Dorothy Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

Dear Friends,

First of all, thanks to all who told me that they’d received yesterday’s message intact, and to those who expressed solidarity.  I hope that we are over that period.  Today the only annoyance so far (apart from the political situation here and in the OPT) was an electrical stoppage which threw my modem out of kilter, which required about an hour to get back so as to be able to get into the internet.  Minor detail.  May my problems never be worse.

This message contains 6 items.

The first of these is relatively good news.  Israel’s Attorney General has told Netanyahu that if the anti-human rights bills become laws, he will not be able to defend them in court because they are unconstitutional.  Let’s hope that this puts an end to those bills.

Item 2 reports that a military tribunal has acquitted a Palestinian—a most unusual case, but of course fortunate.  The problem is that so many more Palestinians are found guilty, regardless of whether they are or are not.

Item 3 is the Washington Post report about the attempted arson of a West Bank mosque.  It at the end tags on the news about Israel’s attack on Gaza today that killed a Palestinian.

Item 4 relates that the US is uncertain about Israel’s plans vis a vis Iran.  Well well!  I recall that during the Yom Kippur war in 1973 my brother-in-law related that they had had to stop fighting because his unit had run out of ammunition.  The US had ordered Israel not to attack the 5th army (Egyptian), Israel had not heeded the call, so the US stopped furnishing ammunition—I mean one day of this was enough to stop Israel.   But now suddenly the US hasn’t the power to stop Israel from attacking Iran???  It is still the US that furnishes Israel a goodly part of its arms.  Without US bunker busters, how will Israel do the job?  Who is Washington trying to kid?

Item 5 paints a not bright picture of the future, which apparently will consist of having drones in our lives.  Even if we wanted, as Candid, to tend our own gardens, it seems that the privacy of our own gardens will be invaded by drones.

Item 6 is ‘Today in Palestine’ for December 6, 2011.  One of the saddest reports in it is in the first section (Home demolitions, etc)—in an item entitled “Home Demolitions: child dragged out by his throat” we learn (in addition to the child being dragged out by his throat) that 2 families (2 homes) were not allowed to remove furniture, appliances, clothing from their homes before they were demolished, so lost not only the structures but also all their belongings.  When will the world wake up and see how cruel and ugly Israel is?

The section on Solidarity/Activism/BDS contains a number of positive reports.  There are also sections on Egypt, Syria, the Middle East, ending with a section on Opinion pieces.  Lots of reading, even if you only scan the summaries.  But lots of information that you will not find elsewhere.

That’s it for tonight.

All the best,

Dorothy

1.    Haaretz

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

AG to Netanyahu: Bills targeting Israeli rights groups’ funds are unconstitutional

‘If these bills become law, I won’t be able to defend them against the petitions that will be submitted to the High Court,’ Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein warns government.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ag-to-netanyahu-bills-targeting-israeli-rights-groups-funds-are-unconstitutional-1.400002

By Tomer Zarchin and Jonathan Lis

Tags: Israel Supreme Court Benjamin Netanyahu Yisrael Beitenu Likud Knesset

Proposed legislation to restrict foreign governments’ donations to nongovernmental organizations is unconstitutional, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein warned this week, and if it passes the Knesset, he will not be prepared to defend it in the High Court of Justice.

“The attorney general’s policy is to refrain as much as possible from declaring laws unconstitutional, out of respect for the legislative work of the cabinet and Knesset,” Weinstein wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this weekend explaining his unusual decision. “But in light of the blatancy of the case before us, deviating from this policy is justified. What this means is that if these bills become law, I won’t be able to defend them against the petitions that will be submitted to the High Court. That is what I intend to tell the Knesset, and afterward the Supreme Court.”

The two bills in question were submitted by MKs Ofir Akunis (Likud ) and Faina Kirshenbaum (Yisrael Beiteinu ). Both are disproportionate and unconstitutional, Weinstein said.

“They deal a harsh blow to a long list of constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to equality,” he wrote. “Instead of enabling open discussion in an efficient ‘marketplace of ideas,’ they try to suppress speech. They put Israel on a par with the handful of countries that have taken similar steps, and I doubt the State of Israel should be jealous of these regimes and act like them.”

In international forums, he noted, Israeli representatives boast of the country’s active civil society and human rights organizations, as these are essential elements of a democratic state. “It’s true that these organizations’ activities don’t always accord with the Israeli government’s positions. But they are an important voice that shouldn’t be silenced.”

While the bills’ declared aim is to prevent foreign states from intervening in Israeli public life, in fact, money from abroad is welcomed in many areas of Israeli life, he wrote. “Therefore, it seems the true aim is different. From the bills’ explanatory notes and the discussions in the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, it seems the bills are meant to prevent support for organizations that slander the State of Israel. These are mainly human rights organizations. But even if this is the goal, I doubt it’s an appropriate goal, because silencing legal activity cannot be a legitimate goal.”

Instead of the bills, he proposed other means of dealing with the problem, such as improving the transparency of donations and making diplomatic efforts to dissuade foreign governments from funding such groups. “Beyond that,” he wrote, “the right way to deal with different opinions is by raising counterarguments in the framework of open discussion in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ that characterizes a democratic society.”

The bills in question were both approved by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, but four ministers then appealed this decision to the full cabinet. Soon afterward, Netanyahu decided to freeze the bills, so the cabinet has yet to consider them. That means the Knesset also can’t vote on them.

Last week, therefore, Akunis and Kirshenbaum decided to shelve those bills and submit a new, joint proposal. The new bill would ban foreign governments from donating any money to NGOs that support indicting Israeli soldiers and officials in international courts or encourage soldiers to refuse to serve. Other NGOs could accept donations from foreign governments, but the money would be taxed at a rate of 45 percent, unless either they are also funded by the Israeli government, or the finance minister and the Knesset Finance Committee exempt them.

2.    Haaretz

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

IDF dismisses Palestinian confession over physical Shin Bet interrogationIsraeli military courts usually accept testimony of Shin Bet security service agents, even in cases where no one disputes confessions were obtained after suspects were beaten.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-dismisses-palestinian-confession-over-physical-shin-bet-interrogation-1.400003

By Chaim Levinson

Tags: Palestinians Shin Bet Jerusalem West Bank

A West Bank military tribunal recently acquitted a Palestinian man who had been charged with several security offenses, after ruling that interrogators used prohibited practices including physical and psychological abuse and threats involving family members to force a confession from the suspect.

Acquittal in such circumstances is rare; Israeli military courts usually accept the testimony of Shin Bet security service agents, even in cases where no one disputes that confessions were obtained after the suspects were beaten.

Ayman Hamida, 37, from Izariya in East Jerusalem, was charged with carrying out a series of offenses over a period of several months. The most serious charge was shooting at a Border Police outpost near Jerusalem in September 2009.

Following his arrest, Hamida was brought to a Shin Bet facility. After being interrogated over a 40-day period by a team of agents, he was indicted for 17 crimes. The indictment was based in part on a confession obtained during interrogation.

Although Hamida was acquitted on many of the charges, he was convicted for one shooting incident in September 2009 after a co-conspirator implicated him. The co-conspirator is awaiting sentencing.

At his trial, in the Judea Military Court, Hamida asked to retract his confession. He said that in the course of the 40-day interrogation he was threatened with administrative detention, his brother was brought in for interrogation in an effort to force him to confess and Shin Bet officials threatened to bring his sister to the facility, as well.

Hamida told the court that agents were placed in his cell in order to get him to confess. He said they choked, beat and spit at him; they deprived him of food and took away his clothing when he refused to cooperate.

All of Hamida’s Shin Bet interrogators testified at his trial. This week, judges Lt. Col. Zvi Lekach, Lt. Col Tal Band and Maj. Amir Dahan accepted all of the defense’s claims and criticized the Shin Bet for its conduct.

“The testimony of the Shin Bet investigators led me to conclude that the investigation – its pace, the things said, the direct contact with the defendant’s family, the veiled threat of administrative detention in the future – deprived the defendant of free will,” Dahan wrote. “I understood from the interrogators’ testimony that the interrogation was neither ideal nor respectful, and that harsh and problematic measures were used in a manner and frequency that deprived [Hamida] of his free will. This time [they went] over the top, and the defendant was forced into telling his interrogators anything in order to stop the interrogation, to end the veiled threats and to give him even the slightest hope,” the judge said.

“The Shin Bet interrogators painted a harsh interrogation in overly ‘rosy’ colors,” Lekach wrote, “that appeared not to match the reality of the situation.” The judge focused his criticism on the agents’ pressure on Hamida to confess and their apparent manipulation of his emotions and cultural mores, particularly with threats regarding the defendant’s sister.

“The distress of someone who was interrogated for what added up to 40 days, during which he was presumably beaten, is very great,” Lekach wrote. “When he hears that his sister is also being harmed by his refusal to cooperate with his interrogators, one can assume that he felt intolerable pressure. The court is cognizant of the patriarchal-protective way of life in Arab society, and of the difficult implications of keeping a woman in jail – for the family and for the honor of the men who are responsible for her welfare. For Hamida the pressure was intolerable. The main reason for his confession was his concern for his family,” Lekach wrote.

“This is the tip of the iceberg of the harsh interrogation methods and the physical and emotional violence used against Palestinian detainees by the Shin Bet,” Hamida’s lawyer, Labib Habib, said to Haaretz. Habib noted that the High Court of Justice has outlawed the arrest of, or threats to arrest or hurt members of the detainee’s family in the course of an interrogation.

In a response, the Shin Bet said its interrogations are carried out in compliance with the law and are monitored by the Justice Ministry and the judicial system. It is still studying the ruling and will consider appealing the acquittal, the agency said.

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

Washington Post Updated: Wednesday, December 7, 8:19 PM

3.    Police: Vandals leave burning tire at West Bank mosque, blackening entrance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/police-vandals-leave-burning-tire-at-west-bank-mosque-blackening-entrance/2011/12/07/gIQAYqTncO_story.html

By Associated Press,

BRUKIN, West Bank — Arsonists left a burning tire at the entrance of a Palestinian mosque in the northern West Bank early Wednesday, residents and Israeli police said, the latest in a string of recent assaults on Muslim and Christian holy sites.

The attack blackened the mosque’s entrance, where worshippers leave their shoes before entering. No one was seen carrying out the attack in the village of Brukin, but suspicion fell on Jewish settlers, who are thought to have carried out similar acts of vandalism in the past.

“We hope there won’t be more attacks, but we expect there will be. We’ve had continuous problems with the settlers around us,” said the Palestinian mayor, Akrima Samara.

Mahmoud Habbash, a Palestinian Islamic leader, said some 10 mosques were attacked or torched in the past three years in the West Bank. At least one other mosque and a Muslim graveyard were desecrated inside Israel this year.

Young Jewish extremists have adopted a practice, called “price tag,” of attacking Palestinian targets in retaliation for Israeli government policies they deem too sympathetic to Palestinians. The mosque burnings, in particular, threaten to inflame already poor relations between Jews and Arabs.

Israeli police said they were investigating the incident.

But few complaints about anti-Palestinian violence result in prosecution, according to figures released Wednesday by an Israeli human rights group.

The group, Tel Aviv-based Yesh Din, said military police issued indictments in connection with only 6 percent of all investigated complaints Palestinians made against Israeli forces in the West Bank from 2000 to 2010.

The group said military police investigated 61 percent of the 3,150 complaints that Palestinians filed. The rest were closed without an investigation, Yesh Din said in a report.

Some complaints were lost while others took months, if not years, to investigate, making it difficult to gather evidence, the report said. And Palestinians did not have easy access to the military to file complaints, the report added.

The conclusions “reflect a lack of concern, a lack of priority,” said Emily Schaeffer, a lawyer with Yesh Din.

In response, the Israeli military said it looks into all complaints and that all decisions by military authorities could be appealed to the country’s Supreme Court. The decisions that military authorities make in such cases are reached “in accordance with the details and the content of each individual case,” the military said in a statement.

Meanwhile, a Palestinian militant was killed and two others were wounded in an Israeli airstrike early Wednesday on the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military said its aircraft targeted two militant squads preparing to fire rockets into southern Israel.

The burst of violence shattered a recent lull and threatened to set off more fighting.

Gaza Health Ministry spokesman Adham Abu Salmia said the violence erupted after Israeli troops moved into a buffer zone east of Gaza City. Palestinian militants then engaged the troops in a gunbattle before an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at the gunmen.

___Associated Press writer Ibrahim Barzak contributed to this report from Gaza City, Gaza Strip.

4.     Ynet Wednesday, December 07, 2011

12:50 , 12.07.11

  Cause for Concern?

 US President Barack Obama Photo: MCT

    ‘US unsure what might prompt Israel to attack’

Obama administration does not know Jerusalem’s intentions on potential military action against Iran; uncertainty stoking concern in Washington

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4158352,00.html

Reuters

The Obama administration does not know Israel’s intentions regarding potential military action against Iran, and the uncertainty is stoking concern in Washington, where the preferred course for now is sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Although Israel remains one of the United States’ closest allies and the two countries’ officials are in regular contact, US officials have a “sense of opacity” regarding what might prompt an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites, and about when such an attack might occur, according to a senior US national security official.

Two key US senators acknowledged on Tuesday that there are gaps in US knowledge about Israeli leaders’ thinking and intentions.

Protest outside of nuclear facility in Isfahan (Reuters)

“I don’t think the administration knows what Israel is going to do. I’m not sure Israel knows what Israel is going to do … That’s why they want to keep the other guys guessing. Keep the bad guys guessing,” said Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the committee, echoed Levin’s view: “I’m sure (administration officials) don’t know what the Israelis are going to do. They didn’t know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria. But the Israelis usually know what we’re going to do.”

‘Unintended consequences’

The uncertainty comes amid extraordinarily sharp public warnings in the last few weeks by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the potential “unintended consequences” of military action against Iran.

Panetta told a forum in Washington last week that an attack on Iran would risk “an escalation” that could “consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.”

It could disrupt the fragile economies of the United States and Europe, spark a popular backlash in Iran bolstering its rulers and put US forces in the region in the firing line, he said. “The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta said.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters in an interview he did not know whether the Jewish state would give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.

An Israeli government official said, “Israel and the United States are in close and continuous communication on the threat posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. We appreciate President Obama’s determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” The official declined to comment further.

At the same time, however, Obama’s relations with Israeli leaders have not been particularly warm. He has not visited the country as president.

 former US government official said: “There are plenty of instances when the Israelis have undertaken action without informing the United States first. So not always should we assume a level of coordination (between Washington and Israel) in advance on all issues.”

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

5.     Drones: A deeply unsettling future

The rapid expansion of a drone arms race has emerged both domestically and abroad, leaving everyone vulnerable.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/201112774824829807.html

Trevor Timm Last Modified: 07 Dec 2011 11:54

At least 50 countries already have unmanned aerial fleets – and that number is rising every month [EPA]

San Francisco, California – On Sunday, Iran claimed to have taken down a US drone in Iranian airspace – not by shooting it out the sky, but with its cyber warfare team.

Reports confirm that the US believes Iran is now in possession of “one of the more sensitive surveillance platforms in the CIA’s fleet”, but deny Iran’s involvement. Of course, Iran’s claim of overtaking the drone with its cyber warfare team should be tempered with a serious dose of scepticism, as cyber security experts say the facts may not add up. But this is just the latest story in a series of incidents that raises worrying questions about security problems caused by drones. And given the coming proliferation of drone technology both domestically and abroad, this should be a concern to citizens all over the world.

 Pakistan angry with US over deadly NATO air strike

Two years ago the Wall Street Journal reported Iran-funded militants in Iraq were able to hack into drones’ live-video feeds with “$26 off-the-shelf software”. In another unnerving incident, Wired reported in October that a fleet of the Air Force’s drones was infected with a computer virus that captured all of drones’ key strokes. Technicians continually deleted the virus to no avail. How did the drones get infected? The military is “not quite sure”. Worse, the Air Force’s cyber security team didn’t even know about the virus until they read about it in Wired.

Wired reported in a separate story that an upcoming Congressional report will detail how hackers broke into the US satellite system. With one satellite, hackers “achieved all steps required to command” it, “but never actually exercised control”.

Last summer, a drone caused a scene in the nation’s capital, when, as New York Times wrote, “fighter jets were almost scrambled after a rogue Fire Scout drone, the size of a small helicopter, wandered into Washington’s restricted airspace”. A similar incident took place in Afghanistan where military planes had to shoot down a “runaway drone” when pilots lost control.

The US, of course, leads the world in drone use for both surveillance and combat missions. Attacks are carried out in Pakistan every four days on average. Many times, the US isn’t even sure exactly who they are killing. Despite the fact that the location of vast majority of drone bases are classified, journalist Nick Turse pieced together a startling picture of the massive US fleet. He determined that the US has at least 60 drone bases operated by either the US military or the CIA around the world, and “most of these facilities have remained unnoted, uncounted, and remarkably anonymous – until now”.

But drone use is not just relegated to US military. Drone manufacturers already command a $94bn market, according to some estimates, and the drone arms race is in full swing. As the Washington Post reported, the constant buzz of drones and threats of attack now dominates the lives of civilians in Gaza. And Turkey plans to have Predator drones in operation by June 2012.

Meanwhile, Chinese contractors unveiled 25 types of unmanned aircraft last year. In all, at least 50 countries now have some sort of unmanned aerial vehicles, and the New York Times reports that “the number is rising every month”. That number also includes Iran, which is seeking to upgrade its fleet. Even the Libyan rebels had their own surveillance drone – provided to them by Canadian defence contractors – before they were in full control of their own country.

The technology itself is also developing at an alarmingly rapid pace. The New York Times reports that researchers in the US are working on “shrinking unmanned drones, the kind that fire missiles into Pakistan and spy on insurgents in Afghanistan, to the size of insects”, along with oversized drones that can capture video of an entire city. There are birdlike drones, underwater drones, drones within drones, facial recognition drones, and perhaps most terrifying, completely autonomous drones – currently being tested in Georgia – which will require no human control at all.

As Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me last month, “It’s a very impressive and responsive tool that should be used sparingly. Even if we’re responsible now, we might not be forever.”

But in the US, drones will become yet another way authorities can compromise the privacy of ordinary citizens, as the FAA plans to propose new rules for their domestic flight. As Newsweek reported, police forces and border patrols in the US are buying the technology from defence contractors, and one has already been spotted flying over Houston. Police departments are already using GPS and cell phone tracking without warrants, this will another powerful surveillance weapon in their arsenal. As privacy advocates warn, “drones can easily be equipped with facial recognition cameras, infrared cameras, or open Wi-Fi sniffers”. And while these drones will be used for many surveillance purposes (a scary thought in and of itself), contractors admit they are equipped to carry weapons, such as Tasers.

Whether they are being used for surveillance or all-out combat, drones will soon pose serious risks for all of the world’s citizens. They can offer governments, police departments, or private citizens unprecedented capabilities for spying, and given their security vulnerabilities, the potential consequences could be endless.

Trevor Timm is an activist and blogger at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He specialises in free speech issues and government transparency.

Follow Trevor Timm on Twitter: @WLLegal

6.Today in Palestine for December 6, 2011

http://www.theheadlines.org/11/06-12-11.shtml

Leave a Reply

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