3 dec 2019
Naftali Bennett, Israel's interim defence minister
Defence Minister Naftali Bennett describes the order as 'economic persecution' aimed at limiting activists from accessing assets
Israel’s defence ministry has issued an administrative order to set up a database of Palestinian and Arab activists and target their financial activities in Israel and abroad, Yisrael Hayom newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Naftali Bennett, Israel's interim defence minister, described the order as “economic persecution” aimed at limiting activists from accessing assets and managing their finances. He said the move was part of a “war on terrorism”.
The order is the first of its kind in Israel, according to Yisrael Hayom. The database will be available for other countries to use and fully accessible to the public, the paper reported.
It will include the names of hundreds of individuals allegedly linked to the Palestinian Hamas movement and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The order, Yisrael Hayom said, is part of a widescale plan by Israel’s defence ministry to set up non-military means, predominantly economic, to target political groups that it deems “terrorist”.
According to Israeli media, one of those targeted by the order is prominent Palestinian lawyer Mohammed Jamil Hersh, president of the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK.
When asked by Middle East Eye to comment on the reports, he declined.
In the past, Israel accused the lawyer, commonly known simply as Mohammed Jamil, of being a member of Hamas.
In 1992, Israel expelled him to south Lebanon along with hundreds of Palestinians who had worked as activists during the First Palestinian Intifada of 1987.
Today Jamil primarily works on human rights and with international bodies such as the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is looking into opening an official investigation into crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.
Defence Minister Naftali Bennett describes the order as 'economic persecution' aimed at limiting activists from accessing assets
Israel’s defence ministry has issued an administrative order to set up a database of Palestinian and Arab activists and target their financial activities in Israel and abroad, Yisrael Hayom newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Naftali Bennett, Israel's interim defence minister, described the order as “economic persecution” aimed at limiting activists from accessing assets and managing their finances. He said the move was part of a “war on terrorism”.
The order is the first of its kind in Israel, according to Yisrael Hayom. The database will be available for other countries to use and fully accessible to the public, the paper reported.
It will include the names of hundreds of individuals allegedly linked to the Palestinian Hamas movement and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The order, Yisrael Hayom said, is part of a widescale plan by Israel’s defence ministry to set up non-military means, predominantly economic, to target political groups that it deems “terrorist”.
According to Israeli media, one of those targeted by the order is prominent Palestinian lawyer Mohammed Jamil Hersh, president of the Arab Organisation for Human Rights in the UK.
When asked by Middle East Eye to comment on the reports, he declined.
In the past, Israel accused the lawyer, commonly known simply as Mohammed Jamil, of being a member of Hamas.
In 1992, Israel expelled him to south Lebanon along with hundreds of Palestinians who had worked as activists during the First Palestinian Intifada of 1987.
Today Jamil primarily works on human rights and with international bodies such as the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is looking into opening an official investigation into crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.
The Mavi Marmara ship returned to Istanbul after the Israeli raid that killed 10 people
Fatou Bensouda says no to opening investigation into Israel's 2010 raid on an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip.
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has again refused to open an investigation into the deadly 2010 raid on a flotilla carrying aid to the besieged Gaza Strip.
Appeals judges in September ordered Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to reconsider her earlier refusals to open a formal investigation into the May 31, 2010 storming of the Mavi Marmara.
Israeli commandos enforcing a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip killed eight Turkish citizens and one Turkish-American during the predawn raid the Mavi Marmara ship, which led a flotilla towards the besieged coastal enclave.
Several other pro-Palestinian activists were wounded, while a 10th person died later of his wounds.
Bensouda has acknowledged that war crimes may have been committed in the raid but decided that the case was not serious enough to merit an ICC probe.
On Monday, she repeated that assertion.
"The prosecutor maintains her view that there is not a reasonable basis to proceed, because there is no potential case arising from this situation that is sufficiently grave," Bensouda said in a 44-page document.
This was because "there is no reasonable basis to conclude that any potential case arising from the situation would be of sufficient gravity to be admissible before the court," Bensouda said, in a legal position she has taken before.
'Not sufficiently grave'
The order was the latest and likely the last step in a long legal battle to bring the case before the court.
Bensouda first declined a request to investigate the raid in 2014. A panel of pretrial judges asked her to reconsider and she again refused to open an investigation in 2017. That decision was appealed, leading to the order in September to again reconsider.
At the time, international lawyer Diala Chehade had told Al Jazeera that the concept of gravity within the text of the ICC has not been defined clearly enough in legal terms.
"There are currently no criteria that would set a final definition for the element of gravity for the ICC," said Chehade, who is also the former legal outreach officer for the Arab region at the court.
The original request was made by the tiny Indian Ocean islands nation of Comoros because the Mavi Marmara was sailing under a Comoros flag.
The ICC was set up as a court of last resort intended to prosecute senior leaders allegedly responsible for grave crimes including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national courts prove unable or unwilling to take on such cases.
Israel is not a member state of the court but its nationals could have faced charges if Bensouda had opened an investigation.
Separately, Bensouda's prosecution office is weighing up whether to open a formal investigation in the Palestinian territories, including Israel's illegal settlement policy and crimes allegedly committed by both sides in the 2014 assault on Gaza.
Bensouda, who is stepping down as prosecutor in 2021, has yet to move to the next stage and open a full-blown investigation which could possibly lead to charges being brought.
Fatou Bensouda says no to opening investigation into Israel's 2010 raid on an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip.
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has again refused to open an investigation into the deadly 2010 raid on a flotilla carrying aid to the besieged Gaza Strip.
Appeals judges in September ordered Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to reconsider her earlier refusals to open a formal investigation into the May 31, 2010 storming of the Mavi Marmara.
Israeli commandos enforcing a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip killed eight Turkish citizens and one Turkish-American during the predawn raid the Mavi Marmara ship, which led a flotilla towards the besieged coastal enclave.
Several other pro-Palestinian activists were wounded, while a 10th person died later of his wounds.
Bensouda has acknowledged that war crimes may have been committed in the raid but decided that the case was not serious enough to merit an ICC probe.
On Monday, she repeated that assertion.
"The prosecutor maintains her view that there is not a reasonable basis to proceed, because there is no potential case arising from this situation that is sufficiently grave," Bensouda said in a 44-page document.
This was because "there is no reasonable basis to conclude that any potential case arising from the situation would be of sufficient gravity to be admissible before the court," Bensouda said, in a legal position she has taken before.
'Not sufficiently grave'
The order was the latest and likely the last step in a long legal battle to bring the case before the court.
Bensouda first declined a request to investigate the raid in 2014. A panel of pretrial judges asked her to reconsider and she again refused to open an investigation in 2017. That decision was appealed, leading to the order in September to again reconsider.
At the time, international lawyer Diala Chehade had told Al Jazeera that the concept of gravity within the text of the ICC has not been defined clearly enough in legal terms.
"There are currently no criteria that would set a final definition for the element of gravity for the ICC," said Chehade, who is also the former legal outreach officer for the Arab region at the court.
The original request was made by the tiny Indian Ocean islands nation of Comoros because the Mavi Marmara was sailing under a Comoros flag.
The ICC was set up as a court of last resort intended to prosecute senior leaders allegedly responsible for grave crimes including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national courts prove unable or unwilling to take on such cases.
Israel is not a member state of the court but its nationals could have faced charges if Bensouda had opened an investigation.
Separately, Bensouda's prosecution office is weighing up whether to open a formal investigation in the Palestinian territories, including Israel's illegal settlement policy and crimes allegedly committed by both sides in the 2014 assault on Gaza.
Bensouda, who is stepping down as prosecutor in 2021, has yet to move to the next stage and open a full-blown investigation which could possibly lead to charges being brought.
23 nov 2019
Al Mezan Center For Human Rights published a press release stating that the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), the Palestinian Coalition for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ADALAH), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO) condemn as a gross misrepresentation of international law.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mike Pompeo, that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are “not per se inconsistent with international law.”
Secretary Pompeo’s unwarranted statement is premised on a calculated misrepresentation of well-established and recognized international law, with the intention of rubber-stamping Israel’s unlawful acquisition of territory in the West Bank through the use of force, and prolonged military occupation, in flagrant disregard of principles of international law.
PHROC, ADALAH, and PNGO urge the United States, and the international community, to recognize the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, to take immediate action to prevent the proliferation of the illegal Israeli settlements and annexation of the Jordan Valley, through the implementation of effective countermeasures.
Israeli policies in the OPT, including the de facto annexation, the denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the existence of segregation amounting to an ‘apartheid’ system, are all violations of basic norms of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and are considered internationally wrongful acts of a serious nature which elicit third state obligations under international law.
Read the full document here [pdf]
The recent statement by the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mike Pompeo, that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are “not per se inconsistent with international law.”
Secretary Pompeo’s unwarranted statement is premised on a calculated misrepresentation of well-established and recognized international law, with the intention of rubber-stamping Israel’s unlawful acquisition of territory in the West Bank through the use of force, and prolonged military occupation, in flagrant disregard of principles of international law.
PHROC, ADALAH, and PNGO urge the United States, and the international community, to recognize the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, to take immediate action to prevent the proliferation of the illegal Israeli settlements and annexation of the Jordan Valley, through the implementation of effective countermeasures.
Israeli policies in the OPT, including the de facto annexation, the denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the existence of segregation amounting to an ‘apartheid’ system, are all violations of basic norms of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and are considered internationally wrongful acts of a serious nature which elicit third state obligations under international law.
Read the full document here [pdf]
More than 120 U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen have sent an urgent letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging him to reverse his decision to considering Israeli settlements in the West Bank legal, the Palestinian News and Info Agency (WAFA) reported.
“This announcement, following the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement… severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people,” the letter read, adding: “As annexation [of the West Bank] and the United States’ approval thereof would destroy prospects for a two-state solution and lead to a more entrenched and possibly deadlier conflict, this decision erodes the security of both Israel and the United States.”
The signatory Congressmen and Congresswomen said the move, which came in the aftermath of the U.S.’ closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, its Consulate in Jerusalem, and the halting of aid to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The letter continued, “We write to express our strong disagreement with the State Department’s decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.”
“U.S. administrations from both parties have followed the 1978 guidance because settlement expansion into the occupied West Bank makes a contiguous Palestinian state inviable, jeopardizing Israel’s future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people,” added the letter.
The Congressmen and Congresswomen further stated that the State Department’s unilateral reversal on the status of settlements, without any clear legal justification, “has offered an implied endorsement of settlements, their expansion, and associated demolitions of Palestinian homes.
In addition, one day after the Department’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley.”
“This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
In ignoring international law, this administration has undermined America’s moral standing and sent a dangerous message to those who do not share our values: human rights and international law, which have governed the international order and protected U.S. troops and civilians since 1949, no longer apply.”
The letter concluded, “If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.”
“This announcement, following the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement… severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people,” the letter read, adding: “As annexation [of the West Bank] and the United States’ approval thereof would destroy prospects for a two-state solution and lead to a more entrenched and possibly deadlier conflict, this decision erodes the security of both Israel and the United States.”
The signatory Congressmen and Congresswomen said the move, which came in the aftermath of the U.S.’ closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, its Consulate in Jerusalem, and the halting of aid to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
The letter continued, “We write to express our strong disagreement with the State Department’s decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.”
“U.S. administrations from both parties have followed the 1978 guidance because settlement expansion into the occupied West Bank makes a contiguous Palestinian state inviable, jeopardizing Israel’s future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people,” added the letter.
The Congressmen and Congresswomen further stated that the State Department’s unilateral reversal on the status of settlements, without any clear legal justification, “has offered an implied endorsement of settlements, their expansion, and associated demolitions of Palestinian homes.
In addition, one day after the Department’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley.”
“This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
In ignoring international law, this administration has undermined America’s moral standing and sent a dangerous message to those who do not share our values: human rights and international law, which have governed the international order and protected U.S. troops and civilians since 1949, no longer apply.”
The letter concluded, “If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.”
21 nov 2019
|
|
In a sharp rebuke to the Donald Trump administration, the 14 other UN Security Council members on Wednesday strongly opposed the Us announcement that it no longer considers Israeli settlements to be a violation of international law.
They warned that the new American policy undermines a potential two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The council’s monthly Mideast meeting, just two days after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement, was dominated by strong reactions to the new American policy from countries representing all regions of the world that said all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. |
|
|
Only Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, who is not a council member, spoke in support of the US position, saying it “rights a historical wrong.” He flagrantly called the criticism an “obstacle to peace” that is “preventing direct negotiations” between Israelis and Palestinians.
|
