10 dec 2013
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) calls on the EU to reflect on its poor record to end impunity for serious human rights and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)violations by Israel against Palestinians living in the OPT.
This Forum takes place at a time when the international community commemorates the first anniversary of Israel’s Military operation “Pillar of Defense” (November 2012), and the fifth anniversary of “Operation Cast Lead”,[PDF] (December 2008-January 2009) – which have killed 1,079 and injured thousands more . As of the end of 2013, Israel has failed to properly investigate the conduct of its forces in Gaza, including war crimes, and to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable.
The culture of impunity goes well beyond Gaza and extends to Israeli military forces’ violent behavior against Palestinians living in the West bank; to Israeli civilians attacking Palestinians and their property and to Israel’s secret services torturing Palestinian prisoners as well. Several UN bodies have documented legislative, structural and operational flaws in the Israeli Military investigation system, as it has been confirmed by the UN Committee of Independent Expertson 18 March 2011. In February 2013, an Israeli appointed Commission outlined 18 recommendations to ensure Israeli investigations are in line with International law.
Meanwhile, Palestinian victims continue to be denied access to Israeli courts and effective remedy because of Israel’s imposition of legal, administrative, monetary and physical barriers.
Despite its commitments to promote respect for IHL and the Rule of Law, the EU has failed to effectively address these concerns, both in its bilateral relations with Israel and in the context of the UN. The EMHRN deplores that the EU has instead strengthened its relations with Israel and supported the country’s representations in foreign forums around the world –thereby forsaking to condition them on Israel’s respect for international law.
The EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights is an annual conference where EU institutions and Member States interact with civil society and discuss how to promote and protect human rights. Under this year’s overarching theme of the “Fight against Impunity”, the EU is expected to come up with strategies to break the cycle of impunity for gross human rights violations with a specific focus on access to justice and reparation to victims.
The EMHRN therefore calls on the EU to:
Israel’s Impunity in Facts and Figures
In relation to Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense
Only 3 indictments have been filed against Israeli soldiers in relation to Operation Cast Lead.Two soldiers were convicted to a 2 month imprisonment sentence for using a nine-year-old boy as a human shield. The third soldier, who was prosecuted for stealing a credit card, was paradoxically convicted to a sterner seven-and-a-half months of prison.
Of the 25 complaints submitted by The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights to the Military Advocate General 6 criminal investigations were opened none of which lead to indictment or compensation. This despite the gravity of the offences (including the use of civilians as human shields) and the fact that the testimonies of Israeli soldiers matched those provided by the victims.
In relation to Pillar of Defense, no indictments have been filed, No indictments have been handed down as a result of the 246 civil complaints submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and the 79 complaints to the Israeli Military Advocate General by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR). Of the 17 complaints submitted to the Military Advocate General by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, 3 were dismissed on the basis that the soldiers acted within the rules of the law of war and 3 investigations were opened without further updates provided over the past 6 months. The remaining 11 cases received no responseraising serious questions regarding promptness.
On 16 July 2012, the Israeli Knesset approved Amendment No. 8 to the Israeli Civil Wrongs Law (Liability of the State),which exempts the State of Israel of any liability arising from the damages caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a ‘combat action’ or ‘military operation’. As this Amendment applies to the Gaza Strip retroactively from 2005 onwards, Israel has effectively exempted itself of any liability for the victims of Operation Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense.
Total impunity for torture of Palestinian detainees
According to the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel of the over 750 complaints of torture filed against Israel’s Security Agency (ISA) interrogators over the last decade, none have been criminally investigated by the Attorney General,.
Impunity regarding Israeli soldiers violations in the West Bank
According to the Israeli NGO Yesh Din, 3.638 complaints have been filed for criminal investigations of Israeli Defence Forces personnel between 2000 and 2012. These have resulted in only 117 indictments (3.2%).
Settler violence
According to figures compiled by Yesh Din,91% of investigations into crimes committed by Israeli settlers are closed without indictment. 84% of those closed without indictment are closed due to investigation failures.
This Forum takes place at a time when the international community commemorates the first anniversary of Israel’s Military operation “Pillar of Defense” (November 2012), and the fifth anniversary of “Operation Cast Lead”,[PDF] (December 2008-January 2009) – which have killed 1,079 and injured thousands more . As of the end of 2013, Israel has failed to properly investigate the conduct of its forces in Gaza, including war crimes, and to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable.
The culture of impunity goes well beyond Gaza and extends to Israeli military forces’ violent behavior against Palestinians living in the West bank; to Israeli civilians attacking Palestinians and their property and to Israel’s secret services torturing Palestinian prisoners as well. Several UN bodies have documented legislative, structural and operational flaws in the Israeli Military investigation system, as it has been confirmed by the UN Committee of Independent Expertson 18 March 2011. In February 2013, an Israeli appointed Commission outlined 18 recommendations to ensure Israeli investigations are in line with International law.
Meanwhile, Palestinian victims continue to be denied access to Israeli courts and effective remedy because of Israel’s imposition of legal, administrative, monetary and physical barriers.
Despite its commitments to promote respect for IHL and the Rule of Law, the EU has failed to effectively address these concerns, both in its bilateral relations with Israel and in the context of the UN. The EMHRN deplores that the EU has instead strengthened its relations with Israel and supported the country’s representations in foreign forums around the world –thereby forsaking to condition them on Israel’s respect for international law.
The EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights is an annual conference where EU institutions and Member States interact with civil society and discuss how to promote and protect human rights. Under this year’s overarching theme of the “Fight against Impunity”, the EU is expected to come up with strategies to break the cycle of impunity for gross human rights violations with a specific focus on access to justice and reparation to victims.
The EMHRN therefore calls on the EU to:
- Urge Israel to ensure accountability for violations for IHL and IHRL by its army in the OPT, by conducting investigations into alleged violations in line with international standards, prosecuting and sentencing those responsible;
- Urge the Israeli government to fully implement the recommendations of the Turkel Commission and, in this regard, to immediately provide a clear time-table of implementation;
- Ensure that Palestinian victims have adequate access to Israeli courts and effective remedy;
- Condition its relations with Israel on respect for IHL and IHRL.
- Israel’s Impunity in Facts and Figures
Israel’s Impunity in Facts and Figures
In relation to Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense
Only 3 indictments have been filed against Israeli soldiers in relation to Operation Cast Lead.Two soldiers were convicted to a 2 month imprisonment sentence for using a nine-year-old boy as a human shield. The third soldier, who was prosecuted for stealing a credit card, was paradoxically convicted to a sterner seven-and-a-half months of prison.
Of the 25 complaints submitted by The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights to the Military Advocate General 6 criminal investigations were opened none of which lead to indictment or compensation. This despite the gravity of the offences (including the use of civilians as human shields) and the fact that the testimonies of Israeli soldiers matched those provided by the victims.
In relation to Pillar of Defense, no indictments have been filed, No indictments have been handed down as a result of the 246 civil complaints submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and the 79 complaints to the Israeli Military Advocate General by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR). Of the 17 complaints submitted to the Military Advocate General by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, 3 were dismissed on the basis that the soldiers acted within the rules of the law of war and 3 investigations were opened without further updates provided over the past 6 months. The remaining 11 cases received no responseraising serious questions regarding promptness.
On 16 July 2012, the Israeli Knesset approved Amendment No. 8 to the Israeli Civil Wrongs Law (Liability of the State),which exempts the State of Israel of any liability arising from the damages caused to a resident of an enemy territory during a ‘combat action’ or ‘military operation’. As this Amendment applies to the Gaza Strip retroactively from 2005 onwards, Israel has effectively exempted itself of any liability for the victims of Operation Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense.
Total impunity for torture of Palestinian detainees
According to the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel of the over 750 complaints of torture filed against Israel’s Security Agency (ISA) interrogators over the last decade, none have been criminally investigated by the Attorney General,.
Impunity regarding Israeli soldiers violations in the West Bank
According to the Israeli NGO Yesh Din, 3.638 complaints have been filed for criminal investigations of Israeli Defence Forces personnel between 2000 and 2012. These have resulted in only 117 indictments (3.2%).
Settler violence
According to figures compiled by Yesh Din,91% of investigations into crimes committed by Israeli settlers are closed without indictment. 84% of those closed without indictment are closed due to investigation failures.
6 dec 2013
By Bill Van Esveld
Bill Van Esveld is a senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch.
For almost a year, since obtaining upgraded status at the UN, the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has had a chance to open the door to justice for serious international crimes committed on Palestinian territory.
They could seize this chance to deter future abuses tomorrow by giving the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction.
Palestine first lodged a declaration seeking ICC jurisdiction in late January 2009, after the devastating 22-day Gaza conflict that started the month before. In April 2012 the then-ICC prosecutor stopped considering Palestine's declaration, stating that he couldn't decide whether Palestine was a "state," a necessary condition for jurisdiction.
But in November 2012, the UN General Assembly resolved the matter by voting to admit Palestine as a "non-member observer state." Soon after the UN upgrade, the current prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said that the "ball is now in the court of Palestine" to seek the court's jurisdiction.
Palestinian rights groups urged her to act on the 2009 declaration, but on Nov. 25, 2013, her office published a report that closed that door.
The prosecutor has placed the onus on Palestinian leaders to actively pursue the court's jurisdiction anew, by either formally becoming a member of the ICC or filing a new declaration recognizing the court's jurisdiction. Palestine could seek jurisdiction starting from any date since 2002 when the court opened its doors.
Why isn't Palestine playing ball in The Hague? Those responsible for rocket launches from Gaza targeting Israeli population centers could be held criminally responsible at the ICC, but that should not deter the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah from seeking the court’s jurisdiction, since it has stated that it is against such attacks.
The main reason, current and former Palestinian officials say, is that Israel has threatened unspecified retaliation if it seeks the court’s jurisdiction, and the US has reinforced the threat. As a former Palestinian legal adviser told me, "The US said to us clearly, conveying Israel’s position, 'Don't touch it.'" US Secretary of State John Kerry said during his Senate confirmation hearings that the US was "very, very strongly against" any "effort to take Israel for instance … to the ICC."
Other countries that, as ICC members, should be pushing for universal ratification of the court's statute – including the UK, France, and most recently recently Canada – have instead also pressured Palestine not to seek justice through the ICC.
The Israeli and US threats cannot be taken lightly, given Israel's control over Palestinians' lives – at checkpoints, border crossings, and during arrest raids in their homes – and the Palestinian economy’s heavy reliance on foreign donations, including from the US.
But the consequences should be weighed against the alternative – impunity for crimes fueling further abuses. The ICC's jurisdiction would cover serious crimes under international law on Palestinian territory by all parties, such as widespread torture, or indiscriminate attacks on civilians whether committed by Palestinian armed groups or the Israeli military.
Notably, the ICC's statute categorizes the "direct or indirect" transfer of civilians by an occupying power into occupied territory – like the Israeli government’s transfer of Jewish citizens into the settlements – as a war crime. Another war crime under the statute is the "forcible transfer" of protected people in an occupied territory off their lands, such as by demolishing their homes and preventing them from returning.
Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel came to power in 2009, construction has begun on 8,575 settlement homes. Israeli demolitions during the same period left more than 4,000 Palestinians homeless. Both trends are accelerating. There were 1,708 settlement housing starts in the first half of 2013, up by 70 percent over the same period in 2012, and demolitions have left 933 Palestinians homeless so far this year, up from 886 in all of 2012.
Palestinian leaders have said they would seek ICC jurisdiction at the present time if – and apparently only if – Israel builds settlements in the so-called E1 area just east of Jerusalem, which many analysts say would effectively cut the West Bank in half.
But settlement-building is not only relevant to a future two-state solution: it takes a terrible, daily toll on people's lives. Israel has granted settlements jurisdiction over 39 percent of the entire West Bank, making those areas off-limits to Palestinians who own land there or traditionally had access for farming and raising livestock. Meanwhile, as an Israeli rights group recently reported, the area used for settlement agriculture has increased by 35 percent since 1997, to 9,300 hectares. Some Palestinian farmers have no recourse but to lease land from settlers, who got it from Israel for free.
Israel, the US, and other countries have justified their calls for Palestine not to use its new UN status to pursue ICC jurisdiction by claiming it would undermine peace negotiations. But during 20 years of on-and-off negotiations, impunity for rights abuses and laws-of-war violations has fueled animosity and made negotiators' jobs more difficult. The absence of credible accountability mechanisms has hardly proven an advantage in bringing the conflict to an end.
Potential ICC involvement could change the political calculus of those responsible for such violations by sending a clear message that the commission of grave crimes will lead to serious consequences.
Palestinian leaders are under pressure, but they have not publicly pushed back and made the case that seeking the ICC's jurisdiction would serve justice and perhaps assist peace talks. They have not explained why they feel unable even to actively seek the ICC's jurisdiction.
If the ICC has jurisdiction, the prosecutor can open an investigation of her own accord, but that seems highly unlikely. If Palestine became a member of the court, it's far more probable that it would need to take a second step and ask the prosecutor to investigate. But taking the first step of seeking jurisdiction could still ratchet up pressure against impunity for serious crimes.
It's time for the Palestinian leadership to inform its public about how it is keeping the accountability ball in play.
Bill Van Esveld is a senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch.
For almost a year, since obtaining upgraded status at the UN, the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah has had a chance to open the door to justice for serious international crimes committed on Palestinian territory.
They could seize this chance to deter future abuses tomorrow by giving the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction.
Palestine first lodged a declaration seeking ICC jurisdiction in late January 2009, after the devastating 22-day Gaza conflict that started the month before. In April 2012 the then-ICC prosecutor stopped considering Palestine's declaration, stating that he couldn't decide whether Palestine was a "state," a necessary condition for jurisdiction.
But in November 2012, the UN General Assembly resolved the matter by voting to admit Palestine as a "non-member observer state." Soon after the UN upgrade, the current prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said that the "ball is now in the court of Palestine" to seek the court's jurisdiction.
Palestinian rights groups urged her to act on the 2009 declaration, but on Nov. 25, 2013, her office published a report that closed that door.
The prosecutor has placed the onus on Palestinian leaders to actively pursue the court's jurisdiction anew, by either formally becoming a member of the ICC or filing a new declaration recognizing the court's jurisdiction. Palestine could seek jurisdiction starting from any date since 2002 when the court opened its doors.
Why isn't Palestine playing ball in The Hague? Those responsible for rocket launches from Gaza targeting Israeli population centers could be held criminally responsible at the ICC, but that should not deter the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah from seeking the court’s jurisdiction, since it has stated that it is against such attacks.
The main reason, current and former Palestinian officials say, is that Israel has threatened unspecified retaliation if it seeks the court’s jurisdiction, and the US has reinforced the threat. As a former Palestinian legal adviser told me, "The US said to us clearly, conveying Israel’s position, 'Don't touch it.'" US Secretary of State John Kerry said during his Senate confirmation hearings that the US was "very, very strongly against" any "effort to take Israel for instance … to the ICC."
Other countries that, as ICC members, should be pushing for universal ratification of the court's statute – including the UK, France, and most recently recently Canada – have instead also pressured Palestine not to seek justice through the ICC.
The Israeli and US threats cannot be taken lightly, given Israel's control over Palestinians' lives – at checkpoints, border crossings, and during arrest raids in their homes – and the Palestinian economy’s heavy reliance on foreign donations, including from the US.
But the consequences should be weighed against the alternative – impunity for crimes fueling further abuses. The ICC's jurisdiction would cover serious crimes under international law on Palestinian territory by all parties, such as widespread torture, or indiscriminate attacks on civilians whether committed by Palestinian armed groups or the Israeli military.
Notably, the ICC's statute categorizes the "direct or indirect" transfer of civilians by an occupying power into occupied territory – like the Israeli government’s transfer of Jewish citizens into the settlements – as a war crime. Another war crime under the statute is the "forcible transfer" of protected people in an occupied territory off their lands, such as by demolishing their homes and preventing them from returning.
Since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel came to power in 2009, construction has begun on 8,575 settlement homes. Israeli demolitions during the same period left more than 4,000 Palestinians homeless. Both trends are accelerating. There were 1,708 settlement housing starts in the first half of 2013, up by 70 percent over the same period in 2012, and demolitions have left 933 Palestinians homeless so far this year, up from 886 in all of 2012.
Palestinian leaders have said they would seek ICC jurisdiction at the present time if – and apparently only if – Israel builds settlements in the so-called E1 area just east of Jerusalem, which many analysts say would effectively cut the West Bank in half.
But settlement-building is not only relevant to a future two-state solution: it takes a terrible, daily toll on people's lives. Israel has granted settlements jurisdiction over 39 percent of the entire West Bank, making those areas off-limits to Palestinians who own land there or traditionally had access for farming and raising livestock. Meanwhile, as an Israeli rights group recently reported, the area used for settlement agriculture has increased by 35 percent since 1997, to 9,300 hectares. Some Palestinian farmers have no recourse but to lease land from settlers, who got it from Israel for free.
Israel, the US, and other countries have justified their calls for Palestine not to use its new UN status to pursue ICC jurisdiction by claiming it would undermine peace negotiations. But during 20 years of on-and-off negotiations, impunity for rights abuses and laws-of-war violations has fueled animosity and made negotiators' jobs more difficult. The absence of credible accountability mechanisms has hardly proven an advantage in bringing the conflict to an end.
Potential ICC involvement could change the political calculus of those responsible for such violations by sending a clear message that the commission of grave crimes will lead to serious consequences.
Palestinian leaders are under pressure, but they have not publicly pushed back and made the case that seeking the ICC's jurisdiction would serve justice and perhaps assist peace talks. They have not explained why they feel unable even to actively seek the ICC's jurisdiction.
If the ICC has jurisdiction, the prosecutor can open an investigation of her own accord, but that seems highly unlikely. If Palestine became a member of the court, it's far more probable that it would need to take a second step and ask the prosecutor to investigate. But taking the first step of seeking jurisdiction could still ratchet up pressure against impunity for serious crimes.
It's time for the Palestinian leadership to inform its public about how it is keeping the accountability ball in play.
21 nov 2013
The Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) has said that the ongoing peace talks hinder the prosecution of Israel for its crimes, especially through the International Criminal Court for the assassination of Yasser Arafat. Hassan Khreisheh told Al Ghad news that the Palestinian leadership is committed to the negotiations until the end of their preset timeline, but after that the PA will be free to approach the United Nations and join organisations such as the ICC.
"The Palestinian Authority is the only official body to demand the formation of an international commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Arafat and to prosecute those involved," he pointed out. The PA's demand was put to US Secretary of State John Kerry during his recent visit to the occupied territories.
"However," added Khreisheh, "the Palestinian leadership is not serious about an international investigation into Arafat's death because then it would have to stop the negotiations with Israel and go to the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli leaders as war criminals."
According to the PLC official, the Palestinian commitment to freeze requests for UN assistance during the negotiations will override the "seasonal" interest in Arafat's death and will relieve Israel from any pressure to hold its leaders accountable for assassinating the late president. "The Palestinian people do not need to wait for the investigation results to reveal the identity of those involved in Arafat's assassination," he said. "They understand fully that Israel was responsible."
Arab states, regional and international parties as well as Palestinian parties have been unwilling to uncover the facts since the first day, alleged Khreisheh. "France has not yet submitted its report, making it complicit in hiding the fact as well." French President Francois Hollande's visit to Palestine, which coincided with the anniversary of Arafat's death, was made in order to reassure the Israelis that France will not provide any reports or information to the Palestinians as recent rumours suggested, the Deputy Speaker claimed. Arafat died in a French military hospital on November 11, 2004.
Furthermore, he suggested that earlier demands for an international inquiry were ignored and the Palestinian investigation was not thorough. "Arab doctors from Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan who treated the late president before his death evaded questions from the parliamentary commission of inquiry and refused to sit with its members." Despite the best efforts of the current internal investigation team, led by General Tawfiq Tirawi of the Fatah Central Committee, the leadership must push for an international inquiry, he insisted.
Swiss experts confirmed earlier this month that post-mortem medical tests on samples taken from Arafat's body and clothes "support and are consistent with the hypothesis" that he was poisoned with polonium. They did not, however, assert that polonium actually caused his death.
"The Palestinian Authority is the only official body to demand the formation of an international commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Arafat and to prosecute those involved," he pointed out. The PA's demand was put to US Secretary of State John Kerry during his recent visit to the occupied territories.
"However," added Khreisheh, "the Palestinian leadership is not serious about an international investigation into Arafat's death because then it would have to stop the negotiations with Israel and go to the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israeli leaders as war criminals."
According to the PLC official, the Palestinian commitment to freeze requests for UN assistance during the negotiations will override the "seasonal" interest in Arafat's death and will relieve Israel from any pressure to hold its leaders accountable for assassinating the late president. "The Palestinian people do not need to wait for the investigation results to reveal the identity of those involved in Arafat's assassination," he said. "They understand fully that Israel was responsible."
Arab states, regional and international parties as well as Palestinian parties have been unwilling to uncover the facts since the first day, alleged Khreisheh. "France has not yet submitted its report, making it complicit in hiding the fact as well." French President Francois Hollande's visit to Palestine, which coincided with the anniversary of Arafat's death, was made in order to reassure the Israelis that France will not provide any reports or information to the Palestinians as recent rumours suggested, the Deputy Speaker claimed. Arafat died in a French military hospital on November 11, 2004.
Furthermore, he suggested that earlier demands for an international inquiry were ignored and the Palestinian investigation was not thorough. "Arab doctors from Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan who treated the late president before his death evaded questions from the parliamentary commission of inquiry and refused to sit with its members." Despite the best efforts of the current internal investigation team, led by General Tawfiq Tirawi of the Fatah Central Committee, the leadership must push for an international inquiry, he insisted.
Swiss experts confirmed earlier this month that post-mortem medical tests on samples taken from Arafat's body and clothes "support and are consistent with the hypothesis" that he was poisoned with polonium. They did not, however, assert that polonium actually caused his death.
10 nov 2013
Israeli war criminals who assumed leading positions in the Israeli governments
Pro-Palestinian activists demanded warrants for the arrest of Avi Dichter, former home front minister, and former minister Dan Meridor, on a visit to Spain, israeli daily Yediot Achronot reported. This attempt happened several days ago, when it became known that Dichter – who haven't been in Spain in the last 15 years – was to attend a conference organized by a security think tank which collaborates with the Spanish Defense Ministry.
Activists, working through the umbrella group for the Palestinian organizations in Spain, filed a request with the court to reopen the lawsuit against him for his role in the assassination of al-Qassam Brigades leader Salah Shehada in 2002.
Dichter was home front minister at the time of the assassination.
The Israeli Justice Ministry and Foreign Ministry were alerted, and were in contact with Spanish formal authorities in order to prevent Dichter's arrest and to make sure the Shehada case is not reopened.
After the activists found out that Meridor will also attend the conference, they demanded his arrest as well for his being involved in the 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre during which he was a cabinet minister.
This is not the first time pro-Palestinian groups try and bring about the arrests of top Israeli war criminals abroad.
Last month, Navy chief during the Cast Lead Operation and Marmara takeover, Brig. Gen. Eliezer Marom was held for questioning in the Heathrow Airport in London.
Two years ago a request was filed in Britain for the arrest of justice minister Tzipi Livni for being involved in war crimes during the Cast Lead Operation.
In 2010 a similar request was filed against then army minister Ehud Barak in Britain, also rejected, and minister Moshe Ya'alon cancelled a trip to the country as a consequence.
Another incident occurred with Israeli military commander Doron Almog, who did not go down his airplane in Britain after he heard he was to be arrested in 2005.
Pro-Palestinian activists demanded warrants for the arrest of Avi Dichter, former home front minister, and former minister Dan Meridor, on a visit to Spain, israeli daily Yediot Achronot reported. This attempt happened several days ago, when it became known that Dichter – who haven't been in Spain in the last 15 years – was to attend a conference organized by a security think tank which collaborates with the Spanish Defense Ministry.
Activists, working through the umbrella group for the Palestinian organizations in Spain, filed a request with the court to reopen the lawsuit against him for his role in the assassination of al-Qassam Brigades leader Salah Shehada in 2002.
Dichter was home front minister at the time of the assassination.
The Israeli Justice Ministry and Foreign Ministry were alerted, and were in contact with Spanish formal authorities in order to prevent Dichter's arrest and to make sure the Shehada case is not reopened.
After the activists found out that Meridor will also attend the conference, they demanded his arrest as well for his being involved in the 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre during which he was a cabinet minister.
This is not the first time pro-Palestinian groups try and bring about the arrests of top Israeli war criminals abroad.
Last month, Navy chief during the Cast Lead Operation and Marmara takeover, Brig. Gen. Eliezer Marom was held for questioning in the Heathrow Airport in London.
Two years ago a request was filed in Britain for the arrest of justice minister Tzipi Livni for being involved in war crimes during the Cast Lead Operation.
In 2010 a similar request was filed against then army minister Ehud Barak in Britain, also rejected, and minister Moshe Ya'alon cancelled a trip to the country as a consequence.
Another incident occurred with Israeli military commander Doron Almog, who did not go down his airplane in Britain after he heard he was to be arrested in 2005.
Amos Yadlin
Former Israeli intelligence chief Amos Yadlin was briefly detained and questioned by the British police at London's Heathrow airport upon arrival on Monday to an arrest warrant pending against him that had been issued by Turkey in connection to the Mavi Marmara affair, Hebrew media reported.
After an investigation conducted by immigration officers in conjunction with the British Foreign Office, Yadlin was allowed to enter the country and proceed on his way.
About a year and a half ago Turkey's chief prosecutor filed an indictment with an Istanbul court against four Israeli officers for their "responsibility for the massacre on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara': Former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, former Navy Chief Eliezer Marom, Air Forces intelligence director Avishai Levi and Yadlin.
Former Israeli intelligence chief Amos Yadlin was briefly detained and questioned by the British police at London's Heathrow airport upon arrival on Monday to an arrest warrant pending against him that had been issued by Turkey in connection to the Mavi Marmara affair, Hebrew media reported.
After an investigation conducted by immigration officers in conjunction with the British Foreign Office, Yadlin was allowed to enter the country and proceed on his way.
About a year and a half ago Turkey's chief prosecutor filed an indictment with an Istanbul court against four Israeli officers for their "responsibility for the massacre on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara': Former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, former Navy Chief Eliezer Marom, Air Forces intelligence director Avishai Levi and Yadlin.
9 nov 2013
Palestinian Human Rights Center (PHRC) expressed its deep concern at the killing of two Palestinians on Thursday evening at Israeli military checkpoints in the West Bank, considering it as a war crime. In an excessive use of force, on Thursday evening, 07 November 2013, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) killed two Palestinian civilians at Za'tara checkpoint, south of Nablus, and at the Container checkpoint, northeast of Bethlehem, in the West Bank, the center said in a statement on Friday.
PHRC is deeply concerned over these crimes, which further prove the use of excessive force by the IOF against Palestinian civilians in absolute disregard to the civilians’ lives, the center's statement added.
PHRC called upon the international community to take immediate and effective actions to put an end to such crimes and reiterated its call for the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances, and their obligation under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
These grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions, PCHR said.
Hundreds of mourners joined the funeral march that brought martyr Bashir Sami Hananin, 28, to his final resting place, calling for revenge against his killers.
The mourners called for activating resistance and to respond to the Israeli cold-blooded crimes against Palestinians.
IOF soldiers shot and killed Hananin from Nablus at the Zaatara checkpoint in the south of the northern West Bank city on Thursday evening, claiming he shot at Israeli soldiers using an air pistol.
Meanwhile, thousands participated in the funeral of Anas al-Atrash on Friday who was shot and killed by Israeli fire at Container checkpoint northeast of Bethlehem, in the second deadly shooting in 12 hours.
A number of masked gunmen fired in the air during the funeral, vowing to take revenge.
Violent confrontations erupted following the funeral, where Israeli soldiers fired tear gas bombs and rubber bullets at Palestinian protesters.
Israeli border guards shot and killed the Palestinian youth at Container checkpoint northeast of Bethlehem, claiming that he tried to stab a soldier.
Al-Atrash family charged that their son was killed in cold blood.
PHRC is deeply concerned over these crimes, which further prove the use of excessive force by the IOF against Palestinian civilians in absolute disregard to the civilians’ lives, the center's statement added.
PHRC called upon the international community to take immediate and effective actions to put an end to such crimes and reiterated its call for the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances, and their obligation under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
These grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions, PCHR said.
Hundreds of mourners joined the funeral march that brought martyr Bashir Sami Hananin, 28, to his final resting place, calling for revenge against his killers.
The mourners called for activating resistance and to respond to the Israeli cold-blooded crimes against Palestinians.
IOF soldiers shot and killed Hananin from Nablus at the Zaatara checkpoint in the south of the northern West Bank city on Thursday evening, claiming he shot at Israeli soldiers using an air pistol.
Meanwhile, thousands participated in the funeral of Anas al-Atrash on Friday who was shot and killed by Israeli fire at Container checkpoint northeast of Bethlehem, in the second deadly shooting in 12 hours.
A number of masked gunmen fired in the air during the funeral, vowing to take revenge.
Violent confrontations erupted following the funeral, where Israeli soldiers fired tear gas bombs and rubber bullets at Palestinian protesters.
Israeli border guards shot and killed the Palestinian youth at Container checkpoint northeast of Bethlehem, claiming that he tried to stab a soldier.
Al-Atrash family charged that their son was killed in cold blood.
14 oct 2013
Being questioned while traveling in Europe has also been a concern for senior IDF officials
The British authorities have stopped and questioned former Israeli navy commander Eliezer Marom upon arriving London's Heathrow Airport Monday, Ynetnews.com reported. Marom was commander of the Israeli navy when 13 Israeli commandos committed a massacre on board the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010 in which nine Turkish men lost their lives.
Israeli ministry of justice would not confirm whether the former military official has been questioned about his role as commander during the Navy's raid on the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla, according to the report.
In September 2009, following Israel's 2008-2009 war on Gaza, 16 Palestinians asked a London court to issue an arrest warrant for its then-defense minister, Ehud Barak, who was on a visit to Britain.
In December 2009, a British court issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli minister Tzipi Livni, a member of the war cabinet during Operation Cast Lead, over war crimes committed in Gaza, which led her to cancel a trip to the British capital.
The Israeli website said that "being questioned while traveling in Europe has also been a concern for senior IDF officials due to lawsuits drawn up by pro-Palestinian organizations, but has never amounted to any arrests."
British police question Israeli navy commander over Marmara massacre
The Israeli Navy former commander Eli Marom was held for questioning at around noon Monday at London's Heathrow Airport upon his arrival in Britain, Yediot Ahronot Hebrew newspaper said. Marom was held for a short time, during which he phoned the Justice Ministry in Israel to intervene for his release, the newspaper added.
Maj. Gen. Marom has led the Israeli war in the Gaza Strip in 2009, and the Israeli aggression on Mavi Marmara aid ship.
Marom commanded Israel’s navy during its attack on the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara in 2010 while the ship was loaded with aid on its way to Gaza. Nine Turkish citizens were killed in the attack.
It is worth mentioning that human rights institutions have published 100 names of Israeli soldiers and officials that were involved in war crimes in Gaza.
The British authorities have stopped and questioned former Israeli navy commander Eliezer Marom upon arriving London's Heathrow Airport Monday, Ynetnews.com reported. Marom was commander of the Israeli navy when 13 Israeli commandos committed a massacre on board the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010 in which nine Turkish men lost their lives.
Israeli ministry of justice would not confirm whether the former military official has been questioned about his role as commander during the Navy's raid on the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla, according to the report.
In September 2009, following Israel's 2008-2009 war on Gaza, 16 Palestinians asked a London court to issue an arrest warrant for its then-defense minister, Ehud Barak, who was on a visit to Britain.
In December 2009, a British court issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli minister Tzipi Livni, a member of the war cabinet during Operation Cast Lead, over war crimes committed in Gaza, which led her to cancel a trip to the British capital.
The Israeli website said that "being questioned while traveling in Europe has also been a concern for senior IDF officials due to lawsuits drawn up by pro-Palestinian organizations, but has never amounted to any arrests."
British police question Israeli navy commander over Marmara massacre
The Israeli Navy former commander Eli Marom was held for questioning at around noon Monday at London's Heathrow Airport upon his arrival in Britain, Yediot Ahronot Hebrew newspaper said. Marom was held for a short time, during which he phoned the Justice Ministry in Israel to intervene for his release, the newspaper added.
Maj. Gen. Marom has led the Israeli war in the Gaza Strip in 2009, and the Israeli aggression on Mavi Marmara aid ship.
Marom commanded Israel’s navy during its attack on the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara in 2010 while the ship was loaded with aid on its way to Gaza. Nine Turkish citizens were killed in the attack.
It is worth mentioning that human rights institutions have published 100 names of Israeli soldiers and officials that were involved in war crimes in Gaza.
7 oct 2013
Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Fatou B. Bensouda, to take legal action against the Israeli crimes and to investigate the current situation in the Palestinian occupied territories. Al-Haq and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) held a meeting with the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor, Fatou B. Bensouda, to present a legal opinion, prepared in cooperation with Dr. Michael Kearney of the University of Sussex.
The opinion provides legal justification for the Prosecutor to move forward on a declaration submitted by the Palestinian leadership in 2009, accepting the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute.
Speaking after the meeting, Shawan Jabarin, the General Director of Al-Haq stated: “With this opinion we are putting forward our position that the rights of Palestinian victims are not subject to compromise. Any negotiated agreement that sidelines the pursuit of justice through the ICC, is an agreement that lacks the representative support of Palestinian civil society."
"Our role as Palestinian human rights organizations is to pursue justice and accountability regardless of negotiations and we condemn any pressure exerted to the contrary. This is especially important in light of the fact that violations of international law continue unabated despite ongoing negotiations. We call on the Prosecutor to move forward on the 2009 Palestinian declaration and simultaneously urge the Palestinian leadership to support such a move, in addition to acceding to other international instruments", he added.
Jabarin called on PA to support this step by joining international conventions of human rights and international humanitarian laws a whole year after the General Assembly resolution to accord Palestine non-Member Observer State status.
It is worth noting that due to restrictions on movement in and out of the Gaza Strip, Raji Sourani, the Director of PCHR was prevented from personally attending the meeting.
The meeting was however, also attended by the President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Mr. Karim Lahidji, who chose to be present as an indication of support for the position taken by Al-Haq and PCHR.
The opinion provides legal justification for the Prosecutor to move forward on a declaration submitted by the Palestinian leadership in 2009, accepting the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute.
Speaking after the meeting, Shawan Jabarin, the General Director of Al-Haq stated: “With this opinion we are putting forward our position that the rights of Palestinian victims are not subject to compromise. Any negotiated agreement that sidelines the pursuit of justice through the ICC, is an agreement that lacks the representative support of Palestinian civil society."
"Our role as Palestinian human rights organizations is to pursue justice and accountability regardless of negotiations and we condemn any pressure exerted to the contrary. This is especially important in light of the fact that violations of international law continue unabated despite ongoing negotiations. We call on the Prosecutor to move forward on the 2009 Palestinian declaration and simultaneously urge the Palestinian leadership to support such a move, in addition to acceding to other international instruments", he added.
Jabarin called on PA to support this step by joining international conventions of human rights and international humanitarian laws a whole year after the General Assembly resolution to accord Palestine non-Member Observer State status.
It is worth noting that due to restrictions on movement in and out of the Gaza Strip, Raji Sourani, the Director of PCHR was prevented from personally attending the meeting.
The meeting was however, also attended by the President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Mr. Karim Lahidji, who chose to be present as an indication of support for the position taken by Al-Haq and PCHR.
24 sept 2013
At this week’s annual top-level UN General Assembly meetings, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will honour a promise to the US to suspend a Palestinian quest for further UN recognition.
But Palestinians have made clear that the strategy is not off the table, particularly if negotiations with Israel on Palestinian statehood don’t produce an agreement by April, the target proposed by Washington.
A poll published Monday indicates overwhelming support among Palestinians for the most dramatic element of the “international strategy” — bringing up Israel on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court in connection with Israel’s continued settlement-building on war-won lands that the Palestinians want for their state.
For now, Abbas will stick to his promise to US Secretary of State John Kerry, who prodded Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations in late July, after a five-year break. “We will not apply for any agency of the United Nations this time,” Riad Mansour, the head of the Palestinian mission at the UN, said of the General Assembly meetings that began Monday.
This year’s UN diplomacy is likely dominated by Syria’s civil war and Iran’s suspected nuclear ambitions. Abbas is addressing the plenum Thursday and is to meet a series of leaders, including President Barack Obama, on Tuesday. He is also set to talk with Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
A year ago, Abbas used the General Assembly gathering to lobby for recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state at the UN. Two months later, the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the request, recognising a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — lands Israel occupied in 1967 — by a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.
Israel and the US objected, arguing that such recognition harms attempts to negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood in Israeli-Palestinian talks, with US mediation. Talks between Abbas and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had broken down in 2008, and Abbas and Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to find sufficient common ground.
Abbas has said UN recognition is not a bypass to negotiations, but meant to improve Palestinian leverage in the lopsided relationship between occupier and occupied. Palestinians say that in affirming the 1967 frontier, the UN helped counter Israeli attempts to blur that line through massive settlement building. More than a half-million Israelis now live on war-won lands, complicating any effort to partition the territory under a future peace deal.
Palestinians resumed talks with Israel in July despite low expectations, and without getting Israel to freeze settlement-building first. Yet Abbas could not afford to rebuff Obama at the time by saying no. Israel’s promise to release 104 long-held Palestinian prisoners over the course of the talks also helped bring Abbas back to the table.
Abbas, in turn, promised to suspend his UN strategy, which Israel fears will heighten its diplomatic isolation. As part of that strategy, the Palestinians would seek membership in a number of UN agencies. The most dramatic step would be to seek action by the International Criminal Court, though Abbas hasn’t yet given the green light.
The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research said 60 per cent of Palestinians back Abbas’ decision to refrain from seeking membership in UN agencies for the duration of negotiations with Israel, in return for the release of prisoners.
However, 67 per cent support going to the ICC immediately, even if it means prisoners won’t be released or Israel retaliates with financial sanctions, according to pollster Khalil Shikaki.
He said the ICC option is popular because a majority of Palestinians don’t have faith in negotiations but also oppose a return to violence. “People want revenge because they see Israel is getting away with ... the theft of their land, confiscation of their property, bringing in settlers... and they feel there’s absolutely nothing they are able to do against it,” Shikaki added.
The survey was conducted September 19-21 among 1,261 respondents, with an error margin of 3 percentage points.
Political analyst Majed Swailem said Abbas is unlikely to abandon the UN strategy, despite the current suspension.
“The UN is the only strategy for Abbas, in case the current round of negotiations fails, as is expected,” Swailem said. “By the end of the assigned nine months, he can’t continue talking without any result and, of course, will return to the UN”.
But Palestinians have made clear that the strategy is not off the table, particularly if negotiations with Israel on Palestinian statehood don’t produce an agreement by April, the target proposed by Washington.
A poll published Monday indicates overwhelming support among Palestinians for the most dramatic element of the “international strategy” — bringing up Israel on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court in connection with Israel’s continued settlement-building on war-won lands that the Palestinians want for their state.
For now, Abbas will stick to his promise to US Secretary of State John Kerry, who prodded Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations in late July, after a five-year break. “We will not apply for any agency of the United Nations this time,” Riad Mansour, the head of the Palestinian mission at the UN, said of the General Assembly meetings that began Monday.
This year’s UN diplomacy is likely dominated by Syria’s civil war and Iran’s suspected nuclear ambitions. Abbas is addressing the plenum Thursday and is to meet a series of leaders, including President Barack Obama, on Tuesday. He is also set to talk with Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
A year ago, Abbas used the General Assembly gathering to lobby for recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state at the UN. Two months later, the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the request, recognising a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — lands Israel occupied in 1967 — by a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.
Israel and the US objected, arguing that such recognition harms attempts to negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood in Israeli-Palestinian talks, with US mediation. Talks between Abbas and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had broken down in 2008, and Abbas and Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to find sufficient common ground.
Abbas has said UN recognition is not a bypass to negotiations, but meant to improve Palestinian leverage in the lopsided relationship between occupier and occupied. Palestinians say that in affirming the 1967 frontier, the UN helped counter Israeli attempts to blur that line through massive settlement building. More than a half-million Israelis now live on war-won lands, complicating any effort to partition the territory under a future peace deal.
Palestinians resumed talks with Israel in July despite low expectations, and without getting Israel to freeze settlement-building first. Yet Abbas could not afford to rebuff Obama at the time by saying no. Israel’s promise to release 104 long-held Palestinian prisoners over the course of the talks also helped bring Abbas back to the table.
Abbas, in turn, promised to suspend his UN strategy, which Israel fears will heighten its diplomatic isolation. As part of that strategy, the Palestinians would seek membership in a number of UN agencies. The most dramatic step would be to seek action by the International Criminal Court, though Abbas hasn’t yet given the green light.
The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research said 60 per cent of Palestinians back Abbas’ decision to refrain from seeking membership in UN agencies for the duration of negotiations with Israel, in return for the release of prisoners.
However, 67 per cent support going to the ICC immediately, even if it means prisoners won’t be released or Israel retaliates with financial sanctions, according to pollster Khalil Shikaki.
He said the ICC option is popular because a majority of Palestinians don’t have faith in negotiations but also oppose a return to violence. “People want revenge because they see Israel is getting away with ... the theft of their land, confiscation of their property, bringing in settlers... and they feel there’s absolutely nothing they are able to do against it,” Shikaki added.
The survey was conducted September 19-21 among 1,261 respondents, with an error margin of 3 percentage points.
Political analyst Majed Swailem said Abbas is unlikely to abandon the UN strategy, despite the current suspension.
“The UN is the only strategy for Abbas, in case the current round of negotiations fails, as is expected,” Swailem said. “By the end of the assigned nine months, he can’t continue talking without any result and, of course, will return to the UN”.
20 sept 2013
Text messages came from student protestors who had managed to get inside the lecture hall. They let the their fellow demonstrators outside know that their chanting could be heard inside over the voice of Israeli President Shimon Peres. There was clapping and stamping of feet and placards banged on the railings to make as much noise as possible, along with the constant “Free, free Palestine” which did not stop for a moment of the hour-long lecture.
Silent women in black, shouting students, small babies in prams, university lecturers and a local elected official were just some of the crowd gathered to voice their protest against an Oxford college’s decision to honor Peres on Tuesday, 18 November as he gave the inaugural lecture in a series to be named after him. Some handed out leaflets and many were carrying signs, one of which read “Globalization of Apartheid,” a pun on the title of the lecture, “Globalization of Peace.”
After the Master of Balliol College, Dr. Andrew Graham, refused to cancel the series in response to earlier demands, including open letter by students and academics from the United Kingdom and protests from as far away as South Africa, the Oxford University Student Palestine Society in conjunction with the city’s branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) called for the people of Oxford to protest outside the hall as students interrupted the lecture inside.
PSC General Secretary Betty Hunter said she was delighted that Oxford PSC and supporters had shown Peres “that those who condone war crimes are not welcome here.” A Labour Party member of Oxford’s City Council, John Tanner, said, “I’m here because I think it does Oxford University no good to have the President of Israel greeted and feted this way.”
Silent women in black, shouting students, small babies in prams, university lecturers and a local elected official were just some of the crowd gathered to voice their protest against an Oxford college’s decision to honor Peres on Tuesday, 18 November as he gave the inaugural lecture in a series to be named after him. Some handed out leaflets and many were carrying signs, one of which read “Globalization of Apartheid,” a pun on the title of the lecture, “Globalization of Peace.”
After the Master of Balliol College, Dr. Andrew Graham, refused to cancel the series in response to earlier demands, including open letter by students and academics from the United Kingdom and protests from as far away as South Africa, the Oxford University Student Palestine Society in conjunction with the city’s branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) called for the people of Oxford to protest outside the hall as students interrupted the lecture inside.
PSC General Secretary Betty Hunter said she was delighted that Oxford PSC and supporters had shown Peres “that those who condone war crimes are not welcome here.” A Labour Party member of Oxford’s City Council, John Tanner, said, “I’m here because I think it does Oxford University no good to have the President of Israel greeted and feted this way.”
Protestors pass out fliers outside the lecture hall.
Leading South African academics and veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle had sent a letter to Dr. Graham recalling Peres’ role in helping apartheid South Africa procure weapons when it was under an international embargo. “As South Africans whose oppression was fueled by the Israeli state, and certainly Peres himself,” the letter said, “we stand in solidarity with Palestinians who, for more than sixty years have lived under Israeli Apartheid.”
Despite the decision of British elites to honor the Israeli president, protestors’ disgust has reached the eyes and ears of the Israeli public. Even the website of Israeli daily Haaretz showed clips of one particular intervention. Halfway through the lecture, Abdel Razzaq Takriti, a Palestinian graduate student at Oxford’s Wadham College, Oxford was ejected from the hall. “Shimon Peres was making a particularly offensive remark claiming that ‘you [Palestinians] could have had a state if it wasn’t for your own mistakes’ and that Israelis fought for their state,” he told this writer, who was also participating in the protest. He then stated “We don’t need your permission to exist” and got support from other students for it. Takriti explained: “So I stood up and walked towards [Peres], saying, ‘how dare you say this at a time when you are besieging 1.5 million people in Gaza? 1.5 million people are starving to death! Shimon Peres, you’re a war criminal. You are responsible for the massacre of hundreds of people in Qana [southern Lebanon]. You’re responsible for an apartheid state. Shame on you.’ so I was dragged out.”
As demonstrators awaited Peres’ arrival at the hall, there was a scuffle with police who were present in force. Lewis Turner, a student organizer, and another man were taken away with their hands behind their backs. Turner reappeared after a time. According to his account, the police thought he was holding a weapon and wanted to search him, but he managed to convince them that he was only holding a candle as many of the protestors were. Turner said that what was more disturbing was that a man with a darker skin color was walking past him at the time and the police dragged him away as well despite the fact that he had nothing to do with the protest.
Turner, a member of Oxford students’ Palestinian Society which helped organize the protest, became interested in Palestine after visiting and witnessing the horrors of the occupation himself. “When I visited in my year off, I found out about what was going on and it was as simple as that.”
Before the lecture this writer spoke to a student waiting to hear Peres speak. He explained that he thought Peres was “the voice of moderation” and “one of the few heroes out there at the moment.” He said Peres was a symbolic figure with no power. However, asked to comment on specific events such as the April 1996 massacre in Qana, Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon, the student replied that he “didn’t actually know about that.” Israel shelled a UN peacekeeping base killing over 100 Lebanese refugees seeking shelter from an Israeli invasion ordered by Peres, who was Israel’s prime minister at the time. A UN investigation conducted by a Dutch general and artillery expert found Israel’s claim the shelling was accidental to be not credible.
At about 9pm, there were still fifty or more people three hours after protestors started gathering. The lecture was over and there were boos and hisses as Peres was driven away. He had completed his lecture and was attending parliament the next day (where the PSC had organized another demonstration) followed by an honorary knighthood from the Queen. It is safe to say that Peres and Balliol can’t avoid the fact that his visit was not the smooth-running success they might have hoped and was definitely not supported by all. Oxford proved that, as protestor Mick Scott said, “If you take an interest in people, you can’t avoid what is happening in Palestine.”
Images by Abigail Humphries.
Abigail Humphries is a resident of Oxford.
Leading South African academics and veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle had sent a letter to Dr. Graham recalling Peres’ role in helping apartheid South Africa procure weapons when it was under an international embargo. “As South Africans whose oppression was fueled by the Israeli state, and certainly Peres himself,” the letter said, “we stand in solidarity with Palestinians who, for more than sixty years have lived under Israeli Apartheid.”
Despite the decision of British elites to honor the Israeli president, protestors’ disgust has reached the eyes and ears of the Israeli public. Even the website of Israeli daily Haaretz showed clips of one particular intervention. Halfway through the lecture, Abdel Razzaq Takriti, a Palestinian graduate student at Oxford’s Wadham College, Oxford was ejected from the hall. “Shimon Peres was making a particularly offensive remark claiming that ‘you [Palestinians] could have had a state if it wasn’t for your own mistakes’ and that Israelis fought for their state,” he told this writer, who was also participating in the protest. He then stated “We don’t need your permission to exist” and got support from other students for it. Takriti explained: “So I stood up and walked towards [Peres], saying, ‘how dare you say this at a time when you are besieging 1.5 million people in Gaza? 1.5 million people are starving to death! Shimon Peres, you’re a war criminal. You are responsible for the massacre of hundreds of people in Qana [southern Lebanon]. You’re responsible for an apartheid state. Shame on you.’ so I was dragged out.”
As demonstrators awaited Peres’ arrival at the hall, there was a scuffle with police who were present in force. Lewis Turner, a student organizer, and another man were taken away with their hands behind their backs. Turner reappeared after a time. According to his account, the police thought he was holding a weapon and wanted to search him, but he managed to convince them that he was only holding a candle as many of the protestors were. Turner said that what was more disturbing was that a man with a darker skin color was walking past him at the time and the police dragged him away as well despite the fact that he had nothing to do with the protest.
Turner, a member of Oxford students’ Palestinian Society which helped organize the protest, became interested in Palestine after visiting and witnessing the horrors of the occupation himself. “When I visited in my year off, I found out about what was going on and it was as simple as that.”
Before the lecture this writer spoke to a student waiting to hear Peres speak. He explained that he thought Peres was “the voice of moderation” and “one of the few heroes out there at the moment.” He said Peres was a symbolic figure with no power. However, asked to comment on specific events such as the April 1996 massacre in Qana, Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon, the student replied that he “didn’t actually know about that.” Israel shelled a UN peacekeeping base killing over 100 Lebanese refugees seeking shelter from an Israeli invasion ordered by Peres, who was Israel’s prime minister at the time. A UN investigation conducted by a Dutch general and artillery expert found Israel’s claim the shelling was accidental to be not credible.
At about 9pm, there were still fifty or more people three hours after protestors started gathering. The lecture was over and there were boos and hisses as Peres was driven away. He had completed his lecture and was attending parliament the next day (where the PSC had organized another demonstration) followed by an honorary knighthood from the Queen. It is safe to say that Peres and Balliol can’t avoid the fact that his visit was not the smooth-running success they might have hoped and was definitely not supported by all. Oxford proved that, as protestor Mick Scott said, “If you take an interest in people, you can’t avoid what is happening in Palestine.”
Images by Abigail Humphries.
Abigail Humphries is a resident of Oxford.
16 sept 2013
|
|
An American author says both the United States and Israel maintain “formidable nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenals” but not a single word is said about their arms, Press TV reports.
“Syria threatens no one as we know and it has never used chemical weapons against its own people. The claim that it does is completely fabricated and Israel is a major threat; America is a major threat,” Stephen Lendman said. He pointed to the danger posed to the world peace by Israeli nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and criticized the recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Syria’s alleged chemical weapons. |
On Sunday, Netanyahu voiced support for an agreement reached by the US and Russia to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international supervision.
“We’ve been closely following and support your ongoing efforts to rid Syria of its chemical weapons,” Netanyahu said in the occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem).
The agreement was reached between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 14, following three days of talks in Geneva.
Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is widely known to have between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.
Lendman further added that US media literally turn truth on its head and vilify for attacking Syria.
“They [US media] blame a country like Russia for taking heroic steps to avoid another war that would be catastrophic,” Lendman, who is also radio host, said.
He added that protests are being held across the United States to rage against the possibility of a war on Syria as the Americans are fed up with 12 years of non-stop war after 9/11.
“They [Americans] want jobs; they want the economy growing; they want America’s resources spent to grow America not destroying and killing and ravaging other countries. And they made those feelings known and it took effect in Congress,” Lendman pointed out.
He expressed concern that the US might end up getting the war that President Barack Obama wants against Syria which would destroy the Syrian Republic and isolate Iran.
War rhetoric against Syria intensified on August 21, when militants operating inside the country and foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.
The Syrian government categorically rejected the allegation, saying the militants carried out the attack to provoke foreign military intervention. (Video on the link)
“We’ve been closely following and support your ongoing efforts to rid Syria of its chemical weapons,” Netanyahu said in the occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem).
The agreement was reached between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 14, following three days of talks in Geneva.
Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is widely known to have between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.
Lendman further added that US media literally turn truth on its head and vilify for attacking Syria.
“They [US media] blame a country like Russia for taking heroic steps to avoid another war that would be catastrophic,” Lendman, who is also radio host, said.
He added that protests are being held across the United States to rage against the possibility of a war on Syria as the Americans are fed up with 12 years of non-stop war after 9/11.
“They [Americans] want jobs; they want the economy growing; they want America’s resources spent to grow America not destroying and killing and ravaging other countries. And they made those feelings known and it took effect in Congress,” Lendman pointed out.
He expressed concern that the US might end up getting the war that President Barack Obama wants against Syria which would destroy the Syrian Republic and isolate Iran.
War rhetoric against Syria intensified on August 21, when militants operating inside the country and foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.
The Syrian government categorically rejected the allegation, saying the militants carried out the attack to provoke foreign military intervention. (Video on the link)