Israel’s panic-stricken UK fans urge more lopsided negotiations

Palestine Loss of Land 1946 TO 2011

Using “leverage” to shunt Palestinian independence into the scrap-yard

 

by Stuart Littlewood

 

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Jewish MP, said it was inconsistent to support self-determination for people in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria but not Palestine, whose people “have been waiting 64 years for UN decisions to be implanted”.

Forget our solemn promises nearly a century ago to give the Arabs independence in return for their help in World War One.

Forget our pledge in 1922, when accepting the mandate from the League of Nations, to prepare the Palestinians for independence. Under the mandate Jews taking up residence in Palestine were supposed to have Palestinian citizenship. Aware of Arab concerns that the Balfour Declaration was being interpreted in an “exaggerated” way by Zionists and their sympathisers, the British government issued a White Paper that same year clarifying the position. “It is the intention of His Majesty’s government to foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine. But… this should be accomplished by gradual stages…”

How gradual can you get?

Yesterday Britain’s foreign secretary William Hague, attending a United Nations gathering in aid of Libyan regime change, said of the Palestinian situation that the “only real way forward” was to go backwards to the negotiating table.

“The consequences of failing to arrive at a two-state solution,” he said, “could be catastrophic for the Middle East and the wider world, so we have to keep trying… We want a secure Israel living alongside a viable Palestinian state.”

Note the old trick of emphasizing Israel’s security while planting the idea that Palestine must make do with a barely “viable” existence. You never hear these jokers talk about a secure Palestine and a viable Israel.

And having changed the law to provide a safe haven for Israelis wanted for war crimes, and to enable Tzipi-Dee-Doo-Dah Livni to do her shopping in Bond Street without fear of arrest, the Israel-firsters in Westminster – and they include 80 percent of Conservative MPs – are now panic-stricken to think that Palestinians, by going direct, might acquire sufficient UN status to take proceeding against their play-mates in the International Criminal Court and demand UN peacekeepers kick them off their territory.

What Hague wants to see at the UN is a return to lopsided negotiations to avoid this embarrassment, and he’s not saying which way Britain will vote. “Israelis and Palestinians committing themselves to return to negotiations, that is our objective. And that is why we and the 26 other European Union countries have withheld our positions on this.  We’re trying to use our leverage to persuade Israelis and Palestinians to do that.”

Any rational explanation for this endless insistence on more time-wasting negotiations, which are simply a cover for continued Israeli expansion and land-grabs, is carefully avoided.

“A solution cannot be imposed from outside”

Last week Alistair Burt, the Foreign Office minister in charge of Middle East affairs, was telling Parliament: “There is no alternative to negotiations and a solution cannot be imposed from outside…” But, as anyone with a grain of sense knows, there has to be intervention from outside. To heal this cancerous sore the international community must deliver law, justice and equality to the Holy Land. Fundamental human rights and the rule of law are not negotiable. Indeed those who advocate returning to the negotiating table before a level playing field has been established only seek to evade justice and jettison UN resolutions for ever.

Sir Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Jewish MP, said it was inconsistent to support self-determination for people in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria but not Palestine, whose people “have been waiting 64 years for UN decisions to be implanted”.

He said if the Palestinians seek statehood at the UN and fail, the Israelis will “regard this as a triumph” and end the peace process. Sir Gerald wanted to know, “Will this government stand up and put its hand up for the Palestinian people at the United Nations?”

Burt said the UK was working closely with other nations to ensure that “whatever comes out of the UN, it is in the spirit of both sides feeling that something has been gained and we have a situation which moves towards those negotiations which need to succeed”.

Sir Ming Campbell, a former Liberal Democrat leader, expressed “a profound sense of disappointment” with the government’s attitude, saying that Britain’s influence and reputation would be diminished by its stance. The UK could be accused of “double standards” with the prime minister and foreign secretary in Libya “doing everything to support self-determination”.

Burt and Hague are noted Israeli flag-wavers, as is prime minister David Cameron whose loyalty to the lawless entity, he has said, is “indestructible”. Should Palestinians brace themselves for further betrayal?

Even the opposition are singing the same old Zionist song. Douglas Alexander, shadow foreign secretary, in a letter to Hague, says:  “We [the Labour Party] want to see an immediate return to meaningful negotiations.” Were they ever meaningful?

However, he does remind Hague that the 2002 Roadmap required the UN, EU, US and Russia to promote international recognition of a Palestinian state.

But he’s soon back in harmony with the other stooges: “These negotiations are ultimately the only way that Palestinians are going to achieve the viable state they seek and that Israel will achieve the security that is their right…” Then he breaks ranks again to say: “Recognition at the United Nations for the Palestinians is one of the steps required to achieve this.”

But, like the others, he fails to acknowledge the Palestinians’ equal right to security. A viable state is all they’ll get. The word “viable”, meaning workable or capable of growing under the right conditions, is carefully chosen and repeatedly used because it has a distinctly second-rate ring to it.

Then Alexander ad-libs once more: “It has never been the case that recognition can only follow the conclusion of negotiations.” And he finishes by saying: “The British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of the continuing steps to achieve a comprehensive two state solution.”

Friend or foe? It’s hard to say.

Then  we had Stephen O’Brien, minister for international development, saying: “It is clear that negotiations towards a two-state solution are the only way to meet the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians and to achieve a sovereign, viable and contiguous Palestinian state living alongside Israel in peace and security.”

If he were asked what exactly Israel’s “national aspirations” are, how would he describe them?

Palestine Loss of Land 1946 TO 2011

Palestine Loss of Land 1946 TO 2011

 

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

  • The Author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. Find more Articles by Stuart Littlewood on RamallahOnline.

 

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood
Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

By Dr. Ismail Salami and Kourosh Ziabari

The plight of the Palestinian people is no closed book to anyone in the world;  a subjugated nation which has been unjustifiably subjected to discrimination and violence for the past 6 decades.

Even the close allies of Israel and those who support the continued occupation of Palestine admit in their privacy that the actions and policies of the Israeli regime are beyond the pale and run counter to the very principles of humanity and morality.

Everyday, the mass media run reports of several Palestinians being killed or injured by the Israeli forces. Hundreds of Palestinian children and women are incarcerated in Israeli jails and their dignity is flagrantly violated. The homes of the Palestinian citizens are demolished by huge bulldozers every day and Zionist settlements are constructed in their place.

In its nature as a colonizing regime, Israel has never spared any efforts to suppress the Palestinian nation. The 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead which claimed the lives of 1,417 Palestinians and destroyed a great deal of the infrastructure of Gaza coastal enclave including schools, mosques, hospitals and even the UN headquarters was only a simple example of Israel’s unrelenting atrocities against the people of Palestine.

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has committed every type of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It constantly violated the international laws and regulations such as The Hague Regulations of 1907, Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the customary laws of belligerent occupation; however, the United States and its European allies endowed Israel with immunity to the law and protected it from accountability before the international community. Since 1982 up to now, the United States vetoed 27 United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel and hindered the investigation of Israel’s criminal actions including building illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their hometown, incarcerating children and women without charges or holding tribunals for them and more importantly, building and accumulating nuclear weapons.

However, the Palestinians have realized that it is now time for their sufferings to come to an end and start a new era in the life of their browbeaten country. Actually, they are getting prepared for putting forward a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly to officially become the 194th member of the United Nations.

On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s National Council unilaterally adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and claimed territories which still remained under the Israeli occupation. Since 1974 when the Arab League summit recognized PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people “and reaffirmed their right to establish an independent state of urgency”, Palestine has been accepted as an observer member of the United Nations without a right to participate in the General Assembly’s voting. After the declaration of independence, the UN General Assembly officially acknowledged the proclamation and voted to use the designation “Palestine” instead of “Palestine Liberation Organization” when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.

Now after spending two decades as an observer state, Palestine is seeking full membership in the United Nations. When the General Assembly convenes on September 13, it will also decide on whether to accept Palestine as an official and sovereign state or not. However, the Palestinians have a long way to go to realize statehood and it’s almost a far-fetched and complicated journey for them.

According to an article recently published on New York Times and quoted by Stephen Lendman, “last March, Israel told UN Security Council members and other prominent EU countries it will act unilaterally if the General Assembly grants Palestine de jure membership in September inside 1967 borders, 22% of historic Palestine.”

As said by American author and political writer Stephen Lendman, if Palestine is granted full membership, Israel will likely deny recognition, continuing its illegal occupation, this time against a sovereign country; however, even if Israel keeps up with its hostility, the “automatic majority” of the UN General Assembly will take the side of Palestine.

The U.S. President who was recently snubbed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he said that Israel should recognize the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders has rhetorically accepted with Palestine’s plans for submitting a bid for membership in the UN; however, he has implied that its terms, size, locations and timetable should be checked with and verified by Israel. In other words, “he supports Israeli veto power of Palestinian rights, including sovereignty, an unacceptable or illegal condition under international law,” wrote Lendman.

From a legal viewpoint, it’s said that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories should end if Palestine succeeds in gaining a vote of statehood from two-third of the General Assembly members.

Lendman says that Washington has already provisionally recognized Palestine as an independent state and according to the UN Charter Article 80 (1), it cannot reverse its position by vetoing a Security Council resolution calling for Palestine’s UN admission.

Albeit, it should be kept in mind that even though Mahmoud Abbas, the acting chief of Palestinian Authority has made numerous concessions to Israel and tried to please the U.S. and its European allies, he has several enemies in the public sphere, especially among the U.S. congressmen, media personalities and pundits.

An article published by the American conservative FrontPage Magazine says that Palestine cannot meet the requirements of proposing full membership in the UN. “The first problem is that the PA cannot yet demonstrate all of the four characteristics required for statehood by international law.  A sovereign state is a political entity with a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning government with the ability to exercise sovereignty over that territory (i.e., to command habitual obedience from that population by means of that state’s monopoly on the use of force), and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states,” the article says.

A recent poll conducted on 10,787 people by Press TV shows that 47 percent of the respondents believe the PA’s bid will gain the majority of the votes at the UN but will be vetoed by the US and a total of 24 percent say the US and Israel would prevent the bid from being presented at the UN General Assembly in September. Roughly 13 percent said the bid would fail to garner enough votes on account of the pressure exerted by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Indeed there are repercussions for the Zionist regime if Palestine succeeds in gaining recognition. A source in the Israeli government cites three repercussions in this regard:  1. International perception of Israel as an occupying state will shift to a colonizing one. 2.  The countries voting in favor of recognizing Palestine might impose economic sanctions on Israel and sever all their trade ties. 3. Israel might be forced to depart from international trade organizations. 4. The world may force Israel to approve the construction of the first Palestinian international airport in the West Bank.

These are all the possibilities that may take place but as to the first one that Israel will shift from an occupying state to a colonizing one, one should say that Israel has already been a colonizing state for decades.

Interestingly, the same source predicts that from 192 member states in the UN’s General Assembly, around 180 would vote for the recognition of Palestine, six would abstain and six others would oppose.

This sounds a very optimistic viewpoint and is surely what the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world aspires. However, truth is sour and anyone with some degree of political savvy is aware of the amount of influence the Zionists exercise on the US.

Some pundits rightly see the recognition of Palestine as a political tsunami for the Zionist regime.

If the recognition of Palestine is not a nightmare for Israel and its cronies, what is?

Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian journalist and author. He has written numerous books and articles on Middle East and is the website manger of Press TV. Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He regularly writes for Press TV, Tehran Times, Media Monitors, Salem News, Opinion Maker, Intifada Palestine, RamallahOnline and Strategic Culture Foundation.

The International Criminal Court – a help or a hindrance?

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood, 27 May 2011

Do you fume at the International Criminal Court (ICC) when you see all those obnoxious war criminals still walking free and still thumbing their noses at the civilised world while their gruesome crime sheet just gets longer?

There should be no hiding place. But international law never reaches into some corners because the levers that control the wheels of justice, we discover, are sometimes leaned on by the criminals themselves.

The International Criminal Court was supposed to change all that. It is governed by the Rome Statute http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm and is the first permanent, treaty-based, international criminal court established “to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”.

The ICC says it is independent and not part of the United Nations system… but that is not strictly true, as we’ll see.

115 states have signed up to the Rome Statute. The UK is one of them, I’m pleased to say. And so too is Afghanistan. But rogue states like the US and Israel rank alongside Saudi and Libya and skulk beyond the perimeter.

A further 34 countries, including Russia, have signed but not ratified. These states are obliged, under the law of treaties, to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the Rome Statute. Three of these states—Israel, Sudan and the United States—signed and then, presumably realising their conduct was not up to the standards expected and wishing to undermine the Statute whenever it suited them, “unsigned”.

The Court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by nationals of a State Party or on the territory of a State Party since 1 July 2002, the date the Rome Statute came into effect.

The Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) lists some pretty woolly objectives which nevertheless include these two:

  • To maximize the Office of the Prosecutor’s contribution to the fight against impunity and the prevention of crimes.
  • To enhance cooperation with States and relevant actors, in particular for the execution of arrest warrants issued by the Court.

Does any of this help Palestine? The ICC’s website http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Palestine/ reports that on 22 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority lodged a declaration with the Registrar under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute which allows States not party to the Statute to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. “The OTP will examine issues related to its jurisdiction: first whether the declaration accepting the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court meets statutory requirements; and second whether crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction have been committed. The Office will also consider whether there are national proceedings in relation to alleged crimes.”

In October 2009 a delegation from the PNA and the Arab League presented the Court with a report in support of the PNA’s ability to delegate its jurisdiction to the ICC. In January 2010, the OTP sent a letter summarizing its activities to the United Nations then, in May, published a “Summary of submissions on whether the declaration lodged by the Palestinian National Authority meets statutory requirements.”

But in 28 long months the Prosecutor has made no determination on the issue.

After wading through Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute describing the numerous crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocides the ICC is supposed to deal with – the sort of horrors Palestinians have to face every day – I found that Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute refers to Article 12(2) which refers to Article 13 (a) and (c)… which is enough to make one want to lie down in a darkened room and lose the will to live.

So I was very pleased to hear from Dr David Morrison in Dublin who periodically sends me excellent briefings and carefully researched articles from his organization, Sadaka – the Ireland Palestine Alliance. One of his latest pieces looked at the hypocrisy of referring Libya to the ICC.

US wants impunity for itself (and Israel) while prosecuting others

Libya is not a party to the International Criminal Court and is among many states that do not accept its jurisdiction. Yet three months ago the UN Security Council voted unanimously, in Resolution 1970, to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Five of the states that voted for this referral – China, India, Lebanon, Russia and the US – are not parties to the ICC and don’t accept its jurisdiction. So here we see the US among those forcing Libya to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, when it refuses to do so itself.

Dr Morrison points also to the case of Sudan in 2005 when the Security Council decided to refer the situation in Darfur to the ICC Prosecutor. Sudan isn’t a party to the ICC either. On that occasion the US and China abstained, but 3 states – Philippines, Russia and Tanzania – which don’t accept the jurisdiction of the ICC voted for Sudan to be subjected to it.

The ICC charged the President of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, with genocide and two other Sudanese nationals with lesser charges.

How were these referrals possible, asks Morrison? The answer lies in Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute, under which the ICC may exercise jurisdiction if “a situation in which one or more crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations [action to maintain peace]”.

So the ICC is not the independent judicial body it pretends to be. Its jurisdiction can be extended or re-directed on the say-so of the Security Council to apply to states that have refused its jurisdiction.

Of course, says Dr Morrison, that can’t happen to non-Statute members of the Security Council who only have to wield their veto to block any attempt by UN colleagues to extend the ICC’s jurisdiction to their territory.

In his view a Court with universal jurisdiction is fair. A Court whose jurisdiction you, as a state, can choose to accept or reject has some semblance of fairness. But a Court like the ICC, whose jurisdiction can be targeted, at the whim of the Security Council, on certain states that have chosen not to accept it, but not on others, is grossly unfair.

Dr Morrison’s analysis reveals how evil this manipulation can be. The primary duty for prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity lies with the state in which they were committed and the ICC only acquires jurisdiction to prosecute if the state fails to do so. The Court can prosecute any individual responsible for these crimes regardless of civilian or military status or official position.

“This means that, in theory, a national of a state that is not party to the Statute, for example a US national, may be tried by the ICC for crimes committed in a state that is a party to the Statute. The US is particularly opposed to this, since it has civilian and military personnel in lots of states around the world, many of which are party to the Statute. It is US policy to prevent the ICC trying any US nationals.

“Because of this, Resolution 1970 [the Libya referral] includes a paragraph exempting nationals from states not party to the ICC, including US nationals, from the jurisdiction of the ICC for acts committed in Libya… The hypocrisy surrounding this is staggering…”

Indeed.

Dr Morrison also homes in on what are termed ‘Article 89 Agreements’. Under 89(1) of the Rome Statute, states that are party to the ICC are required to “comply with requests for arrest and surrender” by the Court. These could be for the arrest and surrender of US nationals. To prevent this, the US has taken advantage of Article 98(2), which says: “The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.” The US has negotiated agreements with more than a hundred states to block surrender of US nationals to the Court.

To ensure obedience, if states are party to the ICC they cannot receive military aid from the US without signing such an agreement. The American Service-Members’ Protection Act stipulates that “no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court”, although NATO members and certain non-NATO allies (including Israel of course) are exempted, as are those who signed an Article 89 agreement.

“Such are the lengths that the US is prepared to go,” says Morrison, “in order to exclude its own nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC, while voting in the Security Council to extend the jurisdiction of the ICC for others.”

Will the Court ‘bottle out’ over Goldstone?

In another article, ‘The Goldstone Report does not need correction’, Dr Morrison wonders if the ICC will be allowed to do its job as recommended by Goldstone.

The Israeli Government and others claim that Goldstone, in his recent Washington Post article, retracted completely all the Mission’s findings that Israeli forces had deliberately targeted civilians.

But he did no such thing, says Morrison. “The Mission came to the conclusion that in 11 incidents Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians. He made a case, based on information of uncertain reliability, that this number should be reduced to 10. The Mission recommended that these matters end up at the International Criminal Court, with individuals being indicted for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, if the evidence warrants…

“The ICC hasn’t got jurisdiction over these matters at the moment, since neither Israel nor Palestine are parties to the ICC. How can it acquire jurisdiction?”

In theory, he says, there are two ways. First, as mentioned at the start, the Palestinian National Authority has made its submissions and informed the ICC that “the Government of Palestine hereby recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed in the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002”.

But it all depends on whether Palestine is a state within the meaning of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. If the ICC were to accept jurisdiction, it would not only allow for the indictment of Israelis for offences committed during Operation Cast Lead, but also for other crimes such as settlement building.

Article 8.2(b)(viii) makes it clear that “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a war crime.

The second possibility is for the Security Council to refer Operation Cast Lead to the ICC, just as it did the Libyan unpleasantness and Darfur, neither of those countries being party to the ICC.

If, as Dr Morrison points out, the ICC did acquire jurisdiction, its investigations would encompass not only the damning material gathered by Goldstone but a whole host of evidence from other organisations such as Human Rights Watch (Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza; Precisely Wrong: Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles; White Flag Deaths: Killings of Palestinian Civilians during Operation Cast Lead; Turning a Blind Eye: Impunity for Laws-of-War Violations during the Gaza War; “I Lost Everything”: Israel’s Unlawful Destruction of Property during Operation Cast Lead), Amnesty International (Israel/Gaza: Operation “Cast Lead”: 22 days of death and destruction) and the Arab League Fact Finding Committee (No Safe Place).

It is nearly two-and-a-half years since the Palestinians’ declaration and the Prosecutor, despite having access to the best legal brains, still hasn’t made a decision to proceed. Why the foot-dragging? What’s his game? Goldstone’s Fact-Finding Mission recommended a decision “should be made by the Prosecutor as expeditiously as possible”, another reason perhaps why the poor judge incurred such displeasure in certain quarters.

So is the ICC ‘bottling out’?

In Dr Morrison’s view it is unlikely to accept jurisdiction because of the enormous political implications. “However, one cannot but hope that the matter will be pressed in the Security Council to the point where the US is forced to wield its veto to protect Israel.”

Presumably, the matter would then find its way to the General Assembly, which could urge the Security Council to take proper steps and refer the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the ICC, in accordance with article 13(b) of the Rome Statute.

And what of America’s chicanery? This week in London we’ve had to endure President Obama on a state visit lecturing us with words like: “We fight an enemy that respects no law of war, we will continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard – by living up to the values and the rule of law that we so ardently defend… We will proceed with humility… Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves… But we can and must stand with those who so struggle.”

Only a few days earlier he’d said: “No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state,” and he made the outrageous stipulation that if it did come into being it should be de-militarised – i.e. the Palestinians must be deprived of a basic universal right and rendered incapable of defending themselves. Not only that, they should “negotiate” with their tormentor – the brutal occupying power – and bargain for their freedom like merchants in a bazaar and be prepared to see even more of their trashed and fragmented country lost to Zionist greed.

After Obama’s address to both Houses of Parliament, which was received with rapturous applause, throngs of smitten MPs jockeyed for position to shake the fraud’s hand, a spectacle that must have turned the stomach of those with any inkling of what is actually happening.

Note: My thanks to Sadaka, which supports a peaceful settlement in Israel/Palestine based on the principles of democracy and justice. Its website is www.sadaka.ie

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

  • The Author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. Find more Articles by Stuart Littlewood on RamallahOnline.

Richard Goldstone’s Fall from Grace

Stephen Lendman
South African judge Richard Goldstone. Photo by Alex Catalan

South African judge Richard Goldstone. Photo by Alex Catalan

Stephen Lendman, 6 April 2011

The line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s HMS Pinafor explains, saying: “Things are seldom as they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream.”

Goldstone’s shameless reversal exposes the true man, a Judas, not what most people believed. Why is at issue? More on that below.

Two previous articles articles discussed his retraction, accessed through the following links:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/04/revisiting-israels-terror-war-on-gaza.html

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/04/obamas-terror-war-on-libya.html

On April 1, his Washington Post op-ed headlined, “Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes,” saying:

“Our report found evidence potential war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity by both Israel and Hamas.” The latter ones, in fact, were minor by comparison, responding only to Israeli provocations.

Israel’s, however, “were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where….evidence (pointed to no) other reasonable conclusion.”

However, dismissing irrefutable evidence, his and other inquiries uncovered, Goldstone softened his initial condemnation, ignoring how all Israeli investigations whitewash crimes of war and against humanity.

According to PCHR:

“Rather than uphold the rule of law, the Israeli investigative and judicial system is artfully manipulated to provide an illusion of investigative and judicial rigour, while systematically perpetuating pervasive impunity” for crimes too extreme to ignore.

Most often, in fact, investigations are avoided, Israel undertaking them only under extreme pressure. When initiated, however, absolution follows every time without exception, no matter how extreme or heinous the crimes. Only occasionally, however, are a few low-ranking soldiers charged minor offenses to distract from major ones.

As a result, IDF Chief of Staff, General Gabi Ashkenazi’s investigation concluded that “throughout the fighting in Gaza, the IDF operated in accordance with international law.”

In fact, daily crimes of war and against humanity were committed, mostly affecting civilian men, women and children. They were deliberately targeted in residential neighborhoods in clear violation of international law, prohibiting attacks against non-combatants and non-military related sites.

Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, Fourth Geneva, Geneva’s Common Article III, and other international laws, civilians are protected persons. So is civilian property. Attacking them is prohibited. War crimes are clearly defined. The principles of distinction and proportionality also apply:

– distinction between combatants and military targets v. civilians and non-military ones; attacking latter ones are war crimes except when civilians take direct part in hostilities; and

– proportionality prohibits disproportionate, indiscriminate force likely to cause damage to or loss of lives and objects.

Moreover, precautions must be taken to avoid and minimize incidental loss of civilian lives, injuries to them, and damage to non-military sites. Under Fourth Geneva, they must be given “effective advance warning” and “neutralized zones” where they can be as safe as possible.

Fourth Geneva also prohibits collective punishment; the use of human shields; private property destruction; torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; denying the population adequate amounts of food and medical supplies; and assuring free passage of all “consignments” intended for civilian purposes.

Under international law, Israel willfully and repeatedly commits grievous crimes of war and against humanity. Justice demands those responsible be prosecuted. Material below on Cast Lead explains why.

Illegal White Phosphorous and Flechette Shells Used

Israeli forces used these and other illegal weapons in densely populated residential areas. Flechettes are 4cm-long metal darts used as anti-personnel weapons that can penetrate human bone and inflict horrific injuries. One artillery shell contains from 5,000 – 8,000 of them. After firing, the shell ruptures, releasing them at high speed in a funnel-shaped pattern over a range of about 300 meters.

White phosphorous is a flammable chemical used both incendiary weapon and smoke screen. When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and keeps burning until either all of it is consumed or it’s deprived of oxygen. On human flesh it causes severe second and third degree chemical burns that are extremely hard to treat, as well as suffocation, convulsions, severe eye pain and inhalation complications.

Head of Al-Shifa Hospital’s burn unit, Dr. Nafez Abu Sha’gan, said persons were admitted with “severe burns due to which (their) muscles and body cells (were) completely destroyed.” In some cases, amputations were necessary. Others sustained fractures, internal hemorrhaging, and three patients died after surgery.

Using Civilians as Human Shields, Holding Others in Their Homes as Hostages

Fourth Geneva’s Article 28 and Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly prohibit both practices. Yet Israeli troops repeatedly forced civilians to walk in front of them as they searched houses. They also held them involuntarily during clashes with Palestinian resistance fighters. Others were subjected to various humiliations and cruel treatment in their homes.

Attacking Medical Crews and Humanitarian Relief Personnel

Dozens were killed or wounded. Many of the injured were denied health care. As a result, dozens bled to death in close proximity to soldiers. Medical personnel, ambulances, and fire fighters were prevented from helping them. In total, two doctors, five paramedics and one driver were killed. Another 50 were wounded. Shelling destroyed or heavily damaged dozens of hospitals and medical centers.

Fourth Geneva’s Articles 14 – 23 explicitly protect medical personnel and facilities. Article 20 states:

“persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected.”

Israel’s non-compliance caused widespread suffering throughout Gaza, especially affecting those who lost loved ones or were denied proper treatment for their wounds. Many died as a result.

Targeting Journalists and the Mass Media

International human rights laws protect journalists as civilians and ensure their right of free expression, opinion, access to information, and freedom to report it. Nonetheless, Israeli forces fired indiscriminately at them, killed two, wounded nine more, detained others, shelled five media offices, and denied international journalists access to Gaza for a month before the war and throughout hostilities by declaring the Strip a closed military zone.

Attacking Educational Institutions

The attacks were heavy enough to bring the entire educational sector to a halt, depriving half a million students one month’s education or more. Many of them and their teachers were also killed, many others wounded, and public, private, and UNRWA schools were either partially or entirely destroyed. Universities were also attacked with the same disturbing results.

Violations of the Right to Life

Israeli attacks killed or wounded many children and young men and women at school, including on the offensive’s first day when air strikes coincided with the end of the first school day shift and beginning of the second when most students were on Gaza’s streets.

HIgher educational institutions were also struck, damaged and in some cases heavily. Included were the Islamic University, al-Azhar University’s Faculty of Agriculture in Beit Hanoun, the University College for Applied Sciences, al-Aqsa University, Palestine University, al-Quds Open University and the College of Science and Technology.

Attacking NGOs

The Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), Union of Agriculture Relief Committees, al-Karama Society for Children of Martyrs, Union of Medical Care Committees, and other NGO and charitable groups were directly targeted and heavily damaged.

Arrests, Torture, and Other Forms of Cruel and Abusive Treatment

Israeli forces made large numbers of arbitrary arrests, transferred those seized to detention facilities, and subjected them to harsh torture and abuse, including beatings, exposure to severe cold, starvation, and sleep deprivation. Most of those arrested were civilians taken from houses stormed by Israeli troops, including children and the elderly, some of whom were used as human shields.

Destruction of Civilian Facilities

Ones targeted, destroyed or damaged included government buildings, homes, businesses, mosques, hospitals and medical clinics, graveyards, schools, media institutions, agricultural land, irrigation networks, fishing harbors and boats, animal and bird farms, beehives, sports clubs, and more.

The destruction of houses and residential buildings created an unprecedented state of forced migration, affecting 450,000 Palestinian civilians forced to seek shelter. In fact, thousands of families lost everything – their homes, property, personal belongings, identity cards, passports, birth certificates, and worst of all husbands, wives, children and other extended family members.

Destruction of Government Ministries, Local Councils, and Other Facilities

Attacks targeted the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) building, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Education, police stations and compounds, municipality structures, and numerous other facilities.

Infrastructure Destruction

Infrastructure affected included main and secondary roads, water and sewage networks, power transformers, high and low pressure power networks, communication networks, and more, causing serious disruptions to vitally needed services.

Economic Infrastructure Destruction

The entire economy was devastated, compounding the many months under siege, including a total import and export ban. Yet air and ground attacks destroyed industrial, agricultural, commercial, tourist, service and construction facilities, including concrete and brick factories and material storage facilities. It was pre-planned, systematic, and illegal under international law. As a result, the entire economy, already reeling under siege, was decimated.

Destruction of Cultural Property

Included were archaeological buildings, museums, historic sites, religious ones, ancient buildings, heritage centers, the Tourism and Antiquities Ministry, and more such as invaluable art works, manuscripts, books, and other objects of historic, cultural, religious or scientific value.

Aggravating an Already Severe Humanitarian Crisis

Already in dire need, the conflict caused a far greater crisis, leaving many thousands of Gazans without essentials for their health, well-being or safety. Most lacked everything, including enough food, medical care, shelter, clean water, power, and virtually everything normal societies need. Extreme poverty and unemployment made it worse under near impossible conditions.

Targeting Humanitarian Organizations and Personnel

Ones struck were distributing food, medicines, fuel, blankets, and other essentials. In addition, basic services providing water, sanitation, power and much more were disrupted or destroyed.

All of the above was deliberate, in clear violation of international law, including willfully targeting non-combatant men, women, and children. Goldstone knows it, yet shamelessly backtracked in his Washington Post op-ed. Clearly, he was either bribed, co-opted, or coerced to do it, sacrificing his own reputation in the process. As a result, he’ll no longer be believed, respected or trusted. The price of betrayal is condemnation and ostracism.

The Power of the Israeli Lobby

In his important 2006 book titled, “The Power of Israel in the United States,” James Petras brilliantly explained its influence on US policy. It extends to the highest levels of government, the business community, academia, the clergy, the mass media, Hollywood, and as Edward Said once said about the Senate: Virtually “the entire (body) can be marshaled in a matter of hours into” coming together for Israel. Nearly the entire House as well. In addition, the Lobby exerts great influence over foreign governments and institutions, notably in the West.

Key is in the high proportion of Jewish families among the wealthiest and most dominant in America. Included are billionaires and many others who’ve created a “tyranny of Israel over the US” with consequences grave enough to threaten world peace, security, the global economy, and democracy’s future in America and elsewhere.

Given that extreme power, it’s no surprise how easily Goldstone and others can be co-opted. As a result, Israel literally gets away with mass murder. It also receives more US assistance than all other nations combined, and special privileges with it, including:

– billions of dollars in annual aid;

– the latest weapons and technology;

– low or no interest loans;

– some simply waived and not repaid;

– additional monetary aid as requested;

– unrestricted US market access for its products and services;

– free entry of its immigrants;

– guaranteed Security Council vetoes for resolutions unfavorable to its interests;

– freedom to operate covertly inside America, including on US military bases; and

– Washington’s unconditional partnership in aggressive wars against Palestine, Lebanon and other targets.

Even when harming US interests, Israel gets what it wants because Zionist power extends well beyond the Lobby. Petras explains it includes a:

“complex network of interrelated formal and informal groups, operating at the international, national, regional, and local levels,” unconditionally supporting Israeli occupation, aggressive wars, and slow-motion genocide in Gaza.

On April 1, overlooking inconvenient facts, including his own investigation, Goldstone capitulated, selling his soul to the power of wrong over right, at the expense of his honor, character, dignity, and high-mindedness, erased in a single op-ed too late to retract.

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman

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/

Goldstone’s Forced Redaction Does Not Clear Israeli War Crimes

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti

Mustafa Barghouthiwww.mustafabarghouthi.org , 4 April 2011

Judge Richard Goldstone’s op-ed in The Washington Post is a direct result of tremendous and fierce pressure practiced by the Israeli and the Zionist lobby against him, his family and his friends in a frenzied campaign to force him to retreat from his report, an objective yet strong international condemnation against war crimes committed by Israel during its aggression against the Gaza Strip two years ago.

Goldstone’s personal revision –  done under duress – does not change anything related to the report. While carrying his name, it was not developed or written solely by him, but by a Commission he headed. The report remains a document adopted by the Human Rights Council and UN bodies.

Goldstone cannot undo or change a single fact of the report, which has become the most important document for the international condemnation of Israel and the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.

Israel is trying to exaggerate Goldstone’s statements, although it refused to allow him access to the West Bank and has refused to cooperate with the committee. What we are witnessing is the result of a campaign against Goldstone to force him to say things he is not convinced of. It is a model for the ferocity of the Zionist lobby when it decides to target a person or institution.

This campaign against Goldstone is aimed at clearing the face of Israel to justify a new aggression on Gaza. What is required from the Palestinian Liberation Organization is to take the Goldstone report and the decision of the Hague Tribunal on the apartheid wall and settlements, which has been neglected for a period of six years, to the General Assembly of the United Nations. There they should explicitly demand sanctions on Israel and state that any laxity in the use of these important documents would encourage Israel to launch a counter attack to cancel their influence.

While Benajmin Netanyahu said the Goldstone report should go to the dustbin of history, it is the system of apartheid that should be relegated to history’s dustbin. Israel’s apartheid and the policy of the coalition government of the settlers represented by Netanyahu. As the people of South Africa were liberated, the Palestinian people will be liberated and one day Israel will be condemned their war crimes in Gaza and be convicted of all their previous crimes.

 

 

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti

Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi is the Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative, the president of The Palestinian Medical Relief Society, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and a non-violence democracy leader based in Ramallah.  This article originally appeared on Dr. Barghouti’s website http://www.mustafabarghouthi.org/

Goldstone Alters His Verdict — An Analysis

South African judge Richard Goldstone. Photo by Alex Catalan
South African judge Richard Goldstone. Photo by Alex Catalan

South African judge Richard Goldstone. Photo by Alex Catalan

Dr. Lawrence Davidson, 4 April 2011

Judge Goldstone Alters His Verdict – An Analysis 4 April 2011

It will be recalled that after the September, 2009 issuance of the Goldstone Report suggesting that Israel might be guilty of war crimes, Judge Richard Goldstone was barred from attending grandson’s bar mitzvah. That is how much resentment was produced by the critical report that bares his name. Well, Richard Goldstone has just assured himself access to all future family celebrations. He has accomplished this by calling into doubt his offending investigatory work.
Part I – Judge Goldstone Has Second Thoughts

In a Washington Post op-ed, “Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and War Crimes,” published on 1 April 2011, Judge Goldstone declared that new information coming from Israeli investigations, allegedly conducted “transparently and in good faith,” now indicate (at least to him) that “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.” Since there was no policy of targeting civilians, all of the non-combatant victims (the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem tells us that of the 1,387 Palestinians killed in the invasion, 773 were civilians) become mere “collateral damage.” Voila! Israel is off the hook when it comes to the charge of war crimes. Or so Goldstone now believes.

But hold on a moment. In a thorough analysis of Judge Goldstone’s new position, Adam Horowitz, writing in Mondoweiss, turns things around once more. Horowitz points out that since the Goldstone Report, which was admittedly a preliminary document, there have been other investigations by the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Committee of Independent Experts (CIE). These inquires suggest that Goldstone’s faith in Israel’s investigations is seriously misplaced.

For instance, in his op-ed Goldstone cites a major case where Israeli forces killed 29 members of the al-Simouni family. This was an important piece of preliminary evidence of a possible war crime sited in the original Goldstone Report. He now tells us that an Israeli investigation has shown that it was all a mistake, “an erroneous interpretation of a drone image.” Further, Goldstone is now “confident that if the officer [who misread the drone image] is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly.” There are, of course, several problems with this position.

1. Israel’s so-called investigations into the Gaza invasion were episodes of the IDF investigating the IDF. Exactly the same so-called investigative procedure Israel used after its illegal attack on the Mavi Marmara. These “investigations” were not “transparent” because they were not public. Nor did the Israelis share the nature of their evidence with outsiders. As Horowitz points out this way of conducting business is not episodic, but rather official standard operating procedure. It is a reflection of structural problems, mostly having to do with obvious conflict of interest issues, that make Israel presently incapable of carrying out an objective investigation of its own actions. It must be noted that the original Goldstone Report had pointed to these problems. In paragraph 1756 the Report stated “The Mission found major structural flaws that in its view make the [Israeli investigatory] system inconsistent with international standards….there is the absence of any effective and impartial investigation mechanism and victims of such alleged violations are deprived of any effective or prompt remedy.” Nothing has changed on this account since the issuance of the Goldstone Report except that Judge Goldstone has ceased to see the situation as a problem. This leaves Horowitz, and no doubt many others, puzzled. “Why Judge Goldstone is now ignoring this issue is unclear.”

2. The Israeli findings in the specific case mentioned above are contradicted by the investigation of the CIE. That finding indicates that there is suggestive evidence that a senior Israeli military commander purposely targeted an area in which he knew civilians had congregated. He knew it because he had been informed by his own ground units that they had ordered a number of civilians to that location. Using the drone photos as justification he went ahead and called in an air attack on the site anyway and then kept ambulances from approaching the scene. Was this just the action of a rogue officer operating in contravention of policy? Almost certainly not. According to Israeli media reports, an IDF “special command” investigation of the incident carried out ten months later found that the air attack happened after a “legitimate interpretation of drone photographs” and “there had been nothing out of the ordinary in the strike.”

The key words in the Israeli “special command” report is “nothing out of the ordinary.” The behavior of the Israeli military during the January 2009 invasion of Gaza cannot be abstracted from the entire history of Israeli aggression against Palestine, its inhabitants and surrounding Arab lands as well. Indeed, that behavior has been remarkably consistent–so consistent that it is virtually impossible to see any particular manifestation of it as accidental. Was Dair Yasin (1948) an accident? Was Sabra and Shatila (1982) an accident? Was the shelling of west Beirut (1982) an accident? Was Qana (1996) an accident? Is the on-going inhumane and illegal blockade of Gaza an accident? The answer to all these questions is no. They were all done under officially rendered orders. Indeed, a short list of Israeli massacres runs to 57, and those are just the major ones. Almost all of them were neither accidental nor rogue operations. Given such a consistent pathological pattern, what are the odds that the estimated 773 civilians who died in the invasion of Gaza were killed accidentally, just collateral damage?

Part II – Prime Minister Netanyahu Says ‘I Told You So’

One suspects that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had advanced notice of the Goldstone letter. Within a very short time after the letter appeared he was calling on the United Nations to retract the original Goldstone Report. “Everything we said proved to be true. Israel did not intentionally target civilians and it has proper investigatory bodies.” Defense Minister Ehud Barak simultaneously declared, “We always said that the IDF is a moral army that acted according to international law.”

What a convenient combination of events! Israel investigates itself, exonerates itself, gets its biggest name critic to buy the procedure as legitimate and then back off his criticisms. The only question left is how many others will also buy into what really looks like a prearranged set up? My guess is every single country which wants to get around the issue of Universal Jurisdiction (see my analysis on this subject dated 12 February 2011) will soon be quoting Goldstone’s op. ed. as if it is a legal document.

Part III – Shifting the Focus To Hamas

While Judge Goldstone praises Israel for its “investigations,” he chastises Hamas for its lack of inquiry. Goldstone tells us that “Hamas has done nothing.” Well, at least we can say that Hamas has thereby refrained from insulting our intelligence with mock investigations leading to predictable if dubious self-exoneration.

Goldstone approaches the acts of Hamas and those of Israel as if they are on a par. He tells us that “The laws of armed conflict apply no less to non-state actors such as Hamas than they do to national armies.” At least in the case of Israel, such an approach denies context. Historically, the violence of the oppressed tends to rise over time to the level of the violence of the oppressor. That is what has happened in Israel-Palestine. It is not the Palestinians who have set the standards for violence in this conflict. That role has been played by the Israelis. As the list of major massacres cited above suggests, long before their was ever a suicide bombing or an attack with small rockets lacking guidance systems, the Israelis were massacring Palestinians, stealing their land and generally evicting them from their country. In some ideal moral world, Richard Goldstone’s conclusion that the violence of the oppressed must be judged by the same criteria as the violence of the oppressor might make sense. Unfortunately, it does not do so in the real world we have created for ourselves.

Part IV – Conclusion

Richard Goldstone has always had a deep attachment to Israel. Thus it stands in his favor that throughout most of the time he led the UN investigation into the 2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza he maintained a level of objectivity which made possible a glimpse of just how brutal the Zionist state is. It is no secret that since the Report’s release Goldstone has come under much pressure to alter his views. He has been accused of everything from “perpetuating a blood libel against Israel” to singlehandedly supplying Israel’s enemies with their most influential document. As suggested at the beginning of this analysis, some of this reaction led to his being ostracized by friends and family. Now 75 years of age and at the end of his career, it would seem that Judge Goldstone has made the decision that he does not want to be remembered as a important critic of Israel. He wants to come in from the cold and so he has begun to make amends. I am afraid he will find this a difficult task. People in Goldstone’s position, who change directions in this way, tend never to be trusted again–by either side of the struggle at issue. This is so even if the change is justified, which in this case it is not. So Richard Goldstone has dug himself a deep hole at the bottom of which he is likely to dwell alone.

 

 

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

The author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com.More articles can be found on RamallahOnline.com, Logos Journal, and Dr. Davidson also maintains an online blog, you can find it at http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

A disgrace: British ministers who legislate for war criminals to walk free in London

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood, 7 Dec 2010

Professor Richard Falk put it most eloquently: “The idea of Nuremberg after World War Two was that crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes are also offences against the whole of international society…” The law that was applied to surviving German criminals of World War Two would not be respected unless those who sat in judgment upheld it in relation to their own behaviour.

The UN Special Rapporteur was speaking in London at a parliamentary briefing on Universal Jurisdiction, the principles of which the British government intends to undermine for the benefit of its Israeli friends.

“Universal jurisdiction is part of the struggle against impunity for the Israeli military and the country’s political leaders,” said Falk. “That impunity has been possible both because Israel itself doesn’t impose accountability on those who perpetrate violations of international criminal law and because the US, and to some extent European countries, have given a geopolitical insulation to Israel in relation to its responsibilities as a sovereign state.”

The UN’s Goldstone report and the international law panel appointed after the Gaza flotilla incident also raised the issue of impunity and accountability. Falk feels that the most effective way of implementing international law is now through the activism of civil society and through national legal institutions.

Universal Jurisdiction is a good tool for the job. A private individual may apply to a magistrate for an arrest warrant if he has serious evidence. The Attorney General’s consent is needed for the prosecution to go ahead, but even if that consent is withheld the magistrate may still issue a warrant if he considers there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the war crime was committed and admissible evidence is presented which establishes this.

The beauty of the private warrant is that it can be issued speedily.

The bringing of a private prosecution for a criminal offence is an ancient right in common law and, in the words of Lord Wilberforce, “a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of the authority.”

Lord Diplock, another respected Lord of Appeal, called it “a useful safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law”.

And that’s precisely what we’re up against – a capricious, corrupt and biased administration that wants to let ‘friendly’ war criminals off and protect them from arrest while they visit Britain. The government argues that foreign politicians, no matter how blood-soaked, should never be made to feel unwelcome and that the current law impedes Britain’s ability to use its diplomatic powers. In future the Director of Public Prosecutions will consider each application at the arrest warrant stage.
As protestors point out, this is a recipe for political interference and delay, which will enable suspects to slip away – the “inertia and partiality” Wilberforce warned about.

In short, the overriding principle that no-one, regardless of nationality, should feel able to commit war crimes with impunity, is being sacrificed so that the likes of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister who was responsible for launching the murderous assault on Gaza’s civilians nearly two years ago (an atrocity she was later reported to be proud of and happy to repeat), and other Israeli psychopaths need not fear arrest if they come here.

Meanwhile mountains of evidence of Israel’s war crimes are just waiting to be tested in court.

The UK, like all other countries that think themselves civilised, is under an obligation to enact legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. In other words, there should be no hiding place for the world’s vilest criminals.

But Britain’s heart isn’t in it. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the Foreign Office colluded with America to circumvent our obligation under the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which Britain signed along with 107 other countries. Leaked US embassy papers show that David Miliband, our previous foreign secretary, approved a ‘temporary exemption’ allowing the US to carry on storing cluster bombs offshore at Diego Garcia (a British territory) and transfer them onto US aircraft stationed on the island, hiding the arrangement from parliamentary scrutiny.

Wikileaks also revealed http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship that Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise they would run a “pro-American regime”.

Britain’s barmy army of ‘Israel-firsters’

Running a pro-American regime means running a pro-Israel regime, since American policy is dictated by the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby. Stephen Walt, whose book exposed it, told Al Jazeera in the run-up to the US elections: “Almost all of the major candidates are falling over themselves to demonstrate how deeply committed they are to America’s special relationship with Israel. Hardly a word of criticism is directed at anything Israel does and that is due to the activities of the lobby.”

John Mearsheimer, co-author of the book, said: “If you look at who is pushing the US to use military force against Iran, the two driving forces are Israel and the Israel lobby.”

In a series of private meetings with British Conservatives, leaked US cables tell how foreign secretary-in-waiting William Hague offered a “pro-American” government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, “staunchly Atlanticist” and “children of Thatcher”. He said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. “We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.”

The US diplomat Richard LeBaron commented: “The UK’s commitment of resources – financial, military, diplomatic – in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled.”

Hague is, in his own words, “a longstanding friend of Israel and someone who joined Conservative Friends of Israel at the age of 15″. He once said: “The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue.”

Liam Fox, now defence minister, was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”

Fox, Hague and David Cameron were known for their subservience to Israel long before they took power. In 2006 The Jewish Chronicle reported on the backers bankrolling David Cameron’s bid for power, providing a fascinating insight into how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and destroys the principles of integrity and accountability so necessary in public life. When Cameron became Conservative leader he proclaimed: “The belief I have in Israel is indestructible – and you need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel.”

CFI’s Parliamentary Chairman and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee,
James Arbuthnot, addressed the following remarks to Parliament praising Israel: “Everyone in this House should have an interest in Israel, because it is a country that embodies the values that we should stand for. Israel [has] become a bastion of the rule of law, democracy, free speech, business enterprise and family values. If that is not what this country also stands for, I am disappointed.”

Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel brazenly state that their first aim is “to maximise support for the State of Israel within the Liberal Democrats and Parliament”.

“You discredit the rule of law”

Our last foreign secretary, David Miliband, actually apologised to Tzipi Livni and Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman for the arrest warrant issued against Livni in London a year ago. He promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws.

But the general election overtook him. Miliband’s grovelling promise was echoed by his replacement, Hague, who announced: “We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on Universal Jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK…” He said it was “completely unacceptable… We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced… The Justice Secretary will bring into the House of Commons adding to legislation going through the House of Commons later this year and I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals”.

At the same time he insulted the public’s intelligence by saying: “The UK is committed to upholding international justice and all of our international obligations. Our core principle remains that those guilty of war crimes must be brought to justice.”

During a recent trip to Israel Hague had the door slammed in his face by the petulant racist regime, cancelling strategic talks in order to ratchet up the pressure.

Even the Zionists’ 63-year record of land thieving, piracy, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate slaughter, mass abductions and imprisonment, torture, everyday terror and wholesale contempt for international law and human rights, isn’t enough to diminish the blind loyalty of our high-placed elected servants to the thugs of Tel Aviv.

In the fight to preserve Universal Jurisdiction and some semblance of honour, we can see how the odds are stacked. The corruption, bias and inertia the law lords warned of run deep. I leave the last word to Richard Falk, who makes the point that if a country like Britain, with its proud constitutional tradition, applies international criminal law only to those its leaders don’t like at the time – for example, Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic – “you discredit, in a fundamental way, the rule of law which really does depend on equals being treated equally.

“If that is not done then double standards become very manifest; it also has the effect of saying that geopolitics and foreign policy always trump the law.”

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

  • The Author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com.Find more Articles by Stuart Littlewood on RamallahOnline.

Letter to the British Liberal Democrats

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood, 10 Nov 2010

Subject: Protecting war criminals – “just about the lowest thing anyone could do”

LibDem leaders know perfectly well that under ‘universal jurisdiction’ all states that are party to the Geneva Conventions are obliged to seek out and prosecute or extradite those suspected of grave breaches of the Conventions and bring them justice, regardless of nationality.

“Grave breaches” means willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and other serious violations of the laws of war… the sort of atrocities that have been (and still are) committed wholesale by Israelis against civilians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and on the high seas.

In other words, for these vilest of criminals there should be no hiding place.

The British Government shirks its solemn duty. Fortunately the law at present allows private applications for arrest warrants.

However, your Coalition partners the Conservatives, 80 percent of whom are claimed to be signed-up Friends of Israel, plan to interfere with our laws of arrest in order to protect those criminals they count among their friends. Apparently this will be done by ensuring that arrests for war crimes become strictly political decisions enabling the government of the day to pick’n’choose.

Foreign secretary William Hague, a Friend of Israel since his schooldays, recently told the pro-Israel lobby: “We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on universal jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK… We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced… I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals.”

You, the Liberal Democrats, have already agreed to this???

Has everyone forgotten that Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former foreign minister, was largely responsible for the terror that brought mega-deaths and unimaginable destruction to Gaza’s civilians nearly 2 years ago?

Showing no remorse for the 1,400 dead (including 320 children and 109 women), the thousands horribly maimed and the hundreds of thousand made homeless, Livni’s office issued a statement saying she was proud of Operation Cast Lead, the murderous blitz she unleashed. Later at a conference in Tel Aviv she declared: “I would today take the same decisions.”

Many of you will recall how Israel violated the Egypt-brokered ceasefire to provoke a response that could then be used as an excuse to launch the onslaught Israel had been preparing for months.

You may also recall that in 2007 when Israel tightened the siege on Gaza, the prime minister’s adviser, Dov Weisglass, said “the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger”. Documents just released under a Freedom of Information petition by Gisha, an Israeli law centre, reveal that Israel operated “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods in the Gaza Strip.

The papers confirm that the siege was not for security reasons but to keep Gazans at near-starvation level in order to bring down Hamas, the people’s choice. Since around half the population are growing children this inhuman act of collective punishment has meant that hundreds of thousands of youngsters are undernourished and permanently damaged.

Gisha’s director accuses Israel of “paralyzing normal life in Gaza”, and adds: “I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place.” http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904&intSiteSN=113.

Israel’s current foreign minister, ex-bouncer Avigdor Lieberman, is a convicted child-beater and has been variously described as “a virulent racist” and “a certified gangster”. He directly violates international law by living in one of Israel’s illegal settlements. “If you liked Mussolini, if you were missing Stalin, you’ll love Lieberman,” a member of Israel’s Meretz party observed.

All the same, Hague wants him freely walking the streets of London with Livni and the rest of the world’s psychopaths.

Whatever happened to the Liberal Democrats’ pledge to “reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, etc…” and to “fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services”. These fine promises are incorporated into the party’s Constitution.

Only last year Nick Clegg, LibDem leader and now deputy prime minister in the Coalition, was telling the Jewish Chronicle: “The very suggestion that I might explicitly or tacitly give cover for racism, I find politically abhorrent and personally deeply offensive.”

Who would have believed that any senior Liberal Democrat would support a move to undermine our justice system in order to make the UK a safe haven for blood-soaked foreign leaders whose policies and unspeakable crimes are alien to LibDem principles, disgusting to the British public and condemned by international law?

If we allow the warmongers to come and go as they please, civilized people will never be able to take back their world.

We read that Hague was sent away from Tel Aviv with a slap in the face the other day when the Israelis without warning suspended dialogue with Britain. As if that wasn’t embarrassment enough for such an ardent admirer, Hague now intends to humiliate us all by groveling and tinkering with British law to appease them.

If Parliament passes measures to undermine the important principle enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and weaken the law to enable those wanted for crimes against humanity to evade arrest, wouldn’t that make the whole British nation an accessory to those crimes?

And please reflect on how nodding it through would be just about the lowest thing anyone could do.

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

How to anger the pro-Israel lobby

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood, 9 Nov 2010

Tell how it really is in Gaza, especially if you’re an Archbishop
To their eternal shame, Western churchmen seem to care little about the plight of their brothers and sisters in the Holy Land or the fate of the holy places where Christianity was born.

There are, of course, honourable exceptions. One such is the Archbishop of Wales, the Most Rev Dr Barry Morgan, whose church has provided the Gazans with a mobile dental unit.

He is not best pleased that the Israelis make it difficult to obtain fuel and medical supplies for it, and he didn’t mince his words when recently reporting to the Church’s governing body how things really are in Gaza.

The truth of the matter seemed to annoy a certain Mr Simon McIlwaine, who complained that the Archbishop’s words put the state of Israel in an unduly harsh light and he was compelled to “provide some badly needed context”. Whereupon Mr McIlwaine launched into the familiar anti-Gaza, anti-Hamas rant we’re used to hearing from the pro-Israel lobby. http://www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com/content/view/106/33/

  • “The Archbishop raises a central issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict – anti-Semitism…”

The central issue is 62 years of criminal oppression. The charges include land theft, illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, disregard for human rights, and war crimes such as those documented in the Goldstone Report. The action required is set out in international law, numerous UN resolutions and every code of human decency.

  • “Hamas is an explicitly anti-Semitic organization that at the very least seeks to exercise a veto over the Jewish right to self-determination.”

Israel is deeply anti-Arab and continues to dispossess and remove Arabs not only from Israel proper but also from areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that Israel has earmarked for permanent occupation.

Palestinians have been denied the right to self-determination for decades and Israel even refuses to recognise their perfectly satisfactory democratic process.

  • “Hamas’ anti-Semitic ideology pre-existed the blockade…”

Israel’s illegal occupation pre-dates the founding of Hamas.

  • “Hamas’ attacks against Israel are not merely motivated by a desire to end the blockade, but to deprive the Jewish people of their ability to enjoy a national life of their own.”

The irony of that remark is apparently lost on Mr McIlwaine.

  • “Clearly, anti-Semitism plays a significant role in fomenting violence against Israel in the Middle East.”

Playing the anti-Semitism card yet again. Israel is the violator. Hamas chief Khaled Mesh’al has explained that armed resistance against Israel is the result of Israeli occupation, injustice and oppression, not religious differences.

  • “The Archbishop describes the devastation in the Gaza Strip without acknowledging the role Hamas played in bringing the destruction about.”

Israel broke the ceasefire with a raid killing at least 6 Palestinians in order to provoke the sort of retaliation that could then be used as an excuse to launch Operation Cast Lead, the 3-week onslaught Israel had been preparing for months.

  • “History has shown that isolating tyrannical regimes such as Hamas results in civilian suffering.”

Israel was making Palestinians’ lives a misery long before Hamas appeared on the scene. What right has Israel or anyone else to isolate a democratically elected government and its people anyway?

Hamas is an Islamic party legitimately ruling a mainly Islamic country. It is the people’s choice. How can it be any more “tyrannical” than the Jewish State with its exclusivity laws and lethal attitude towards non-Jews?

  • “…Responsibility for the disruption of daily life in the Gaza Strip lies with Hamas. By way of comparison, daily life in the West Bank, which has not been the source of rocket attacks, is improving.”

As long as Israel occupies Gaza’s airspace, coastal waters and air-waves, controls all access points (except now the Egyptian border, although it still interferes there), maintains a sea blockade and attacks and even murders volunteers bringing humanitarian supplies, it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone else is responsible for disrupting daily life.

In 2007 when Israel tightened the siege on Gaza the prime minister’s adviser, Dov Weisglass, said “the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger”. According to documents just released under a Freedom of Information petition by Gisha, an Israeli law centre, Israel operated “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods in the Gaza Strip. Gisha’s director accuses Israel of “paralyzing normal life in Gaza”, and adds: “I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place.” http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904&intSiteSN=113.

The documents confirm that the siege was not for security reasons but aimed at keeping Gazans at near-starvation level. Since around half the population are growing children this act of collective punishment has meant that hundreds of thousands are undernourished.

Mr McIlwaine is right that no rockets have been fired from the West Bank. Why, then, are the shredded remains of that territory still under cruel occupation and tight restriction?

  • “Hamas has murdered its political opponents, threatened its critics and stolen humanitarian aid shipped in from outside.”

Another classic piece of irony for us to savour… Assassinations and extra-judicial executions are an Israeli speciality. So is thieving. They even steal British passports for their murder squads.

We never hear what happens to humanitarian aid seized in international waters by Israeli thugs who abduct passengers and crew and rob them of their possessions.  Remember how Israel kept stealing Gaza’s tax revenues? Did they ever give the money back?

Simon McIlwaine is co-director of Anglican Friends of Israel, an organization whose aims include:

  • Securing defensible borders for the State of Israel. (What borders… its ever-expanding illegal borders enclosing stolen lands or its internationally-recognised 1967 borders?)
  • Calling Anglicans to repentance for the wrongs inflicted by Christians on the Jewish people and the nation of Israel.
  • Protecting the Christian communities threatened by Islamic extremism in the Middle East (though not, it seems, against the crushing oppression of Israeli extremists).

The puzzle is why any Anglican would befriend a regime with so much blood on its hands and attack a bishop who speaks up for its wretched victims. St Augustine must be spinning in his grave.

At least Dr Morgan went to Gaza to see for himself. Did Mr McIlwaine?

What did the good Archbishop say that so rattled Mr McIlwaine’s cage? http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/structure/bishops/sermonsb/b38.html

Regarding Gaza, Dr Morgan observed: “Two-thirds of these people live in abject poverty, in refugee camps, after the confiscation of their homes and land by the Israeli Government.  The situation is worse now than when I visited in 2001…” He described how people lived in zinc shacks, without electricity or water and with open sewers running down the streets, and how Gaza City itself was like a bombsite.

“Only 32% of the industrial fuel needed in one week in August 2010 for Gaza’s power plant was allowed into Gaza.  The result was that the power plant shut down completely for two days after exhausting its reserves of fuel, triggering power cuts of 16 hours per day – affecting water supply, sewage treatment and removal, and the functioning of health services. 30% of households in Gaza have access to running water for only 4 to 8 hours per week; 40% receive water once every four days, and the other 30% obtain it once every two days.  Half of the normal level of need of cooking gas entered Gaza in August; no diesel or petrol has been delivered for weeks – hence diesel and petrol being taken through the tunnels at the risk of attack by the Israelis. Imports are limited, raw materials severely restricted, no building materials are allowed into Gaza, exports from Gaza are banned entirely.

“The blockade in Gaza has destroyed public service infrastructure and hospitals have power cuts for twelve hours a day, emergency medical treatment for residents of Gaza is denied, and 40 million litres of sewage is being discharged every day into the sea because of lack of fuel to pump or treat human waste.  Family members in Gaza have been separated from relatives living in the West Bank and elsewhere.”
All of which is confirmed by other sources.

Dr Morgan continued: “The United Nations, the Security Council and the European Union want crossings to Gaza to be permanently open to allow access for humanitarian and commercial aid and all of this was agreed between Israel and the Palestinian authorities in 2005.

He also referred to the Kairos document issued by Palestinian Church leaders a year ago and the report ‘Justice and Peace for Palestine’ discussed recently by the Methodist Church. “Both of those reports say that the key hindrance to security and a lasting peace for all in the region is the occupation of Palestinian territory by the State of Israel…”
For 43 long years. Who is foolish enough to believe there can be peace under the jackboot of occupation?

“Settlements by Israeli settlers are illegal under international law, and over one third have been built on Palestinian privately owned land.  The wall that has been built covering a distance of 702 kilometres…not only separates Israelis from Palestinians but Palestinians from family members and friends.  In rural areas, it effectively cuts them off from their olive trees and fruit and vegetable plantations.  In July 2004, the International Court of Justice declared the separation barrier illegal, and called on Israel to cease construction to dismantle constructed areas and provide reparation to those materially damaged by the construction.”
“Settlers” is too nice a word for my taste. It suggests peaceful pioneers wishing to integrate. Israeli “settlers” are anything but. They are squatters, half a million in over 100 illegal colonies – ugly blots on an otherwise lovely landscape. They include gangs of armed delinquents who terrorise local villagers, vandalise their crops, pollute their land and harass their children.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly forbids an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Next time, the Archbishop might question why the Separation Wall, if meant for security, wasn’t built within Israel’s internationally recognised borders. Its actual route bites deep into Palestinian territory and is designed to annex choice agricultural land and the Palestinians’ precious water supplies. Palestinians are now severely rationed and have to pay Israel inflated prices for a dribble of their own water while Israelis splash around in their swimming pools and wash their cars.

The Archbishop finished by saying: “Now we, as a Church, perhaps cannot do very much except that we ought to acquaint ourselves with what is going on, and fight against injustice, and demand that the rule of law be upheld wherever it is being flouted for whatever reason.  We have a duty to speak out.”
On an earlier occasion in 2009, after Israel’s blitz on Gaza, Dr Morgan was saying:

“Having visited Gaza twice over the past few years I have seen the appalling conditions in which the people there live… with no proper homes, sanitation or means of escape. Their lives are now unbearable as they come under daily fire and are too scared to even leave their homes. We have heard that it has now become too dangerous for our clinic, which was being used as a frontline hospital dealing with casualties, to continue its work.

“It is tragic that there is so much violence in an area known as the Holy Land…  It is time for the fighting to stop – enough children have died and enough homes have been destroyed and it is immoral for the world to stand by and do nothing.”
How very refreshing. Those other bishops who loaf around the House of Lords and never open their mouths when so much needs to be said and done, please note.

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

No One Was Safe

MV Mavi Marmara leaving Antalya for Gaza on May 22, 2010

Palestine Monitor, 25 September 2010

“No one was safe”, once Israeli soldiers began using live ammunition on board the Mavi Marmara, says an authoritative UN investigation team into the Israeli attacks on the Gaza aid flotilla. Their report is now going to be considered by the 57-member UN Human Rights Council next week that has the chance to finally ensure that Israel is held accountable for committing what the UNFFM found to be serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law including war crimes of wilful killing and torture.

The UNFFM found that Israeli military personnel used ‘incredible violence’ against civilians who the investigators describe as ‘persons genuinely committed to the spirit of humanitarianism’.

ENFORCEMENT IS ESSENTIAL – OTHERWISE ISRAEL WILL CONTINUE TO VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS WITH IMPUNITY

The British passengers who were on board the Gaza-bound aid flotilla have today welcomed the findings of a UN inquiry, which found a strong prima facie case of the commission of several war crimes. British passengers urge the UK government and Human Rights Council members to refer these war crimes allegations to the International Criminal Court.

The experts interviewed 112 witnesses in addition to receiving written representations by lawyers.[1] “All the passengers on board the ships comprising the flotilla who appeared before the Mission impressed the members as persons genuinely committed to the spirit of humanitarianism and imbued with a deep and genuine concern for the welfare of the inhabitants of Gaza,” the report found.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unlawful, stated the report, as is the blockade and as was the interception of the flotilla. These findings underscore the legal arguments put forward by lawyers who have been working with the passengers since 31st May and who played a critical role in supporting the work of the UNFFM, supported in part by the Human Rights Legal Aid Fund.

The Mission recommends that the perpetrators of the attacks should be brought to justice. The Mission has indicated that these breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention could give rise to individual criminal responsibility.

British passenger Laura Stuart a 51 year old housewife from London responded by saying, Let’s hope this report can have some effect that might make Israelis think that they may in future be held accountable for their actions.

Daniel Machover, partner at London law firm Hickman and Rose, advising 29 of the 33 British passengers, said: “It is essential that the British Government now stops sitting on the fence and comes out very clearly in support of the protection and enforcement of human rights, including of their own nationals, several of whom were subject to some serious human rights violations and war crimes. That means the Government must refer the war crimes cases to the ICC without delay and must demand in clear terms that the Israeli authorities return every single item of property unlawfully seized from the British passengers, failing which the Government will take diplomatic measures and provide state funding for the passengers to bring civil and criminal claims in Israel.”

Mary Nazzal-Batayneh, Chairperson of the Human Rights Legal Aid Fund said, “This is a huge first step, however, we all still have a lot of work to do to make sure that these cases are pursued in court, securing genuine sanctions for the perpetrators and civil and criminal remedies for the survivors. As we all know, Israel has ignored UN criticism in the past and will continue to do so unless we take action to hold them genuinely to account. The nature of the attacks on the flotilla, against international passengers, creates unique legal opportunities to do so.”

The passengers and the Human Rights Legal Aid Fund have launched a fundraising campaign in order to ensure that cases are launched to to make the UN’s findings enforceable in international courts.

Notes [1] The UN FFM interviewed 112 witnesses. Some of their accounts are available at http://www.humanrightsfund.org/hrlaf-new…

ANNEX –KEY FINDINGS

The 56-page report forms a comprehensive indictment of Israeli actions, which includes these findings:

The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only totally disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It constituted “grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law”

‘Systematic humiliation and violent treatment of passengers’, and the ‘shocking’ and ‘gratuitous’ use of violence.’

No evidence that the passengers fired or had firearms (para 165)

No effort was made to minimise injuries at certain stages of the operation and that the use of live fire was done in an extensive and arbitrary manner. “It is difficult not to conclude that, once the order to use live fire had been given, no one was safe,” the report states. “It seems a matter of pure chance that there were not more fatalities as a result.” (para 169)

There was a “prevailing climate of fear of violence that had a dehumanizing effect on all those detained on board.” (para 178) Two passengers received wounds compatible with being shot at close range while lying on the ground (para 118) None of the four passengers who were killed in a separate incident – including a photographer – “posed any threat to the Israeli forces,” (para 120)

Force used by the Israeli soldiers in intercepting the Challenger I, the Sfendoni and the Eleftheri Mesogios was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and amounted to violations of the right to physical integrity (para 173)

The factual circumstances provide prima facie evidence that protected persons suffered violations of international humanitarian law including wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health within the terms of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions (para 182).

Passengers were “jeered at and taunted by the people on the quay,” in a way that passengers found to be “unsettling and humiliating.” (para 185)

Passengers were “beaten or physically abused for refusing to sign or for advising others not to sign,” papers at the airport.

Passengers were subjected to a series of meticulous searches, including strip searches with a number describing the process as being “deliberately degrading and humiliating, accompanied by taunts, provocative and insulting language and physical abuse.” (para 189). The wife of one of the deceased passengers was treated with complete insensitivity to her bereavement (para 194)

“Extreme and unprovoked” violence was perpetrated by uniformed Israeli personnel upon passengers at the airport, accounts of which were “so consistent and vivid as to be beyond question.” (para 202)

Unarmed passengers were baton charged at the airport, “In the foray,” the report states, “around 30 passengers were beaten to the ground, kicked and punched in a sustained attack by soldiers.”

A doctor clearly identified as such was kicked and punched (para 207) Israeli military and police personnel at the airport exhibited behaviour much of which “was surely criminal under domestic Israeli law.” (para 209)

The wounded were handcuffed to their beds using standard metal handcuffs and that sometimes their feed was shackled when they were held in Israeli hospitals.

The Israeli authorities confiscated a large amount of video and photographic footage and that this confiscation “represents a deliberate attempt by the Israeli authorities to suppress or destroy evidence, “ (paras 240-1)

Withholding and sometimes destroying private property of passengers “represents both a violation of rights related to property ownership and to the freedom of expression,” (para 245) In prison, passengers were subjected to “sleep deprivation and denial of access to a lawyer,” (para 251)

Acts of torture were committed by Israeli officials against passengers during their period of detention in Israel (para 219)