The Twilight of Israel’s Juridical Liberal-Democratic Period

Last week, Judge Noam Sohlberg was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court (which, in Israel, is also the High Court of Justice, a court of judicial review carrying important constitutional functions). Sohlberg will thus become the first settler judge in Israel’s history.

Being a settler, Sohlberg has a clear conflict of interests, since he will have the authority to rule on appeals against government policies violating International Law, while himself violating International Law on a daily basis. In fact, he has a personal and political interest in continuing to legitimise Israel’s ongoing and expanding illegal settlement project.

Sohlberg is not an outstanding judge. He already has a proven Continue reading

Posted in Culture & Society, Not so Far Right, Practices on the ground | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Yesha Council Disengagement Plan

Next year in Gaza?

Trnaslated from Hebrew by Ofer Neiman. || Co-posted with Jnews.

A. Is the annexation of the West Bank imminent?

The Jewish Majority patents, presented by settler Golan Azulai.

“Yesha Council”[1] and “My Israel”[2] have recently circulated a propaganda video clip as part of a campaign addressing the old Israeli-left argument, that “if a two-state solution is not established soon, Israel will lose its Jewish demographic superiority“.  In the clip they demonstrate how by deducting the estimated Gaza Strip population from their demographic calculations, the Jewish majority can remain safe and sound between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, even if Israel were to annex the West Bank. Continue reading

Posted in Culture & Society, Not so Far Right | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Power Relations: US and the Palestinians

Co-posted with +972 magazineעברית

The anticipated American veto of the vote to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN is not surprising. Since 1972, the US has vetoed 80 resolutions of the Security Council; almost 54% of those vetoes have been in defence of Israeli interests (mostly countering resolutions condemning settlements, and investigations of Israel’s violations of international law and human rights). Over the past ten years the portion of America’s vetoes spent defending Israel grew to over 90% (10 of 11 since 2001). Continue reading

Posted in Diplomacy & Criticism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nobody actually wrote that “the blockade on Gaza is legal”

A month to the Palmer Report on the Gaza flotilla.

The release of the report of the UN-appointed Palmer Panel a month ago was nothing less than a source of pride for Israeli speakers, who repeatedly emphasised its ruling that the naval blockade on Gaza (unlike the closure on land) is “lawful”.

Many journalists rushed to quote this bottom line from Israeli PR specialists, as if it were the legal truth; they never bothered to read the document itself. In doing so, they neglected some pivotal points, such as mentioning the minor fact that the committee is not even a legal authority (as it clarifies itself, p.3), and that its conclusions have no validity or binding authority – even less than the Goldstone Report (whose recommendations were also not legally binding).

Moreover, not only did these conclusions have no legal validity; the committee did not include even one relevant legal specialist. Yes, none of the members of the committee has the relevant legal qualifications to discuss the issues at hand! The committee comprised four members: two representatives of the Governments of Israel and Turkey, and two other, allegedly independent, members. One of these was the former Prime Minister of New-Zealand, Sir Geoffrey Palmer (an expert on international environmental law), and the other was Alvaro Uribe, former president of Columbia, who has a very dubious record in human rights, and who was also awarded the ‘Light Unto The Nations’ prize by the Zionist AJC in 2007, for its close ties with Israel.

Thus, at least three of the four committee members may be suspected of inappropriate bias, and not one of them can serve as an authority to discuss questions of international maritime law or the laws of armed conflict.

As if this in itself were not enough to cast doubts on the conclusions of the committee, its work was also neither an investigation nor a revision of facts. The committee was forbidden to consider any evidence or testimony other than the problematic reports handed to it by Israel and Turkey. These reports led them to their conclusion on the legality of the naval blockade, but also to consideration of the autopsies conducted on victims, demonstrating that some of the casualties were killed by bullets to the back, neck and forehead, at point-blank range. The committee had no choice but to ignore the results of several other international specialists, including committees, delegations and analyses, which clearly ruled that the siege is a form of collective punishment, forbidden by international law.

The simple truth is that the purpose of the committee was not to draw legal conclusions, but to reach a diplomatic reconciliation. It was an effort to bring about a political compromise between Israel and Turkey, not to investigate the status of the siege in international law. Accordingly, its product was designed to find common ground in the positions of old allies, rather than representing an independent legal truth.

But the (il)legality of the siege does not originate in agreements of political committees, just as an agreement between two parties (e.g. that their employees should earn less than minimum wage) will not make their arrangements legal. Perhaps only for the sake of its reputation it might have been better for the committee to choose its wording differently, or at least for journalists to avoid misleading quotes, and to describe the report instead as “a mediating formula between countries, that has no legal effects or implications”.

I am also no jurist. But it is easy to question the Israeli position, which simultaneously denies and admits the siege policy. Over and over again Israel argues that it is no longer in military occupation of the Gaza Strip, while at the same time admitting that it imposes strict restrictions on its civilian population. If there is a siege, and/or effective control over the land, water, goods or people of Gaza, and/or disconnection from the West Bank, then we are bound to act according to the principles of an occupation under international humanitarian law. If Israel restricts or forbids access to land, agriculture, export or fishing; if there are limitations on food and travel, including students, patients and medical teams; if there are restrictions on medicine, cement and water filters – then the occupation simply continues, and with it the harming of innocent people. End of story. One cannot eat a cake and leave it whole, and cannot admit and deny the occupation at the same time.

Lastly, to the question of diplomacy. The committee offered a compromise, whereby it legitimised the naval blockade, and defined the flotilla as problematic. In exchange it required that Israel apologise and compensate the families of those killed. Israel could not dream of a better deal. Knowing that the siege is illegal (or at least that anyone other than Israel concludes so), it should have adopted the Palmer report eagerly, paid it some lip-service, and prayed that the Turks would buy it. But for some reason the Israeli government decided against the diplomatic option. Now they are left to witness relations with Turkey deteriorate to an all-time low. Turkey, for its part, intends to challenge the conclusions of the panel in the International Court of Justice. With the ICJ, which does have very practical implications, Israel stands almost no chance, as it would accept and consider the evidence for forbidden wrongdoings.

So what did Israel gain from the whole move? Wouldn’t it be better to have used Yom Kippur to apologise for these mistakes and move forward? A good start for a better year could be adopting the less-quoted recommendations of the Palmer committee, calling on Israel not only to compensate and apologise, but also to reconsider the entire siege policy, and to “ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population” (p.70).

Hatima tova.

Posted in Diplomacy & Criticism, Investigative | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Israel introduced the biggest dispossession plan of Palestinians since 1948

Originally posted on Jnews.

Last week the Israeli government approved a new plan to displace 30,000 native Bedouin Arabs of the Negev/Naqab from their homes.[1] “The Program for Regulating Bedouin Settlement in the Negev” is the biggest dispossession plan of Palestinians issued by Israel since 1948. It would forcibly relocate about half of the Bedouin population from their existing villages, which are older than the state of Israel itself, into existing small towns or townships, designated specifically for the Bedouins by the state.

Historically, there have been only two other Israeli plans of forced-migration of Palestinians on a mass scale since 1948: the banishment of refugees fleeing during the 1967 war, and the ongoing revocation of residency status and civic rights from native Palestinians of “East Jerusalem”.[2]

In the first case, about 300,000 Palestinians fled to Jordan during the 1967 war, after Israeli forces either drove them away, or less often, directly “transferred” them to the east bank of the Jordan river. Many of them thus became refugees for the second time: they had already lost their homes and lands in 1948, and were obliged to live in refugee camps in the West Bank until the 1967 war displaced them a second time. Like in 1948, the new refugees were not allowed to return to their property, most of their houses and villages were quickly demolished by the Israeli army,[3] and their lands were confiscated in violation of international law and treaties.

However, unlike in 1948 (and early 1950s), this time it was hard for Israeli security forces to claim the exodus had occurred voluntarily, “in the fog of war”, or “to allow the Israeli State to exist.” Prominent Israeli leaders also explicitly expressed, prior to the war, that another war would be an opportunity to “complete the unfinished work we started in ‘48”. Following UN resolutions and an agreement with Jordan, Israel agreed to facilitate their return, but due to the arbitrary conditions it later set, in practice only 40,000 were readmitted to the West Bank. Israel recently anchored their expulsion (together with that of 1948 refugees) in “The Law for Securing the Denial of [Palestinian] Right of Return 2001”.

The second mass-displacement is an ongoing effort to reduce the number of Palestinians with the status of “Permanent Residency” in Jerusalem. The status was given by Israel to the Palestinian residents of what is often called “East Jerusalem”, a large territory annexed to Israel from the West Bank after the 1967 war.[4] However, Permanent Residency can be considered anything but a permanent status, as it is continuously revoked from Palestinians who cannot demonstrate that their “Centre of Life” is in municipal Jerusalem – even if they still reside in Israel or the West Bank, or left for a few years to study or work and wish to return home. According to official Israeli numbers, more than 11,000 Palestinians have already lost their legal status since the confiscation policy started in 1995, a number which continues to grow. They in fact lose the right to stay in the country, their property is often confiscated, and their families often also consequently leave.

Admitting ethnic dispossession

Unlike previous plans, the current plan for the displacement of the Bedouin will not deny its victims the right to stay in the country, but it will still confiscate their lands and demolish dozens of existing villages, in order to confine their residents to a smaller territory.[5]

Officially, Israel denies this is its purpose, insisting that the program aims to enforce law and order, and improve construction, planning and housing in the Negev desert in southern Israel.[6] But the mayor of the Regional Council of Ramat Ha-Negev recently disclosed the true essence of the ongoing efforts to evict residents from existing Bedouin villages. In the Israeli documentary “Blue ID Card” he admitted on camera [7] that the regional planning efforts have nothing to do with law, planning, justice or security, but rather with the ambition for ethnic domination on the ground:

“I want the Negev to be Jewish […] The Jewish settlement must grow, must continue. At the same time we must develop the Bedouin settlement, because if we don’t make it permanent now, we will find ourselves in 20 years, not with 45 [Bedouin] settlements, but with 90 settlements. […] What do you mean by “they also deserve”!? You know what – after all this, it is no longer possible to conceal the core problem, which is the struggle over land. Who does this land belong to – us, or them? Time will tell.”

“Us or Them”

Time indeed is key for Zionism, but it doesn’t necessarily work to its advantage. Despite Israeli governmental hopes and efforts to settle the desert with Jews, Israeli-Jews were never keen on living in the desert, to put it mildly. The first Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion even went to live there, trying to set an example for others; but, with the exception of (mainly Mizrahi) immigrant communities, forcibly sent to the dessert and often leaving it later, and a few self-styled ‘cowboys‘, Jews rarely choose to live in the Negev.

The more Israel failed to bring Jews to the desert, the more their efforts to “minimise” the presence of its other residents grew. Jews voted with their feet, and their leaders with bulldozers, channelling their growing frustration of Israeli-Jews towards indigenous residents.

In recent years, the voices calling for Bedouin rights grew stronger, finding partners among egalitarian Israelis, and gradually became more present in Hebrew public discussion. This process ran parallel to a general trend that enabled Palestinian history and narratives to be heard more clearly in Israel. As a result, the will of governments to subordinate the Bedouins became more urgent and determined, as expressed in the toughening force, frequency and cruelty of expulsion efforts.[8]

Despite the fact that there was and is no problem of population density in the Negev, this year alone the unrecognised Bedouin village of Al-Araqib was violently demolished 26 times(!), leaving women, children and men without a roof, in the middle of the desert, usually at night and in extreme weather conditions, and often using illegal methods (including false and violent arrests, shooting, damage to personal belongings and to water sources, despite court orders to the contrary).

Bedouin ownership in the Negev

There is no dispute over the historical presence and ownership of the Bedouins in the Negev. They have lived there for generations, long before Zionism. The map at the head of this post, sketched by the Ottomans in the late 19th century, shows arrangements of ownership among tribes over the Negev, when the majority of Bedouins had already settled in permanent settlements. The Ottomans, and later the British Mandate generally respected these arrangements, and the Zionist movement recognized them de-facto by occasionally purchasing land from them for settlements. Following the 1948 war and its exodus, most Negev Bedouins became refugees. According to Israeli sources, only 13,000 of 76,500 Bedouins remained in the Negev following the war.[9] An ethos often nurtured among Zionists, is of the Negev as an ownerless wasteland, epitomising slogans like “a land without a people awaiting a people without a land”, and “make the [empty] desert bloom”. But the land was not empty, but emptied, and Zionists, on the whole, did not come.[10]

Following the war, Israel restricted the remaining Bedouin citizens to a relatively small territory called “the boundary region” (‘Siyag‘), in order to better impose military rule on them,[11] and confiscated most their lands. A second map (right) shows the area into which they were corralled (Please take a moment to appreciate the difference from the first map).

Interestingly enough, unlike most Palestinians, Bedouins overall waived their claim for the land thus grabbed, and no longer struggle for it. For over sixty years Bedouins in Israel desperately tried to prove that they have cast their lots with the Jewish state, but apparently phobias and the fantasies on making the Negev “Jewish” are stronger than reality. Bedouins gained nothing from their pact with Israel. Israel has persistently refused to “recognise” or provide any service to dozens of Bedouins villages, and the current plan will evict the remaining Bedouins from the small area they are already confined to.

NOTES
1. Israeli Bedouins are Palestinians according to the most common definition of Palestinians: “Permanent Arab Residents of Mandatory Palestine, and their decedents”. Many of them adopt this identity (in growing numbers probably), but many of them reject it, seeing themselves as Israelis, and considering Palestinians and Israelis to be binary identity categories that void each other, and that cannot coexist in one.
2. The plans for eviction of Jews were only from settlements, mostly in the Gaza Strip, which is outside the official borders of Israel. Another mass displacement of Palestinians was carried out by Jordan, partially due to Israeli threats
3. Demolitions included villages in the Golan Height, the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter was evicted, and the houses in front of the Wailing Wall were demolished (one of them on an old Palestinian woman), while using illegal orders.
4. East Jerusalem – This term refers to the areas annexed to Israel (and Jerusalem) following the 1967 war, of which only 8.5% was indeed part of Jerusalem (i.e. 1 km2 of the old city, and 5 km2 of adjacent Jordanian municipality areas); whereas the majority of the annexed land (65 km2) is of 28 proximate villages.
5. Israel hopes to make their lives unbearable enough, for them to leave “voluntarily”.
6. It should be mentioned that since the establishment of Israel, hundreds of new towns and cities were established for the benefit of Jews, where as for Arab citizens, whom are 20-25% of Israeli citizens, only 7 failing and backwards small forced-migration Bedouin towns were ever built. These towns suffer from severe lack of resource for decades, and are now designated to receive the evicted Bedouin population.
7. To watch him (in Hebrew), choose “Program 2”, and go to 03:14-04:40. Before the quote the film shows a demolition of the village, and a movie produced by the Israeli Lands Administration, animating Bedouin settlements growing like cancer, taking over the Negev.
8. This tendency is most similar to the demographic efforts in Jerusalem, since the 1970’s, where policies and practices have been growing stronger as Israeli-Jews emigrate from the city, despite governmental hopes and efforts.
9. Consequently, they had neither the ability nor the need to cultivate all of their agricultural lands. The State of Israel which is now not recognising their ownership, did recognise it unofficially when it was used during the food shortage of the 1950’s.
10. Prior to the Israelis, Ottomans also failed their efforts to encourage residency in Be’er Sheba.
11. The Military Rule (1948-1966), was a military regime applied to the Palestinians who became Israeli Citizens. It is similar to the Chinese regime in Singapore, the Indian rule in Pakistan, or the Israeli occupation today, only it was imposed on Arab citizens of Israel. Living under military rule, these citizens needed a permit for every daily action, from work, to publications, to study textbooks, to travelling to the next village. Military rule was lifted after about 18 years.
Posted in History vs. Hasbarah, Practices on the ground | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

London – Tel Aviv

Originally posted on Jnews.

London. The streets of London were overtaken by fear tonight. Even earlier, wherever you went, you could only hear of the sense of impotence, terror, shock of the damage, and disappointment over the government. Citizens feel abandoned and unprotected, afraid to leave home at dark, closing their businesses early, with the hope to have something to return to by dawn. All night long the Police and Fire Brigade sirens wailed, and in some neighborhoods an improvised civil guard organised, specifically where immigrant communities like Muslim-Turks, Bangladeshis or Sikhs reside.

These riots are not a protest. They have neither leadership nor demands, and it is aimed at taking all one can, because “we also deserve some.” It is led by youth, many of whom drop out of school at an early age. They come from very rough neighborhoods, where they live in poverty, and where violence and gangs are a fact of life. They grow up in families of extremely low income, or on small benefits, with no chance to ever succeed in life, and with frequent encounters with crime and the law. They feel that they have nothing to lose. Every burglary, looting or mugging fills them with a sense of power, even if they mug the elderly, break into the business of someone of similar background, burn cars of innocent people, or attack fire-trucks. The feeling of potency only intensifies when in a group, and other criminals use the weak point of the law to strike too.

Aaron (89), assesses damages to his barber shop.

Indeed most of those who paid the price for the riots are neither the wealthiest nor the establishment. Looting hits the small shop owners strongest, many of whom are poor and/or hard working, often immigrants, who saved every pound in order to start a small business. Others lost their homes and belongings in fires. Even in their own communities they broke car windows one after the other, just like that, for no reason. Those with means were able to protect themselves best, and other than the odd nouveau riche sports cars set ablaze, it is the hard working public that paid the price of rage, and it is the general public who will compensate them.

Unlike the middle class protest in Israel, which is rather organised, in England it is not a political movement, and it is led by youth of significantly lower classes. “Street Parliament” or “Protest” are not even close to their life experiences, worlds or vocabulary. Some of them say it’s because of the rich, others come for the fun or goods. But one thing is clear: these kids were born in the places society made an effort to forget, and like a rejected child they now run wild, hit and are unruly, not letting society continue to look straight through them. For too long the “Big Society” tried to ignore them and neglected their reality. They now remind us that they are still here, and that their problems are our problems.

A book shop yesterday near King's Cross. The book to the right tells the story of riots from Thatcher’s rule.

The link between the loss of hope, economic distress and social gaps to the outbreak of violence is undeniable. This does not condone the riots, but is nevertheless important if we want to understand them. It is not by chance that the last time London saw riots on such a scale was in the early 80’s, during Thatcher’s rule. The Iron Lady, UK’s Bibi Netanyahu, brutally cut down social and public services then, and the current government is doing the same now. Large-scale dismissal is on the agenda, with regards to the police, health, and public services. Budgets for academia are being slashed while tuition fees triple, allowing only the wealthiest to study. Welfare benefits are cut, youth clubs are closed, communal service narrowed, and police forces are diminished. The economy remains low, unemployment remains high, prices rise, and these youth are left with no hope. Their chances of changing their reality are lower than in any first-world country. Unemployment in Tottenham is double the national average, and for every 54 jobseekers only one will find employment. Instead of helping them, the government “encourages” them to go to work, even if for a shameful pay, in manual labor and part-time jobs, with no rights, and no chance for mobility.

Lodon, March 2011, No Cuts protest

In response, March this year saw massive demonstrations of the No-Cuts movement. Hundreds of thousands marched in huge protests, calling for social justice and to save public services, just like in Tel Aviv. They are right. The state collects money and resources from the entire public, but once it refuses to use these resources to address social problems, it turns into nothing but lawful plunder. The wealthiest easily forget that they alone weren’t the ones who built the capital. We all invested in their business through public funds and infrastructures, such as electricity, water, telephones, law and order, roads, ports, education, security and diplomacy. They enjoy this public investment, but when it yields profits, and their turn comes to repay our share by taxation, fair employment, safety and environmental care, many prefer to offer only exploitative employment, outsourcing, and threats to leave and exploit elsewhere.

Tottenham this morning (10/8/2011), where the riots started.

We often forget to mention this violent and unjust thievery when counter-riots break out, but now, when the world economic crises deepens, and only strong welfare states like Sweden and Germany have proven stable, we must be reminded. Sitting on our hands and waiting for “the market” to fix our social problems is borderline-superstition or belief in sorcery. In reality, we humans must fix our own problems, and that’s why we elect politicians. Not to be left alone in the market, for those with more means.

In this context, when a young lad says to the camera that he is there because he wants new trainers he can’t afford otherwise, it is not merely hooliganism. It is an assessment of their reality, maybe even of the social class structure. Not too articulate, surely, but still, they express a will to have some of the wealth they were deprived of due to the class they were born into. They also want a bit of justice, even if they end up only perpetuating injustice. And let it be clear: burning down homes and stores, and mugging people’s livelihoods, is a crime which must be met with the same resistance as that of greedy landlords or exploitative employers.

Israelis better look carefully at England now. When I was a young boy my mother used to say that “a wise man learns from others’ bad experiences, but a fool not even from his own.” If the organised and just protest of the middle class in Israel fails to bring back the welfare state, labor rights and the ability to live in dignity, it is very likely that sooner or later we will see similar unrest in Israel too.

Posted in Culture & Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment