Testimony of beaten Palestinian prisoner

Last Saturday, 2 Palestinians, Said and Khaled, were driving 6 internationals out of the village of Iraq Burin in Palestine following the weekly protest there. The 8 were stopped by Israeli army/police, detained, and Said was subjected to 2 beatings, first in the jeep outside the police station by 4 policemen, and then in the police station by a further 3.

This has rendered him unable to return to his work in construction, and thus rendered him without income, for 3 months.

This is his story

IDF murdering teenagers

Diyar is from the remote Palestinian village of Iraq Burin in the West Bank, and is a student in English Literature at Al Najah University in nearby Nablus. His village has suffered particularly harshly from the brutal Israeli military occupation, with denial of access to land and property, restrictions on movement in and out of the village, and deadly military raids.

Here he talks about life under the occupation, including the murder of his 16 yeard old cousin, Muhammad, 2 months previously by the occupying Israeli army.

IDF tear gassing peaceful protestors

At the weekly protest, as every week, the peaceful demonstrators were met by tear gas from the occupying Israeli army.

Interview with Ni’lin protest organiser

My interview with the organiser of the weekly protests in Ni’lin against the Annexation Wall

Fleeing the Israeli army in Ni’lin

“Tell them we have no solution, they shall continue to live like dogs, and those that want to leave can do so, and we will see where this leads us’

- Moshe Dayan, legendary Israeli political and military figure

I was the first one up in the flat- very unusual- and was ready and raring to go. We got a taxi that took us from Ramallah to Ni’lin, a journey of about half an hour. The journey encompassed scenery that was utterly awe-inspiring- undulating rocky hills and valleys that would not be out of place in a Hollywood car chase shot in southern California. And our driver did indeed drive like he was in a Hollywood car chase, and being pursued by the devil himself, proudly pointing to his seatbelt-less torso as we remarked on his boy-racer penchant.

The stunning scenery as taken from our taxi

We arrived in the town at around 10.30, with the demo scheduled to start after Friday prayers at 13.00. Though the place was pretty desolate, with no shops open on a Friday in this small village, every other person that saw us- man, woman or child- greeted us like long lost friends. This is because they were aware that the only reason why internationals come to their village is to participate in the resistance, in this case the Friday demo against the Separation/Annexation Wall- the concrete monstrosity that annexes their land, most of it farmland on which they depend for the subsistence- to the Israeli state and their settlers, who have constructed towns and villages for themselves in the middle of someone else’s country, and who are protected while doing this by soldiers who are, again, operating in someone else’s country. The demos have been going for about 4 years now, with 5 Palestinian deaths, and one international, from my group, Tristan Anderson, now permanently mentally handicapped having been hit in the head by a high velocity tear gas canister used as a bullet in March last year.

The Wall

 

An illegal Israeli settlement near Ni'lin

 

We sat under an olive tree in the hot sun, waiting for 1 o’clock to come. As the time approached, the men of the village arrived to pray in the olive field. Other internationals- mainly Israeli-American journalists- turned up, one of whom was well prepared, armed with a gas mask. There was even one journalist from the Huffington Post who was doing a piece on international activism in the territories. Around the ground in this field were many familiar sites- the tear gas canisters that we had seen the day before, including the high velocity ones that had proved so lethal. The tree we sat under was in fact littered with them, and flying from the tree, irony of ironies, was a Hamas flag. It was a image that spoke a lot- if you brutalise people just for existing, they will turn to extremes for solutions.

 

The leader of the demo started by offering thanks to all the internationals and journalists who had turned up, and we started our protest march. There were about 20 internationals, and around 80-90 locals. The locals were chanting slogans and waving flags, and we made our way down the hill from the olive field to the wall. We had been at the wall a matter of minutes before it began- volleys of teargas coming at us from the other side of the wall, fired of course by the Israeli Army. They give themselves the propagandistic moniker “IDF”- Israeli Defense Force- and though anyone who knows anything about the conflict and has a functioning grey cell knows that this is just marketing, this was the first time that I could see for my own eyes how false a designation this was.

Tear gas makes a sound something like a firework, and the army, stationed down the hill and behind the wall, and thus out of sight, was firing these canisters in looping arcs in the air. To the Palestinians, so used to this and much worse, it was not an issue at all- they hardly paid much attention; I on the other hand was watching these things as if they were fireballs from the heavens- listening out for the sound of them being fired, watching for their trajectory, and quickly skipping out of the way of anything that was headed for me. We had to calibrate the wind as well, since these canisters do the their damage when they land, and diffuse the gas. Luckily the wind was blowing in the good direction for us, and so getting in good positions was relatively easy. After a short while, the shebab, meaning youth- generally around 25 and under, started throwing stones- not something in short supply on the incredibly rocky and hilly terrain where we were- and also, using slingshots to attack the Israeli Goliath, hurling the empty rubber tear gas canisters back over the wall in their direction.

The episode lasted about 45 minutes, after which some of the protester dispersed, and others, mainly international but a few shebab, proceeded to the edge of the wall, at the edge of the hillface, where they could get a glimpse of their torturers- the Israeli soldiers and their jeeps. On our way over there, we chatted with the main organiser of the demo. He again thanked us for being here, and he told us about his situation. He pointed over the walls to the settlements on the hillside, and told us that that was his farmland that was stolen from him. He mentioned that he does not have any problem with Israeli people, but that they need to take steps to stop the injustice that the Jewish people know so well from being inflicted upon other people. As always, the problem is not with the Israeli people, but with the policies of their government. I made sure I captures his message on video. Later, as we were walking to the edge of the wall, he picked up something that I again recognised from the day before. It was a rubber coated steel bullet. He told us that 2 years ago, his cousin had been shot and killed by one of these while sitting in his home by Israeli soldiers. It was impossible not to be overwhelmed by firstly the dispassion with which the harshness of his life had led him to be able to talk about the cold-blooded murder of his cousin; and secondly, the extraordinary depth of spirit and vision that allowed him to talk about the Israelis in such considerate terms, regardless of the horrors that their government and army had inflicted upon his life, and those around him. I thought back to the sentiments expressed by Yonatan, Hedva and others in Israel, and hoped that they would eventually be exposed to the words of people like this man, rather than Israeli information ministries and news outlets. What a step towards and ending of the conflict just that would be. He invited the 4 of us back to Ni’lin after the demo to visit a museum where the locals who had been killed at the demo were honoured, and then back to his house for lunch, and a ride back to Ramallah.

We approached the edge of the wall, and the actions petered out. There were no more tear gas canisters being fired, and a few shebab were hurling the empty ones back at the soldiers, who you could just about make out. There were only about 5 Palestinians left, and the 15 or so internationals were still there. The 4 of us called it a day, and waited under a tree for our friend, the organiser, to finish his interview with Palestinian TV. Suddenly, we see everyone sprinting away from the wall, and our friend shouts at us to get out of there. Given the insouciance that they had all displayed when it was raining tear gas canisters, it was clear that there was serious trouble afoot, and I could guess what it was- the Israeli army had come through the wall onto our side, and were going to chase us and try to arrest whoever they could. This could involve the use of more gas, of rubber coated steel bullets, of high velocity tear gas canisters- anything, no one could be sure. So we ran, quite literally, for the hills. The terrain could not have been any less propitious for fleeing a maniacal army- it was craggy, and thus we were just leaping from rock to rock, uphill and downhill, jumping over stone walls, trying not to get stung by the cactuses and the thorny briars. After about 5 minutes there was a lull, and then one of the locals noticed the army were still in pursuit on the other side of the hill, and so we continued our flight, making leap after leap between crags and boulders that I would never normally make; drenched in sweat from sprinting in the 30 degree heat. It was lucky that I had an idea of the IDF before I came- I spent the last 2 weeks before coming doing hill sprints in preparation for this precise and exact scenario! Panting up the hill in leafy Leatherhead, forcing myself to do the last set imagining that I had the IDF at my back- I was reaping the rewards right now.

We finally got off the hill and onto the roadside, out of the reach of the army, who we could see on the hilltop in the distance, having given up the chase. The irony was that most of the people they were chasing were journalists and/or Israelis, which illustrates nicely the brainlessness of their actions. The whole day had just evinced a really mindless, but highly representative dynamic. The situation was basically like a dance, in which both sides knew their moves. The Palestinians would protest their right to be treated like humans, the Israelis would fire gas at them, the Palestinians would throw stones, or the canisters at them, the Israelis would come round the wall looking for people to arrest, and the Palestinians would run away. Any dance has symbolic value, and this one had a lot. The Palestinians want their basic human rights, such as their property and their sovereignty, and so they protest. In Israeli government eyes, not only is the notion of granting them such rights ridiculous, but the Palestinians even expressing their displeasure at this situation is something for which they need to be cracked over the head. All the ludicrous “controversy” over the flotilla incident was predicated on one notion- the IDF does not attack unless they are attacked. They are the ‘world’s most moral army’, with “purity of arms”, that “shoots and then cries”. To anyone who has spent one day in the West Bank, this is an evident nonsense. Having spent one day in the West Bank, I had seen this with my own eyes.

Comfort Capital

In the same way that relinquishing financial capital allows others to enjoy its benefits, I also feel that the same is true of comfort and privilege more generally. In relinquishing aspects of our privileged existences, in a directed manner, we can make a contribution, usually fractional, but still something, to easing the suffering of people in other parts of the world. This can be something as simple as taking a weekend afternoon to protest an illegal action your government is committing somewhere in the world; it can be efforts undertaken to organise an event to raise awareness of a conflict that is being ignored; it could be volunteering with a charity to help a class of people in need. Whatever the case, in debiting, intelligently, some of our “comfort capital”- the ease of life that has been bestowed on us, arbitrarily and unfairly, from birth- we can contribute to crediting that balance in a small way for people who have not had the birth rights that we have had.

For the overwhelming majority of the pleasures that we enjoy have not been earned. They have been bestowed by virtue of the wombs into which we have happened to be born- a completely chance occurrence. I did nothing to earn being born into the privilege I was born into, and so what right do I have to hoard this privilege? The child born into an African shanty town did not earn his lot either, so should efforts not be made to improve it? Ethically speaking, we have no rights to the majority of our lot in life- an endowment from birth- and thus to ring-fence our comforts and privileges, as if they have been earned, is surely unethical. The understanding that the child born into a warzone is me given a different roll of the dice underpins a true understanding of common humanity.

This understanding has led to a number of humanitarian movements, notably solidarity movements, which sprung up in the 1980’s. These were reactions to US government arming of right-wing death squads in Latin America, whereby US citizens, understanding that though no media outlet would care if another Guatemalan was killed, if a US citizen was killed it would be news, went out to live in the communities that their governments actions was putting under deadly threat. These movements have grown significantly and have probably gained the most renown in Palestine, where organisations such as the International Solidarity Movement, and the Palestine Solidarity Movement, have come to global awareness.

The impulse to behave ethically is one that should be felt keenly in all walks of life. The genteel and simple conditions under which we live can be deceiving as to our true potential nature. The gas chamber attendants and Gauleiters of Nazi-occupied Europe did not commit similar evil deeds before the Nazi shadow fell. But they were surely people who often struggled to discern and implement ethical values on a day-to-day basis. It was the harshening of external circumstances that magnified this internal weakness; it was not the internal constitutions of these people that changed to facilitate external developments. Thus we can draw straight lines between such people and those who, under our easy circumstances, say, mistreat their parents, or steal from their employees. If we cannot discern and implement simple moral principles under our comfortable conditions, then we are in no position to condemn the monstrosities of those who flinched under more trying ones. We are them and they are us.

The corollary of course is that the same trying circumstances also bring out the heroes from the mass of ordinary people; and that in a similar way, from those who have the capacity to behave ethically and courageously in day-to-day life are drawn the people who can represent high points in human existence. It is this type of life that we should be trying to replicate every day.

Gaza, the flotilla, and the complete inversion of reality

Introduction

On 31st May, 6 ships containing around 600 activists delivering about 10,000 tonnes of aid to the besieged Gaza strip, were boarded and hijacked, in international waters, by the Israeli military. The resulting mêlée ended in 9 activists shot dead by Israeli Special Forces, and dozens seriously injured. Since the damning Goldstone Report of 2009 in particular, Israel has been very conscious of the critical nature of its PR strategy, and this was evidenced to a drastic degree in the aftermath of the flotilla deaths. Such was the skill with which the release of images and information was manipulated, that in many parts of the world, the activists were deemed to be the ones to blame for their own deaths, and the Israeli Special Forces came to be viewed as the victims of unwarranted and illegal aggression- turning reality diametrically on its head. Given the impressive power of the Israeli propaganda machine, it becomes more and more critical to examine and analyse the facts regarding the incident.

The siege

Despite having withdrawn its 10,000-odd settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel maintains control of everything that goes in and out of the territory. This includes control over, and regular incursions into, airspace and waters. This means that although the land inside Gaza is no longer occupied in the strict sense, the territory is still under Israel’s effective sanction, and thus the occupation still continues. The situation deteriorated significantly following the 2007 “Battle of Gaza” between Fatah and Hamas. A year after Hamas’s victory in the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, their rival party Fatah, with the support and training of the Americans and the Israelis, attempted to launch a putsch to seize power in the Gaza Strip. Hamas responded, seizing government institutions, and driving Fatah out of Gaza. Following its failed attempt at regime change, Israel decided to pursue another course of action, namely what it deems “economic warfare” against Hamas. This started with a closure of Gaza’s border crossings, permitting only limited passage of goods and people. Consequently, the humanitarian and economic situation in the territory diminished rapidly. Daily truckloads of supplies that were permitted through the already Israeli controlled borders plummeted from 538 in April, to 230 in June, and then in September, following an Israeli Security Cabinet decision, inflows were reduced to what they defined as a “humanitarian minimum“, under 100 per day, and thus 15-20% of what had been necessary for normal functioning. They declared an intention to block goods beyond what is deemed “essential for the survival of the civilian population”, halting export, economic activity and production and preventing the passage of items deemed to be a “luxury” (including, at various points, items like tea, sesame, shoes, paper, and school supplies). This has led to a situation where, to quote John Holmes, the UNs leading humanitarian official, Gaza is “effectively a giant open-air prison”, where people’s lives have been reduced to misery, the economy almost completely wiped out, and the humanitarian situation, especially that regarding children, is catastrophic. Exports have essentially been stopped, and unemployment is at 40%- one of the highest rates in the world, including 60% amongst those under 30. Approximately 75% of the population is food insecure (up from 56% in early 2008), defined by OCHA as the “lack of sustainable physical or economic access to safe, nutritious and socially acceptable food to maintain a healthy and productive life”. The food strategy was nicely articulated by Dov Weisglass, the former chief advisor to Ariel Sharon: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger”. According to the BBC, documents, submitted to an Israeli Court show that estimates were made of how many calories Gazans needed to survive, but not that they should die. A list of items that are allowed in, and their corollary of those that are not- such as coriander, macaroni, jam, candy- illustrates nicely that the thinking behind the siege is not one of security, but rather one of reducing the lives of the Gazans to a slow misery.

Dov Weisglass, with Ariel Sharon

Further, 10,000 people do not have access to running water, and only 5-10% of water meets WHO safety standards. 46% of children have acute anemia; over 50 percent of Gazan children under the age of 12 have been found to have no will to live.
These factors have been exacerbated by the Israeli military incursions, the main one of which was Operation Cast Lead at the turn of 2009, which dealt untold terrors onto a territory that is struggling to survive even absent mass military destruction. Along with Operation Hot Winter (end of February 2008), and the regular raids and assassinations, 2,008 people were killed in the first 2 years of the siege. This does not account for those killed by lacking access to medical care, sanitation facilities, running water, and the basic necessities of life rendered inaccessible due to the siege. To quote Chris Hedges: “Gaza now spends 12 hours a day without power, which can be a death sentence to the severely ill in hospitals… Of the 230 Gazans estimated to have died last year because they were denied proper medical care, several spent their final hours at Israeli crossing points where they were refused entry into Israel.” Mental health is also clearly an issue, and the WHO has estimated that 20,000 to 50,000 people (up to 3% of the population, the equivalent of 9 million Americans) will continue to suffer from long-term mental health issues just as a result of Cast Lead. According to UNFPA, during the offensive there was a 31% increase in miscarriages, and a 50% increase in neonatal deaths.
The rationale for the blockade was nicely articulated by Israeli analyst Mitchell Barak, who when asked why the children of Gaza should have to suffer, stated unwittingly that it is “because their parents voted for a terrorist organization to run their affairs”. Such a statement nicely elucidates the criminality behind collective punishment of a population, and the reason why it is a war crime, outlawed explicitly in article 33 of the Geneva Conventions. It also echoes almost verbatim the rationale of Al Qaeda and other terrorists when justifying their attacks against western population centres. The mass of the population voted a certain way in an election, we don’t like the policies of the people they voted for, and thus the population is going to pay. When uttered from the mouth of a bearded Islamist we can all discern the evil, but when uttered by a treasured ally, western powers fall over themselves in their rush to endorse the exact same evil, and to see in what way they can participate.

The evolution of truckloads of supplies allowed into Gaza (source: OCHA)

The flotilla

Thus the flagrant illegality of the blockade is stated in black and white in the relevant legal provisions. The flotilla was thus not only a completely licit effort to deliver goods to a beleaguered destination, but was also an effort to halt the commission of a crime- the blockade is a crime, thus any effort to break it, is an attempt to stop criminal activity. The delivery of the cargo was only a secondary goal for the flotilla; the 10,000 tonnes of cargo is just a drop in the ocean of what the territory needs. As the organisers stated “This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians… We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of Gaza and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation.”
The Israeli cabinet, conscious as always about its international image given the grim reality of its crimes, had been discussing strategies for dealing with the flotilla in the days leading up to the 31st May. It is not yet clear to what degree orders were followed, and who they came from, but the general passage of what happened has been rendered plain by the release of videos and photographs from passengers on board the Mavi Marmara, the ship where the majority of the violence occurred. Al Jazeera correspondent Jamal Elshayyal states:

“After spotting the warships at a distance, (at roughly 11pm) the organisers called for passengers to wear their life vests and remain indoors as they monitored the situation. The naval warships together with helicopters remained at a distance for several hours.

At 2am local time the organisers informed me that they had re-routed the ship, as far away from Israel as possible, as deep into international waters as they could. They did not want a confrontation with the Israeli military, at least not by night.

Just after 4am local time, the Israeli military attacked the ship, in international waters. It was an unprovoked attack. Tear gas was used, sound grenades were launched, and rubber coated steel bullets were fired from almost every direction.

Dozens of speed boats carrying about 15-20 masked Israeli soldiers, armed to the teeth surrounded the Mavi Marmara which was carrying 600 or so unarmed civilians. Two helicopters at a time hovered above the vessel. Commandos on board the choppers joined the firing, using live ammunition, before any of the soldiers had descended onto the ship.

His report, that the Israelis commenced the attacks, is corroborated exactly by another survivor, Sarah Colborne:

“At 2am I went to sleep. At around 4.10am I woke up, went up to the deck where I could see outside and I saw boats, small dinghies but bristling with guns and Israeli military, speeding towards the ship. Helicopters then appeared. Gas and sound bombs were used and the reports from Sydney Morning Herald [a reporter from the newspaper was on Challenger, another boat in the flotilla] were that at 4.20am they reported gunshots, and the Challenger transmitted this information.

We then had the first passenger fatally injured. He was brought to the back of the open deck below. He was shot in the head. I saw him. He was obviously in a very bad way and he subsequently died. There were bullets flying all over the place when I was on the top deck and I took the decision to go downstairs.

It felt a bit surreal. I couldn’t quite believe they were doing what they were doing. There was live ammunition flying around and I could hear the sounds of the bullets flying and the whirr of the helicopter blades as people were dropped down onto the roof. What I saw was guns being used by the Israelis on unarmed civilians.“

Sarah Colborne

Objective and undisputable proof that the Israelis attacked the passengers with weapons first is confirmed by several of the videos that were smuggled out by activists, including an hour long video from filmmaker Iara Lee. These videos also show that the Israelis were carrying documents listing a select group of activists on board each of the vessels, possibly for targeting, we cannot be sure. Further, photos appeared in the Turkish press, showing Israeli soldiers actually being treated for their wounds by passengers on board the vessel. That the passengers struck the commandoes who had boarded the vessel is also undisputable; however proportionate violence in response and in protection against aggression is always permitted in any area of the law. The notion that a person is obliged to allow himself to be assaulted by someone else does not exist in any known forms of domestic or international law. A team of armed Israeli commandoes dropping onto a ships deck in the dead of night is already clear and obvious aggression; that this was done subsequent to the boats being surrounded by around 1000 military personnel and passengers on board being shot and killed, merely renders the aggression all the more obvious. The passengers were thus completely within their rights to commit violence against the commandoes who boarded their ship.

IDF soldiers being treated by "Al Qaeda mercenaries" on the Mavi Marmara

The reaction

Israel was very careful to ensure that the information that was first released was their own, consisting of footage of the passengers attacking the commandoes with poles as they dropped from the helicopters, along with comical allegations and insinuations that the activists were “Al Qaeda mercenaries”, international terrorists, and thugs spoiling for a fight. Passengers were detained so the Israelis could release their version of events before any other, and video and camera devices were confiscated from them in order to ensure that any information that could contradict the Israeli version of events was minimised or eliminated. As a result, though the condemnation of the attack was widespread, its nature was very telling. A point of comparison was provided in an article by the excellent Media Lens, illustrating that when the Iranian military boarded a ship of British soldiers in Iranian waters, “media coverage… focused on the humiliating failure of the sailors to open fire in self-defence”. A Times editorial stated: “Their kidnapping is an outrage. In earlier times it would have been an immediate casus belli [for war]. It would fully justify the use of force to obtain their release. There is, however, an even greater outrage compounding this insult to international law: the pusillanimous timidity of British officials and politicians, who have failed disgracefully to confront Iran with the ultimatum this flagrant aggression demands.” The Daily Telegraph deemed the hostage taking “an outrage”. The hysterical Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail stated: ““Some commentators have languidly observed that in another age this would have been regarded as an act of war. What on earth are they talking about? It +is+ an act of war. There can hardly be a more blatant act of aggression than the kidnapping of another country’s military personnel.” Compare this to the reaction following the murder of 9 unarmed civilians on a humanitarian vessel in international waters. The Times ran an article entitled: ““Israel has behaved appallingly, but those on board the flotilla also warrant scrutiny.” The Telegraph: ““Israel has faced criticism around the world over the raid and critics said that the assault was a public relations disaster for the country.” And the Daily Mail: “yesterday it became clear that some – perhaps only a tiny minority – of the shipmates had violent intentions.” The simple thought experiment is to switch the protagonists around. Why were the PR consequences of the Iran hostage taking not focussed on by the Telegraph? Why does Phillips not deem the kidnapping of another countries civilians to be an act of war? Why does the Times not endorse “confronting Israel with the ultimatum this flagrant aggression demands”? To even a beginner student of non-autocratic propaganda systems, no comment should be required.

Melanie Phillips- Britain's Anne Coulter

This hypocrisy was stifling on the left too. Paul Reynolds, the world affairs correspondent of the BBC, regarded by many mainstream commentators as practically a Palestinian mouthpiece, ran a piece entitled “Israeli convoy raid: What went wrong?” Clearly the murder of 9 civilians is not sufficient of a crime for it to be deemed “wrong”; what must be focussed on is the botched elements of the military strategy that resulted in the murders. “The general assessment in Israel at this stage therefore is that the troops went in ill-prepared and not in sufficient numbers. They were put into a position from which they felt they had no option but to open fire and that is not a good position for commanders to place their subordinates in. Hence so much of the criticism within Israel.” It would be interesting to consider that if Palestinians militants were to launch a raid on the soldiers that occupy their land which went awry, would the BBC focus on the aspects of their strategy that could have been improved? Highly unlikely. Thomas Friedman, the chief diplomatic correspondent at the New York Times, disparagingly refers to the “flotilla of “humanitarian” activists”, going on to say “There is no question that this flotilla was a setup”, whose concern for “Israel’s blockade is … out of balance”. The siege is complimented for the fact that it illustrates how “Israel has gotten so good at controlling the Palestinians”, though the problem is that “it could get comfortable with an arrangement that will not only erode its own moral fabric but increase its international isolation”. That the suffering of 1.5 million Gazans should not be a concern for Friedman will not surprise anyone who reads his columns. The blockade is described as being “partial”, and “surely not all Israel’s fault.”

A further interesting and telling contribution to the discourse comes from the celebrated French leftist intellectual Bernard Henri-Lévy. In his article, “It’s time to stop demonizing Israel”, he makes a number of laments. The blockade has not been imposed by Israel, but rather “by both Israel and Egypt, conjointly… with the thinly disguised blessing of all the moderate Arab regimes. Saying the blockade has been imposed by Israel alone can only be described as disinformation”. Of course, as has been seen, the decision to close the crossings was initiated by Israel, and Egypt, Israel’s key ally in the region reflexively acquiesced. To imply that the decision was undertaken conjointly would be similar to saying that in the days of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and the USSR undertook decisions “conjointly”. He goes on to complain that the “very idea of a “total and merciless” blockade ‏… “taking hostage the humanity [of Gaza]” … also constitutes disinformation. We mustn’t tire of reminding others: the blockade concerns only arms and the material needed to manufacture them”. Maybe Levy can inform his audience how one manufactures arms from jam, coriander and a no doubt potent mixture of children’s toys. They would surely  be curious to find out. He continues his hapless analysis, stating that “it is an indisputable fact that the Israelis who man the checkpoints between the territories night and day are the first to make the elementary but essential distinction between the regime (that they seek to isolate) and the population (which they are careful not to confuse with the regime, and in particular not to penalize as, once again, aid has never stopped passing into Gaza).” Once again, little comment is needed, other than to refer to the comments of the Israeli government themselves: this is “economic warfare”, only the “humanitarian minimum” is to be allowed in, with a block on goods beyond what is deemed “essential for the survival of the civilian population”. Levy goes on to lambast the activists, “strange “humanitarians” who, in the case of the Turkish IHH, are Jihad enthusiasts, anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish apocalyptical fanatics”, describing the mission as a “tactical and PR trap set by the provocateurs of Free Gaza”, whose duty was “to trap the Jewish state and relaunch, as never before, the process of demonization”. Designations of Israel as a “pirate state”, according to Levy, “can only contribute to the delegitimization of the Jewish state”. He doesn’t bother is with explaining his reasoning on that one, but goes on to proclaim that it is the democratically elected government of Gaza that is taking its population hostage, and not Israel, since it is Hamas that “coldly and unscrupulously takes advantage of people’s suffering”. Where that suffering originates from, again Levy decides against thinking through.

Bernard-Henri Levy

Levy’s comments are not those of a right-wing extremist, but rather someone firmly ensconced in the left-wing intellectual and political culture, whose views are published, widely read, and respected. His mind-baffling inability to understand even the basics of this situation are very revealing of the kind of dispositions that are needed to accede to the class of imperial administrators.

Conclusions

The more Israel adds credence to Norman Finkelstein’s designation of it as a “lunatic state” the more they alienate themselves in the court of world public opinion. And the more that this happens, the more they lose in political capital, which is the only support that they have to continue carrying out their shameful policies. The aftermath of the assault should see measures unveiled to ease the blockade, perhaps significantly in time. Yoel Marcus in Haaretz states, probably optimistically, “The flotilla raid won us the battle but lost us the war – the blockade on Gaza is now finished.” The only positive about its lurch into extremism is its rapid draining of political legitimacy that could see the wheels come off the juggernaut. This is what we as responsible citizens should be working towards if we want to see the day when both the Palestinians and Israelis can live in dignity.

The Simplest Conflict

Epithets used to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict usually consist of terms such as “intractable”, “complicated”, “a vicious circle”, and similar. Such terms have a very simple function- to obfuscate the details regarding the conflict to such an extent that the reader will be discouraged from examining the facts. This is an important function, since were any spectator to do such, he would realise that, given that the complexity of a conflict is a function of the simplicity of finding a consensual resolution to it, one would be hard pressed to find a more simple conflict than that of Israel-Palestine.

Israel is currently in its 43rd year of a brutal military occupation of Palestinian territory. This followed the 6 Day War in 1967, where they conquered the 22% of historic Palestine that had not fallen under their remit either by UN Resolution 181, or by their military conquests following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. One of the prime diplomatic coups of the Israeli founding fathers was to attain de facto and de jure recognition of their new expanded borders following the 1948 war; however in 1967, the UN Security Council was quick to issue Resolution 242, which called for withdrawal from the territories that Israel had acquired in the 6 Day War. This consisted of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem (all recognised as Palestinian territory), plus the Sinai (part of Egypt) and the Golan Heights (part of Syria). There have been quibbles made by apologists for Israeli colonialism that that the text of the Resolution calls for “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”, as opposed to “from the territories”, but such quibbles fall on fallow ground given the context provided to the document by its preamble, which refers to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. Further, this sense of the document is confirmed by annual UN General Assembly vote on the conflict, in which every year, almost every country in the world votes in support of the notion that Israel must withdraw from the Occupied Territories, and justly resolve the refugee problem that was created following the 1948 war, when around 700,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes. Such a just solution has also been outlined by UN Resolution 194, which states that ” refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return”. Meaning that if Israel wishes to preserve its current demography, racist though this may be, it can do so, but they would have to compensate the refugees in order to do so.

Some of the 700,000 Palestinian refugees of 1948

And these votes are indeed reflective of the simplicity of the conflict. Once again, the complexity of a given conflict is not a function of the variables that go into creating it, but rather the simplicity of finding a consensual resolution. As noted, pretty much the entire UN General Assembly- in political terms at least, this means the entire world- agrees on the resolution. We can look at groups within that, who, according to Western dogma, want to “drive the Jews into the sea”; for instance the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which includes Iran. They issued a statement on the situation which, as with the entire world, supports the resolution along the lines of UN 242.

“Calls again on the Quartet and the international community, including the Security Council, to deploy immediate efforts to compel Israel to implement international legitimacy resolutions on the cause of Palestine, to respect the agreements signed with the Palestinian side, and implement fully the road map with a view to ending the occupation of Palestinian territories that was occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, and thus realizing the two-states solution, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions and the terms of reference and principles of the Middle East peace process.”

How about the Arab states? They, including the Palestinians, have accepted UN 242 since January 1976, when they sent a resolution to the Security Council, recognising the right of Israel “to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries”, in return for territorial compliance with UN 242. This has been reiterated on countless occasions since, notably in 2002 during the Beirut Summit of the Arab League. Here they again, reiterated their position that UN 242 was the solution to the conflict that they endorsed:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon;
(b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
(c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region;
(b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace

Members of the Arab League, who have long supported the internationally recognised resolution to the conflict

The non-state actors likewise follow suit. Hezbollah in Lebanon have stated on numerous occasions that their position is that of support for the Palestinian people- they will support the position that they choose. And the position of the Palestinians is clear and magnanimous- they also support 242. Hamas, recognised as a terrorist organisation by many of the major western powers, also support the peaceful settlement to the conflict. They have said that they would be willing to implement a 50 year hudna in return for Israeli compliance with 242. Much is often made of their charter which calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, but one has to be careful here. The PLO had a similar charter up to the mid 90’s; upon the creation of the Oslo Accords, namely the commencement of the peace process, this statement was banished from their charter. The lesson is as simple as it is universal- stop giving people a reason to hate you, and they will stop hating you.

Khaled Meshaal, leader of Hamas, whose leaders have declared willingness for a 50 year hudna in return for Israel's accepting UN 242

So we do indeed stumble upon our complexity. All the states and entities that we have been led to believe are the obstructionists of a peaceful settlement are indeed accepting of it, and have been so for years, or decades even. So why no peaceful settlement? Well, returning to the UN General Assembly votes, we see that there are 2 states who every year have voted against the universally recognised peaceful settlement to the conflict. These states are Israel and the US. These are the only 2 entities in the world, along with possibly some fringe Islamic terrorist organisations, Jewish religious extremists, Christian Zionists awaiting the Rapture, and maybe Al Qaeda, who oppose the internationally recognised settlement (hallowed and appropriate company indeed). Over and above just voting against it every year at the UN General Assembly, they have worked tirelessly over the years to realise facts on the ground that render it increasingly difficult for a peaceful settlement based on UN 242 to be realised. The creation of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, along with their corollaries, such as arteries of Jewish only roads and facilities, renders the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state- general contiguity being a sinequanon for any state- very slim. The devastating, Nazi-style policies of ethnically based dehumanisation and torture being inflicted upon Gaza, in addition to the terrible human suffering it has entailed- unbelievably, 50% of Gazan children have lost the will to live – will also, potentially, render the territory uninhabitable in the near future. These elements are being facilitated by American arms, capital, and Israeli policy, and are the elements that are not only rejectionist of the peace plan, but also potentially vitiate any hope of the peace plan every being realised.

Further to this, worryingly extremist tendencies in Israeli policy lead one to question how Israel, this runaway juggernaut of inhuman barbarity, can actually be stopped. In accordance with Israeli public opinion, a new military order just came into force, which paves the way for mass deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank. Arab identification tags, steam locomotives to cart them away, and barbed wire camps in which to intern them are leitmotifs that the Israeli authorities may wish to consider if they are interested in further continuing the brazenly obvious, seemingly intentional historical parallel. And as we see history repeating itself with such clarity, the reader must surely ask himself, in his position as a journalist, academic, activist or just citizen, what side of this version of a familiar history he wants to be on.

This conflict will be resolved in a just manner only via public pressure. Currently, the extremist nature of the Netanyahu government, and the massacre in Gaza at the turn of 2009 with the concomitant Goldstone Report, are chinks in the armour of the juggernaut that are getting wider and wider. People are now understanding the full barbarity of the regime; they are yet to be apprised to the same extent of the simplicity of the solution to the conflict, and the assent that it has had for so long from the Palestinian side, the Arab side, and the rest of the world. The conflict is only complicated in the sense that the side holding the cards does not want peace; this will only change with popular pressure, and understanding the ease with which peace can be attained is the key final educative step in order to effectively apply such pressure.

Goldstone testimony

This is hard to watch, but this is testimony presented to the Goldstone Commission by a Palestinian regarding conduct of Israeli soldiers towards his unarmed, white flag-waving family.

He recounts how the army calculatingly gunned down his small children and mother in front of him and his wife.

More can be found at http://goldstonefacts.org/

Part 2:

Israel and Haiti

Following the devastating earthquake in Haiti, which may have wiped out up to 3% of the population, one of the most publicised national aid and rescue efforts was provided by Israel. The day following the quake, a delegation including Ministry of Foreign Affairs, IDF Home Front Command and IDF Medical Corp Personnel left immediately to see how they could assist, and between then and the 27th January, the 218 IDF soldiers and officers, and 18 civilians treated more than 1,110 patients, conducted 319 successful surgeries, and delivered 16 births. The IDF Search and Rescue force also rescued or assisted in the rescue of 4 individuals.

During that same time period, the same army shot 11 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children, overwhelming during peaceful demonstrations; conducted 41 military raids into Palestinian communities, arrested 63 Palestinian civilians, including 5 children, as well as continuing the annexation of Palestinian land and destruction of homes in the West Bank, and the suffocation of Gaza.

“The Goldstone threat”

The goal behind the rapid and enthusiastic Israeli response is clearly therefore not a concern for human life, but rather the logical alternative, namely a conscious and well-planned PR operation. This much was indeed admitted by the IDF Home Front Command Chief, Major General Yair Golan, who stated that “we had three missions: Saving lives, providing medical services, and representing the State of Israel honorably”. Given that the latter element overarches the first two, it follows that the prime motivation behind Israel’s activities in Haiti was to clean up the nation’s tarnished image on the world stage. This is a need that is seen as being so urgent following the Goldstone Report into the Gaza massacre (note, not the massacre itself), as to be almost existential. Benyamin Netanyahu, addressing the Knesset in December, stated that there is a triple threat facing the state: “the Iranian [nuclear] threat, the missile threat and a threat I call the Goldstone threat”. The nature of the “Goldstone threat” is clearly one solely of image, and so Israel needs to do what it can to ensure that this threat, namely that of negative perception in the West, is neutered. Israel’s leaders largely felt that the mission to Haiti had been a major step towards achieving this. As Netanyahu stated gleefully to the returning soldiers, “You have raised human spirits and elevated the name of the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces. As many plot against us, distort and muddy our names, you have shown the real IDF.” IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said that “Many have tried recently to tarnish our image. With your deeds, you have proven that the opposite is true.” Ashkenazi was taking a break from his own efforts to prevent such “tarnishing”, namely by stymieing any attempts at the remote possibility of a moderately serious internal probe into Israeli conduct during Operation Cast Lead; it is thus only natural that he should praise the soldiers for sharing some of his burden.

Chief of Staff for the IDF, Gabi Ashkenazi

Closer inspection of the Israeli relief effort tells the same story. Professor Yoel Donchin, director of the Patient Safety Unit at the Hadassah Medical Centre in Jerusalem, and veteran of Israeli relief efforts, states that Israel’s priorities were not non-showy staples such as chemical toilets and water purification systems- “If we went down that track we would miss out on seeing that child who was born with the assistance of our physicians”- but rather a 2 week field hospital that Donchin states will have little significant effect, since “(t)o be truly effective a field hospital needs to remain for two or three months, but that’s a condition that Israel cannot meet…It is much more media savvy to show an Israeli hospital, replete with stars of David and of course the dedicated doctors and nurses, dressed in their snazzy uniforms with an Israeli flag on the lapel…It is only in the Israeli aid compound in Haiti that large signs carrying the donor country’s name hang for all to see.”

An IDF soldier in Haiti

From a more general perspective, despite Netanyahu’s statement that the mission was “in accordance with the best Jewish tradition of aiding one’s fellow men”, the most telling proof of such a contention, namely donations to third world countries, tells precisely the opposite story. Israel donates only 0.042% of its GDP in aid to developing countries, which is 1/5 the average amount donated by countries of the OECD, the organization which Israel is seeking to join. Hence Israeli arguments about deep concern for human life, already impossible to take seriously during the regular Palestinian assaults, apparently extend to the rest of the developing world as well- ironic, given the degree to which Israel is itself dependent on aid from a paternal benefactor, namely the US.

US aid to Israel

Helping Haitians in order to better torture Palestinians

Of course giving tuppence with the left hand to conceal daylight robbery with the right is an art at which Israel has become expert. In fact the biggest example of such is the entire peace process itself. Certainly since the Taba talks in 2001, it is just inconceivable that even the most sincere sounding blandishments at peace from Israel have been anything but a smokescreen to continue advancing what apologists for Israeli crimes call “the realities on the ground” further and further away from any situation that would allow for any sort of a peace to be established. That this is the case can be easily demonstrated. The only realistic peaceful solution is the 2 state settlement. The greater the annexation of land in the West Bank, the less viable the second state (the Palestinian state) becomes. This is because the aforementioned “realities on the ground”- large Jewish settlements like Ma’ale Adumim, the Separation Wall, Israeli transport networks etc- turn the West Bank into a series of small, cramped bantustans, thus removing the potential for contiguity; a prerequisite for any state. Since Taba, settlement activity, destruction of Palestinian homes, and seizure of Palestinian land, have continued unabated; thus Israeli actions to vitiate any potential peace agreement have carried on at the same time as their continual statements of their desire for peace. They are stating they want peace with words, while vitiating any potential peace with their actions. Given that actions count for more than words, it follows that Israeli comments as to their desire for a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians are merely a public relations veneer for actions which remove the potential for peace in the most drastic way possible.

A further tactic that assists this goal is to attach impossible prerequisites to any peace agreement. The most commonly heard one, is requests that for any peace negotiations to occur, Palestinians must, among other conditions, recognize Israel and renounce violence. Given that Israel does neither of the two, it is obviously impossible to expect that Palestinians would ever agree to do the same. Yet making such statements allows Israel to plead to the world that it is making strong efforts for peace but is being held back by the intractable Palestinians. Anyone who takes the time simply to look and think can see that such demands illustrate that Israel does agree to road maps, on the sole proviso that they start at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Personal responsabilities

Though Israel is guilty in its stunning malevolence of helping Haitians in order that it might better torture Palestinians, there is a grave hypocrisy that casts a blight over what has otherwise been a heart-warming global effort to assist the suffering Haitians. A brief look at the history of Haiti shows that the reason why 200,000 people should have died in a 7.0 earthquake is that the country has been crucified by twin torturers the US and France, ever since being the first country in the world to stage a successful slave-led anti-colonialist revolt in 1804. Due to their impudence at daring to feel that they should not be in bondage to their Caucasian overlords, they were forced, with significant pressure imposed by the US, to pay reparations to the French for the next 70 years, bankrupting the country. Further, there was an embargo placed on the island by France, and the US, who wanted to counter the threat of the good example- the real ‘domino effect’, which is a doctrine that exists to this day as a justification behind some of the US’s most egregious crimes- in order to discourage any idea of slave revolution in the US. The torture continued further with Woodrow Wilson’s invasion in 1915, and then 19-year occupation, in order to secure American corporate interests, and then with Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, father and son US-backed military dictators, whose economic and brutally oppressive policies further ravaged the country during their reign between 1957 and 1986. Clinton’s neo-liberalism caused further economic destruction in the 1990’s, and then George W. Bush’s support for the coup against the democratically elected president, and one ray of hope, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, nailed the coffin lid shut. Such that when the earthquake hit, so ramshackle was the country and its infrastructure that it collapsed like a house of cards, killing everyone underneath. So though CNN may entitle its coverage “Saving Haiti”, the efforts that would need to be taken in reality to save Haiti- i.e. a liberation from US imperialist and neo-liberal domination- is an effort that CNN, as well as the rest of the mainstream media, would far more likely prevent than contribute to.

Destruction in Haiti

The critical point is that though financial aid may help restore a fractional part of what has been destroyed, financial participation in the policies that lay the groundwork for such destruction is by far the more significant element. And this is what is occurring right now in Gaza. Were there to be an earthquake tomorrow in Israel- and it is predicted that Israel is due for one- Gaza, with its rickety housing and tinpot infrastructure, would most likely suffer a similar torment to the one that Haiti is currently suffering. This torment is one for which our governments- and thus we- are currently sowing the seeds with the support for the utter asphyxiation in every way of a territory of 1.5 million people. It is worth wondering whether the people in the US and the UK, among those who contributed around $300m for Haiti following the celebrity fundraiser, thought about the fact that while they are contributing to the Haitian aid effort out of a desire to help lift people out of suffering, their tax dollars and pounds are being spent by their governments to create the exact same groundwork necessary for an identical destruction to occur elsewhere. Humans are compassionate creatures, and it is hard to imagine that were people fully apprised of this, that they would stand for such abuses of power by their elected officials. It is in this way, that by a cruel twist of circumstance, the people of the West are participating inadvertently in the same aforementioned dynamic as Israel, namely that of giving tuppence with the left hand, while taking massively with the right. With a greater clarity into the PR devices employed by Israel, people will have a greater capacity to take actions that sit comfortably with their conscience, and the injustices of the past that lead to the catastrophes of the present will be more likely avoided.

Destruction in Gaza