Of the 5 items below, the first is a blow—the Israeli Knesset, as was expected, tonight voted in to law the anti-boycott bill. Today’s Haaretz editorial criticizes the law. The link to it follows the Ynet report on the passage of the law. Item 2 was published before the vote, but is informative, so I included it also. The law will now go to the High Court which is expected to declare it illegal. It after all negates freedom of speech, among other things. It also by implication makes the colonies part of Israel, even though Israel has not formally expropriated them. Well, the next period will be an interesting one. Surely the law will not improve Israel’s image in the world.
The 2nd main event in the items below is item 3. Rachel Corrie’s family accuse Israel of not having conducted a transparent investigation into Rachel’s death.
Item 4 is an interesting article—A Strategy to end the occupation. The author, Yousef Munayyer, says its not a Palestinian state that is the crux of the problem, but the occupation. And the way to end it is to make the occupier bear all the cost of the occupation, so that in the end Israel will realize that it is more costly to maintain it than to end it.
Item 5 just a few minutes ago flowed into my inbox folder: European anti-arms trade groups have endorsed international calls for an arms embargo on Israel. May they succeed!
That’s it for tonight, unless, of course, you would like to scan the latest ‘Today in Palestine,” where you will learn, among other things, that Israel’s wall segregates 13% of the West Bank. http://www.theheadlines.org/11/11-07-11.shtml
All the best, and don’t worry about the new law. We shall overcome, I do believe, we shall overcome!
Dorothy
==================================
1. Ynet,
07.11.11
In the House
The Knesset plenum Photo: Noam Moskowitz
Knesset votes in favor of ‘boycott bill’
Controversial bill which calls for imposing sanctions against anyone declaring embargo on Israel garners 47 ayes, 38 nays
The Knesset voted Monday in favor of the controversial “boycott bill,” which proposes imposing sanctions against anyone declaring embargo on Israel. The vote was carried 47 to 38.
The bill, which was backed by the cabinet, states that any boycott against Israel or any group located within its territory, including the West Bank, will be labeled a civil offense and its initiators will be subject to litigation. The legislation has been the focus of harsh criticism.
Ahead of the vote, the Knesset plenum convened for a filibuster, which saw heated arguments from both Left and Right.
The opposition vowed to fight the bill, which it labeled “anti-democratic”; several prominent legalists said that it was “grayish” at best, and unlikely to withstand High Court scrutiny.
Knesset Member Ilan Gilon (Meretz) was the first to speak before the Knesset plenum; he said the recent “anti-democratic” laws, in his words, legislated by the Knesset “black dysentery” that de-legitimizes the State of Israel.
“I know of nothing that causes more de-legitimization for Israel abroad than these acts of legislation,” he said adding that they leave Israel in a position of “a nation on its own shall dwell.”
The Kadima faction chose to oppose the bill with MK Shai Hermesh (Kadima) saying that the bill was a “muzzling bill, a bill that harms the basic rights.” The Independence faction followed suit and announced it too will oppose the bill.
MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) took things to a personal level, wondering from the podium if Likud faction Chairman MK Zeev Elkin’s “past as a shunned schoolboy who got beaten up” prompted him to initiate the bill.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said that “the majority of those who oppose the bill, do it in the name of freedom of expression. That begs the question – does freedom of expression in a democratic state includes the right to call for financial boycotts.
“It’s a principle of democracy that you don’t shun a public you disagree with by harming their livelihood. A boycott on a certain sector is not the proper manifestation of freedom of expression. It is an aggressive move meant to force a sector that thinks a different way to capitulate. Boycotts are aggressive and wrong,” he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially wanted to defer the vote, to avoid presenting Israel in a negative light as the Quartet gears to meet for a crucial discussion over the intention of the Palestinian Authority to seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians also denounced the bill, saying that if it passes, “the content of an impending Quartet announcement regarding the possible renewal of negotiations will become irrelevant.”
===============================
2. The Guardian,
11 July 2011
Israel prepares to pass law banning citizens from calling for boycotts
The bill would allow anyone who called for an academic, consumer or cultural boycott to be sued for compensation
Israelis demonstrate against the boycott bill in Jerusalem. Photograph: Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty Images
The Israeli parliament is preparing to pass a law that would in effect ban citizens from calling for academic, consumer or cultural boycotts of Israel in a move that has been denounced by its opponents as anti-democratic.
The boycott bill is expected to win majority backing, despite strong opposition and an attempt to filibuster Monday night’s debate. Under its terms, any individual or organisation proposing a boycott could be sued for compensation by any individual or institution claiming that it could be damaged by such a call. Proof of actual damage would not be required.
The bill seeks to protect individuals and institutions in Israel and the Palestinian territory it has occupied, illegally under international law, since 1967. If the law is passed, it would in effect ban calls for consumer boycotts of goods produced in West Bank settlements, or of cultural or academic institutions in settlements. It would also prevent the government doing business with companies that comply with boycotts.
As debate on the bill opened in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament’s legal adviser presented an opinion that parts of the proposed law were “borderline illegal”. “The broad definition of a boycott on the state of Israel is a violation of the core tenet of freedom of political expression and elements in the proposed bill are borderline illegal,” Eyal Yinon said.
Among the bill’s opponents are dozens of Israeli intellectuals, including the celebrated author Amos Oz, who described the proposed law as the “worst of the anti-democratic bills in the Knesset. The bill will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.”
According to the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, the bill constitutes “a direct violation of freedom of expression”. Its executive director, Hagai El-Ad, said: “The boycott bill represents the current unfortunate crest in a wave of anti-democratic legislation that is gradually drowning Israel’s democratic foundations.”
Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said the bill would punish those who “refuse to recognise the illegal situation associated with Israel’s settlement enterprise in occupied Palestinian territory”.
The bill’s sponsor, Ze’ev Elkin of the rightwing Likud party, said Israel had been dealing for years with boycotts by Arab states but the domestic boycott movement was a “travesty”. “If the state of Israel does not protect itself, we will have no moral right to ask our allies for protection from such boycotts.”
Elkin told the pro-settlement news website Arutz Sheva: “I hope the [legislators] will understand that this is a battle between Zionism and the new left.”
Elkin’s bill follows moves to boycott a cultural centre and a university in the huge West Bank settlement of Ariel, and the contractual agreement of some Israeli companies not to use material originating in settlements in work on the new Palestinian city of Rawabi. Campaigners also claim that consumer boycotts against produce and goods originating in settlements are growing both in Israel and abroad.
There has been a raft of proposals over recent years denounced by opponents as anti-democratic, including the withdrawal of financing for Israeli films deemed to be critical of government policies and attempts to restrict the international funding of campaigning groups.
If the boycott bill becomes law, it is expected to be challenged in court, putting a spotlight on Israel’s 44-year occupation.
Rachel Corrie died in Gaza in 2003 while protesting against house demolitions. Photograph: Denny Sternstein/Associated Press
The family of Rachel Corrie, the US activist killed in Gaza while protesting against house demolitions in 2003, on Monday claimed the Israeli military authorities withheld video evidence during the Corries’ civil lawsuit and misled US officials on crucial details.
Craig Corrie, Rachel’s father, told a press conference in Jerusalem that the footage from a surveillance camera near the scene of his daughter’s death submitted to the court was “incomplete”. Additional video material obtained by the family showed Rachel’s body in a different spot to the place identified by some military commanders, he said.
He also alleged that the Israeli military had misled US officials on the position of Rachel’s body when she was killed.
Rachel, from Olympia, Washington state, was killed while attempting to protect the home of a Palestinian family in the Rafah area of Gaza from being demolished by Israeli troops in March 2003. Her family and other activists who witnessed the incident say she was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer.
Following Rachel’s death the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, promised US president George W Bush a “thorough, credible and transparent” investigation.
An internal Israeli military investigation, which was never published nor released to the US government nor the Corries, concluded that the two soldiers who operated the bulldozer had not seen Rachel and that no charges would be brought. The case was closed.
In March last year the Corrie family launched a civil case, accusing the military of either unlawfully or intentionally killing Rachel or of gross negligence. Hearings in the case ended on Sunday and a verdict is due to be delivered next April.
“After more than a year of hearings, we are at this moment in much the same place as we were when they began – up against a wall of Israeli officials determined to protect the state at all costs, including at the expense of truth,” said Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother.
“We came seeking accountability. We demand justice,” said Craig Corrie.
The final witness in the case, Colonel Pinhas Zuaretz, told the court in Haifa that Rafah was a war zone in 2003 and “reasonable people would not be there unless they had aims of attacking our forces”. Members of the International Solidarity Movement, such as Rachel Corrie, were aiding “Palestinian terrorists”, he said.
In arguing that the case should be dismissed, the Israeli government claimed Rachel was responsible for her own death. Both sides have 90 days to submit closing arguments in writing.
4. “The question then is: do the Palestinians want this state? No, clearly not. In fact, the Palestinian cause was only about statehood insofar as a state could be a vehicle for realising Palestinian human and political rights. Since its inception, the Palestinian cause has been about two central issues 1) the right of Palestinians to live in Palestine (this includes the right of refugees to return to their towns and villages if they choose) and 2) the right to self-determination and sovereignty. It has never, contrary to Zionism, been about a fear driven desire for ethno-centric domination.”
Al Jazeera,
July 11, 2011
Counting the cost of a Palestinian state
Counting the Cost of a Palestinian State
Palestinians must realise that statehood and ending the occupation require consistent effort and pressure on Israel.
Jerusalem remains contested as the desired capital of a future Palestinian state, yet divisive West Bank barriers have made this a further challenge [GALLO/GETTY]
Since the Palestine Liberation Organisation led by Yasser Arafat recognised the state of Israel over 20 years ago, the general framework for a claims-ending solution accepted by the Israeli and Palestinian leadership has been a deal that would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But now, two decades later, that framework has been completely exposed as a sham, and the number of people who believe such a solution is achievable, let alone worthwhile, is consistently dwindling.
So, do the Palestinians want a state? Or, perhaps more importantly, should the Palestinians want a state? This seems like a straightforward question with an even more straightforward answer. At the beginning of the Washington-led peace process and during creation of the Palestinian Authority in the mid-1990s the answer sure seemed to be a resounding ‘yes’. There were plenty of reservations about this strategy however, especially among Palestinians concerned that such a solution would disenfranchise the rights of refugees. Nevertheless, many Palestinians including the formal leadership was on board.
Today, the answer to this question is not so clear, and for good reason. In the course of 20 years of negotiations, Palestinians learned that the concept of a “state” that they had in mind was different from the one that Israel – their occupier – would permit them to have, and in turn different from what the United States was willing to support. Despite the “historic compromise” PLO leaders often refer to – the relinquishing of claims on 78 per cent of historic Palestine – a Palestinian state would not emerge on the remaining 22 per cent. Instead of getting closer to a territorially contiguous and sovereign political entity they could call a state, Palestinians were constantly facing increased Israeli colonisation of their territory.
Wanting a true state
The size of the territory allotted for this “state” continued to shrink with every new settlement home. The Israelis remained adamant about maintaining control over the air space and borders of any Palestinian state, retaining a military presence in the Jordan River valley (about 30 per cent of the West Bank), retaining the illegally annexed occupied Jerusalem and refusing a new Palestinian state to have an army. Essentially, this would be a state in name only, lacking the all important features of sovereignty, and would be the de facto continuation of the occupation with different window dressing.
The question then is: do the Palestinians want this state? No, clearly not. In fact, the Palestinian cause was only about statehood insofar as a state could be a vehicle for realising Palestinian human and political rights. Since its inception, the Palestinian cause has been about two central issues 1) the right of Palestinians to live in Palestine (this includes the right of refugees to return to their towns and villages if they choose) and 2) the right to self-determination and sovereignty. It has never, contrary to Zionism, been about a fear driven desire for ethno-centric domination.
Public opinion polling of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza reveals that 74 per cent of Palestinians consider ending the occupation and achieving the right to return as the two most important Palestinian goals. The maximalist version of the concept of a Palestinian state permitted by the Washington sponsored Peace Process does not even accommodate the minimalist version of Palestinian rights.
Perhaps one reason the process has drifted into this morass is because the intended goal has focused on a Palestinian state in name only, without much regard for what that state would look like or whether it would afford Palestinians their rights. This peace process would seemingly go forward endlessly if it could loosely attach the concept of a state to any hilltop in the West Bank, so long as there was a Palestinian leadership willing to go along with it. Palestinians cannot and should not accept a “state” at any cost.
A strategy to end occupation
For 20 years, the Washington-led peace process has succeeded in doing one thing better than anything else; giving Israel every incentive to maintain its occupation. By assigning the policing responsibilities for the urban centers to the Palestinian Authority and having the Europeans and the Americans pay for this project, Israel has effectively retained the security domination and colonial usurpation benefits inherent in occupation without having to be responsible for any of the costs. It can build settlements in Palestinian land and steal Palestinian water, both acts in direct opposition to international law, but simultaneously ditch obligations it has to the population it occupies and use the ongoing Peace Process to deflect international criticism for obviating Palestinian self-determination.
This game has to end, and the continuation of a Peace Process that only encourages relentless Israeli occupation exacerbates the situation. It’s time for a dramatic shift in the Israeli/Palestinian dynamic which places costs where they belong, on the occupier. Whether this will be born out diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations, non-violent popular uprising, or Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is still unclear. Perhaps it’s all of the above.
What we know for sure is that Washington’s insistence on a failed status quo has only proved costly for Palestinians and beneficial for Israel. Palestinians should not be subjected, or subject themselves, to engaging Israel in an arena they are cornered into and disadvantaged in, but rather should choose to meet them in an arena where the the playing field is fair or to their advantage. Increasingly, this is anywhere in the world outside of Washington.
Any new Palestinian strategy must put reversing this “cost-free occupation” dynamic at its centre. Israel will only end its occupation when pressured to do so and it must be made to realise that it is more costly to maintain the occupation than end it.
Yousef Munayyer is a writer and political analyst based in Washington, DC. He is currently the Executive Director of the The Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development.
Seven years after the ruling by the International Court of Justice that the wall (the so-called “separation barrier “) between Israel and the Palestinian Territories was an illegal construction, European anti-arms trade groups have endorsed international calls for an arms embargo on Israel.
In support of the call of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee we, groups of the European Network Against Arms Trade ask the European Parliament and European countries to:
Immediately cease any provision to Israel of arms and related material of all types, including the sale or transfer of weapons and ammunitions, military vehicles and equipment, para-military police equipment, including dual-use equipment, and spare parts; and also cease the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture or maintenance of these weapons.
Stop all military and dual-use imports (equipment, assistance and munitions) from Israel.
Stop the transfer of military products to and from Israel through national ports, territory and airspace.
Stop cooperation with the Israeli army, military companies, and military-related R&D projects, including joint ventures (whether bilateral or multilateral).
Halt all military-related training and consultancies with the Israeli army, military companies and academic research institutions.
End all military aid to Israel.
Refrain from any cooperation with Israel in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons and mobilise for a nuclear-free Middle East.
Signed by:
Campaign Against Arms Trade – UK
Campagne tegen Wapenhandel – Netherlands
Centre d’Estudis per a la Pau JM Delàs (Justícia i Pau) – Barcelona, Spain
Gruppe für eine Schweiz ohne Armee (GSoA) – Switzerland
Spokeman for Kampagne gegen Rüstungsexport – Germany.
Bundesausschuss Friedensratschlag – Germany
Norwegian Peace Association – Norway
Osservatorio Permanente sulle Armi Leggere (OPAL) di Brescia – Italy
