With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior

Daniel Kurtzer, voormalig Amerikaans ambassadeur van Israël en Egypte, meent dat het omkopen van Israël door de VS voor beide partijen een slechte zaak is.

The Washington Post | by Daniel Kurtzer | November 21, 2010

It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.

But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.

Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.



This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.

Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.

It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have been going on in the first place?

Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?

And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?

The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.

If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.

This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.

Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?

These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.

And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.

This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.

Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Katholieke Kerk vraagt VN einde te maken aan Israëlische bezetting

Allicht weer verzwegen in Nederland:

Nieuwsblad.be | AFP | 23 oktober 2010

De bisschoppensynode voor het Midden-Oosten, verenigd in het Vaticaan in aanwezigheid van de paus, heeft de internationale gemeenschap, en de Verenigde Naties in het bijzonder, gevraagd een einde te maken aan de Israëlische bezetting van 'de verschillende Arabische gebieden', via de toepassing van de VN-resoluties daaromtrent. De synode, die op 10 oktober van start ging, deed die oproep zaterdag in haar eindmededeling.

'De burgers van de landen van het Midden-Oosten roepen de internationale gemeenschap, en de VN in het bijzonder, op eerlijk te werken aan een oplossing voor een rechtvaardige en definitieve vrede in de regio. En dat door de toepassing van de resoluties van de Veiligheidsraad en door het nemen van de nodige juridische maatregelen om een einde te maken aan de bezetting van de verschillende Arabische gebieden door Israël', verklaarden de bisschoppen, die voornamelijk uit het Midden-Oosten afkomstig zijn.

Op die manier 'zal het Palestijnse volk een onafhankelijk en soeverein vaderland kunnen hebben en er leven in waardigheid en stabiliteit', luidt het. Israël van zijn kant 'zal van de vrede en de veiligheid binnen de internationaal erkende grenzen kunnen genieten', voegen de bisschoppen eraan toe.

'De heilige stad Jeruzalem kan het rechtvaardige statuut krijgen dat haar bijzondere karakter respecteert, alsook haar heiligheid en haar religieuze patrimonium, voor elk van de drie religies: het jodendom, het christendom en de islam', besluiten ze, hopend dat 'de tweestatenoplossing werkelijkheid wordt en niet slechts een droom blijft'.

Pope Benedict XVI delivers his address at the Aida Refugee camp in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Wednesday, May 13, 2009.

Towards accountability: John Dugard interviewed

The Electronic Intifada | Adri Nieuwhof
5 October 2010

Last month, Professor John Dugard, former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, chaired a meeting on universal Jurisdiction in the Hague. The Electronic Intifada contributor Adri Nieuwhof interviewed Dugard about means of bringing Israel to account for its human rights violations, particularly the legal mechanism of universal jurisdiction.

Former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories John Dugard in 2007. (UN Photo)

Adri Nieuwhof: Can you explain the principle of universal jurisdiction?

John Dugard: Essentially, universal jurisdiction means that a state has the power to exercise jurisdiction over serious crimes under international law that were committed outside the boundaries of the state by non-nationals. Normally states have only jurisdiction over crimes in their territory by their nationals.

AN: Do states have responsibility towards exercising universal jurisdiction?

JD: Yes, if states are serious about suppressing international crime and preventing impunity, then there is an obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction. It is important to realize that the International Criminal Court in The Hague has limited universal jurisdiction. If impunity is to be avoided, states will have the obligation to prosecute international crimes themselves.

AN: Can you specify what this obligation of states implies?

JD: They have to institute criminal procedures against persons suspected of international crimes, to investigate and to bring the suspects before their court.

AN: You spoke at the meeting about selectivity in implementing universal jurisdiction. Can you clarify this?

JD: Universal jurisdiction is not very effective at present. There are practical difficulties involved, in particular, the collection of evidence. For example, if the Netherlands prosecuted serious crimes committed in Rwanda, it will have to collect evidence in Rwanda. There is no political will on the part of states to exercise universal jurisdiction, particularly where it concerns Israeli officials. When attempts are made to exercise universal jurisdiction over Israeli officials obstacles are raised by governments or courts find some technical reasons for not exercising universal jurisdiction.

AN: Is there a reason behind this selectivity in universal jurisdiction?

JD: European and American states are reluctant to undermine their relations with Israel.

AN: What needs to be done to reverse this selectivity? Is there a role for civil society?

JD: Civil society can always bring pressure on governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction. It has a role to play in changing public opinion. It will mean that courts will start to exercise universal jurisdiction.

AN: Israel increasingly oppresses human rights defenders and activists campaigning for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Can you comment on this development?

JD: It is unfortunate. Israel has been relatively tolerant of dissent in its society. It indicates a new repressive tendency of Israeli society. The effect will be stifled dissent in Israeli society.

AN: Can you comment on the imprisonment of civil society leader and Palestinian citizen of Israel Ameer Makhoul and the reports that he was tortured during the interrogations?

JD: My difficulty is that I have not been in Israel since 2007. I cannot comment on Israel. In the past there were frequent allegations of torture by Israeli human rights activists. That is serious. I am out of touch with recent developments.

AN: Israeli accuses the BDS movement of delegitimizing Israel. What is your reaction to this accusation?

JD: The BDS actions are delegitimizing Israel. There is no question about that. Obviously Israel is unwilling to accept that, similar to apartheid South Africa, which did want to suppress international sanctions. BDS was at that time effective, largely as a result of international advocacy for [boycott, divestment and] sanctions. It delegitimized the state and ultimately led to change in South Africa.

The comparison between Israel and South Africa is important. The situation is very similar at present. The international community is increasingly critical of Israel, advocating for international [boycott, divestment and] sanctions. It is not surprising that Israel is taking steps to prevent them in the same way the South African government did.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.

VN concludeert: Israël kan en moet vervolgd worden

De VN-commissie voor de Mensenrechten veroordeelde gisteren in niet mis te verstane woorden de Israëlische aanval op het Free Gaza hulpkonvooi en meent dat Israël kan en moet vervolgd worden. En opeens is het doodstil in Den Haag.

"The fact-finding mission concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

"Principally, the action of the IDF in intercepting the Mavi Marmara in the circumstances and for the reasons given on the high sea was clearly unlawful. Specifically, the action cannot be justified in the circumstances even under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter."

"There is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention".

Binnen 24 uur na de aanval op het hulpkonvooi wist onze minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Maxime Verhagen, na instructies van de Israëlische ambassadeur, te melden dat 'Israël moest ingrijpen', en dat Israël 'het recht' had om de schepen te enteren. Deze uitspraken waren helemaal nergens op gebaseerd, omdat nog niemand wist wat zich precies had afgespeeld. Maar Verhagen's reflex om Israël tegen welke kritiek dan ook te beschermen is altijd sterker gebleken dan welk feit dan ook. Voor de vorm voegde Verhagen er aan toe dat er wel een officieel en gedegen onderzoek moest komen. Dat kwam er, dus applaus van Verhagen? integendeel, hij was er ineens op tegen. Waarom? Omdat Verhagen consequent tegen elk onderzoek naar de handelingen van Israël is dat niet door Israël zelf wordt uitgevoerd.

Ik heb nog nooit een politicus meegemaakt die naar eigen zeggen de mensenrechten tot speerpunt van zijn beleid heeft gemaakt, die zo intensief mensenrechtenschendingen verdedigt. Maar zelfs de zogenaamde critici van Israël in ons parlement, dus ook in de zogeheten oppositie, durven het beleid van Verhagen niet in twijfel te trekken. Want zo zit onze parlementaire democratie in elkaar: politieke macht gaat voor mensenrechten en internationaal recht. Uitingen van compassie voor het Palestijnse volk vormen slechts een moreel vernisje over een zwart gat waarin moraliteit en internationale solidariteit totaal ontbreekt, en politieke macht de enige drijfveer is.

Samenvatting uitspraak VN-commissie Mensenrechten:

• de actie was 'volkomen onnodig'
• de actie was 'ongelooflijk gewelddadig'
• de actie was disproportioneel
• de actie was onwettig
• er zijn duidelijke bewijzen van "wilful killing"
• er zijn duidelijke bewijzen van "torture or inhuman treatment"
• er zijn duidelijke bewijzen van "wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health"
• in beslag genomen goederen moeten nog steeds worden teruggegeven
• de slachtoffers moeten gecompenseerd worden
•de stigmatisering van de slachtoffers moet stoppen
• veiligheid was geen rechtvaardiging
• Israel schond de mensenrechten
• Israël schond het internationaal recht
• de blokkade van Gaza is onwettig ('collectieve straf')
• Israël kan en moet vervolgd worden

De laatste zinnen in het rapport:

"The Mission sincerely hopes that no impediment will be put in the way of those who suffered loss as a result of the unlawful actions of the Israeli military to be compensated adequately and promptly. It is hoped that there will be swift action by the Government of Israel. This will go a long way to reversing the regrettable reputation which that country has for impunity and intransigence in international affairs. It will also assist those who genuinely sympathise with their situation to support them without being stigmatised."

Op daadwerkelijke veroordeling en vervolging van Israël hoeven we niet te rekenen want Israël is voor de meeste zogenoemde democratische Westerse regeringen nog steeds de heiligste schurkenstaat in het Midden Oosten die al zijn misdaden ongestrafd mag blijven plegen.

Uribe's appointment to flotilla probe guarantees its failure

The Electronic Intifada | José Antonio Gutiérrez and David Landy | 6 August 2010

At the beginning of this month the Israeli government announced it would cooperate with one out of two international UN-sponsored investigation commissions into the 31 May Gaza Freedom Flotilla massacre, a move which UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon claimed was "unprecedented." However, the details of this commission and who will take part in it - particularly the notorious outgoing president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe Vélez - cast doubt over its impartiality.

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Vélez has been criticized for his abuses of human rights defenders. (Center for American Progress)

The commission is composed of four persons, one chosen by Turkey, one chosen by Israel and two chosen from a list provided by Israel. The latter two are former Prime Minister of New Zealand Geoffrey Palmer, who will be the chair, and Uribe, who will serve as vice-chair. While Palmer, an expert in international law, is an uncontroversial choice, the appointment of Uribe is as perplexing as it is shocking. It appears that "balance" in this commission involves balance between someone versed in international and human rights law and someone who is adamantly opposed to it. This notion of balance fatally weakens this commission even before it has started, and tarnishes the process of international law.

Uribe is a controversial president whose regime has engaged in severe human rights abuses; illegal surveillance and harassment of human rights defenders by the intelligence service (DAS); international law violations (such as the bombing of Ecuadorian territory); corruption; crimes against humanity and excesses by the army in their US-sponsored counterinsurgency warfare.

Uribe's scorn for human right defenders is notorious. According to Human Rights First, "President Uribe and other administration officials have branded [human rights defenders] as terrorist sympathizers and have insinuated that illicit connections exist between human rights NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] and illegal armed groups. Irresponsible comments by government officials in Colombia put the lives of human rights defenders at even greater risk and threaten to undermine the value and credibility of their work" ("Human Rights Defencers in Colombia").

In September 2009 Colombia was visited by Margaret Sekaggya, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders from the UN Human Rights Commission. Sekaggya found that constant problems faced by human rights defenders in Colombia include "Stigmatization [of human rights defenders] by public officials and non-State actors; their illegal surveillance by State intelligence services; their arbitrary arrest and detention, and their judicial harassment; and raids of nongovernmental organizations' (NGOs) premises and theft of information" ("Report of the Special Rapporteur ...," 4 March 2010, pp. 13-18 [PDF]).

Public officials in Colombia constantly attack human rights defenders and members of the political and social opposition as aides of "terrorists," that is, left-wing guerrillas.

Uribe has led these attacks, calling human rights defenders "rent-a-mobs at terrorism's service who cowardly wave the human rights flag," "human rights traffickers," "charlatans of human rights," "bandits' [ie. guerrillas] colleagues," "intellectual front of the FARC [the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]" and he has stated that "Every time terrorists and their supporters feel they will be defeated, they resort to denouncing human rights violations."

Uribe has referred in particularly harsh terms both to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: "Amnesty International do not condemn international humanitarian law violations by the guerrillas and they give legitimacy to terrorism [...] they go around European bureaus like library rats, gossiping in low voices, undermining Colombian institutions." He said of the director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch, José Miguel Vivanco: "Before Vivanco, a FARC defender [and] accomplice, came here to criticize our policy of democratic security, we were making serious efforts to put our country on its feet -- I don't have anything to learn from Mr. Vivanco when it comes to human rights" ("Defensores de derechos humanos: bajo el estigma del presidente Uribe," Agencia de prensa (IPC), 23 October 2009).

Army mass grave in La Macarena

This is just a brief overview of Uribe's systematic attacks on human right defenders. In June 2010 an international human rights mission investigated the biggest mass grave in the western hemisphere - containing some 2,000 execution victims who had been dumped there since 2004 - which had just been discovered in the Colombian town of La Macarena. At the same time Uribe travelled to that very locality but not to pay his condolences to the victims' families, or guarantee that an investigation would determine what happened there. Instead, he went to visit the local military base -- exactly the same people that, according to victims' reports, filled that mass grave with its grisly contents -- to praise them for their work.

Uribe said on that occasion: "I want the country to know that now terrorists want to damn our partial victory by combining their means of struggle. Now the terrorists' spokespeople are talking of peace to have a break in order to recover, before we achieve our final victory. Terrorism combines means of struggle, so some of their spokespersons talk of peace; others come here to La Macarena to look for ways to discredit the Armed Forces and to implicate it in human rights violations. We will not fall into that trap, stay firm!" ("Voceros del terrorismo estan proponiendo la paz para poderse recuperar: Uribe," El Espectador, 25 June 2010).

It is hard to believe that, in spite of Uribe's appalling human rights record, he has been chosen to be part of a UN human rights commission. Going beyond Uribe himself, any representative of the Colombian state must be suspect when it comes to investigating human rights violations as official and "unofficial" state-sanctioned human rights abusers act with impunity; 98 percent of such cases remain unprosecuted ("Baseless Prosecutions of Human Rights Defenders in Colombia," February 2009).

It also strains credibility to believe that Colombia, the biggest recipient of US military "aid" after Israel and Egypt, a country that has agreed to host seven new US military bases on its territory last year, can be impartial in relation to Israel. Both the Israeli and Colombian governments share an ideological approach to their opponents, based on a belief that respecting human rights is a non-issue when it comes to pursuing their military goals against rebel groups. Unsurprisingly, there is also large-scale military cooperation between the two rogue states.

In recent years, according to news reports, Israel has become Colombia's number one weapon supplier, with arms worth tens of millions of dollars, "including Kfir aircraft, drones, weapons and intelligence systems" being used against opponents of the Colombian regime ("Report: Israelis fighting guerillas in Colombia," Ynet, 10 August 2007). According to a senior Israeli defense official, "Israel's methods of fighting terror have been duplicated in Colombia" ("Colombia's FM: We share your resilience," 30 April 2010).

There is a reason that Latin Americans often refer to Colombia as the "Israel of Latin America," and indeed why Colombian President-elect Juan Manuel Santos, ex-Minister of Defence and right hand of Uribe, expressed his pride at such a comparison ("Santos, orgulloso de que a Colombia lo comparen con Israel," El Espectador, 6 June 2010).

The Colombian government's bias in Israel's favor was made clear during an April 2010 visit of Foreign Minister Jaime Bermudez to Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported Bermudez's "desire to strengthen Colombia's military relationship with Israel" and of the "need to do more in terms of the fight against terrorism." He confidently predicted that "whoever wins [Colombia's] presidential election next month will be supportive of [Israel]. I admire your people. I admire your country and I admire you. You have many friends in Colombia" ("Colombia's FM: We share your resilience").

The admiration is mutual, and Uribe undertakes his role of impartial investigator weighed down with awards from various Zionist organizations. These include the American Jewish Committee's "Light unto the Nations Award" and descending further into Orwellian doublespeak, the "Presidential Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism" from B'nai Brith.

While the Colombian government and Uribe are entitled to their choice of friends, this - to say the least - indicates that there will be no objectivity whatsoever with regard to Uribe's role in the commission.

It appears that Israel only agreed to cooperate with this particular UN inquiry as there is very little chance this commission will take an independent stance and deliver an unbiased verdict on the brutal Israeli attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. Indeed, Israel has declined to cooperate with the other UN commission into the attack appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. It can be reasonably argued that Colombian and Israeli cooperation in this matter is a further step towards jointly "doing more in terms of the fight against terrorism" (to paraphrase Bermudez' remarks in Israel).

In reality this means attacking human rights defenders and aid workers and further undermining international law and respect for human rights. Participating in a whitewash of the illegal and brutal murder of human rights activists and painting them as "terrorists in disguise" will serve the military objectives of both countries as they struggle to undermine human rights defenders and "enemy communities" in their respective countries.

This is a maverick commission lacking credibility, which will serve only to show the influence of the United States and Israel on Ban Ki-moon's office. Such a commission will disappoint anyone expecting a neutral, impartial investigation that reveals the truth about the massacre of 31 May. This commission further undermines the credibility of the UN and serves to turn international and human rights law into a game played between the violators of these laws.

José Antonio Gutiérrez and David Landy are activists based in Ireland, involved respectively with the Latin American Solidarity Centre and the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign. José Antonio Gutiérrez writes frequently on Colombia for www.anarkismo.net


More:

FIDH: Open Letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

Human Rights Watch (June 26, 2009): Colombia: Obama Should Press Uribe on Rights

UN Human Rights Committee concludes that Israel violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

On 29 July 2010, the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) adopted its Concluding Observations on Israel’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant).

AL-HAQ PRESS RELEASE
DATE: 03 AUGUST 2010
REF.: 175/2010

The Committee concluded that Israel violates the Covenant with respect to several of the rights enshrined therein, and in particular the obligation to apply the Covenant to the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Despite Israel’s claim, rubber-stamped by the Israeli High Court of Justice, that it is not an Occupying Power with respect to certain parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that Israel remains an Occupying Power over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Moreover, the Committee reiterated that “the applicability of the regime of international humanitarian law does not preclude accountability of States parties under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant for the actions of their authorities or agents outside their own territories, including in occupied territories”. Thereby the Committee affirmed that “All decision makers, be they military and civilian officials, should be investigated and where relevant prosecuted and sanctioned”.
As such, with respect to the findings of the UN Fact-finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, the Committee regretted that Israel “has not yet conducted independent and credible investigations into the serious violations of international human rights law, such as direct targeting of civilians and civilian objects, including infrastructure such as waste water plants and sewage facilities, use of civilians as ‘human shields’, refusal of evacuation of wounded, firing live bullets during demonstrations against the military operation and detention in degrading conditions”.
With respect to the attack on the Freedom Gaza Flotilla, the Committee declared that Israel “should invite an independent, international fact-finding mission to establish the circumstances of the boarding of the flotilla, including its compatibility with the Covenant.”
Other principle areas of concerns which the Committee found to be incompatible with the Covenant are:

- Israel’s use of administrative detention, in particular for children. In addition to calling on Israel to refrain from resorting to such detention, the Committee told Israel to “Grant administrative detainees prompt access to counsel of their own choosing, inform them immediately, in a language which they can understand, of the charges against them, provide them with information to prepare their defence, bring them promptly before a judge and try them in their own or their counsel’s presence”;
- the continued creation of a “Seam Zone” by means of construction of the illegal Annexation Wall, which the Committee stated should be stopped;
- the construction of settlements in the occupied territories, which the Committed held should be halted;
- Israel’s illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, which the Committee declared should be lifted;
- Israel’s failure to incorporate the prohibition of the crime of torture in its legislation, and allegations of torture against Palestinian detainees, as well as Israel’s justification for torture under “defence of necessity cases”;
- the recent Military Orders 1649 and 1650, in light of which the Committee concluded that Israel should refrain from expelling long-term residents of the West Bank based on their former addresses in the Gaza Strip, and that the committee for the examination of deportation orders is not independent and lacks judicial authority;
- the “Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary provision) which should be revoked;
- Israel’s policy denying Palestinians their right to family reunification;
- Israel’s practice of collective punitive home and property demolitions, and Israel’s housing policy and issuance of construction permits which should be reviewed “with a view to implementing the principle of non-discrimination regarding minorities, in particular Palestinians and to increasing construction on a legal basis for minorities of the West Bank and East Jerusalem”. Furthermore, the Committee noted that Israel “should further ensure that municipal planning systems are not discriminatory”; and
- the “water shortages affecting disproportionately the Palestinian population of the West Bank, due to prevention of construction and maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure, as well as the prohibition of construction of wells. The Committee is further concerned at allegations of pollution by sewage water of Palestinian land, including from settlements”.

On the occasion of Committee’s review, Al-Haq, in coordination with other human rights organisations brought to the experts’ attention several serious concerns about Israel’s active denial of Palestinians’ human rights. Al-Haq and COHRE submitted a Joint Alternative Report outlining Israel’s illegal administrative and punitive house demolitions (in particular the increase of demolitions in occupied East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank), as well as forced evictions of Palestinian families. The organisations took the opportunity to elaborate on the Human Rights Committee’s unprecedented inclusion of the right to water and sanitation to the Covenant, by providing the Committee with cases and legal analysis showing that Israel is discriminatorily allocating water and sanitation services between settlements and Palestinian homes, as well as deliberately attacking Palestinians’ water and sanitation infrastructure, in particular in the Gaza Strip throughout the blockade and during “Operation Cast Lead”.

Al-Haq, in its Alternative Report, also provided evidence on Israel’s violations of the Palestinians’ right to freedom of movement, including the obstacles created by the illegal Annexation Wall, the excessive use of checkpoints and the recent Israeli Military Orders 1649 and 1650.

For the full Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee on Israel, please click here:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/0/51410ebd25fce78f85257770007194a8?OpenDocument

New Israeli report on Operation Cast Lead confirms Goldstone report’s main findings

Hybrid States | Yaniv Reich | July 22, 2010

Defense Minister Ehud Barak described it as "false, distorted, and irresponsible".  Information Minister Yuli Edelstein called it "anti-Semitic".  Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren said it "insidiously... portrayed the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents".  Foreign Minister Lieberman argued that its true purpose "was to destroy Israel's image, in service of countries where the terms 'human rights' and 'combat ethics' do not even appear in their dictionaries".  And the US House of Representatives banded together in bipartisan harmony to pass a resolution (344-36) that called "on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of it.



For nearly a year now, vicious attacks on the Goldstone report and on Judge Goldstone himself have been the thing for Israel's numerous apologists to do.

There is just one not-so-minor problem with this knee-jerk criticism of the report and infinite stream of ad hominem libel against its main author.  A majority of the most damning - and damaging - war crimes that are alleged to have taken place have now been confirmed by the IDF's own investigations into the matter, themselves only conducted in an effort to derail the Goldstone report's referral to the International Criminal Court.



IDF confirms over 20 gravest findings of the Goldstone Report

Several of the most dramatic instances of war crimes, which previously stirred Israel's defenders into fits, are now publicly admitted by the IDF in the recent update to its official response (which can be found here).

Some examples of war crimes include:

• • White phosphorous in urban areas: This one is probably the most famous admission that emerged after a series of easily disproved lies.  Israel's initial response was one of absolute denial, indeed indignation, that people would suggest it had used banned chemical weapons in densely populated areas.  But the steady stream of photos and videos depicting phosphorous burns on children and buildings eventually forced Israel to admit it had used these prohibited weapons.
• • The murder of two unarmed Palestinians carrying white flags of surrender.
• • The Al-Fakhura Street incident: Israeli mortar fire at a site adjacent to a UN Relief Works Agency compound resulted in multiple civilian deaths.
• • The use of innocent Palestinians as human shields: The Goldstone report explains that in order "to carry out house searches as human shields the Israeli soldiers took off AD/03’s blindfold but he remained handcuffed. He was forced to walk in front of the soldiers and told that, if he saw someone in the house but failed to tell them, he would be killed. He was instructed to search each room in each house cupboard by cupboard. After one house was completed he was taken to another house with a gun pressed against his head and told to carry out the same procedure there. He was punched, slapped and insulted throughout the process."  The new Israeli report identifies this anonymous human shield AD/03 and confirms this episode.  Other cases of human shield use, e.g. Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa and Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami, were also confirmed.
• • Al-Samouni family massacre: The Israelis attacked two houses of the Samouni family, killing 23 people in total.  Subsequently, they prevented the Red Cross and PRCS from providing care to the wounded and dying for three days.  Confirmed by Israel and the subject of a military investigation.
• • Firing on Al Maqadmah and other mosques during prayer time.

In total, a quick scan through the IDF's new report provides direct confirmation of more than 20 of Goldstone's findings.  A number of these are the subject of internal IDF investigations, which are infuriating large swaths of the military.  Of course, decent people everywhere should hope that those investigations are conducted in the most unbiased and professional manner possible, and that justice is served appropriately to all those who have committed war crimes.  I am not holding my breath, but it's good to throw this wish out there.

Libanon 2006: Israël bombardeerde een dag lang, ook na meldingen van de VN en waarschuwingen van het hoogste niveau, een VN basis, waarbij o.a. 4 peacekeepers om het leven kwamen.

Israel admits it did not minimize civilian casualties

The IDF report states: "IDF orders include the obligation to take all feasible precautions in order to minimize the incidental loss of civilian life or property" [emphasis added].  Israelis accept this statement as an article of faith and become unglued at the suggestion that "everything possible" wasn't done to ensure the safety of innocent people.  This expression of faith is often followed by the questions: "What? Do you think Israel wants to kill civilians?"  These questions are of course answered far more accurately with data on casualties than with ideological blindness.

They are also answered, however, through inadvertent slips in the public relations machine that shapes international media coverage of Israel/Palestine.  Today, we are treated to a spate of articles across the English and Hebrew-language press (e.g. here and here) about how Israel "promises" to do a better job of not killing innocent human beings next time around.

"The IDF has ... implemented operational changes in its orders and combat doctrine designed to further minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian property in the future," it said.
"In particular, the IDF has adopted important new procedures designed to enhance the protection of civilians in urban warfare, for instance by further emphasising that the protection of civilians is an integral part of an IDF commander's mission."

Perhaps in a future "update" the IDF can enlighten the world as to how it was previously taking "all feasible precautions" and yet finds only now new tactics to protect civilians.  Perhaps the IDF spokesperson can further explain how emphasizing to its soldiers that "protection of civilians is an integral part" of the mission is considered an "operational change" from earlier practice.  One must presume that protection of civilians has not been given sufficient attention until now, and only Goldstone's courageous and now confirmed report has forced Israel to reconsider the meaning of "all feasible precautions" and "minimize civilian casualties". As Magnes Zionist has pointed out, Israel seems to think it can get away with a "I didn't do it but will try harder next time" approach.

Or perhaps the IDF's commanders and soldiers got a bit confused by all this talk of "protecting civilians" and that talk of the "Dahiya Doctrine."

But all of this gives the IDF a bit too much credit, too much benefit of the doubt.  This new report is nothing more than a desperate tactic to try and avoid criminal prosecution for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity in the ICC.  Most of the IDF's "investigations" have already been dismissed as part of this whitewash, notwithstanding all the irate IDF officers unaccustomed to the pretense of accountability.

All it teaches us is four concrete things: (1) the Goldstone report did a stunningly good job in identifying possible war crimes despite Israel's concerted non-cooperation with the commission, (2) Israel has by its own admission failed to adequately protect civilians in war, (3) many people owe Judge Goldstone a sincere, begging apology for the disgraceful manner in which he has been treated, and (4) justice for the Palestinian victims of Israeli terrorism is still far away.

UN experts fault Israel on human rights

GENEVA — A UN panel of experts called Friday on Israel to fall in line with international norms on civil rights and to take action against targeted killings, torture and impunity for security forces.

The UN Human Rights Committee also called for an end to the blockade of Gaza and questioned the independence of Israel's own inquiry into a naval raid on a Gaza-bound relief supply ship in which nine Turkish nationals dead.

In conclusions on its review of Israel's application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the committee also urged a halt to restrictions on Palestinians and raised concerns about discrimination.

"The State party should ensure that all alleged cases of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement officials, including police, personnel of the security service and the armed forces, are thoroughly and promptly investigated by an authority independent of any of these organs," the committee said.

It also reiterated concern that since 2003, the Israeli armed forces "have targeted and extrajudicially executed 184 individuals in the Gaza Strip, resulting in the collateral unintended death of 155 additional individuals" despite a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 imposing safeguards.

The panel dismissed Israeli assertions that the covenant -- a multilateral treaty ratified by 166 nations including Israel and in force since 1976 -- did not apply in areas under occupation or during armed conflict, saying its government must ensure "full application."

The 18 independent experts, tasked with reviewing how the treaty is applied in each nation that has signed up to it, also took issue with the "extensive use" of administrative detention without fair trial, including for children.

They expressed concern at restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in a "seam zone" with the occupied territories, "frequent" demolition of homes and schools in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and discrimination on housing "disproportionately favouring" the Jewish population in those areas.

Investigations into Israel's most recent major military operations, the operation against the aid activists' boat in May and the military offensive in Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009, were criticised.

"All decision makers, be they military and civilian officials, should be investigated and where relevant prosecuted and sanctioned," it said, underlining the human toll and calling for "credible" and independent probes.

AFP | 30 July 2010

---

U.N. rights body tells Israel to end Gaza blockade

GENEVA | Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:37am EDT

GENEVA (Reuters) - Israel must lift its military blockade of the Gaza Strip and invite an independent, fact-finding mission to investigate its raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, a United Nations rights body said on Friday.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee also told Israel to ensure that Palestinians in the occupied territories can enjoy the human rights that Israel had pledged to uphold in the main international human rights treaty.

The committee's non-binding recommendations add to pressure on Israel to explain what happened in its attack on May 31 on an aid flotilla in which nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed, damaging relations between Israel and Turkey.

Israel admitted errors in planning the raid but justified the use of lethal force saying its marines came under attack from activists wielding knives and clubs. Activists deny this.

They are also the latest in a series of reports and sessions in which Israel has found itself on the defensive at the United Nations over its policies in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

On July 23, another U.N. rights forum, the Human Rights Council, appointed a team of international experts to investigate the raid on the flotilla and called on all parties to cooperate.

The committee is a body of 18 independent experts, mainly prominent in international and human rights law, that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by countries that have signed up to it.

The recommendations on Israel's regular report to the committee on its compliance included calls for investigations into human rights abuses including killings in Israel's military offensive in Gaza between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009.

The committee also told Israel to end extra-judicial executions of terrorist suspects, make torture illegal, end construction of settlements in the occupied territories, stop building a wall cutting off some of the territories from other regions, and stop destroying homes as a collective punishment.

It asked Israel to say in its next report due by July 2013 what action it had taken on these and other recommendations.

Richard Falk: “Those responsible must be held criminally accountable”

GENEVA – The UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, urged Monday the international community to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of some 16 unarmed peace activist, when Israeli armed commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza.

“Israel is guilty of shocking behavior by using deadly weapons against unarmed civilians on ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas,” Mr. Falk said. “It is essential that those Israelis responsible for this lawless and murderous behavior, including political leaders who issued the orders, be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts.”

There are confirmed reports of lethal interference by Israeli military units on the high seas with the Freedom Flotilla of six ships carrying some 10,000 tons of medicine, food, and building materials to the civilian population of Gaza. Preliminary reports suggest as many as 16 unarmed activists were killed, and dozens more wounded.

“This peaceful humanitarian initiative by citizens from 50 countries is an urgent response to the continuation of an unlawful blockade that has been maintained for almost three years causing great physical and mental harm to the whole of the 1.5 million people entrapped within Gaza,” the UN independent expert said. “Such a massive form of collective punishment is a crime against humanity, as well as a gross violation of the prohibition on collective punishment in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

“As Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, familiar with the suffering of the people of Gaza, I find this latest instance of Israeli military lawlessness to create a situation of regional and global emergency. Unless prompt and decisive action is taken to challenge the Israeli approach to Gaza all of us will be complicit in criminal policies that are challenging the survival of an entire beleaguered community.”

Mr. Falk urged the world community “to take urgent action in response to this flagrant flouting of international law. It is time to insist on the end of the blockade of Gaza. The worldwide campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel is now a moral and political imperative, and needs to be supported and strengthened everywhere.”

UN humanitarian chief warns of disaster if Gaza siege continues

The United Nations humanitarian chief warned Thursday of an impending humanitarian disaster if Egypt succeeds in blocking the tunnels that pass under it's border into the Gaza Strip.

John Holmes said that as bad as the hundreds of tunnels that bypass the Israeli blockade are, Gaza would have difficulty surviving if Egypt succeeds in blocking them because they are a conduit for badly-needed food, medicine and commercial goods. He repeated calls for Israel to end its blockade of (lees verder in Haaretz)

Europa steunt Goldstone-rapport

Bijna onzichtbaar in onze media, maar desalniettemin een feit: het Europees Parlement steunt het Goldstone rapport. Het nam gisteren een resolutie aan die de aanbevelingen uit het rapport accepteert. Die omvatten onder andere het uitvoeren van onafhankelijke vervolgonderzoeken aan beide zijden. Ook maant het Parlement Israël de grensovergangen met de Gazastrook onmiddellijk te openen.

Interview Richard Falk - Gaza, Afghanistan and International Law

Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and author of "Crimes of War, Iraq" and "The Costs of War: International Law, the UN, and World Order after Iraq" recorded October 17, 2009 in Seattle. (video, 30 min.)

VN Mensenrechtenraad stemt in met Gaza-rapport

De resolutie, waarin het rapport wordt doorverwezen naar de Veiligheidsraad van de VN, werd aangenomen met 25 stemmen voor, zes tegen en elf onthoudingen. De Mensenrechtenraad (47 lidstaten) werd in 2006 ingesteld als opvolger van de gepolitiseerde en vleugellamme mensenrechtencommissie.

De Verenigde Staten zijn een van de landen die tegen hebben gestemd. De Amerikaanse diplomaat Douglas M. Griffiths heeft verklaard dat de VS teleurgesteld zijn in de uitkomst. Verwacht wordt dat als er in de Veiligheidsraad wordt gestemd over eventuele actie tegen Israël, de VS hun veto gebruiken om een resolutie tegen te houden. Ook Nederland en vier andere Europese landen stemden vandaag tegen.

Onder Amerikaanse en Israëlische druk had de Palestijnse president Abbas zijn steun voor het rapport ingetrokken waarna het debat tot maart werd uitgesteld. Na felle kritiek op dit besluit herzag Abbas deze beslissing. (NRC)

• Voor (25): Argentinië, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivië, Brazilië, Chili, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypte, Ghana, India, Indonesië, Jordanië, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Filipijnen, Qatar, Rusland, Saoedie-Arabië, Senegal, Zuid Afrika, Zambia.
• Tegen (6): VS, Hongarije, Italië, Nederland, Slowakije, Oekraïne.
• Onthoudingen (11): België, Bosnië, Burkina Faso, Kameroen, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Noorwegen, Zuid-Korea, Slovenië, Uruguay.
• Niet gestemd: Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk, Madagascar, Kyrgyzië, Angola.

Volgens de Jerusalem Post wilden de presidenten Gordon Brown en Nicolas Sarkozy enkele uren voor de stemming nog wat opgehelderd hebben van Israël. Toen dit niet naar wens bleek, besloten de landen niet te stemmen.

Nederland stemde dus weer tegen. Weer, omdat het ook tegen het onderzoek van Richard Goldstone (zie foto) stemde. Wat Israël vindt, vindt Nederland. Na 60 jaar kun je niet meer spreken van een normaal buitenlandbeleid wanneer het om Israël gaat. Het is een patroon. In de psychiatrie noem je zo’n patroon een (dwang-)neurose. In de politiek heet het echter “vriend van Israël”. Een “vriend”, die bijvoorbeeld onze miljoenen ontwikkelingshulp voor de Gazanen keer op keer wegvaagt. Want wie houdt ze tegen. Maxime Verhagen niet.

De Israëlische vertegenwoordiger, Yigal Palmor, dreigde de Mensenrechtenraad impliciet, indien het rapport geaccepteerd zou worden, dat het niet meer met de raad zou meewerken en dat het het (zogeheten) vredesproces in het Midden-Oosten zou saboteren. Alsof het dat nog niet deed. Maar “de Joodse staat” pleegt volgens zichzelf geen oorlogsmisdaden, het doet alleen maar aan “zelfverdediging”. Vandaar dat de schurkenstaat altijd oorlogsmisdadigers in zijn regering heeft zitten.

Met 25 stemmen voor werd de resolutie aangenomen, wat inhoudt dat het Goldstone-rapport “met urgentie” besproken gaat worden in de Algemene Assemblee, die samen met de Veiligheidraad het hoogste orgaan van de VN vormt. De Algemene Assemblee beslist vervolgens of het rapport in de Veiligheidsraad wordt bekeken, en die kan uiteidelijk beslissen of oorlogsmisdadigers kunnen worden berecht door het Internationaal Strafhof. Dat gebeurt niet, omdat de VS dan vrijwel zeker zijn veto geeft. Ja, ook nu Obama aan het roer staat. Er is namelijk geen Amerikaanse president die een verkiezingscampagne voert zonder de dollars van de joodse lobby en de zionistische christenen. ‘USrael’ is dan ook het machtigste land ter wereld, met het sterkste leger.

Wat overblijft is dat bepaalde landen individeel verdachten van oorlogsmisdaden kunnen berechten omdat ze wetten hebben die daarop zijn toegerust. In Nederland verwacht ik dat niet. En mocht het aan de orde zijn, dan is gebleken dat het ministerie de beroerdste niet is om de verdachte een handje te helpen.

De huidige aangenomen resolutie bestond uit nog twee delen, namelijk een oproep aan Israël om de nederzettingen in Oost-Jeruzalem te ontmantelen, en de toegang tot de Al-Aqsa moskee niet te hinderen. Maar Israël heeft als schurkenstaat lak aan VN-resoluties.

Israël’s exclusieve recht op zelfverdediging

Zelfs de Jerusalem Post, een rechtse en de regering steunende krant, publiceerde een column over de Israëlische hypocrisie t.o.v. de Palestijnen en het Goldstone rapport.

"Around here, we call it moral clarity."

Virtually all of Israel is now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report, against any attempt to blame us over the war in Gaza. We've honed our message to a sharp point and, inspired by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's performance at the UN, we're delivering it with just the right tone of outrage:
How dare anyone deny us the right to self-defense! How dare anyone deny us the right to fight back against terrorism!

Very nice. Puts everyone else on the defensive. The right to self-defense is up there with motherhood and apple pie - who's going to come out against it, especially for us, for Israel, for the Jews, for the people of the Holocaust?
The right to self-defense - perfect.

But I'd like to ask: Do the Palestinians also have the right to self-defense?
We probably wouldn't admit it out loud, but in our heads we would say - again, in one voice - "No!"

This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We're entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism. (lees verder)

Foto: Israelische soldaat bedreigt vrouwen ('terroristen') die protesteren tegen de verwoesting van hun olijfboomgaard ('zelfverdediging').