Israel's Lawless Settlement Project

Israel's Lawless Settlement Project by Stephen Lendman

April 14, 2012 Since June 1967, Israel maintained total domination over Occupied Palestine. Lawlessly, it includes controlling essential resources, air space, Gaza's coastal waters, borders, who's allowed to cross them, political, economic, and financial activities, internal movement, public assembly and speech, Palestine's population registry, private property by seizures or demolition, and, of course, land. Priority one is stealing it. Palestinians are forcibly dispossessed and displaced to expand settlements and for other development. Israel wants all valued parts as well as Jerusalem as its exclusive capital. Overall, settlements, closed military zones, Jewish commercial areas, and others earmarked for development account for over 40% of West Bank land. Since 1967, Israel established 121 settlements. Another 100 unauthorized outposts exist. In addition, Israel calls 12 annexed Jerusalem neighborhoods settlements. Settler enclaves also exist in Palestinian East Jerusalem. Yet international law is clear. Fourth Geneva's Article 49 states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Moreover, in July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled: "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development." In addition, they've "been established in breach of international law" on sovereign Palestinian territory. On March 22, Haaretz headlined, "UN human rights body to probe Israel's settlement activities in West Bank," saying: The 47-member Human Rights Council (HRC) overwhelmingly approved a resolution to investigate what long ago should have been condemned. Russia and China were among 36 states voting yes. Ten nations abstained. America alone voted no. The measure also called for Israel to disarm settlers and enforce criminal sanctions to protect Palestinians and their property. A three-member team will be named at a later date. HRC is "charged with evaluating the effects of Israeli settlement construction on Palestinian human rights in the West Bank and East Jerusalem." The text of its decision states: It will "dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council, to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem." The decision also called on Israel "not to obstruct the process of investigation and to cooperate fully with the mission." Netanyahu called the HRC a "hypocritical council with an automatic majority against Israel." Israel's Geneva ambassador, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, said "I am still stunned by the hypocrisy of the Human Rights Council. This council itself is adding fuel to the fire and fanning the flames which it should be trying to put out. Today will not be remembered as a great day for this council." Israel's Foreign Ministry said: "The Palestinians must understand that they can't have it both ways: they can't enjoy cooperation with Israel and at the same time initiate political clashes in international forums. Had the Palestinians wanted to solve the settlements issue, they would resume without delay a direct and unconditional negotiation on all core issues within the framework of a comprehensive agreement." Palestinian UN ambassador Ibrahim Khraishisaid said "when we see that Israel hasn't stopped taking over our lands, we must act. If this situation continues, how will we be able to apply a two-state solution? The occupying power is violating international land....one day there will even be limits on the air that we breathe." Syria's ambassador called settlement construction "piracy." Washington called the decision "one-sided and biased." For 45 years and counting, Israel occupied Palestine lawlessly. It dominates by state terror. Palestinians have no rights. Oppression is official policy. So is stealing all valued land and resources. So far, it's gotten away with it. Investigations won't help, but if thoroughly pursued with follow-through it's a good start perhaps. As expected, Israel responded provocatively by severing ties with the HRC. According to Haaretz on March 27, ambassador Leshno-Yaar hadn't yet gotten instructions on how to proceed. Diplomats in Jerusalem and Geneva "were embarrassed by their inability to answer questions about the decision from reporters and foreign diplomats." Israel's not an HRC member. It doesn't matter either way. An unnamed "senior source" said "we will not allow visits from HRC members to Israel, and our ambassador has been instructed not to even answer phone calls from them." "The Human Rights Council secretariat and the commissioner, Navi Pillay, led the move to establish the investigative committee on settlements, which is why we will not work with them anymore or appear before the council." Austria and Belgium were the only EU nations voting yes. Israel responded by summoning their ambassadors to the Foreign Ministry for reprimands. Israel's Deputy Director-General for Europe Rafi Shotz said: "You assisted the politicization of the Human Rights Council and enabled a decision that will make only worsen relations between Israel and the Palestinians." Israeli lawlessness is egregious and longstanding. When criticized, it responds provocatively or like Captain Renault expressing shock about gambling at Rick's from the film Casablanca - as Emile hands him his winnings and he thanks him. It also retaliates against Palestinians unable to contest its abusive power. On March 25, Haaretz headlined, "Israel mulls ways to penalize PA in wake of UN human rights probe," saying: Sanctions are being considered, including freezing tax revenues to deprive the PA of vital funds needed to provide basic services. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz support the move. Senior Foreign Ministry officials and others close to Netanyahu said HRC panel members are barred from entering Israel. Expect their investigation to proceed anyway. Al Haq welcomed it, saying: Israel's refusal to cooperate "begs the question of what (it's) afraid the fact-finding mission will reveal." No matter. International support is essential. It's mostly needed to implement recommendations "without delay." Otherwise expect another futile exercise like so many previous ones. Words without teeth are worthless. Israel’s further emboldened to dominate ruthlessly, act violently, obstruct justice, prevent Palestinian self-determination, and assure peace process hypocrisy continues. For decades, Israel remained unaccountable. It "benefit(s) from a climate of impunity, while the international community" yawns and does nothing. It's high time that changed. A Final Comment On March 27, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, reported on human rights in Palestine during the HRC's 19th session. Her findings sharply criticized Israel for violating Fourth Geneva obligations. It states nations "responsible for violations of international humanitarian law (must) make full reparation for the loss or injury caused." Pillay acknowledged Israel's lawlessness and unaccountability, especially with regard to Gaza. No compensation amount can make up for decades of egregious crimes of war and against humanity, as well as millions of Palestinians harmed. Their nightmare continues daily. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Obama’s Guantanamo “war court” in session

Obama’s Guantanamo “war court” in session Bill Van Auken

At Guantanamo inmate shackled to the floor

April 14, 2012


Behind the razor wire-topped fences of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba, the proceedings of the so-called "war court" have fully resumed under the new management of the Obama administration.


Pretrial hearings are being held in two major cases that are to be heard under the direction of a military judge, Army Col. James Pohl, and argued before a hand-picked jury of US military officers, with the defendants facing the death penalty.


The first is the capital murder trial of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, charged as the architect of the October 12, 2000 suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, in which 17 American sailors lost their lives. The second is the death penalty trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other men accused of organizing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In the 9/11 case, an arraignment date has been set for May 5.


The character of this brand of military "justice" was evident in the motions put forward in the Nashiri case this week. Lawyers for the 47-year-old Saudi, who has been held first by the CIA and then the military since November 2002, asked the judge for their client to be exempted from the standard requirement at Guantanamo that inmates be shackled to the floor when meeting with legal counsel.


The lawyers argued that, thus shackled, Nashiri was unable to participate in preparing his defense because it revived the trauma of being similarly shackled during the years of torture to which he was subjected while in CIA custody. The motion touched off a brief controversy over whether the media would be allowed to hear Nashiri describe his torture, or if the testimony would be taken in secret. The military judge sidestepped the issue by granting the defense request without hearing Nashiri’s testimony.


The motive for preventing the airing of these issues is clear. A heavily redacted 2004 CIA inspector general’s report provides an indication of the criminal methods to which Nashiri was subjected. 


The report acknowledges that Nashiri was waterboarded 83 times, a form of induced drowning which was prosecuted as a war crime after the Second World War.
Another technique, described in the report as "unauthorized," involved the revving of a power drill next to the detainee’s head as he stood naked and hooded. Similarly, a gun was cocked and placed to his head repeatedly in what the agency described as "mock executions."
Interrogators threatened to bring Nashiri’s mother to the torture center and sexually abuse her in front of him. He was hung from his arms, which were bound behind his back, until interrogators feared he would dislocate both shoulders. His skin was rubbed raw with a scrub brush and interrogators deliberately stepped on his ankle shackles, causing them to cut into his flesh. They also gripped him by the neck, cutting off his carotid artery until he would pass out, and then revived him, repeating the process. Extreme cold, sleep deprivation and blaring noise were also employed.
Interrogators were also accused of using smoke as an "enhanced interrogation technique" instrument, but in their defense, they insisted that they smoked cigars merely to cover the stench of the cell where Nashiri was kept confined round-the-clock.


The torture succeeded in extracting confessions by Nashiri not only to the Cole bombing, but to numerous other acts and plots, including an admission that Osama bin Laden was in possession of an atomic bomb. When he appeared before a military tribunal in 2008, he insisted that he made false confessions to make the torture stop.


In a brief filed before the Guantanamo military commission last July, Nashiri’s lawyers argued that the US government lacked the "moral authority" to try him. "By torturing Mr. Al-Nashiri and subjecting him to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, the United States has forfeited its right to try him and certainly to kill him," the brief said. "Through the infliction of physical and psychological abuse, the government has essentially already killed the man it seized almost 10 years ago."


No US official—from the White House, to the Justice Department lawyers who condoned these methods, to the CIA interrogators—has been charged with any offense for this systematic torture. The Obama administration has repeatedly intervened to quash lawsuits seeking redress for torture victims.


The war courts convened in Nashiri’s case and that of Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants are not new. They are merely resuming operations after a temporary interruption brought about by the 2008 election of Barack Obama.


Candidate Obama vowed to restore American "ideals" and "values" by closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus and either trying or releasing the detainees held there. One of his first acts in office was to issue an executive order declaring that the prison camp would be shut within a year.


The ongoing military proceedings against Nashiri, Sheikh Mohammed and the others were halted and it was announced that they would be brought before civilian courts. In the face of opposition from the Republicans and a large section of right-wing Democrats in Congress, however, Obama capitulated, signing legislation that essentially turned Guantanamo and drumhead military tribunals into permanent features of the American state.


These tribunals, which have been repeatedly reconfigured in an effort to give them a veneer of due process, are rigged to produce the verdict desired by the state, from the military composition of the juries to rules of evidence that allow the introduction of summaries that include information gained through torture, to the completely controlled character of the proceedings. While ostensibly public, the proceedings are to be broadcast on a 40-second delay, allowing unseen intelligence operatives to delete any testimony deemed inconvenient by overriding it with white noise.


Even in the highly unlikely event that the defendants were acquitted, they would merely be returned to their cells at Guantanamo to be held again as "enemy combatants" for as long as the perpetual "war on terror" continues.


That such a police state tribunal is now a permanent institution, written into American law, stands as a stark warning. More recently, Obama signed into law legislation proclaiming the president’s power to order anyone, including an American citizen, to be subjected to indefinite military detention without judicial review based on the unproven assertion that he or she is a "terrorist." His attorney general publicly proclaimed the "right" of the president to order the assassination of alleged terrorists, including US citizens.


The malignant spread of police state methods that has continued from the Bush through the Obama administration is the product not merely of a particular political or legal ideology, but rather the outcome of profound objective contradictions within American and world capitalism.


Under conditions of a protracted crisis of the profit system and unprecedented levels of social inequality, genuine democratic procedures have become unworkable. Fearing the growth of social protest and a renewal of class struggle, the financial elite is preparing new methods of repression to defend its power and privilege.


The war courts that are coming into session at Guantanamo may well prove a preparation for their wider use against American workers, overturning every basic democratic and constitutional right going back more than two centuries.


This threat can be answered only by the working class mobilizing its independent strength in a political struggle to put an end to capitalism and reorganize social and economic life to meet the needs of the vast majority, rather than the profit interests of a tiny elite.

The peace process and erosion of Palestinian rights

The peace process and erosion of Palestinian rights By As'ad Abdul Rahman

Image Credit: Illustration: Dana A. Shams/©Gulf News

It is meant to allow Israel time to carry through its Zionist agenda of completely Judaising historical Palestine




April 14, 2012


When the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat addressed the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, he said: "The roots of the Palestinian question do not stem from any conflict between two religions or two nationalisms; neither is it a border conflict between neighbouring states. It is the cause of a people deprived of their unalienable rights, driven out of their homeland, dispersed and uprooted and living mostly in exile and refugee camps."


In saying so, Arafat was addressing the world to take notice and be warned of the consequences that might stem from the loss of Palestinians' unalienable rights. He wanted the world to be fully aware that the loss of Palestine to the very well-armed forces of the Zionist state does not mean in any way, shape or form, the loss of the national identity of the Palestinian people and their struggle to attain their unalienable rights that are the absolute rights of every people in our world as decreed by the United Nations charter. Indeed, liquidating the Palestinian national identity was the second item on the Zionists' agenda after historical Palestine came under the control of the colonial Israeli occupation. Tel Aviv was adamant in refusing to address the issue of the Palestinian refugees for fear of having to deal with their unalienable rights guaranteed by the UN charter which politically created the Zionist state in 1949.


Status quo


In this context, let us 'cut to the chase' and observe the status quo of the so-called 'peace process.' The whole world, including Israel, has agreed that the only solution to the Palestinian question is the two-state solution, a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in tranquillity and peaceful co-existence. Such a lofty goal to ensure a just and ever enduring peace in the Middle East requires that the two states provide to their respective peoples the same UN-guaranteed unalienable rights. This crucial requirement of full equality in national rights regarding both the Israeli and Palestinian states does not even exist on the agenda of the so-called 'peace process' making the process of reaching a final settlement totally unfeasible.


In fact, this process now stands between 'a master race' with endowed divine entitlements such as 'the chosen people of God' and an 'inferior people' who must stay subservient to 'the master race'. The very actions of the Israeli colonial rule in the Occupied Territories are based upon the apartheid system which has been inflaming the emotions of the entire Islamic world in addition to many others, including Jews inside and outside Israel. The establishment of a Palestinian state is far greater in scope and significance than the demarcation of boundaries that are shrinking by the day by Israeli annexations of Palestinians lands to build more colonies.


The so-called 'peace process' was never meant to be taken seriously nor was it an intention of Israel to address the unalienable rights of the Palestinian people towards establishing their own democratic and independent state of Palestine within the framework of a two-state solution. The basic ideology of Zionism refers to all historical Palestine as 'Eretz Israel' or 'the land of Israel', said to be divinely promised only to the adherents of the Jewish faith, 'the only true faith'! The same Zionist belief has been embraced as a scheme totally Judaising occupied Jerusalem to be "the eternal capital of the Jewish State".


Meanwhile, the peace process is asking the Palestinians and the Arab countries to recognise Israel as a Jewish state despite the fact that Judaism is a religion not a nationality. At this juncture, it is worth noticing that the real agenda of the current right-wing government in Israel will directly affect the very survival of the Zionist state. Many in Israel along with many Jews around the world, especially in America, are fully aware of the suicidal path being followed by the right-wing government of Israel. They are doing their best to prevent the right-wing politics in Israel from destroying the Zionist state and world Jewry with it. So, the so-called peace process, to the minds of the majority of Israelis, is meant to allow Israel time to carry through its Zionist agenda of completely Judaising historical Palestine including occupied Jerusalem. Any resistance against the process of Judaisation taking place under the guise of the peace process will be branded as a terrorist act against Israel as well as international security!


This is why, the peace process has turned the Palestinian people into prisoners abused and robbed on a daily basis in the name of 'peace-in-the-making' that will never be realised at the hands of the present Israeli government. The ugly fact of the peace process is that it has been transformed into a daily swallowing up of pieces of Palestinian lands to feed the hungry process of Judaisation of historical Palestine which cannot be finalised without the total transfer of all the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories from their historical homeland including occupied Jerusalem.


Professor As'ad Abdul Rahman is the Chairman of the Palestinian Encyclopaedia.

Report exposes discrimination and apartheid in the occupied Jordan Valley

April 15, 2012

Report exposes discrimination and apartheid in the occupied Jordan Valley Adri Nieuwhof

A new report by Maan Development Center exposes the sharp contrast in living conditions between Palestinians and illegal settlers in the occupied Jordan Valley. Israeli policies facilitate the extravagant lifestyle of Jewish settlers at the expense of the basic rights of Palestinians. Palestinians are denied access to their own natural resources, while Israeli settlers can fully profit from the rich agricultural land and abundant water resources of the valley. Water, education and health facilities are segregated. The Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area covers about one third of the West Bank and is one of the most isolated and restricted areas in occupied Palestine. Israel exercises full control over 95% of the Jordan Valley – so-called Area C, prohibiting Palestinians from freely using their land. About 56,000 Palestinians live in the Jordan Valley and 9,500 Israeli settlers have established 37 settlements in the area. Settlement expansion financed with subsidies The June 1967 war drove thousands of Palestinian from the Jordan Valley. Immediately after the war, Israel began to invest heavily in settlements in order to transfer its citizens to the area. However, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits Israel - the Occupying Power - from deporting or transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Palestinians are almost completely prevented by Israel from any sort of development in the area. Instead, settlement expansion is heavily subsidized by the Israeli government and various independent organizations. Settlement development in the north of the Jordan Valley focuses mainly on agriculture, while in the south – near the Dead Sea – tourism is central. All the settlements in the Jordan Valley benefit from Israel’s policy of 'National Priority Areas.’ The policy aims to encourage migration to the settlements by providing subsidies for housing, education, agriculture and industry and preferential taxation rates. For example, between 2000 and 2006, settlers in the West Bank paid 60% less taxes than Israeli citizens in Israel proper. In addition, settlements receive direct financial support on the initiative of individual ministers. Local settler municipalities play a key role as intermediaries between the national government and the final beneficiaries – the settlers. "We are in charge, or we make sure we get the services we are entitled to," says a member of the Regional Council in an interview. The settlements also receive significant financial support from Zionist organizations abroad such as the One Israel Fund, the Jordan Valley Development Fund, and the Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund. Foreign companies also benefit from the tax system if they work within the settlements. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor offers a 50% reduction on research and development centers. Foreign companies are eligible for a further 20% investment grant for specific projects that are undertaken in these centers. Discriminatory water policies In the occupied Jordan Valley, water is one of the most valuable Palestinian natural resources; it flows in underground aquifers, natural streams, and the Jordan River. However, Israeli discriminatory policies deny Palestinians access to their water. Instead, Palestinian water is plundered to supply the extensive settler agricultural industry and the settlements - including large "settler only" swimming pools. The vast majority of the settlements own a swimming pool. Immediately after the occupation in 1967, Israel took complete control of all water sources in Palestine and denied Palestinians access to the Jordan River. The Israeli water company Mekorot began digging deep wells for settlers and has connected every Israeli settlement in the Jordan Valley to the Israeli water network, taking advantage of government subsidies. The wells have dried up the water resources available to Palestinians who are not allowed to dig such deep wells. Moreover, Israel has demolished Palestinian wells, cisterns, and other water sources and infrastructure. For example, in 1967 there were 774 operational wells and in 2005 only 328 were left. In addition, Palestinians are denied permits to construct new water structures, whereas such permits are quickly provided to settlements. The Joint Water Committee (JWC) - consisting of Israelis and Palestinians - is meant to oversee and authorize water projects in the West Bank. The JWC has no authority over the Israeli settlements but provides Israel with a veto right over Palestinian water decisions. According to the World Bank, 106 Palestinian water projects and 12 large-scale waste-water projects are awaiting JWC approval, some since 1999. In addition, Palestinians have to ask the Israeli Civil Administration for approval of Palestinian water projects in Area C, creating additional bureaucratic obstacles. Only one Israeli project has been denied since 1993. The amount of piped water available to Palestinians is a fraction of the piped water available to settlers living in a nearby settlement. For example, settlers in Yitav consume 317 liters per day and Palestinians in nearby Ras al-Auja only 30 liters. In Ro’I settlers can use 431 liters and Palestinian in nearby Al-Hadidiya a meager 20 liters. Due to Israel’s discriminatory water policies, about 67% of Palestinians in the Jordan Valley are forced to purchase water in tanks from Mekorot, which is very expensive. Water from a network costs 2.6 NIS (US$ 0.70) per cubic meter, but the price of water from a water tank is 5 to 14 times higher. No Israeli funds for education of Palestinian children Nearly 95% of the Jordan Valley is designated as Area C and falls under Israeli military control. The Israeli government therefore has an obligation to provide education for Palestinian children living in the area, but Israel prevents Palestinian children from attending settler schools, which are the sole beneficiaries under the education budget. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) tries to help but cannot provide any sort of substantial educational assistance to Area C. The budget in many Palestinian schools is so low that large portions of the annual budget are dedicated to simply making copies of textbooks. For example, the school in the Palestinian village of Marj Na’aje serves 200 children. The PNA provides funds for salaries, but the school has to rely for running costs on donations from the 800 villagers, 40% of whom are unemployed. One third of the available NIS 6,000 (US$ 1,600) is spent on copy machine paper. School for Palestinian children in Area C of the Jordan Valley (Photo: Maan Development Center) About 10,000 Palestinian children from Area C started the school year learning in tents, caravans, or tin shacks which lack protection from the heat and cold. Nearly a third of Area C schools lack adequate water and sanitation facilities. In addition, at least 23 schools serving 2,250 children in Area C have pending stop-work or demolition orders. The limited assistance of the PNA fails to offer adequate incentives, and this contributes to the shortage of Palestinian teachers. Many of the teachers are either volunteers or interns from other parts of the Jordan Valley or West Bank. The shortage of teachers causes a high student to teacher ratio in the region. In addition, the closures and checkpoints often delay the teachers and result in students suffering from an irregular curriculum and the intermittent presence of trained professionals. School for Jewish children in Area C of the Jordan Valley (Photo: Maan Development Center) The situation of Jewish children in the Jordan Valley is completely different from that of Palestinian children in Area C, because the government provides educational facilities for settler youth. Moreover, the settlements receive more assistance than Israelis who live in Israel. For example, the salaries of teachers in settler schools are 12-20% higher than in Israel. In addition, the government covers 80% of their rent and all travel costs, and grants other benefits. Settler schools are improved by additional government funding which is used for extended school days, computer systems and costs of transport for the students. Informal education institutions in the Jordan Valley also receive generous funding. Maan’s report also highlights discrimination in other areas such as health care, freedom of movement, access to land, and recreational space for children. The numerous facts presented in the report reveal a consistent pattern of superfluous provision of benefits to settlers in sharp contrast to numerous restrictions on Palestinians and denial of their rights. Israel stimulates the transfer of Jewish citizens to the occupied Jordan Valley by subsidizing their luxurious lifestyle, while Palestinians face harsh conditions due to systematic racism and the persistent denial of their rights.

Israeli settlers injure three Palestinians, uproot dozens of olive trees in two separate incidents

Israeli settlers injure three Palestinians, uproot dozens of olive trees in two separate incidents by IMEMC Staff

April 15, 2012 On Thursday and Friday in the West Bank, groups of armed Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians and their property. In the northern West Bank on Thursday, armed Israeli settlers attacked Palestinian farmers, injuring three; and in the southern West Bank Friday, a group of settlers destroyed a Palestinian olive grove by chopping down all of the trees. The incident on Thursday took place in the village of Yanun, near Nablus, where Palestinian farmers were working on their land when several Israeli settlers came onto the land and attacked them. One of the settlers involved in the attack was identified as Matan Fogel, the brother of an Israeli man who was murdered along with his family in the settlement of Itamar last year in an attack that was blamed on local Palestinians. Fogel and the other settlers called the Israeli military to assist them in dispersing the Palestinian farmers. When the military arrived, soldiers fired tear gas at the Palestinians and abducted five Palestinian farmers, according to local sources. The Israeli settlers claimed that the Palestinian farmers initiated the attack, and injured two settlers with farming tools. The settlers were all armed with military-grade weapons. None of the Palestinians involved in the incident were armed. In the attack on Friday, Israeli settlers from the settlement of Maol, near Hebron, entered an olive grove near the village of Kharoubeh and chopped down trees belonging to local Palestinian landowner Jebril Mousa Khalil, according to the Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. Palestinian shepherds and international non-violent activists who were in the area came to the olive grove to try to stop the destruction, and were chased by the settlers to Tuwani village. According to eyewitnesses, the settlers ran after the activists and shepherds and threw stones at them and at Palestinian homes. Israeli troops then arrived in the area to 'protect the Israeli settlers’, as they are mandated to do – even when the settlers are the ones engaging in acts of violence. Israeli settler attacks increased by 50% in 2011, and have continued to increase in the first months of 2012, although official numbers are not yet available.

Israel blocks entry to pro-Palestinian activists at airport

Israel blocks entry to pro-Palestinian activists at airport Harriet Sherwood

Israeli police arrest an activist holding a banner saying 'Welcome to Palestine' at Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images Fifty passengers detained as police mount major security operation against protesters bound for the West Bank April 15, 2012 Dozens of international pro-Palestinian activists have been refused entry intoIsrael in a large-scale security operation that ensured a high profile for the protesters' attempted show of solidarity with the people of the West Bank. About 650 police officers, some in plain clothes, patrolled Ben Gurion airport on Sunday ready "to prevent disturbances and disruption", according to police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. Around 50 passengers had been detained and interrogated by mid-afternoon, with many more flights expected during the early evening. Nine people were immediately deported, and a small number were allowed entry to Israel. Those suspected of being pro-Palestinian activists were taken first to a smaller terminal, with a "Welcome to Israel" sign above its doors, for interrogation and from there to a nearby prison. At least four Israeli sympathisers who unfurled a banner reading "Welcome to Palestine" in the arrivals hall were arrested. "The security measures are to prevent any major incidents taking place," said Rosenfeld. "These are not terrorists, but they could be a threat to Israel's security." Israel had distributed a list of about 1,200 names of personae non grata to airlines, demanding they be barred from flights. "Failure to keep this instruction could lead to imposing sanctions against the airline," said a letter from the immigration authority. Carriers were told they would bear the cost of repatriating deported activists. Hundreds of ticket-holders were told hours before their flight that they would not be permitted to board planes. At Brussels Zaventem airport, around 100 activists showed letters barring them from travel, which said they intended to "disrupt order and confront security forces at friction points". Up to 1,500 activists, mostly from Europe, had been planning to travel directly from Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv to Bethlehem in the West Bank for a week-long programme of educational and cultural activities under the banner of "Welcome to Palestine". Israel controls all entry points to the West Bank. Organisers accused Israel of being paranoid and hysterical. "Israel's willingness to detain people who have not committed any crime and have done nothing but say they came to visit Palestine is a hysterical reaction," activist Leehee Rothschild told Associated Press. Activists who landed at Ben Gurion were handed a letter suggesting that humanitarian issues in Syria and Iran, and Hamas's rule in Gaza, were more worthy of protest than Israel's policies in the West Bank. ---------------------------------------------------- ‘We have cancelled your booking’ — the criminalization of travel to the West Bank is laid bare to the world Laura Durkay French activists protesting European airlines canceling flytilla passenger flights, 2011. (Photo: Abu Nawfal) April 14, 2012 This Sunday, I was planning to fly to Tel Aviv with up to 1,500 other participants in Welcome to Palestine 2012, a peaceful initiative of travel and solidarity with Palestinians in the West Bank. We had an invitation from over 25 civil society groups across the West Bank. We had the blessing of the mayor of Bethlehem. Our plans consisted of such terroristic activities as laying the cornerstone of a kindergarten, repairing damaged wells, and planting olive trees. This morning I received the following notice from the airline on which I had purchased a ticket to fly to Tel Aviv: From: CustomerCare Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM To: Laura Durkay Jet2.com Flight LS907 Manchester to Tel Aviv Sunday 15th April 2012 Dear Laura Durkay, Jet2.com is required by the Israeli authorities to provide Advance Passenger Information in relation to all passengers that it carries on flights to Israel. Advance Passenger Information includes a passenger's name, date of birth, passport number and nationality. In accordance with Article 7 of its Terms and Conditions, Jet2.com has provided Advance Passenger Information in respect of your flight from Manchester to Israel. As a result of providing that Information, Jet2.com has been informed by the Israeli authorities that you will not be not permitted to enter Israel. Consequently, if Jet2.com carries you to Israel, you will be refused entry and Jet2.com will be liable for both a fine and your return to Manchester. As a result, and in accordance with Article 24 of its Terms and Conditions, Jet2.com: "may refuse to carry you where such action is necessary for reasons of safety and/or security and/or to comply with any applicable laws, regulations or orders of any country to be flown from, into or over including laws or regulations relating to Advance Passenger Information requirements." We regret that, in light of the decision taken by the Israeli authorities, we are unable to accept you for carriage to Israel on this occasion and your booking with Jet2.com has been cancelled. In accordance with Article 26.3 of its Terms and Conditions, Jet2.com is a non-refundable airline and we will therefore be unable to offer any refund, with the exception of a refund of the applicable taxes paid, as a result of the decision taken by the Israeli authorities. Jet2.com would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused by the cancellation of your booking, which we hope you will appreciate is totally beyond our control. Yours sincerely Jet2.com Customer Care Team I soon found out I was far from alone. Many other UK participants had received the same notice. In France, Lufthansa had cut to the chase and canceled an entire flight to Tel Aviv. On the one hand, this is hardly surprising. The Israeli government has a long record of denying entry to any international suspected of sympathy with the Palestinians. And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg—the iceberg being the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are unable to return to their own country, even for a brief visit as a tourist. But it is worth taking a step back to realize how thoroughly absurd and far-reaching these policies have become. With this sweeping denial of entry of hundreds of activists simultaneously, the Israeli government policy of criminalizing mere travel to the Occupied Territories is laid bare for all the world to see. When I participated in Welcome to Palestine 2011, last July, I was effectively imprisoned for four days simply for answering, when asked where I was going, "Bethlehem." In the bizarre world of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, even to speak the word Palestine is forbidden. One of the goals of the Welcome to Palestine initiative is to highlight the fact that, while conditions may not be as dire as in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank is also under Israeli siege, since Israel controls all points of entry and exit. Today, with the willing cooperating of European governments and corporations, that siege extends as far as Brussels, Paris and Manchester. But all the Israeli government has done is ensure that resistance to its policies will reach those shores as well. Laura Durkay is a writer and activist living in New York City, involved in the queer rights and Palestine solidarity movements as a member of the International Socialist Organization. She blogs about film, struggle, history and their intersections at http://lauraontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/

December 2011, Pages 34-35

Special Report

The Political Uses of Islamophobia in Europe

By John Gee

Members of the right-wing English Defense League listen to founder Stephen Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) during a Feb. 5, 2011 rally in Luton, a working-class town north of London with a history of racial tension. Orthodox Rabbi Nachum Shifren also spoke at the rally. (Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images)

For half a century after the end of the Second World War, the far right in Europe was typically anti-Semitic and worshipful of the Third Reich. Realizing that their association with Nazism alienated the vast majority of the public, those who ran for office tried to distance themselves from it to some extent, but rarely succeeded for long. They seemed to find it impossible to avoid letting slip their real views, giving Nazi salutes and selling anti-Semitic writings by individuals whose pro-Nazi sympathies were well known.

Those groups still exist, but they have been partially displaced on the extreme edges of European politics by organizations that have made Islam the primary object of their hatred. In some cases, this may be tactical: the British National Party, for example, has concentrated on campaigning against the Muslim presence in Britain in the past decade, but among its core leaders are men with a track record of anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi sympathies. In others, the focus on Islam is genuine: they don't have a secret agenda—or at least, not a neo-Nazi one.

As a result, they have been able to capitalize on the fears of some sectors of the public concerning Islam and migrants from Muslim countries in ways that the old far-right organizations could not. Inflammatory language and the blanket labeling of an entire religious group comprising people of widely varied national origins, values, and degrees of religious practice was acceptable in a way that similar expressions of hostility toward Jewish, Asian or Black people would not be.

It has to be said that Muslim extremism is not merely a figment of their imagination, as it has brought death and suffering to many people. But to project the values of a small segment of the world's Muslims onto all has no justification in the beliefs and conduct of the vast majority of Islam's adherents. Political leaders and opinion-makers have played upon and amplified real anxieties felt in some non-Muslim communities as a way to build political support.

In Britain, the English Defense League (EDL) was launched in May 2009, shortly after eight Muslim extremists stood shouting abuse during a march past them by the Royal Anglian Regiment, returning from service in Afghanistan. Although it presented itself as a movement of "ordinary people," the EDL relied heavily on football hooligans for support, and, as its leadership became better known, it emerged that some of them had been activists with far-right organizations. It received favorable publicity from the tabloid Daily Star and financial support from Alan Lake, a North London businessman. Lake also helped the EDL to build up international contacts. These include the Sweden Democrats, Pastor Terry Jones, who attracted publicity with his threat to burn Qur'ans, and Pam Geller, director of Stop Islamization of America. (EDL members attended Geller's September 2010 protest against the establishment of an Islamic Center near the site of the World Trade Center.)

Lake arranged for Nachum Shifren, an Orthodox rabbi, to speak at an EDL rally in Luton on Feb. 5, 2011. Referring to Muslims as "dogs," the rabbi said: "History will be recorded that on this day, read by our children for eternity, one group lit the spark to liberate us from the oppressors of our two governments and the leftist, fifth column, quisling press, and that it was the EDL which started the liberation of England from evil." Shifren emigrated from the USA to Israel in 1977, served in the Israeli army, and, while studying, lived in the Kfar Tepuah settlement in the West Bank, later returning to California and standing as a Republican candidate for the state senate in 2010.

In the Netherlands, Islamophobia was made respectable by the 2002 electoral success of Pim Fortuyn. A former leftist and openly gay, Fortuyn always rejected any association with the established parties of the European far right—which meant that when he referred to Islam as "a backward culture" and sounded the alarm over the alleged danger posed by Muslim immigration, he was not hindered in putting his message over by Nazi baggage. With the Liveable Rotterdam party, he won 36 percent of the seats in the formerly staunchly socialist city. He formed a new party, the List Pim Fortuyn, which won 26 parliamentary seats in the 2002 general election, helped rather than hindered by Fortuyn's assassination during the campaign. It was very much a personal vehicle, however, and lost its last parliamentary seats in 2006.

Geert Wilders has stepped into Fortuyn's shoes. Unlike Fortuyn, Wilders' background was conservative and he was a member of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy until 2004, when he fell out with it over Turkey's efforts to join the European Union. This was a rallying point for Islamophobes across Europe. Wilders wanted the Turkish application to be rejected, not negotiated. He established the Freedom Party, now the third largest in the Dutch parliament.

Wilders claims that Islam is a fascist ideology and compares the Qur'an to Hitler's Mein Kampf; in this he is more strident and extreme than Fortuyn. He was reportedly influenced as a young man by his travels in Israel and the neighboring Arab states.

Indeed, Wilders is strongly supportive of Zionism of a far-right variety. In December 2008, he participated in the "Facing Jihad" conference in Jerusalem, organized by National Union Knesset member Aryeh Eldad. Eldad, whose party favors the expulsion of all Palestinians from Israeli-controlled territory, said that the conference was "to plan practical steps in the struggle against the spread of Islam in Europe." Eldad told theJerusalem Post that the Arab-Israeli conflict was between Islam and Western civilization, not a dispute over territory.

So rabid was Wilders' contribution that fellow participant Daniel Pipes was moved to challenge him on his assertion that there was no such thing as "moderate Islam" and on his rejection of the Qur'an in its entirety. (Other conference participants included Itamar Marcus, of the highly selective Palestinian Media Watch, and Robert Spencer, director of the U.S.-based Jihad Watch.) Wilders' anti-Islam film, "Fitna," was shown.

Prior to the conference, Wilders told an audience at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, "We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together." In December 2010, Wilders met in Jerusalem with Avigdor Lieber, the Israeli interior minister and leader of the Russian immigrant-based far-right party, Yisrael Beitenu. Wilders was a member of the Swiss-based European Freedom Alliance delegation to Israel that also included two members of the European Parliament from the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), two members of Flemish Interest (VB), based in the Flemish part of Belgium, and an MP from the Sweden Democrats.

The mindset of these organizations and individuals was reflected in the manifesto issued by Anders Breivik, who murdered 76 people in Norway on July 22. They all rushed to dissociate themselves from Breivik's actions, but he had drawn inspiration and justification for what he did from their writings—just as Yigal Amir, the assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, drew encouragement from the violent incitement of the Israeli right and the settler leadership, which also tried to distance itself from the consequences of their words. Without themselves laying hands on guns or explosives, they created an atmosphere in which individuals such as Breivik and Amir could muster a sense of self-righteous legitimacy that left them feeling entitled and impelled to kill.

Nowhere in Europe do Islamophobic parties and movements have majority support, but they have managed to achieve electoral gains in some countries and have broken to some extent with the obsessions of the post-World War II extreme right that contributed greatly to its relative political isolation. Typically, they cherry pick the liberal and leftist values that they reject for elements that can serve them: claiming to oppose "Islamization" because it would mean the oppression of women, the persecution of gay people and the suppression of democratic liberties, and comparing Islam to Nazism and fascism. They should be seen instead as playing a complementary role to the Muslim extremists they denounce: each feeds upon the rage and inflammatory words and deeds of the other. Especially in these times of economic woe, people who want a decent society must take a stand and reject demonization of any community on the basis of its religion, as well as nationality or color.

Marriage of Convenience?

Trips to Israel by right-wing politicians have been used by them to shrug off the taint of anti-Semitism and fascism. Alessandra Mussolini visited shortly before launching her own political career. The Italian Social Movement (MSI) was founded by Giorgio Almirante, a former member of Benito Mussolini's Nazi puppet regime, the Social Republic, after the Second World War, but his successor, Gianfranco Fini, re-established it in 1995 as the National Alliance. He visited Israel in November 2003 as Italy's deputy prime minister. Israeli radio commented that Fini believed that the road to the Italian premiership passes through Jerusalem. In 2008, Fini came in for a torrent of criticism after he said on a talk show that the burning of Israeli flags by left-wing protesters on May 1st was "much more serious" than the brutal beating in Verona the same day of 29-year-old Nicola Tommasoli by neo-Nazis. Tommasoli later died of his injuries.

---

John Gee is a free-lance journalist based in Singapore, and the author of Unequal Conflict: The Palestinians and Israel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------