Dorothy Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

Dear Friends,

I do hope that you will glance through all the items in yesterday’s compilation in Today in Palestine.  In addition, I added a few other items on demolitions that are not in Today in Pal.  Israel is like a bull in a china shop, and there is no one to stop Israel!  It’s sickening.  Palestinians, like some Jews, are human beings!

Item 2 of the 5 this evening is by Amira Hass, who reveals the ‘truth behind another Israeli expulsion trick.’

In item 3 Français ci-dessous argues that the blockade on Gaza is illegal—first in English, then in French.

Item 4 reviews briefly Francis Boyle’s new book “THE PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW”  Boyle attacks the issue from the legal standpoint.

Item 5 is brief and positive.  It  informs us that the August Burns Red group have cancelled their scheduled appearance in Israel.

All the best,

Dorothy

======================

1.  Demolitions and other important news.  Please read.

Today in Palestine

http://www.theheadlines.org/11/21-06-11.shtml


This Monday, the Civil Administration, along with private contractors, engaged in a campaign of destruction in Khirbet Bir el-Eid in South Hebron Hills. Six tents and houses and one toilet were demolished. The forces also uprooted fruit and vegetable bushes, and cut the cables of the electricity system installed in the village by COMET-ME. According to residents, soldiers told them that “you do not deserve electricity here”. In addition, the soldiers damaged a water tank (the village is not connected to running water), and to the food sack of the animals grown by the

villagers.

This week too, we will stand alongside our Palestinian partners in their daily struggle to survival under the occupation.

For details and registration:

Dolev 054-8184467 or [email protected]

Please bring a hat, water and closed and don’t forget to dress modestly (no shorts or sleeveless shirts).

Ta’ayush Jerusalem

————————————

in addition to the demolitions in al hadidya yesterday, 2 homes where demolished in khirbet yarza, a community of 200 people isolated from the rest of the jordan valley by military only roads and the dier yassir checkpoint. watch athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak6WShNsHPY&feature=player_embedded.


============================================
****    http://awalls.org    ****
new and improved web site
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/againstwall
http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/againstwall

—————–

Demolishing lives in the Jordan Valley

21 June, 2011 – Hilary Minch

Over 40 people, (at least 15 children) were made homeless in the latest wave of home demolitions by the Israeli Army today (21 June). The demolitions took place in Al Hadidiya and Khirbet Yarza in the Jordan Valley in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).

In Al Hadidiya, five families had 30 structures demolished, including family homes, animal shelters, kitchens and fencing. One woman, Ralia, who is in her sixties and suffers from diabetes, described what happened: “The big soldier wouldn’t speak to me. He just said ‘This is my job, sit down and shut up’”.  She was sitting alone, desolate, crying. Ahmed Abdullah Harfi Yusuf Ben Adi stood with his wife Hitam who is 6 months pregnant, their son Abdullah and mother, viewing the remains of their family home and animal shelters. Their belongings were strewn in the rubble and they had salvaged what they could.

A few hundred metres away in Roi colony settlement, the trees and flowers abundantly surround the modern homes, swimming pools, lush gardens. The colony is built on the land of Al Hadidiya.

In Khirbet Yarza, EAPPI and Jordan Valley Solidarity arrived just as the Israeli army demolished the family homes, a kitchen as well as animal shelters belonging to the Darraghmeh family. 30 people, including 8 children were affected by the demolition. The Darraghmeh family’s son plans to get married in July – all the wedding funds were lost beneath the rubble of their demolished home. One of the sons said “I really don’t care about my suffering, but what about the children?” The family were warned by the army that the soldiers would return if the family remained in the area or received humanitarian assistance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCYmOSPJvg

Under International Law, (Article 53 of the IV Geneva Convention), any destruction by the Occupying Power of personal property of protected people (Palestinian civilians living under Israeli military occupation) is prohibited, except when such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

For more information, please contact Hilary Minch, EAPPI Yanoun at: [email protected]
+972 (0) 54 799 8722,  +972 (0) 59 796 1226054
The EAPPI is an advocacy and human rights programme of the World Council of Churches in response to a request by the Jerusalem Heads of Churches and Palestinians in 2001 for an international protective presence in Palestine. The EAPPI supports an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and a resolution to the Israeli–oPt conflict with a just peace, on the basis of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.


============================================

2,  Haaretz,

June 22, 2011

================================================

The truth behind another Israeli expulsion trick

The artificial division between Areas A, B and C was supposed to be erased from the map, and dropped from the discourse, in 1999. Instead, Israel has sanctified and perpetuated it.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-truth-behind-another-israeli-expulsion-trick-1.369007

By Amira Hass

Of all places, it is in Azzariyeh, east of Jerusalem, that one can really learn to appreciate the activities of Palestinian law-enforcement authorities in cities like Ramallah and Nablus. In those cities, Palestinian security forces are seen as authority figures who are trying to protect and serve Palestinian citizens, not just as extensions of Fatah or subcontractors of the Israel Defense Forces or the Shin Bet security service.

Unlike Ramallah and Nablus, which are categorized as “A” areas, Azzariyeh and its neighbors Sawahra and Abu Dis are holed up in an enclave of type “B”, where the IDF does not allow the Palestinian police to be fully functional. The interim Oslo 2 agreement determines that the Palestinian Authority is responsible for maintaining public order in Area B, but in the same breath it limits the PA’s authority and the means by which it can protect the people from disruptions of public order. Almost every action taken by the Palestinian police in Area B requires IDF approval.

And Israel, which has no inhibitions about violating key clauses of the agreement, is particularly meticulous here: The number of police officers is limited, police are prohibited from moving from a makeshift police station in an apartment building to a proper one, they are not allowed to carry weapons or wear uniforms, and they are prohibited from bringing in reinforcements on their own to locate drug or weapons dealers or to deliver subpoenas. Is it any wonder that the Azzariyeh-Abu Dis enclave has become a place of refuge for the outlaws of the West Bank? Not that this enclave has not had its share of troubles. Since it was shut off by the wall in 2005, all its ties with its natural and immediate urban center, East Jerusalem, have been severed. The enclave’s isolation, and the impoverishment and despair to which it gave rise, are as painful as a fresh burn.

The artificial division between Areas A, B and C was supposed to be erased from the map, and dropped from the discourse, in 1999. Instead, Israel has sanctified and perpetuated it. The largest share – 60 percent – is designated Area C, meaning it is under full Israeli security and civil control. It is self-evident why Israel perpetuates the Area C classification. After all, it gives Israel a free hand to continue emptying that part of the West Bank of Palestinians and encourage more Jews to violate international law and settle there.

But what about Area B? Why does Israel insist that drug and weapons trafficking should flourish in an area several dozen meters away from Ma’aleh Adumim and some three kilometers from the Judea and Samaria District police headquarters – both of which sites, as is often forgotten, are violating international law due to their location on the land reserves of Palestinian villages? True, there is also unlicensed public transportation, unlicensed construction, environmental pollution – but the drugs and weapons trade dwarfs those violations. A similar situation exists in A-Ram, the hybrid city between Ramallah and Jerusalem that is also cut off from its past, its surroundings and its land by the wall. Just a hop, skip and jump (over a wall and barbed-wire fence ) away from Jerusalem, some 100,000 people have been left to fend for their own personal safety, a situation that can be reversed.

Is there some deliberate intention behind the painstaking adherence to a clause in an agreement that was supposed to be short-lived? That’s what many Palestinians have concluded. Some say the drugs and weapons dealers are collaborators, or potential collaborators, with Israel. This is why the Shin Bet and IDF are not allowing the Palestinian police to take action against them and why, according to them, Israeli security forces immediately find out about any Palestinian attempt to capture them. Some find here a strategic goal: The worse this intolerable situation gets in neighborhoods that are so close to the annexed Jerusalem, the greater the likelihood that the residents will leave and head over to Area A. In other words, it’s just another expulsion trick.

 

Listen to the Palestinians. The subjugated excel at analyzing the implications of their ruler’s actions. And if the Palestinians are wrong, then why will the IDF not let the Palestinian police operate freely?

===========================

3,  Forwarded by the JPLO List

June 22, 2011

 

Veuillez diffuser largement – Please forward widely

www.tahrir.ca

Français ci-dessous

The blockade *is* illegal no matter what Israel claims:

An expert legal opinion on International Maritime Law and the Gaza blockade

Ambassador Craig Murray is a former Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the United Nations Preparatory Commission on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  He was deputy head of the teams which negotiated the UK’s maritime boundaries with France, Germany, Denmark (Faeroe Islands) and Ireland.

As Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he was responsible for giving real time political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in enforcement of the UN authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments.

Ambassador Craig Murray is therefore an internationally recognised authority on maritime jurisdiction and naval boarding issues.

His analysis of the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the right of the Gaza flotilla to sail.

“The legal position is plain.  A vessel outwith the territorial waters (12 mile limit) of a coastal state is on the high seas under the sole jurisdiction of the flag state of the vessel.  The ship has a positive right of  passage on the high seas.  The coastal state can regulate economic activity exploiting the resources of the seas and continental shelf up to 200 miles, the extent of the continental shelf, or the agreed boundary, but there is no indication of fishing, oil drilling or analagous economic activity in this case.  The vessel is entitled to free passage.”

“This right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, to which the United States is a full party.  Any incident which takes place upon a US flagged ship on the High Seas is subject to United States legal jurisdiction.  A ship is entitled to look to its flag state for protection from attack on the High Seas.”

“Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.”

“There are however fundamental flaws in this line of argument.    It falls completely on one fact alone.  San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict.  Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict, and presumably does not wish to be.  San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”

“It should not be denied that Israel suffers from sporadic terrorist attacks emanating from Gaza.  However this does not come close  to reaching the bar of armed conflict that would trigger the right to impose a limited naval blockade in terms of San Remo.  To make a comparison, in the 1970’s and 1980’s the United Kingdom suffered continued terrorist attack from the Irish Republican Army, with much more murderous impact causing many more deaths than anything Israel has suffered in recent years from Gaza.  However nobody would seek to argue that the UK would have had the right to mount a general naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland in the 1970’s and 1980’s, even though the Republic was undoubtedly the base for much IRA supply and operations.  Justifications of Israeli naval action against neutral civilian ships by San Remo is based on special pleading and an impossibly strained definition of the term “armed conflict”. “

 

For more information Craig Murray can be reached at [email protected]

www.tahrir.ca

—Français—

Le blocus est illégal quoi qu’en dise Israel:

AVIS LÉGAL CONCERNANT LE DROIT MARITIME INTERNATIONAL

 

L’ambassadeur Craig Murray a été chef suppléant de la délégation britannique à la Commission préparatoire des Nations Unies sur la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer. Il a également été directeur adjoint de l’équipe qui a négocié les frontières maritimes du Royaume-Uni avec la France, l’Allemagne, le Danemark (îles Féroé) et l’Irlande.

 

En tant que chef de la Section maritime du Foreign Office et du Commonwealth, il était responsable de fournir en temps réel les autorisations juridiques et les approbations politiques liées aux manœuvres d’accostage de la Royal Navy dans le Golfe Persique suite à l’invasion irakienne du Koweït, dans le cadre de la mise en application du blocus autorisé par l’ONU sur les cargaisons d’armes irakiennes.

 

L’ambassadeur Craig Murray est une autorité mondiale sur le droit maritime et sur les questions d’arraisonnement des navires.

Voici son analyse du blocus israélien de Gaza et du droit de la flottille de Gaza d’appareiller :

 

« Sur le plan légal, la situation est claire. Un navire qui se trouve hors des eaux territoriales (limite des 12 milles marins) d’un État côtier se trouve en ​​haute mer et sous la juridiction exclusive de l’État duquel il bat pavillon. Le navire dispose du droit de passage en haute mer. L’État côtier concerné peut réguler l’activité économique et exploiter les ressources de la mer et du plateau continental jusqu’à une distance 200 milles marins, jusqu’à la fin du plateau continental, ou à l’intérieur d’une frontière convenue. Mais dans le présent cas, il n’y a aucune indication de pêche, de forage ou d’autre activité économique. Le navire a donc le droit de libre passage ».

 

« Le droit de libre passage est garanti par la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer dont les États-Unis sont signataires. Lorsqu’un incident survient en haute mer sur un navire battant pavillon des États-Unis, l’incident tombe sous la compétence des États-Unis. Un navire est autorisé à faire appel à la protection de l’État du pavillon du navire contre les attaques en haute mer ».

« Israël a imposé un blocus sur Gaza et a justifié ses précédentes attaques meurtrières contre des navires civils neutres en haute mer en s’appuyant sur la couverture juridique du Manuel de San Remo sur le droit international applicable aux conflits armés en mer ».

 

« Mais l’argument est faussé à la base et il perd toute substance à la lumière d’un seul fait central: San Remo ne concerne que les blocus mis en application dans le cadre de conflits armés. Présentement, Israël n’est pas engagé dans un conflit armé et dit ne pas rechercher le conflit armé. San Remo ne confère aucunement le droit d’imposer un blocus permanent hors du cadre d’un conflit armé, et de fait, il exclut spécifiquement l’application qu’il considère comme illégale d’un blocus à une population entière ».

 

« Il ne s’agit pas de nier qu’Israël subit des attaques terroristes sporadiques émanant de la bande de Gaza. Mais cela est loin d’atteindre le niveau d’un conflit armé pouvant engendrer le droit d’imposer un blocus naval limité selon les critères de San Remo. À titre de comparaison, l’impact meurtrier des attaques de l’Armée républicaine irlandaise (IRA) sur le Royaume-Uni durant les années 1970 et 1980 a été bien plus lourd et a causé beaucoup plus de morts que toutes les pertes infligées par Gaza à Israël. Malgré cela, il ne viendrait à l’idée de personne de soutenir que le Royaume-Uni aurait eu dans les années 1970 et 1980 le droit d’imposer un blocus naval général contre la République d’Irlande, même s’il était évident qu’elle constituait la base opérationnelle et d’approvisionnement de l’IRA. Les arguments avancés par Israël pour légitimer ses actions maritimes contre des navires civils neutres en vertu de San Remo sont fondés sur un plaidoyer de justification et sur une définition restreinte à l’excès du terme « conflit armé ».

 

Pour de plus amples informations, veuillez contacter Craig Murray à [email protected].

www.tahrir.ca

=============================

4. Professor Francis Boyle is one of the most prominent campaigners for the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland. This book is a must read for all those who lost touch with International Law and the Right of Return.

Antoine Raffoul

Coordinator

1948: LEST WE FORGET

www.1948.org.uk

We may occasionally send you e-mail updates on our activities. If at any time you wish not to receive this information, please let us know by sending us a blank message with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

THE PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

by

FRANCIS A. BOYLE

ISBN: 0932863-93-0  / 978-0-932863-93-5

$14.95 / 123 pp. / 2011

SYNOPSIS

The just resolution of the Palestinian right of return is at the very heart of the Middle East peace process. Nonetheless, the Obama administration intends to impose a comprehensive peace settlement upon the Palestinians that will force them to give up their well-recognized right of return under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194(III)) of 1948; accept a Bantustan of disjointed and surrounded chunks of territory on the West Bank in Gaza; and even expressly recognize Israel as �the Jewish State,� as newly demanded by Benjamin Netanyahu.

All this will fail for the reasons so powerfully stated in this book.

For the past three decades, Francis A. Boyle has provided the leadership of the Palestinian people with advice, counsel, and representation at all stages of the Middle East Peace Process.

Here, he elaborates what the Palestinians must now do to realize their international legal right of return, in keeping with his startling perception of Israel as itself nothing more than a Jewish Bantustan bound for failure.

While an enormous amount of scholarly literature has been generated affirming the Palestinian right of return under international law, none is as authentic, powerful, personal, or convincing as the eloquent pleas of  Dr. Hanan Ashrawi and Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaff, included here.

This book goes to the heart of the solution.

AUTHOR

FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993.

In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare and Terrorism, Tackling America’s Toughest Problems, and The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka.

He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

 

==============================

5.  [forwarded by Dalit]

: 20 Jun 2011

מאת:  Anna Baltzer <[email protected]>

השב-אל:  [email protected]

אל:  [email protected]

I don’t know this band but still welcome the news. I didn’t see this circulated in the U.S.

Anna

*********************************

http://gailalfar.posterous.com/august-burns-red-have-cancelled-their-planned

August Burns Red Have Cancelled Their Planned Concert in Israel

PRESS RELEASE

(May 30, 2011, 6:00 PM)

August Burns Red, a phenomenally popular Christian metalcore band, has just cancelled their June 9 concert in Israel. “They have no plans to reschedule,” says a reliable source that must remain anonymous.  They cancelled because they do not want to play in Israel.

This comes as welcome news exactly a year to the date after the 2010 Israeli attack on civilians aboard the Freedom Flotilla, in which nine volunteers were killed execution style, and fifty others were seriously injured, one of which remains comatose.

In late Febuary, a Facebook Page titled  “August Burns Red: Please Don’t Play for Apartheid Israel” was created, and in three months the page grew to a seemingly paltry 249 members.  But what was not insiginifcant was the fact the the August Burns Red official facebook page had over 700,000 members at the time (now over 856,000) and as many know, sometimes searches lead us to places we never intended to go online.  This may account for the fact that statistics on the page asking the band to cancel their gig in Israel peaked at 6,795 active users who visited the page on March 24th.  Though the page was frequently visited, and the “likes” remained small, more stats showed that the daily posts that asked the band to cancel, and often detailed Israel’s human rights violations, were viewed hundreds of times each.

There is no way to tell how many times the open letter posted on the site was viewed.  This letter (also sent to the band’s management), was addressed to each individual band member, (dated April 5) and referred to one of their songs when it asked them to step out of the “Ocean of Apathy.” The letter reminded them that Palestinian musicians and Palestinian Christians, like all Palestinians under occupation, are denied their basic human rights.  The Goldstone Report was mentioned as well and the fact that metalheads living in Gaza would be denied the chance to hear their concert.

The Global BDS Community thanks August Burns Red for standing up for justice and human rights, in the longstanding Christian tradition.

Written by FreeMedia, Austin, Texas

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *