The Greens and BDS – Killing two birds with one stone

The Greens and BDS - Killing two birds with one stone

The Greens and BDS - Killing two birds with one stone

The Greens and BDS - Killing two birds with one stone

Sonja Karkar, Australians for Palestine, 29 march 2011

Fear and loathing in Marrickville did not end with the elections, even though a much-anticipated Greens win is likely to be trumped by Labor.  The smear campaign against the Greens and its candidate Fiona Byrne has done its job, but not without a struggle.  Not mentioned in the media is a major 7 per cent swing towards the Greens in the Marrickville seat, a noteworthy effort that under normal circumstances would have been highlighted.  Instead, the focus has been on Ms Byrne’s “failure” which is attributed to her support as Mayor of Marrickville Council for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolution against Israel and passed last year.

The newly elected Premier of NSW said that one of the first items on his government’s agenda would be to end “Marrickville Council’s embargo on Israel.” One newspaper wasted no time in describing the municipal council’s ethical decision to boycott Israel for its human rights abuses against Palestinians as a boycott of Jewish businesses, and therefore, “bordering on anti-Semitic”.   The insinuation was deliberate. Too bad that BDS only targets businesses that trade with Israel, not Jewish businesses specifically.  With such fear mongering, it may be the last time we see BDS raised in a local Council meeting for some time.

The paper further claimed that a senior Liberal had said, “certain powers can be invoked if a council is not behaving appropriately.” This is really extraordinary stuff from a government that has just been voted in to undo the years of damage done by intrigue and corruption under Labor.  It should have the people of NSW asking how such concern for Israel has come to override the pressing needs of their state.

Some people have been quick to blame the BDS resolution for the Greens’ loss in Marrickville, but in truth, both Labor and Liberal would have found something else to pin on the Greens if the BDS motion had never been raised.

Forgotten is the fact that the Marrickville Council’s decision to boycott was predicated on the NSW Greens’ official policy on BDS.   It is the Greens’ principled stand on numerous issues that has been a thorn in the side of the major parties who are both beholden to the interests of big business.

Enter the Murdoch press and how to kill two birds with one stone.  The Greens and BDS in Marrickville provided the perfect opportunity.

BDS has been making headway in Australia and it threatens business interests with Israel as well as the cosy relationship Israel’s apologists have worked so hard to foster with our politicians.  BDS motions are increasingly being raised and passed in union meetings, church committees, municipal business and academic agendas.  Identifying and defeating them is hard work:  far better that they never arise at all.  And so, the age-old use of intimidation and fear mongering has been brought into play with the ugly spectre of anti-Semitism guaranteed to shut down debate.

Another detractor is the Reverend Fred Nile of the Christian Democrats who also has weighed in on the whole sordid Marrickville saga by supporting a “Day of Special Support for Israel” to counteract what he says is Fiona Byrne’s  “hatemongering” and “anti-Semitic attack on Israel”.  These outrageous slurs and innuendoes on a woman who was exercising her right to support a legitimate ethical stance should be dismissed out of hand for the garbage they are.  It is a sad state of affairs that the new government will have to rely on this conservative minor party and another in the upper house, to ensure the safe passage of bills.

The gutter tactics used by the Murdoch press, the Israel Lobby and other interest groups smacks of desperation.  They should remember how badly it backfired on them in 2003 when their 8-month long savage smear campaign against Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi failed to have her disqualified from accepting the Sydney Peace Prize.  Despite the same methods we are seeing used now – death threats, character assassination, false accusations of being anti-Semitic, supporters of terrorism, fascists and much more – they did not succeed in closing down the Sydney Peace Foundation nor did they discredit its courageous director, Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees.  Australians have always had distaste for hyperbole, hypocrisy and thuggish vilification.

BDS is not going to go away.  Israel’s apartheid policies and practices are facts on the ground, institutionalised and written into legislation.  The Palestinians have been caught in this matrix of control for decades, and at every turn, denied their legitimate right to resist.  The call for BDS by Palestinian civil society is a desperate plea for help from the world outside to stop Israel from violating international law, United Nations resolutions and universally held principals of human rights. A nonviolent and legitimate tactic, BDS is now gathering pace at a much faster rate than the boycott movement against Apartheid South Africa, perhaps due to the lessons learned from that shameful chapter of history when one racial group dominated another and systematically oppressed them while the world watched and profited.

South Africans today are at the forefront of global action against Apartheid Israel. Only last week, the University of Johannesburg decided to cut all financial and academic ties with Israel’s Ben Gurion University because of its “collaboration with military, occupation and apartheid practices”.  South Africa’s largest trade union, COSATU has divested from and boycotted Israeli institutions and companies; and South African luminaries like Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela, as well as many other eminent South Africans, have unequivocally said that what Israel is doing is apartheid.

While it is inevitable that some politicians will back pedal here in Australia for fear of losing votes, there is no doubt that Australia will eventually be swept up in the global maelstrom much like what happened during the last days of boycotts against Apartheid South Africa.   By then, many more Australians will have turned to the Greens in protest against the sycophantic posturing of Labor and Liberal over Israel, and Marrickville’s stalwart support for BDS will be well and truly vindicated.

Sonja Karkar is the founder of Women for Palestine and a co-founder of Australians for Palestine as well as the editor of its news website.  Her articles have been published in Australian and overseas publications. This article was contributed to RamallahOnline by the author. More articles by Sonja Karkar on RamallahOnline can be found here.

 

Universal Jurisdiction to Hold Israel Accountable

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, 15 August 2010

The well-established universal jurisdiction principle (UJ) holds that certain crimes are too grave to ignore, including genocide, crimes of war and against humanity.

Thus, under UJ, nations may investigate and prosecute foreign nationals when their country of residence or origin won’t, can’t, or hasn’t for any reason. Israel used it to convict and execute Adolph Eichmann. A US court sentenced Chuckie Taylor, son of the former Liberian president, to 97 years in prison for torture.

In March 2003, the Special Court for Sierre Leone (SCSL) indicted his father, Charles Taylor, for crimes of war and against humanity. His trial at The Hague’s International Court of Justice (ICC) remains ongoing.

Though never held accountable for murdering Chileans and committing other human rights abuses, Britain used a Spanish court provisional warrant to apprehend Augusto Pinochet, hold him under house arrest for 18 months, and set a precedent, making other heads of state and top officials vulnerable. Pinochet’s bogus ill health claim sent him home, irreparably damaged and disgraced.

Under Article 7 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:

“The official position of defendants, whether as Head of State or responsible officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.”

No one deserves immunity for high crimes demanding accountability. It’s time that applied to America and Israel, the two worst offenders.

In June 2009 at a Madrid, Spain conference, Raji Sourani, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) Director made the case, saying:

“Today, the Gaza Strip lies in ruins” months after Israel’s offensive, killing about 1,500, injuring over 5,000, and causing vast destruction – “an illegal form of collective punishment” ongoing for over three years under siege. “For too long now, Israel has been allowed to violate international law with impunity….This situation cannot be allowed to prevail….It is for this very reason that universal jurisdiction is so important….(It) offers hope to victims throughout the entire world, in many cases, it is their only hope.” It’s long past time to hold Israel accountable.

The Compelling Case for UC

A recent PCHR publication is titled, “The Principle and Practice of Universal Jurisdiction,” explaining it in detail with examples, its highlights discussed below.

Though horrific, Cast Lead was just the latest example of decades of Israeli lawlessness – little discussed, unaddressed and unresolved. “Regrettably, this lack of accountability, and the resultant climate of impunity, has been a longstanding feature of Israel’s” illegal occupation. “Israel has been allowed to act as a State above the law.”

Yet it exists to be enforced. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant. However, Palestinians have “limited judicial mechanisms available.” According to the 1995 Israel-Palestine Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has no jurisdiction over Israel, including its officials, armed forces members, or other citizens.

Nonetheless, Israel is required to investigate and prosecute its citizens accused of international crimes, a responsibility it’s ducked with impunity, a glaring deficiency in its judicial system, exempting war criminals from accountability, in violation of inviolable international standards and principles.

“Justice for Palestinians is not attainable within this system.” UJ is the remedy, a “stepping stone (to) universal justice,” to protect everyone without discrimination, to address crimes too grave to ignore, to set a precedent for future prosecutions, and warn offenders they’re vulnerable.

No accountability encourages criminality, offenders knowing they’re safe and can act lawlessly with impunity, especially Israel, shielded by America, the West, and regional indifference or complicity. As a result, Palestinians have suffered grievously for decades, world leaders not giving a damn about their rights or the rule of law, breaking it themselves for not caring.

It’s high time UJ principles enforce accountability, using Israel as a test case, including its top government and military officials, guilty of high crimes too grave to be ignored, raising hope for all victims of injustice globally.

Above all, “The pursuit of universal jurisdiction is (the) pursuit of justice. It seeks to ensure an effective remedy for victims – combined with the goal of deterrence – and accountability for those responsible for crimes which ‘shock the conscience of humanity.’ ”

The Applicable Legal Framework

Palestine is belligerently occupied. As a result, international law applies, including the four Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations, other international humanitarian law (IHL), and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. As a signatory, Israel is legally bound, including under International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICEPR) provisions such as:

– Article 2, concerning the right to an effective remedy;

– Article 14, regarding the right to a fair trial; and

– Article 26, affirming the right of everyone to protection under the law.

Traditional v. Universal Jurisdiction

Legally, jurisdiction is “the authority of states to prescribe their law, to subject persons and things to adjudication in their courts and other tribunals, and to enforce their law, both judicially and non-judicially,” by civil or criminal means.

Five “prescriptive jurisdiction” bases include nationality, territoriality, the protective principle, the passive personality principle, and universal jurisdiction, this discussion focusing on UJ.

It requires “no link of territoriality or nationality between the State and conduct of the offender, nor is the State seeking to protect its security or credit.” Only the crime matters, UJ reserved for the worst, ones too serious to go unpunished, their gravity justifying UJ’s existence.

Initially for piracy, they were considered outlaws, operating extraterritorially in international waters. Today, international crimes are considered so “threatening to the international community or so heinous in scope and degree that they offend the interest of humanity,” all states needing to address them.

However, until post-WW II, UJ applied only to piracy and slave trading, thereafter to genocide, crimes of war and against humanity, as established by the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment, now defined by the ICC to include systematic attacks against civilians, including murder, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer, false imprisonment, torture, rape, sexual slavery, collective punishment, enforced disappearance, and apartheid.

Guilty parties are considered hostis humani generis – enemies of mankind. War crimes are against the jus gentium – the law of nations, international law established to address them.

The International Law Commission’s (ILC) principle VI of the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, determined that crimes of war and against humanity “rise to the level of international crime,” now recognized under customary international law.

A national court exercising UJ acts not in its name, but for the international community – only when responsible countries won’t, can’t or haven’t. In other words, as a last resort.

In addition, various post-WW II Conventions, including the four Geneva ones and their Common Article 1 obligates all High Contracting Parties to “respect and ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances;” namely, to apply its principles universally, requiring High Contracting Parties “search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.”

At Nuremberg, the concepts of individual and command criminal responsibility were addressed, the Tribunal Principles holding that “(a)ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment….(c)rimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit (them) can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

The Rome Statute’s Article 25 of the ICC codified this principle, affirming the culpability of persons committing crimes of war and against humanity. In addition, commanders and their superiors are specifically culpable if they “either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes, (and) failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecutions.”

Nuremberg established that immunity is null and void, including for heads of state, other top officials, and top commanders. In addition, genocide, crimes of war and against humanity are so grave that statute of limitation provisions don’t apply.

Final Comments

UJ is to ensure that individuals committing high crimes are held accountable, essential under the rule of law. Otherwise, it’s meaningless. All too often, however, populations, like the Palestinians, are abused for many decades, Israel getting away with mass murder and other grave breaches of law.

As a result, UJ is the only alternative, national courts willing to use it an essential judicial remedy. It’s high time they take the first step to universal justice, sending a powerful message that crimes this egregious won’t stand, no matter who commits them or shares responsibility.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Palestine: The Forgotten Childhood

8-5-66a6c
Palestine Monitor, 24 July 2010
In 1991 Israel ratified The Convention of the Rights of a Child. The 54 articles of the Convention focus on the human rights of a child which include civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. Despite Israel’s ratification of the Convention, Palestinian children are still victims of human rights abuses in all of these categories.

The occupied Palestinian territories have one of the highest birthrates in the region. Over 50 % of the population is under the age of 18. Thirty percent of the population in Palestine falls below the poverty line. Of the poor, 54 % are children.

In 2009, more that 300 children lost their homes after they were demolished from order of the Israeli authorities.

Not including Operation Cast Lead, since January 2009, Israeli army have killed 20 children. In the last ten years 1,333 Palestinian children have been killed in conflict.

Many children do not have direct or safe passage to schools. Children as young as age six walk up to forty-five minutes to get to school because of the separation barrier, road closures, and/or settlements.

In the South Hebron Hills many children are subjected to violence attacks by settlers on their way to school. Since 2004, 92 children have been victims of violence from settlers.

Thirty-five percent of the time, soldiers did not walk with the children and 85% of the time the military escorts failed to complete the full journey to school, leaving children unaccompanied and vulnerable to violence.

Around 700 adolescents between 12 and 17 are detained by the Israeli military each year. In contravention of international law, most prisons that detain children are in Israel which significantly limits family access.

The psychological impact on children is profound. According to UNICEF, nearly of third of all children experience anxiety, phobia, or depression. Over 50,000 children received psychosocial counseling to help them cope with violence.

Nearly 10% of children under the age of five suffer from chronic malnutrition. Anemia is problematic for nearly 50% of children under the age of two and vitamin A deficiency is endemic in 70 % of children.

The unemployment rate in the occupied Palestinian territories is over 20%. Thirty percent of children drop out of school at age 16 and 17. The boys need to find work to help the family financially and the girls are pressured into marriage.