THE election landscape in Iran is becoming increasingly clear. According to state-run Press TV, a whopping 686 candidates registered to run in the presidential poll. However, only eight men remain on the ballot for the first round on June 14 after candidates were vetted by the Guardian Council, which consists of 12 members – half of whom were appointed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Most are seen as loyalists to Khamenei, while those rejected included former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, a close aide to outgoing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Testing the waters before the Guardian Council’s decision, Iran’s national deputy police commander Esmael Moghaddam sounded a warning last week in the Shargh newspaper for Mashaei to stop challenging the Supreme Leader by claiming to take orders from a higher authority – namely Al Mahdi, the 12th Shi’ite Imam.

There was also an editorial by Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the state-run newspaper Kayhan and an appointee of Khamenei, declaring the “Ahmadinejad government is over” and predicting “Rafsanjani will undoubtedly face defeat”.

These were the first indications that the current president’s candidate could be purged and a clear sign of how election cards would be stacked to defeat Rafsanjani.

Pundits in the West have argued for years that the method of choosing candidates in Iran’s election is the least democratic.

It is far from being a representation of plural democracy, but neither is the filtered democratic process in the West – where backdoor dealings, not a popular vote, determine which party’s candidate wins a general election.

To the chagrin of the West, the final candidates in Iran might quarrel over many issues, but they all support Iran’s right to develop a “peaceful” nuclear programme.

Other than the new president forming a new negotiating team, there will be little change at the negotiation table once Ahmadinejad is replaced.

Some might take a more pragmatic approach in dealing with world powers, while others are poised to take a more assertive position. Among the candidates still in the race is Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who said in an interview with the Financial Times that “Western powers will be forced to make compromises only when they are confronted with fierce resistance”.

In past Iranian elections, voters have been more inclined to opt for the nominee who registers lowest on the corruption barometer and has the highest levels of nationalistic demagoguery. Taking a hardline position with the 5+1, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, would likely improve the presidential candidate’s chances of winning votes.

The irony, which many have forgotten, is that more than five decades ago some of the 5+1 countries introduced nuclear military technology to the Middle East.

France built Israel’s nuclear reactor in the late 1950s and Britain provided the heavy water to start up the plant in 1959.

The highly enriched uranium to make Israel’s first nuclear bomb was purportedly stolen from the US Navy in the mid-1960s.

The West’s inability to reach an agreement with Iran today can’t be separated from its failure in dealing with the crisis in Syria or its submissiveness to Israel when it comes to Palestine.

To succeed, the West must first stop viewing the Middle East through an Israeli prism. Next, it should take bold steps to rectify past sins by promoting a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

Otherwise, and as we have learnt from the Iraq experience, Iran will not be the last of the problems.

(Source / 24.05.2013)

Recently there has been a sound coming from the skies over Beirut triggering unpleasant recollections: the distant roar of Israeli fighter jets as one lies in bed at night.

This noise brings with it images and memories from the last war Israel waged on Lebanon, the 33-day war during the summer of 2006. Even as I write this from my office near the center of the city, the ominous rumbling of Israeli fighter jets, announcing their illegal incursions into Lebanese airspace, can be heard over the capital.

But this threatening behavior above Lebanon is non-existent, or so the Western media corporations would have us believe. While information-sharing web tools have broken the mainstream media’s monopoly over covering and analyzing world developments, there is still a long way to go. The Israeli politics of dispossession enjoy near unconditional support in the editorial rooms of New York, London and Paris, a bias still undetected by most of the Western audience they claim to serve.

On 25 April, these editors saw to it that one story dominated the front pages: reports of an alleged unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or drone, that flew from Lebanon to historic Palestine, with accompanying reportage and commentary treating information given by Israeli government and military sources as the definitive truth of the incident.

The Israeli Air Force said it shot down a UAV several miles off the coast of the northern city of Haifa after it entered Israeli airspace from Lebanon. Israel’s deputy defense ministerDanny Danon accused Hizballah of sending the drone: “We’re talking about another attempt by Hizballah to send an unmanned drone into Israeli territory,” he told army radio (“Israel shoots down Lebanese drone,” DefenseNews, 25 April 2013).

Shortly after the Israeli announcement, Hizballah issued a statement denying this was the case (“Hezbollah denies responsibility for drone shot down by Israel,” Al-Akhbar English, 26 April 2013).

This is in contrast to October last year, when Israel said it had shot down a drone over theNegev (Naqab). In that case, Hizballah proudly claimed the drone as its own and celebrated this demonstration of its technological prowess (“Hezbollah admits launching drone over Israel,” BBC).

For its part, a spokesperson with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) announced after the Israeli statement on 25 April: “We learned from the media that the Israeli Air Force has shot down a drone and we’re investigating these reports.”

As part of its peacekeeping mandate, UNIFIL has radars along the coast to monitor Lebanon’s entire airspace, and a few hours later UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said the UN force could not confirm that a drone had flown from its area of operations in southern Lebanon (“Israel shoots down drone off Haifa, Hizbullah denies responsibility,” Naharnet, 25 April 2013).

Inconvenient facts

So Hizballah denied responsibility and the UNIFIL couldn’t confirm that a drone flew over south Lebanon into Israeli-controlled airspace, but far be it for these inconvenient facts to get in the way of a good story. This newest threat to Israel burned like wildfire across the pages of major Western media outlets like The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, France 24, The Daily Telegraph and the BBC, which dutifully reported the worries over Israel’s security being breached.

Poor Israel: one of the strongest armies in the world, sitting on a nuclear arsenal.

These news reports demonstrate the systematic bias of Western corporate media when it comes to Israel. While the reports all spoke of Hizballah’s violation of Israel’s “borders” and sovereignty and the threat this posed to Israeli civilians, none mentioned the daily Israeli violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and the threat this poses to Lebanese citizens. Without this, a reader might easily mistake the aggressor for the victim.

Then there was the one-sided sourcing of “facts” to back up the story and the rush to judgment. On 26 April — the day after the alleged drone was downed — the Israeli government itself began to shift its narrative to more ambiguous finger-pointing at Iran, rather than directly blaming Hizballah (“Israel points finger at Iran over drone from Lebanon,” The Daily Telegraph, 27 April 2013).

Meanwhile, a 8 May story in Lebanon’s daily As-Safir newspaper claims it was actually anIsraeli drone that had been intercepted by resistance fighters en route to Lebanon.

According to unnamed sources close to Hizballah and Western diplomatic circles cited by the paper, when the Israeli Air Force noticed that its UAV was out of its control, it shot it down over the Mediterranean. This suggestion seems at least plausible when stacked next to the UNIFIL report and Hizballah’s denial.

But taking this into account or following up on it would have required understanding Arabic, which few foreign journalists do.

Daily terror

Israel inflicts different methods of terror on Lebanon daily: F-16s and F-15s stage mock raids and drones stalk our skies — all in violation of UN resolution 1701. Lebanese citizens are kidnapped near the border, Israeli landmines and cluster bombs continue to await their victims on Lebanese soil, not to mention the Israeli army’s continued occupation of parts of Lebanon.

While the UN occasionally condemns these acts of Israeli aggression, the fact that they continue unabated reminds us in Lebanon that accountability and international law end at our southern border. So too does objective journalism, it seems, given that in the past month Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace have heavily intensified, but none of this has made it into the Western press.

As a journalist, I’ve tried to pitch stories to mainstream media outlets on the constant Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty and have been lucky enough, from time to time, for an editor to bother to reply, if only to say that the story is irrelevant.

The adage goes that real journalism is publishing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations. By publishing Israel’s claims as fact, and ignoring the reality on the ground in Beirut and Palestine, mainstream journalists show how well practiced they are in the art of PR.

(Source / 24.05.2013)

I don’t disagree that the cowardly removal by Aljazeera of everything written by Joseph Massad is a travesty of justice and journalism and that their reinstatement is justified.  But why was Massad trying to defend Palestinian rights based upon them being “the last of the Semites?”

The term “Semite” was born of the assumption that all the languages of the world are the result of the sons of Noah – Shem, Ham and Japheth – going to different parts of the globe after the flood and creating different language groups: Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic.  The sons of Noah?  Are we seriously entertaining such nonsense?

To make matters worse, this absurdity was extended to fictitious “races,” not just languages.  “Anti-Semitic” therefore is descriptive of the Hamitic and Japhetic races turning on the descendents of Shem, the third brother.  No one seriously speaks of Hamitic and Japhetic races.  Is it not time to recognize the absurdity of the Semitic “race” as well?

Even more absurd is the attempt to use such mythological concepts to measure the virtue of the Palestinian cause.  The Palestinian cause has nothing to do with Jews, Semites, anti-Semitism, God, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Noah, Jacob, Ishmael, Shem, Ham and Japheth, whether you believe in them or not.  It has nothing to do with the Holocaust, colonialism, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the Turks or the British.

It has everything to do with the expulsion of Palestinians from their land and with denial of their right to sovereignty, to self-determination and above all their Right to Return.  It does not matter who expelled them.  It is their land and they have the right to return.  It does not matter who denies their existence.  They have a right to return.

It does not even matter if they are nice people or despicable, whether they are racists or humanists, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhist or Shinto, whether they are clean or dirty, educated or ignorant, rich or poor, democrats or monarchists.  They have the right to return to their homes and to reclaim their country.

Their rights cannot be held hostage to the rights of others.  If justice for Palestinians cannot be bought at the price of injustice for others, neither can justice for others be bought at the price of injustice to Palestinians.  Justice may be indivisible, but we need not wait for justice to happen everywhere in order for it to happen in Palestine.

Palestinians cannot wait for CO₂ levels to drop below 350 parts per million, nor for the population of blue whales to rise, nor for the persecution of Rohingyas to end in Myanmar, nor even for ethnic cleansing to end in Congo, nor for the European victims of World War II and their descendants to be made whole, nor for indigenous peoples everywhere to regain their rights and heritage.

Justice may be indivisible, but the restoration of justice anywhere raises the level of justice everywhere.  The restoration of justice in Palestine benefits the entire world and gives hope to justice that is still struggling to restore itself in other places and to other peoples.

Anti-Semitism is no more relevant to Palestinian liberation than anti-Hamitism or Anti-Japhetism or any other attempt to gauge the worthiness of the Palestinian cause by its endorsement or rejection of someone else’s values.  Please remove such irrelevance from the discussion of Palestinian rights.

(Source / 23.05.2013)

Sinds 2007 leven Palestijnen niet alleen onder de Israëlische bezetting, maar ook onder een ‘afsluiting’. Dat wil zeggen: import, export en bewegingsvrijheid is zeer beperkt. De afsluiting is een strafmaatregel die door Israël is ingesteld nadat Hamas aan de macht kwam, onder het mom van Israëlische staatsveiligheid. De VN en het Rode Kruis stellen de afsluiting een collectieve bestraffing van de burgerbevolking inhoudt. Dat is illegaal onder internationaal recht. Zij roepen dan ook al jaren op tot opheffing van de afsluiting.

De Gazastrook kan het best worden vergeleken met een openluchtgevangenis. De lokale economie is ingestort, met hoge werkeloosheid en armoede tot gevolg. Er zijn tekorten aan brandstof, elektriciteit, bouwmaterialen, medische- en levensmiddelen. Ook zijn de riolering en waterzuivering nauwelijks onderhouden. Daardoor raakt het grond –en kraanwater steeds verder vervuilt; het water uit de kraan is op sommige plaatsen een mix tussen een Amsterdamse gracht en de Dode Zee.

Meisjes spelen in een vervuilde omgeving vlakbij Nuseirat, in het midden van de Gazastrook

Door deze ellende en de gevolgen van oorlogsgeweld, wordt de Gazastrook behandeld als ‘humanitair crisisgebied’. En dat is nou juist het laatste waar ze in Gaza op wachten: “Geen hulpgoederen, maar een politieke oplossing, vrijheid, werken en voor onszelf zorgen,” is een veelgehoord geluid. Er was geen tsunami of aardbeving, maar een politieke besluit. Een besluit dat ongedaan gemaakt moet worden, voordat leven in Gaza kan verbeteren.

Ik zie veel potentieel en talent in de Gazastrook. Mijn vrienden hebben gestudeerd, zijn creatief, nieuwsgierig en vol doorzettingsvermogen. Ondanks alles, maakt iedereen er het beste van. Mensen gaan hun problemen met veel humor en vastberadenheid te lijf. Daar kan ik alleen maar bewondering voor hebben. Het is een les in het leven die ik voor altijd bij me draag.

Soms, wanneer ik de afsluiting even dreig te vergeten, zijn er subtiele ‘reminders’: wanneer ik dagen niet kan koken omdat er geen gas meer op de markt is, dan haal ik een afhaalmaaltijd of kook eet bij vrienden. Of wanneer ik een rondreis langs verschillende apothekers maak om voorgeschreven medicijnen bij elkaar te zoeken; of simpelweg wanneer ik ’s ochtends onder de douche stap en er smerig water uit de kraan komt. Dan kan ik er plots weer niet omheen; als je in Gaza woont, is alles in je leven politiek.

(Source / 21.05.2013)

In an unprecedented act of political censorship Al Jazeera English has deleted an article by noted Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad after coming under intense criticism from Zionists in recent days.

Massad told The Electronic Intifada that he had “received confirmation” from his editor at Al Jazeera English that “management pulled the article.” The Electronic Intifada was able to independently confirm that the article was pulled.

The piece, “The Last of the Semites,” published on 14 May, was taken down from the main Al Jazeera English site this morning – the link now redirects to Al Jazeera’s main page. It has also disappeared from Massad’s personal page on the Al Jazeera website.

The article had been one of the most viewed and emailed articles on the site and had beentweeted hundreds of times.

Intense criticism

Since its publication, the article generated intense criticism from Zionist extremists,including a columnist in the virulently anti-Palestinian Jerusalem Post, and condemnation on Twitter from President Barack Obama’s favorite Israel lobby gatekeeper and former Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg:

Jeffrey Goldberg        ✔ @JeffreyGoldberg

Congratulations, al Jazeera: You’ve just posted one of the most anti-Jewish screeds in recent memory: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/201351275829430527.html …

3:39 PM – 14 May 2013

The last of the Semites

It is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti-Semitic claims of all.

Al Jazeera English @AJEnglish

John Podhoretz, editor of the neoconservative anti-Palestinian Zionist magazineCommentary tweeted about Massad, “Congratulations, donors to Columbia University, for paying this monstrous fuckhead’s salary!”

The backlash has been so intense precisely because Massad goes to the core of Israel’s claim to represent Jews and to cast its critics as anti-Semites by showing that indeed it is Israel and Zionism that partake of the same anti-Semitism that targeted European Jews.

In doing so, Massad pulls the rug from under Zionists and Israel lobbyists by demonstrating that they are the anti-Semites and taking away the most formidable weapon they wield against critics of Israel: the accusation that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

By neutralizing this ideological weapon that Israel has used so effectively in the Western media to cover up its colonization of Palestine, Massad’s pro-Jewish position and strenuous attack on Zionist anti-Semitism is clearly understood by Israel lobby figures such as Goldberg as a complete obliteration of their ideological arsenal.

Zionism and anti-Semitism: two sides of the same coin

Goldberg’s claim that Massad’s article is an “anti-Jewish screed” could not be further from the truth.

Massad has long argued – convincingly – that Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin. It is a theme he develops with great erudition in his 2006 book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, and one to which he returns in his latest article, “The Last of the Semites,” published on Al Jazeera on 14 May, which opens thus:

Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the “Jewish Question.” What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the “solution” to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

Last December, in another piece for Al Jazeera, Massad explained how “Zionist leaders consciously recognized that state anti-Semitism was essential to their colonial project,” in Palestine, a recognition epitomized by the notorious Transfer Agreement Zionist leaders signed with the Nazi government of Germany in 1933.

A theme that Massad develops in his latest piece is that European, and especially Germany’s, support for Israel after 1948, is no break with the anti-Semitic past:

West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s.

The “The Last of the Semites” was based on a lecture Massad gave at a conference in Stuttgart (PDF), Germany, to a largely German audience, just last week:

Censorship

Although Qatar-based Al Jazeera receives much criticism, and often deserved for reflecting Qatar’s foreign policy, the censorship of Massad’s article for political reasons is unprecedented because the English-language website had, until now, enjoyed complete editorial independence.

It is well understood that Al Jazeera’s red lines have always been criticism of Qatar or its Emir, and yet, Massad has even published several articles on Al Jazeera English that harshly criticized both Qatari foreign policy (See here, here and here) and the Emir himselfwithout ever being censored.

And Massad has written plenty of articles that have enraged Zionists.

This indicates, without doubt, that the decision to remove Massad’s article today was taken at the highest level.

But why would this happen now?

One reasonable interpretation would be that the removal of Massad’s article reflects a tightening of the editorial line as the network launches its new channel, Al Jazeera America, which will rely – for access to cable systems, and “mainstream” credibility – on forging good relations with US elites.

An illustration of what this process might look like was on display when Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of Al Jazeera’s international operations and the official responsible for setting up Al Jazeera America, recently visited Chicago – which will be home to a major Al Jazeera bureau.

While in the city, Al Shihabi struck up a cozy relationship with Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff.

Emanuel, a major powerbroker in America’s ruling Democratic Party, is, of course, also notorious for his hardline pro-Israel positions.

It is unlikely that Al Shihabi would have had anything directly to do with the removal of Massad’s article – that decision would almost certainly have been taken at an even higher level in Doha – but his dalliance with Emanuel is a good indicator of who Al Jazeera is out to impress.

As of now, Massad’s article can still be read in full on Al Jazeera’s mobile site. That’s obviously an oversight by those who ordered its removal.

Here is a PDF image of the censored article.

The Last of the Semites – Joseph Massad – Al Jazeera English

(Source / 19.05.2013)

During a visit to Lebanon in 2000, I asked Amal, a Palestinian child in the Ain Al Hilweh refugee camp, “What do you wish the most?”

Without hesitation, she said: “To slip into your suitcase when you head back to Palestine, to go home.”

Her sense of deep nostalgia for a place she’d never visited except in her dreams and her grandparents’ tales was quite pervasive among her peers. But Amal’s fertile imagination about how to overcome barriers to go home was a piercing reminder that the 1948 Nakba, the planned and systematic ethnic cleansing of the majority of the indigenous Palestinians to create a Jewish majority state in Palestine, is not forgotten. Nor will it be forgiven until the Palestinian people can exercise their inalienable right to self determination, with the refugees’ right to return at its core.

Anyone who supports Palestinian self-determination while calling only for ending the 46-year-old Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is actually upholding most of the rights of only 38 per cent of Palestinians, while expecting the rest to accept injustice as their fate.

According to 2011 statistics, of the 11 million Palestinians, 50 per cent live in exile, mostly denied their UN-stipulated right to return to their homes of origin, and 12 per cent are Palestinian citizens of Israel who live under a system of “institutional, legal and societal discrimination”, according to a 2010 US State Department report. More than two-thirds of Palestinians are refugees or internally displaced persons.

Equal rights for Palestinians means, at a minimum, ending Israel’s 1967 occupation and colonisation; ending Israel’s system of racial discrimination; and respecting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their lands from which they were uprooted and expelled during the 1948 Nakba and ever since. The 2005 Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) call was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of Palestinians because it upholds all three rights.

Given his unparalleled standing among world academics, Stephen Hawking’s recent decision to support the boycott propelled the BDS once again to the centre of public opinion. It is one of the starkest indicators yet that the tide is changing, even in the western mainstream, against Israel’s occupation, colonisation and apartheid and that BDS is fast reaching its South Africa moment of maturity and impact.

Desmond Tutu, Ahmed Kathrada, Roger Waters, Naomi Klein, Alice Walker, Judith Butler, John Berger, Aijaz Ahmed and now Prof Hawking have all reached the conclusion that, like South Africa’s, Israel’s system of oppression cannot be brought to an end without ending international complicity and intensifying global solidarity, particularly in the form of BDS.

Rooted in a decades-long tradition of Palestinian Arab popular resistance against settler colonialism, and inspired by the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, the BDS movement for Palestinian rights takes to heart the words of Archbishop Tutu: “We do not want our chains comfortable. We want them removed.”

By appealing to people of conscience around the world to help end Israel’s three-tiered system of oppression, the BDS movement is not asking for anything heroic, but for fulfilling a profound moral obligation to desist from complicity in oppression. Given the billions of dollars lavished on Israel annually by western states, particularly the United States and Germany, taxpayers in those countries are in effect subsidising Israel’s violations of international law at a time when social programmes are undergoing severe cuts, unemployment is rising, and the environment is being devastated.

Striving to end western complicity in Israel’s violations of international law is not only good for the Palestinians; it is certainly good for those around the world struggling for social justice and against perpetual war.

Building on its global ascendance, the BDS movement – led by the largest coalition in Palestinian civil society, the BDS National Committee – is spreading, and scoring significant victories.

Multimillion dollar campaigns by Israel’s foreign ministry to counter the BDS by “rebranding” through art and science have largely failed. With impressive successes in the economic and cultural fields, and with the increasing impact of its Israeli supporters, BDS is viewed by Israel’s establishment as a “strategic threat” to its system of oppression. This explains the Israeli Knesset’s passage of a draconian anti-boycott law last year that drops the last mask of Israel’s supposed democracy.

Reflecting the devastating deterioration in Israel’s standing in the world, a BBC poll last year showed Israel competing with North Korea as the third-worst-perceived country in the world in the opinion of large majorities in Europe and elsewhere.

The African National Congress, South Africa’s ruling party, voiced support for BDS in December. The Association for Asian-American Studies endorsed the academic boycott of Israel, becoming the first professional academic association in the world to do so. The Federation of French-Speaking Belgian Students, representing 100,000 members, adopted the boycott of Israeli academic institutions a few weeks ago, and so did the Teachers’ Union of Ireland.

Student councils at several North American universities, including University of California Berkeley, are pressuring administrators to divest from companies profiting from Israel’s occupation.

The University of Johannesburg in 2011 severed links with Ben Gurion University over human-rights violations.

Trade union federations with millions of members have also endorsed BDS – in South Africa, Britain, Ireland, India, Brazil, Norway, Canada, Italy, France, Belgium and Turkey, among others.

Veolia and Alstom, two European corporations involved in Israeli projects in violation of international law, have lost contracts worth billions of dollars.

Some global firms are being moved by the pressure. The British Co-op supermarket chain, the fifth largest in the UK, for instance, has adopted a policy of boycotting Israeli agricultural companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territory. Deutsche Bahn, a German government-controlled rail company, pulled out of an Israeli project encroaching on occupied Palestinian land.

Even world-renowned artists – including, Roger Waters, Zakir Hussain, The Pixies, Elvis Costello, Natasha Atlas, Cat Power, Vanessa Paradis and Cassandra Wilson – have cancelled performances in Israel, heeding the cultural boycott and transforming Tel Aviv into the new Sun City. A statement calling for the boycott of an Israeli theatre company that performs in Israel’s illegal colonies in defiance of international law won the endorsement of top theatre and film figures in the UK, including Emma Thompson.

“Besiege your siege” – the cry of the late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish- acquires a new meaning in this context.

Since convincing a colonial power to heed moral pleas for justice is, at best, delusional, many around the world now understand the need to “besiege” Israel’s occupation and apartheid through BDS, raising the price of its oppression and paving the way for freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

Only thus can Amal in Ain Al Hilweh and all Palestinian children cling on to the hope of finally realising their rights, after which they can commemorate the Nakba as a distant memory of an injustice that once was.

(Omar Barghouti / Source / 19.05.2013)

Palestinians have been denied the right to narrate their experience of oppression and to lead their struggle for liberation for too long.  The official Palestinian leadership has helped maintain this silencing by participating in sham “peace processes” like the Oslo Accords, which ended in the creation of a Palestinian Authority (PA) that fails to represent Palestinians.  It is estimated that between 28 and 32 percent of the PA budget goes to policing and prisons, not to protect Palestinians–but to control them.

Palestinian voices are also silenced in Palestinian liberation organizing in the United States.  Whether through accusing Palestinians of bigotry, impatience with Palestinians’ internalized oppression, or as a result of tokenization, racism, Islamophobia or Jewish privilege, Palestine solidarity work in the U.S. all too often contributes to the disempowerment of Palestinians and acts to represent them, rather than allowing them to speak for themselves.  I will address some of the ways silencing of Palestinians takes place in Palestine organizing with the aim of encouraging introspection within our movement.

Solidarity means encouraging Palestinian leadership

There is no one Palestinian leadership.  Oppression and exile have created divisions in the Palestinian polity and Palestinians have never had truly representative governance.  This division serves Israel well and is a major source of concern for many Palestinians, some of whom have called for direct elections to a Palestinian National Council representative of Palestinians across the globe.  The division between the PA and Hamas, fomented by the U.S., also serves Israeli interests.  Criticizing the lack of Palestinian leadership without this context is disingenuous.  The results of Zionist policies of fragmentation are often misunderstood by U.S. allies as political backwardness.  It is important for non-Palestinians allies to examine all the ways in which this mostly unspoken and unconscious understanding of Palestinian capabilities shapes our organizing.

In contrast to official Palestinian bodies, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) are examples of Palestinian grassroots leadership.  The 2005 call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it honors the fundamental rights of Palestinians has been endorsed by civil society organizations inside the West Bank and Gaza, inside Israel, and in the diaspora. The BNC and PACBI have outlined in detail the principles that guide BDS work.  At a bare minimum, solidarity activists engaged in BDS work should become familiar with these published principles and guidelines.  Specifically, the BDS leadership and the wider Palestinian community have been clear that Palestinian liberation work is incompatible with any form of racism or bigotry.  However, at times when individuals in the U.S. movement have been called out for their bigotry, they have reacted with defensiveness and have revealed underlying feelings of racism and Islamophobia.

Some “allies” have accused Palestinians of collaboration with Zionist interests when their misrepresentation of Palestinian politics or their anti-Semitism was challenged.  One individual involved in Palestine work accused the BNC of giving up the right of return in exchange for funding from George Soros who he characterized as a “soft Zionist”.  Another resorted to Islamophobic name-calling to attack a Palestinian who challenged her when she posted an anti-Semitic video. Still another published a photo of a Palestinian who had been critical of racist motivations in organizing next to photos of Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz to imply that they were all in cahoots to silence “dissident” voices. These actions demonstrate that some involved in our work have motivations that are incompatible with Palestinian liberation and solidarity.

Solidarity means accepting insight into the Palestinian perspective as an opportunity, not as a personal attack. We are all learning and no Palestinian expects non-Palestinian allies to fully understand their experience.  Palestinian activists within solidarity organizations should be given space to discuss issues of oppression apart from the larger group without these discussions being seen as a threat to non-Palestinian allies.  It is imperative that Palestinians have space to sort out their priorities and identify the ways that racism may impact their work.  When they are ready, these Palestinian caucuses should feel welcome to report back to other allies in the organization.  It is also important for non-Palestinian allies to discuss the ways their privilege and power may affect Palestinians in their organizing.

“I wish more Palestinians would get involved”

There is a prevailing lament among U.S. Palestine solidarity organizations that relatively few Palestinians have joined their work.  This is worth examining.

No doubt, Islamophobia and anti-Arab xenophobia in the United States have played a role in keeping Palestinians out of political organizing.  In addition, Palestinians often suffer from internalized oppression and thus subject themselves to self-censorship.  The constant bashing of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in our society takes an emotional and psychological toll on people within those communities.  There are times when I encounter a strange loop in my own head when facing discrimination that somehow I may deserve the ill-treatment.  I quickly come to my senses, but the fact that it is present in someone like me with a great deal of political awareness is telling.

Palestinians in the United States along with other Arab-Americans and Muslims face real consequences for their political activism including physical and verbal attacks, business losses, denial of promotion or tenure, employment termination, government surveillance, and even imprisonment.  In 1985, Palestinian-AmericanAlex Odeh was assassinated in Santa Ana, California for his activism.  More recently, Palestinian-American Hatem Abudayyeh remains the target of an aggressive FBI investigation because of his political organizing. In 2010, his Chicago home was raided by the FBI and then his personal bank accounts were frozen.

There are many hurdles to engaging Palestinians in the work.  However, if we seek to create new communities and systems that reflect our anti-racist and anti-oppression principles, it is incumbent upon Palestine solidarity organizations to thoughtfully seek ways to involve Palestinians in their leadership. Creating anti-oppression organizations means more than diversity and integration.  It often means slowing down our agenda to make sure Palestinians are involved in the work from the first step, rather than being expected to follow.

Solidarity means stepping back and listening to those most impacted by Israel’s oppression.  This takes time and patience, resources that are often missing among goal-oriented political activists.  Sometimes it means that allies should encourage Palestinians who may not have prior experience in organizing or public speaking to trust in themselves.  This means yielding the floor and allowing Palestinians to learn and make mistakes. It also means refraining from making judgments about or excluding Palestinians who are not as “progressive” or don’t meet some arbitrary litmus test regarding their political analysis.

Are we prepared to help provide organizing frameworks for Palestinians that foster their leadership?  Many Jewish allies and other seasoned white activists have a long history of social justice organizing in this country and have had mentors and role models on which to shape their anti-oppression work.  Being a more recent immigrant population in the United States, Palestinians may have fewer models to draw on.  It has been easy for some allies to fall victim to internalized feelings of superiority when working with Palestinians.

In the church divestment work that took place last year, I was invited to attend meetings of the assemblies considering resolutions on the issue because I am a Palestinian Christian.  I am uncomfortable with the identity of Palestinian Christian because–thankfully–Palestinians have not fallen into sectarian traps that divide along religious lines.  I challenge church allies working on Palestine to invite Palestinian Muslims to their meetings in the coming years as divestment is considered.  We must create spaces for listening to the broad spectrum of Palestinian stories.  We cannot do that by excluding the majority of Palestinians who happen to be Muslims.  When will we be comfortable with men with beards and women in veils addressing Christian congregations?  Some in the churches would argue that it is strategic to use Palestinian Christians to address American Christian groups, but this is not an acceptable excuse for excluding Palestinian Muslims.  This approach accommodates racism and Islamophobia and purports to “help” Palestinians by disempowering them.

The role of Jewish allies in the Palestine movement

In my view, the main role of Jewish allies in Palestine work is to strive to open spaces for Palestinians to narrate their history for themselves and to create ways for Palestinians to lead the process of their own liberation.  Jewish allies should challenge the common wisdom around discourse on Palestine/Israel that affords greater credibility to Jewish commentary on Israel.  Jewish Voice for Peace has made great strides creating space for Palestinians to be heard. There remains much work to do.  In the last several years, I have attended panel discussions where only Jews were invited to speak at local universities about Palestine/Israel.  I wonder if these institutions would organize a panel on racism in the United States without any African American participants.

Another way Jewish identity plays a role in Palestine activism is in efforts to engage Jewish establishment organizations. I have been approached by well-meaning Jewish allies to speak within Jewish establishment venues or with “liberal” Zionists. Once the rabbi or Hillel leader meets me, these Jewish allies assure me, their opinions on the issue of Palestine will change.  It has been delicate and difficult to navigate these wishes as I consider those making the requests friends and I believe it is important to meet people where they are in their political journey.  However, I cannot help but feel tokenized and used as an example of a “civilized” Palestinian.  It is as if they want to say, “Look, she’s a modern and educated Palestinian.  Isn’t she deserving of rights?” In the end, it’s not personal, it’s political.

Convincing Zionists of the human dignity and worth of Palestinians is not my priority.  Dismantling Zionism within the Jewish establishment is essential.   I wonder if some Jewish allies invite me in as part of an effort to address collective guilt for Jewish responsibility for the oppression of Palestinians.  But is it the job of Palestinians to make Jews feel less culpable or guilty for Zionism? It is not productive for Palestinians to engage in interpersonal relationship-building that fails to acknowledge or bring about political solutions to structural inequalities and violence.

I understand that there are enormous issues facing American Jews who support Palestinian liberation.  Creating spaces within Jewish communities and families, reclaiming Judaism from Zionism, and discovering one’s identity within Judaism are vital endeavors.  However, it is important to remember that these individual and communal struggles are not necessarily Palestine liberation work.  I encourage Jewish allies committed to Palestinian liberation to examine how much priority should be given to influencing Jewish organizations that support Zionism. Palestinians will always be on the periphery of this focus.  In contrast, organizing sustainable and movement-building BDS campaigns that create a mainstream constituency for Palestinian rights, together in solidarity, will produce meaningful and effective dialogue on how to end Israel’s crimes and will model the future we hope to create.

In conclusion, the challenge for Palestine organizers in the United States is one of reflection on who has power and agency in our movement.  This reflection requires organizations to think about who is at the table and who is missing.  The first step may be establishing ways for white, Christian, and Jewish allies to hold themselves accountable for the privilege and power they possess by calling out racism, Islamophobia, and oppression where it occurs. When these mechanisms are in place, Palestinians may be encouraged to take a seat at the table.

(Source / 16.05.2013)

This week sees the conclusion of a three-year criminal investigation into the Dutch crane company, Riwal, accused of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied West Bank. The case is unprecedented as it is the first time a company has been criminally investigated for involvement in the Israeli occupation.

Although the case has not resulted in a prosecution, it is nonetheless an important step for those seeking justice for human rights abuses committed against Palestinians. The case sends a clear message to the corporate sector: complicity in Israel’s occupation potentially carries the risk of criminal prosecution.

The case started with a complaint submitted to the Dutch prosecutor by the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq in March 2010. The complaint documented the involvement of Riwal’s cranes and aerial platforms in constructing Israel’s wall and illegal settlements in the West Bank. It prompted the prosecutor to launch a large-scale investigation into the company’s activities, including a raid on company headquarters in September 2010.

The investigation established that the company contributed to constructing the wall and settlements in at least six incidents mentioned in the complaint. However, the prosecutor cited various considerations, including the complexity of the case, limited resources and the likely lack of cooperation by Israel in obtaining further evidence, as reasons not to pursue a prosecution. There is a right of appeal against the prosecutor’s decision, which can also be reconsidered if circumstances change or in light of new evidence.

Significant

Despite the lack of prosecution, the decision by the prosecutor to open the investigation, and to pursue it for as long he did, is legally significant. It means the prosecutor accepted two assertions at the heart of the complaint. First, the construction of the wall and settlements in the occupied West Bank entails the commission of war crimes. Second, that companies involved in this construction may be complicit in, and hence legally responsible for, those crimes.

The case therefore supports the assertions that have been made by lawyers and human rights groups for years: not only is the building of the wall and settlements by Israel illegal and criminal, so is complicity with that construction. Those responsible should be open to prosecution in the correct legal forum.

It undermines the charge often made by Israel and its supporters that legal challenges of this kind merely represent “lawfare” — that is vexatious, politicized attempts to abuse the law in order to “delegitimize” Israel.

Increasing trend

The Riwal case reflects an increasing trend of legal challenges brought by victims and human rights groups against Israel’s violations. Recent years have seen a case in the United States against Caterpillar for its supply of militarized bulldozers to the Israeli army. In Canada, residents of the West Bank village of Bilin brought a case against the companies Green Park and Green Mount International for constructing an Israeli settlement on village land.

There have also been several arrest warrant applications in European countries against visiting Israeli officials for their involvement in war crimes — including a successful application against Tzipi Livni in England in 2009.

Asymmetrical battle

These cases reflect the belief that not only are victims of war crimes entitled to legal redress, but that accountability for Israeli crimes and abuses is an essential prerequisite to achieving a just and lasting resolution to the conflict. The Israel-Palestine conflict is, after all, an asymmetrical battle between a powerful, highly militarized state enforcing a colonial occupation of land that does not belong to it, and an indigenous people fighting against occupation for self-determination.

Accountability for the crimes that are integral to maintaining the occupation is not only right in principle, it constitutes a serious incentive to Israel to desist in its practices. Accountability is essential for achieving a just and lasting peace.

The ad hoc nature of these cases, however — they are invariably brought by victims and human rights groups in domestic jurisdictions — and the absence of a properly resourced, large-scale investigation of Israel’s crimes at the international level, is a result of theimpunity accorded to Israel by the US and its allies.

The report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone report) concludes there was evidence that war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity had been committed by both sides during Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military assault on Gaza in 2008-09. It recommends the situation be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To date this recommendation has not been acted on and a referral to the ICC would almost certainly be vetoed by the US in the UN Security Council.

Right direction

Also ignored is the International Court of Justice’s ruling in 2004 that the West Bank wall is illegal and must be dismantled and that the international community must ensure that any obstacle to Palestinian self-determination caused by the wall be brought to an end.

Finally, Palestine’s application in 2009 to the ICC for it to investigate war crimes committed in Palestine since 2002 (the date the Rome Statute of the ICC came into force) was rejected.

Within the context of this crisis of accountability, the Riwal case is a positive development. The case did not result in justice for the victims and much more needs to be done. However, it demonstrates that allegations of complicity in Israel’s occupation by foreign companies are a serious legal matter that can potentially result in prosecution.

The case may deter other companies from complicity with Israel’s illegal and criminal occupation practices. It is a step in the right direction in the pursuit of justice and accountability.

(Source / 16.05.2013)