians for Palestine had nothing to do with the BDS protest against Max Brenner, though they do back BDS.
The Australian followed up with a story recently headlined, "Targeted chocolatier ‘a man of peace’". "Max Brenner says he is a man of peace who hates all forms of violence," the article says. Reporter Cameron Stewart doesn’t mention the serious allegations against the IDF soldiers supported by Max Brenner. (And besides, Max Brenner is the name of the business — not of the company owner. Actually, it’s an amalgam of two names.)
One of the activists interviewed by Stewart, Kim Bullimore, spokesperson for Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, told me that little of what she said to the journalist ended up in the article.
The Australian editorialised further on the matter last week by arguing "for any student of 20th-century history there is something deeply offensive about targeting a Jewish-owned business".
And the Jewish establishment said nothing.
BDS is a peaceful, non-violent movement, like that which campaigned against apartheid South Africa. It aims to put pressure on a state that refuses to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
What Australian politicians will not acknowledge is the real face of modern Israel. Calling for BDS inside Israel is now illegal. As an Arab member of parliament recently told the New York Times, a member of the Knesset wanted to sue him for simply calling for a boycott against the illegal settlement of Ariel. This is in "democratic" Israel.
With Israel announcing yet more illegal colonies in the West Bank, the international community has a clear choice: engage in empty rhetoric about "democratic" Israel or find alternative ways to target a state with one of the most unequal class systems in the developed world.
Australian politicians and all public figures should be strongly challenged on comparing BDS to fascist hoodlums, and rejected.
Categories: Middle East Updates
The campaign against the Max Brenner protesters
Dear friends,
as many of you will know there is a concerted attempt to repress the Australian BDS movement since late last year when the Greens dominated Marrickville Council passed a motion in support of BDS. In Victoria we have seen the Victorian Police violently attack a peaceful BDS demonstration and the Victoria state government call in the ACCC to try and stop BDS actions. In the last couple of weeks, we have also seen the pro-Zionist Murdoch Press go into overdrive trying to smear the non-violent civil dissent as anti-semitic and violent. The Murdoch press have made it clear that they will continue the campaign against BDS which they started against the Marrickville Council earlier this year.
This article by Michael Brull, a well-known Jewish anti-Zionist writer/commentator, is the first in the mainstream press which has not sought to demonise the BDS campaign or the non-violent protestors. Brull, while publicly being on record as not being a supporter of BDS, correctly points out that there is a concerted, undemocratic attempt to not only crush the Melbourne BDS protests outside of Max Brenner, but this attempt to forcibly crush the protests has been aided by the Murdoch Press in their relentless promotion/accusations that BDS, the Max Brenner protests and the protests are an equivalence to the Nazis.
(Brull's article has a number of links embedded in it, but for some reason the links did not transfer when I reposted the article. You can read the original article with all the links HERE)
In solidarity,
Kim
*************
22 August 2011
by Michael Brull
On July 1, a small group of activists protested Max Brenner in Melbourne. Here in Sydney, similar protests have taken place over the last few years, and have seemingly passed without incident.
The reasons for the protest were explained by one of its participants, Benjamin Solah. He explained that "the company sends care packages of chocolate and other goods to show their support for the Golani and the Givati brigades". One protester's sign less plausibly explained, "MAX BRENNER PROUDLY SUPPORTS THE DISPLACEMENT, TORTURE AND GENOCIDE OF PALESTINIANS".
Max Brenner, for his part, has described himself as a "man of peace". In a typically non-probing Australian article, he explained:
'Everything that has to do with conflict seems stupid (to [him]),' he said.
'Whether it is in Israel or not, anything to do with violence, aggressiveness or appearing at protests or boycotts seems silly (to me). But then again, I am just a chocolate-maker.'
This would presumably have stretched the credulity of any journalist who had interviewed him. Obviously, if Mr Brenner sends chocolate to his favourite Israeli army brigades, he is not quite as apolitical as he portrays himself. He does not, after all, send chocolate packages to fighters in Hamas, or Hezbollah. Or if he were entirely disinterested in the conflict, perhaps instead of sending chocolate to soldiers, he would try to send it to Gaza (which the Israeli government wouldn't allow, on account of the blockade for purely security reasons).
As for the aims of the protest, they are perhaps not entirely clear. A website in support of the protesters says its aim is "to draw attention to the ongoing genocide committed by the Apartheid regime in Israel against Palestinians". For those who are not part of the small Leninist groups that seem to comprise the core of these protests, it is not clear how picketing a chocolate store will demonstrate to the public that genocide is occurring in Palestine. Even Australians for Palestine - the largest such group in Melbourne - did not get involved in these protests. Presumably, they too did not think Max Brenner was the best choice of target to raise consciousness of suffering (let alone an alleged "genocide") in Palestine.
Suppose, for example, that the protests were successful. Max Brenner suffered crippling financial losses because of the protests. They respond by no longer giving out chocolate to Israeli soldiers. Does anyone think that that would improve life for the Palestinians? That this is the infrastructure of the occupation? That when Israeli soldiers don't get Max Brenner's (mediocre) chocolate products, they'll stop humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints in the West Bank?
I don't think it would be that difficult to find a more appropriate target for protests. For example, at the University of New South Wales, there is an alleged Australian Human Rights Centre. Amazingly, last year it had a talk called "The Fight Against Terror". One of the speakers was Colonel Sharon Afek, Deputy Military Advocate General for the Israel Defence Forces, who apparently "held the positions of legal advisor for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), Military Advocate General for the Israeli Air Force and, Head of the International Law branch of the IDF". Considering the Israeli army's open contempt for international law, this should have been considered a scandal for an alleged human rights centre. When I have been asked about the centre, I have pointed out this fact and urged people to steer clear of it.
People protest things all the time in Australia. Obviously, most protests do not inspire most Australians: most protests are very small, for fringe causes that many Australians have only the vaguest idea about. Yet these protests have been treated differently from the many other unpopular protests in Australia: they have faced harsh repression.
There are three videos of the July protest. In this one, at about 2:30, you can see a woman asking the police to settle down, saying the protesters are non-violent. The police then rush into the crowd of placid protesters to drag away a woman. There does not appear to be any cause for the arrest: she is plainly not harming or threatening anyone.
Here, you can see a video of the protesters chanting "This is not a police state/We have the right to demonstrate". At 0:49, the police swoop on another person they have plainly singled out for arrest: again, with no apparent cause. At about 3:07, the police advance on the protesters, and one police officer says brusquely "Move" and violently shoves a woman in a hijab.
The third video appears to be the first in order. It shows the arrival of the police in the midst of the protest. The police do not appear particularly interested in negotiations. When they arrive, the protesters boo them. The police seem to be pushing protesters within 30 seconds. At 1:50, they appear to grab a protester who was walking away from them, back into the crowd. Around 3:30, we see the incident from the first video again from a different angle: a woman saying they are non-violent, asking police to settle down, then the police rush in to grab someone.
From the videos, it appears that the protesters were not misbehaving when they were arrested. One of the protesters claims that in subsequent trial testimony, the Victorian police acknowledged the following. Firstly, they had targeted protester leadership in making arrests. Secondly, police infiltrators had attended meetings of the protesters to monitor their activities.
Solah alleges that police violence in making arrests caused one arrestee to lose consciousness. Nineteen protesters were arrested, and 13 of them had bail conditions banning them from going within 50 metres of Max Brenner. Presumably, such conditions are to further criminalise protests against Max Brenner. On August 9, four of the 13 were arrested again in morning raids. They had allegedly protested Max Brenner, in defiance of their bail conditions. Three of them had bail set at $2,000. One of them had bail set at $10 000, presumably with the intent of keeping her in jail until her hearing on September 5.
This is part of a broader campaign against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, targeted at Israel. As I've noted before, there is an extensive and widening literature of comparing people who advocate BDS to the Nazis. Paul Howes, the Australian Workers Union secretary, said the protesters were "mimicking the behaviour of the Nazi thugs". Labor MP Michael Danby explained that "We remember the precedence of the 1930s; my father came from Germany, and (at) any sign of this kind of behaviour we have to draw a line in the sand". Kevin Rudd claimed to learn a similar lesson from history.
Gerard Henderson sought to be circumspect, so he made different point: "the historical parallels. In the mid-1930s, Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists used to go on rampages outside Jewish-owned shops in London's East End - some were boycotted, others smashed up".
This atmosphere of pervasive demonisation of the protesters has made possible repression of the protesters that should be considered shocking. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission has been asked to investigate whether injunctive relief and damages can be inflicted on the protesters. Victorian Consumer Affairs Minister Michael O'Brien "singled out the Maritime Union Of Australia, Geelong Trades Hall Council, the Green Left Weekly magazine, Australians for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign" for such measures.
The reason is that such organisations "may have engaged in secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to Max Brenner's business".
It is worth considering the significance of this. Firstly, do we think it is reasonable that Australia should become a country where activists are prevented from advocating consumer boycotts that cause substantial loss or damage to what they consider an unethical business? Suppose that this is successful. What about those who engage in secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss to Australian coal companies, for the purpose of reducing Australia's carbon footprint? In this instance, Australians for Palestine expressly did not take part in the protests at Max Brenner. They simply advocate BDS - and the activists at Max Brenner thought that fit into that campaign. Applying similar logic, next time Climate Camp activists decide to lock themselves to a coal station to shut down production, police may arrest intellectuals, like Clive Hamilton and Guy Pearse. Does this sound like the kind of democracy we want to live in?
Indeed, it is striking how untroubled Australian commentators seem by these developments. In Israel, a law was recently passed which provided that anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel, or the settlements, could be sued. This was considered outrageous in Israel, and a black mark on its claim to being democratic. As I noted in July, Meretz called the law "an embarrassment to Israeli democracy and makes people around the world wonder if there is actually a democracy here". Kadima complained that "you're sending people to the gulag for their opinions". The American Jewish paper Forward described this as an "an odious law for the ways in which it chills free speech in Israel", noting that "democracy's greatest test is its ability to allow the harshest criticism, whether the flag burners or the boycotters".
Here in Australia, the Australian Jewish News ran two op eds blasting the law. They both came from board members of a new organisation the New Israel Fund Australia. Its chairman is Robin Margo, who used to be the president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. That is, his ""Jewish establishment" credentials are beyond reproach", as Galus Australis noted. In the AJN, NIFA board member Mandi Katz condemned this "broad reaching law that uses the power of the state to silence dissenting political expression. This is indisputably undemocratic, as will be clear to anyone who values democracy, however strongly opposed they may be to boycotts as a means for political change." That is, the one in Israel.
The point is plain. One could be a fanatical Zionist, love everything the Israeli government does, and still think people who disagree should not face criminal or financial penalties for believing otherwise. That is kind of the point of liberal democracy. Even people with really unpopular points of view should be allowed to say what they believe. It is sad that what is considered a black mark on Israeli democracy isn't considered a big deal here. It is comical that the demonisation of boycotters of Israel appears to be more intense in Australia than it even is in Israel. It is a shame that opponents of the Max Brenner protests are not content to simply say: 'I believe your protests are silly, and believe I can convince the public of this.' Instead, there is a campaign to forcibly crush the protesters, assisted by the Murdoch media's relentless promotion of their equivalence to the Nazis.
Michael Brull has a featured blog at Independent Australian Jewish Voices, and is involved in Stop The Intervention Collective Sydney (STICS).
as many of you will know there is a concerted attempt to repress the Australian BDS movement since late last year when the Greens dominated Marrickville Council passed a motion in support of BDS. In Victoria we have seen the Victorian Police violently attack a peaceful BDS demonstration and the Victoria state government call in the ACCC to try and stop BDS actions. In the last couple of weeks, we have also seen the pro-Zionist Murdoch Press go into overdrive trying to smear the non-violent civil dissent as anti-semitic and violent. The Murdoch press have made it clear that they will continue the campaign against BDS which they started against the Marrickville Council earlier this year.
This article by Michael Brull, a well-known Jewish anti-Zionist writer/commentator, is the first in the mainstream press which has not sought to demonise the BDS campaign or the non-violent protestors. Brull, while publicly being on record as not being a supporter of BDS, correctly points out that there is a concerted, undemocratic attempt to not only crush the Melbourne BDS protests outside of Max Brenner, but this attempt to forcibly crush the protests has been aided by the Murdoch Press in their relentless promotion/accusations that BDS, the Max Brenner protests and the protests are an equivalence to the Nazis.
(Brull's article has a number of links embedded in it, but for some reason the links did not transfer when I reposted the article. You can read the original article with all the links HERE)
In solidarity,
Kim
*************
22 August 2011
by Michael Brull
On July 1, a small group of activists protested Max Brenner in Melbourne. Here in Sydney, similar protests have taken place over the last few years, and have seemingly passed without incident.
The reasons for the protest were explained by one of its participants, Benjamin Solah. He explained that "the company sends care packages of chocolate and other goods to show their support for the Golani and the Givati brigades". One protester's sign less plausibly explained, "MAX BRENNER PROUDLY SUPPORTS THE DISPLACEMENT, TORTURE AND GENOCIDE OF PALESTINIANS".
Max Brenner, for his part, has described himself as a "man of peace". In a typically non-probing Australian article, he explained:
'Everything that has to do with conflict seems stupid (to [him]),' he said.
'Whether it is in Israel or not, anything to do with violence, aggressiveness or appearing at protests or boycotts seems silly (to me). But then again, I am just a chocolate-maker.'
This would presumably have stretched the credulity of any journalist who had interviewed him. Obviously, if Mr Brenner sends chocolate to his favourite Israeli army brigades, he is not quite as apolitical as he portrays himself. He does not, after all, send chocolate packages to fighters in Hamas, or Hezbollah. Or if he were entirely disinterested in the conflict, perhaps instead of sending chocolate to soldiers, he would try to send it to Gaza (which the Israeli government wouldn't allow, on account of the blockade for purely security reasons).
As for the aims of the protest, they are perhaps not entirely clear. A website in support of the protesters says its aim is "to draw attention to the ongoing genocide committed by the Apartheid regime in Israel against Palestinians". For those who are not part of the small Leninist groups that seem to comprise the core of these protests, it is not clear how picketing a chocolate store will demonstrate to the public that genocide is occurring in Palestine. Even Australians for Palestine - the largest such group in Melbourne - did not get involved in these protests. Presumably, they too did not think Max Brenner was the best choice of target to raise consciousness of suffering (let alone an alleged "genocide") in Palestine.
Suppose, for example, that the protests were successful. Max Brenner suffered crippling financial losses because of the protests. They respond by no longer giving out chocolate to Israeli soldiers. Does anyone think that that would improve life for the Palestinians? That this is the infrastructure of the occupation? That when Israeli soldiers don't get Max Brenner's (mediocre) chocolate products, they'll stop humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints in the West Bank?
I don't think it would be that difficult to find a more appropriate target for protests. For example, at the University of New South Wales, there is an alleged Australian Human Rights Centre. Amazingly, last year it had a talk called "The Fight Against Terror". One of the speakers was Colonel Sharon Afek, Deputy Military Advocate General for the Israel Defence Forces, who apparently "held the positions of legal advisor for Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), Military Advocate General for the Israeli Air Force and, Head of the International Law branch of the IDF". Considering the Israeli army's open contempt for international law, this should have been considered a scandal for an alleged human rights centre. When I have been asked about the centre, I have pointed out this fact and urged people to steer clear of it.
People protest things all the time in Australia. Obviously, most protests do not inspire most Australians: most protests are very small, for fringe causes that many Australians have only the vaguest idea about. Yet these protests have been treated differently from the many other unpopular protests in Australia: they have faced harsh repression.
There are three videos of the July protest. In this one, at about 2:30, you can see a woman asking the police to settle down, saying the protesters are non-violent. The police then rush into the crowd of placid protesters to drag away a woman. There does not appear to be any cause for the arrest: she is plainly not harming or threatening anyone.
Here, you can see a video of the protesters chanting "This is not a police state/We have the right to demonstrate". At 0:49, the police swoop on another person they have plainly singled out for arrest: again, with no apparent cause. At about 3:07, the police advance on the protesters, and one police officer says brusquely "Move" and violently shoves a woman in a hijab.
The third video appears to be the first in order. It shows the arrival of the police in the midst of the protest. The police do not appear particularly interested in negotiations. When they arrive, the protesters boo them. The police seem to be pushing protesters within 30 seconds. At 1:50, they appear to grab a protester who was walking away from them, back into the crowd. Around 3:30, we see the incident from the first video again from a different angle: a woman saying they are non-violent, asking police to settle down, then the police rush in to grab someone.
From the videos, it appears that the protesters were not misbehaving when they were arrested. One of the protesters claims that in subsequent trial testimony, the Victorian police acknowledged the following. Firstly, they had targeted protester leadership in making arrests. Secondly, police infiltrators had attended meetings of the protesters to monitor their activities.
Solah alleges that police violence in making arrests caused one arrestee to lose consciousness. Nineteen protesters were arrested, and 13 of them had bail conditions banning them from going within 50 metres of Max Brenner. Presumably, such conditions are to further criminalise protests against Max Brenner. On August 9, four of the 13 were arrested again in morning raids. They had allegedly protested Max Brenner, in defiance of their bail conditions. Three of them had bail set at $2,000. One of them had bail set at $10 000, presumably with the intent of keeping her in jail until her hearing on September 5.
This is part of a broader campaign against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, targeted at Israel. As I've noted before, there is an extensive and widening literature of comparing people who advocate BDS to the Nazis. Paul Howes, the Australian Workers Union secretary, said the protesters were "mimicking the behaviour of the Nazi thugs". Labor MP Michael Danby explained that "We remember the precedence of the 1930s; my father came from Germany, and (at) any sign of this kind of behaviour we have to draw a line in the sand". Kevin Rudd claimed to learn a similar lesson from history.
Gerard Henderson sought to be circumspect, so he made different point: "the historical parallels. In the mid-1930s, Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists used to go on rampages outside Jewish-owned shops in London's East End - some were boycotted, others smashed up".
This atmosphere of pervasive demonisation of the protesters has made possible repression of the protesters that should be considered shocking. The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission has been asked to investigate whether injunctive relief and damages can be inflicted on the protesters. Victorian Consumer Affairs Minister Michael O'Brien "singled out the Maritime Union Of Australia, Geelong Trades Hall Council, the Green Left Weekly magazine, Australians for Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign" for such measures.
The reason is that such organisations "may have engaged in secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage to Max Brenner's business".
It is worth considering the significance of this. Firstly, do we think it is reasonable that Australia should become a country where activists are prevented from advocating consumer boycotts that cause substantial loss or damage to what they consider an unethical business? Suppose that this is successful. What about those who engage in secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss to Australian coal companies, for the purpose of reducing Australia's carbon footprint? In this instance, Australians for Palestine expressly did not take part in the protests at Max Brenner. They simply advocate BDS - and the activists at Max Brenner thought that fit into that campaign. Applying similar logic, next time Climate Camp activists decide to lock themselves to a coal station to shut down production, police may arrest intellectuals, like Clive Hamilton and Guy Pearse. Does this sound like the kind of democracy we want to live in?
Indeed, it is striking how untroubled Australian commentators seem by these developments. In Israel, a law was recently passed which provided that anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel, or the settlements, could be sued. This was considered outrageous in Israel, and a black mark on its claim to being democratic. As I noted in July, Meretz called the law "an embarrassment to Israeli democracy and makes people around the world wonder if there is actually a democracy here". Kadima complained that "you're sending people to the gulag for their opinions". The American Jewish paper Forward described this as an "an odious law for the ways in which it chills free speech in Israel", noting that "democracy's greatest test is its ability to allow the harshest criticism, whether the flag burners or the boycotters".
Here in Australia, the Australian Jewish News ran two op eds blasting the law. They both came from board members of a new organisation the New Israel Fund Australia. Its chairman is Robin Margo, who used to be the president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. That is, his ""Jewish establishment" credentials are beyond reproach", as Galus Australis noted. In the AJN, NIFA board member Mandi Katz condemned this "broad reaching law that uses the power of the state to silence dissenting political expression. This is indisputably undemocratic, as will be clear to anyone who values democracy, however strongly opposed they may be to boycotts as a means for political change." That is, the one in Israel.
The point is plain. One could be a fanatical Zionist, love everything the Israeli government does, and still think people who disagree should not face criminal or financial penalties for believing otherwise. That is kind of the point of liberal democracy. Even people with really unpopular points of view should be allowed to say what they believe. It is sad that what is considered a black mark on Israeli democracy isn't considered a big deal here. It is comical that the demonisation of boycotters of Israel appears to be more intense in Australia than it even is in Israel. It is a shame that opponents of the Max Brenner protests are not content to simply say: 'I believe your protests are silly, and believe I can convince the public of this.' Instead, there is a campaign to forcibly crush the protesters, assisted by the Murdoch media's relentless promotion of their equivalence to the Nazis.
Michael Brull has a featured blog at Independent Australian Jewish Voices, and is involved in Stop The Intervention Collective Sydney (STICS).
Categories: Middle East Updates
