Gaza - protests against Israel

[luke]

BEHOLDEN TO THE BIG POWERS: ISRAEL, GAZA AND THE UN

On December 27, 2008, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a massive assault on Gaza. 22 days later, around 1,400 Palestinians, including over 300 children, and 13 Israelis were dead; about 5,000 Palestinians were wounded. Israeli forces bombed and shelled schools, medical centres, hospitals, ambulances, United Nations buildings (including UN schools), power plants, sewage plants, roads, bridges and civilian homes. This was described in much of the press as hitting “Hamas targets” (e.g. David Gardner, 'U.S. accused of white phosphorus against Taliban', Daily Mail, May 11, 2009).

Earlier this month, the UN announced the results of an inquiry into attacks on its buildings and personnel in Gaza. It concluded that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) were:

“involved in varying degrees of negligence or recklessness with regard to United Nations premises and to the safety of United Nations staff and other civilians within those premises, with consequent deaths, injuries, and extensive physical damage and loss of property.” (Donald Macintyre, ‘UN retreats after Israel hits out at Gaza report’, Independent, May 6, 2009)

Incidents for which Israel was held responsible by the UN inquiry included:

* The deaths of three young men killed by a single IDF missile strike at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Asma school in Gaza City.

* The firing of heavy mortar rounds into the UNRWA Jabalia school, injuring seven people sheltering in the school, killing up to 40 people in the immediate vicinity and injuring a further 50.

* Aerial bombing of the UNRWA Bureij health centre on the same day, causing the death of a patient, serious injuries to two other patients and injuries to nine of the health centre’s employees.

* Artillery firing by the IDF into the UNRWA field office compound in Gaza city, combined with the use of white phosphorus, causing injuries and considerable damage to it and the surrounding buildings, and leading to the disruption of the UN’s humanitarian operations in Gaza.

* Artillery firing by the IDF into the UNRWA Beit Lahia school, again with the use of white phosphorus, causing the deaths of two children, aged 5 and 7, and injuries to 13 others.

Contrary to Israeli claims, the UN inquiry found no evidence that “Hamas militants” had used UN property to attack Israel or Israeli forces. Indeed, the report demanded that the UN urge Israel to retract its allegations to that effect.

The inquiry’s narrow remit was restricted to UN property and personnel; a key recommendation was that $11m compensation should be sought from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. But the final recommendation was that +all+ killings, injuries and damages in Gaza "should be investigated as part of an impartial inquiry mandated, and adequately resourced, to investigate allegations of violations of international humanitarian law." (Julian Borger, ‘UN chief rejects further inquiry’, Guardian, May 6, 2009)

Shamefully, however, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presented the inquiry results, he rejected its authors’ call for such an investigation. He even decided not to release the full 184-page report. According to a brief item on the BBC Arabic news website, the BBC was informed by “a diplomatic source” that the United States “informed Ban's office that the report should not be published in full due to the damage that that could cause to the Middle East peace talks.” (Cited in Hasan Abu Nimah, ‘Ban Ki-moon's moral failure’, The Electronic Intifada, May 6, 2009; http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10511.shtml)

The sophistry of these words – “the damage that that could cause to the Middle East peace talks” – is newspeak for “dangerous truths that would further damage the reputations of Israel and the United States.”

Ban, no doubt aware of these dangers, conveniently produced his own 27-page summary. Inter Press Service reported that the original report was thus “meticulously stripped down … mostly due to [alleged] political sensitivities and on security grounds.” (Thalif Deen, ‘UN chief defends "watered down" Gaza report’, Inter Press Service, May 5, 2009; http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46733) The report supposedly contained “secret information supplied by Israel” about its attacks on Gaza. (Abu Nimah, ‘Ban Ki-moon's moral failure’, op. cit.)

Ban then issued this summary together with a covering letter to the UN Security Council. In the letter, Ban said he was "carefully considering" what actions, "if any", to take on the 11 recommendations by his own inquiry team. But he had already appeased both Israel and its powerful backers in the UN Security Council, notably the United States, by stating that he “did not plan any further inquiry.”

True to form, the Israelis had called the report “tendentious, patently biased” even before the summary was published. (‘UN rejects UN probe under Israeli pressure’, Palestine Chronicle, May 6, 2009; http://www.palestinechronicle.com/news.php?id=897c5f65b4ad8fdde3f03527039af4e0=details) Ban took his cue adroitly. While noting the Israeli government’s “significant reservations and objections”, he bent over backwards to praise them for their cooperation. He also spoke out, reportedly urged by Israeli ministers and officials, against "continued and indiscriminate" attacks by Hamas.


Of Circus Dogs And Whips

In effect, then, the UN Secretary General rejected his own inquiry which had been lead by Ian Martin, a former head of Amnesty International. Moreover, Ban’s effective suppression of the full report was doubtless an attempt to draw a line under the inquiry, minimising damage to Israel and the United States.

Noam Chomsky commented on the possible role of US-Israeli “diplomacy” in the Secretary-General’s decision not to publish the full report or to proceed with a wide-ranging inquiry:

“as far as I know there's no direct evidence about what happened [behind the scenes], though it's not hard to guess. Ban knows as well as any other Sec'y-General that criticism of the US (hence its offshoots [such as Israel]) will undermine what little there is of a UN.” (Email to Media Lens, May 13, 2009)

In other words, direct pressure is not always required. Indeed, it is often more efficient to have an amenable person in place who will do the master’s bidding without being told what to do. As George Orwell once observed:

“Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip. But the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip.” (Orwell, ‘As I Please’, Tribune, 1944)

Ban Ki-moon has already demonstrated his gymnastic prowess. When he visited Gaza in January 2009, he was justifiably “appalled” at Israel’s “outrageous and totally unacceptable attack.” But his critical remarks were restricted to the attack on UN installations and personnel; not Gaza as a whole.

Hasan Abu Nimah, Jordan’s former UN ambassador, noted astutely that Ban’s “courage only went so far”:

“[His] flash of anger was limited however only to UN facilities. He spoke as if the rest of Gaza -- where more than 7,000 people lay dead or injured, and thousands of homes, schools, mosques, universities, police stations and government buildings were destroyed -- did not exist, or were not of UN concern.” (Abu Nimah, ‘Ban Ki-moon's moral failure’, op. cit.)

He continued:

“Whisked around in his convoy, he did not bother to stop and talk to any of Israel's victims -- the families who had just dug the remains of their loved ones from the rubble or those with horrific injuries in Gaza's overstretched hospitals. These are the very people, the Palestinian refugees, that the UN is in Gaza to help, but there was it seems no time for them.”

Ban did condemn “the excessive use of force” by the Israelis in its massive assault on Gaza. As Abu Nimah noted, presumably the UN Secretary-General “found Israel's attack on Gaza perfectly acceptable, but he disagreed only with the tonnage of high explosives that should be dropped by Israeli planes.” While correctly condemning Hamas rocket attacks on Israel as “violations of basic humanitarian law", Ban neglected to say the same of Israel's ongoing massive violations.

Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said Ban’s response to the new UN report was “disappointing”. He was clear that the inquiry had produced a “very serious and very scrupulously argued report that’s based on very careful analysis of the available evidence.” (Al Jazeera, May 5, 2009; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oORAuHY1y-Y)

Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International representative at the United Nations, also expressed her concern at Ban Ki-moon’s stance. She told Inter Press Service [IPS]: "We are very disappointed with the Secretary-General's reaction to what we have come to know [from the report]."

Terlingen called for a broader inquiry into the Israeli attacks by the 15-member UN Security Council. But one unnamed Arab diplomat told IPS he did not expect any investigation by the Security Council because three of the permanent members, the US, Britain and France, are "far too protective" of Israel. The secretary-general, he said, “will not pursue a broader inquiry because he is under pressure and beholden to the big powers in the Security Council.”

"It's a lost cause," he added, pointing out that "Israel knows that it can get away with murder." (Deen, ‘UN chief defends "watered down" Gaza report’, op. cit.)

Although the UN Secretary General refused to launch a full, wide-ranging investigation under his direct mandate, Israel’s leaders have not entirely evaded scrutiny. A four-person team lead by Justice Richard Goldstone has already been appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate alleged breaches of international law, and possible war crimes, in Gaza. But this will not have the same stamp of authority as a full-ranging, impartial investigation carried out by direct authority of the UN Secretary-General himself.

Moreover, the Goldstone investigation is likely to be severely hobbled by Israel’s refusal to cooperate and the time that has already elapsed since the assault on Gaza. Falk believes Israel is taking an obstructive stance “because it knows deep down that it made serious human rights violations.” He refutes Israel’s assertions that efforts to establish the truth are "one-sided attempts to demonize Israel" and "tarnish its reputation":

"The real reason [for Israel’s non-cooperation] is that the facts overwhelmingly support allegations that Israel is understandably concerned that any objective inquiry would indeed confirm the allegations and create a situation in which the international community would be obliged to seek some kind of procedure for accountability." (Press TV, ‘Falk tells why Israel stonewalls Gaza probe’, April 30, 2009; http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=93136§ionid=351020202)


The Media's Shrug Of Indifference

While some elements of the above account could be pieced together from a handful of media reports in the corporate press, the coverage was largely fragmented, often confusing and the tone muted. Significantly, we could not find a single editorial in the British press expressing outrage, or even discomfort, at the subversion of the UN, and the evident contempt for the organisation, by Israel and the US.

The most extensive coverage was in the Guardian with two articles totalling under 1200 words. (Rory McCarthy and Ed Pilkington, ‘UN report accuses Israel military of negligence and urges reparations for Gaza deaths’; Julian Borger, ‘UN chief rejects further inquiry’, both on May 6, 2009)

An Independent article devoted just 654 words to the report and Ban Ki-moon’s rejection of it. (Donald Macintyre, ‘UN retreats after Israel hits out at Gaza report’, Independent, May 6, 2009)

Meanwhile, the Times exerted itself by expending all of 99 words on the story. (James Bone, ‘UN condemns Israel over phosphorus’, Times, May 6, 2009)

And nobody could accuse the Daily Telegraph of avoiding the matter. It granted the story two lines; a total of 47 words. (Alex Spillius, Daily Telegraph, ‘You must accept the goal of a Palestinian state, Biden tells Israel’, May 6, 2009)

In the days since Ban Ki-moon came to the defence of Israel and its powerful backers in the UN Security Council, the British news media has shrugged off any disquiet it might have had.

While there have been UN investigations of war crimes committed in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia, somehow war crimes committed in Gaza do not deserve the same scrutiny and accountability. The omission is not unique, of course. There has never been a UN inquiry into war crimes committed by the United States in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The UN would surely be destroyed if such a move were ever seriously contemplated.

For the corporate media, then, there is no need for forensic analysis of this latest cynical sidelining of the UN, a body set up to promote world peace after all. There has been no rottweiler unearthing of this UN capitulation which, once again, effectively covers up major atrocities committed by Israel with heavy backing from its allies in the UN Security Council. But then, they are ‘our’ allies and, by definition, ‘the good guys’. The media instinctively know this is the script they must follow.

http://www.medialens.org/

[faceless]

European aid convoy crosses into Gaza through Egypt
monstersandcritics.com
May 25, 2009

Gaza - An aid convoy led by European parliamentarians and activists on Monday night crossed into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip through Rafah border crossing with Egypt, officials and witnesses in Gaza said.

The so-called Hope convoy, which was led by 39 European activists, and included 40 food-laden trucks and 12 ambulances, arrived at Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza on Sunday.

Arafat Madi, chief of the European campaign to challenge the Gaza blockade, told reporters that the Egyptian authorities would not allow all of the activists to cross into Gaza. Just 20 people were allowed to accompany the aid, he said. Madi condemned Egypt's decision to bar the entrance of 19 of the activists. The convoy arrived at the Egyptian seaport of Portsaid on Friday and then it drove to Rafah crossing.

Israel has been imposing a tight blockade on the Gaza Strip since June 2007, after the Hamas movement took control of the Gaza Strip and routed western-supported President Mahmoud Abbas' security forces. During the past two years, Israel and Egypt have only opened their borders crossings with Gaza Strip for humanitarian aid, fuel and medicine. Egypt has also opened its borders to Palestinians to receive medical treatments in Egypt.

The activists spent almost two months preparing for the convoy, Madi said. The convoy is headed by Italian member of parliament Fernando Rossi and 12 other parliamentarians from Italy, Greece, Ireland, Switzerland and Britain, in addition to other European activists.

The Hope aid convoy is the second convoy to arrive in Gaza since the end of the Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip, which lasted for 22 days and ended in January 18. The first aid convoy with vehicles, ambulances and trucks was led by the British member of parliament George Galloway. It arrived in the Gaza Strip two weeks after the end of the Israeli offensive.

-----------------

I've not heard a word about this before, but it's good to know that at least some aid is getting through.

[luke]

Israeli soldiers reveal the brutal truth of Gaza attack
Troops' testimonies disclose loose rules of engagement and use of civilians as human shields. Palestinian houses were systematically destroyed by 'insane artillery firepower'


Children at houses in Gaza which were destroyed during Israel's 22-day offensive

Israeli troops were repeatedly encouraged by officers to prioritise their own safety over that of Palestinian civilians when they embarked on the ground invasion of Gaza in January, according to the first direct testimonies of soldiers who served in the operation.

The picture that emerges from the testimonies, which have been seen by The Independent, is one of massive fire power to cover advances and rules of engagement that were calculated to ensure, in the words attributed to one battalion commander, that "not a hair will fall of a soldier of mine. I am not willing to allow a soldier of mine to risk himself by hesitating. If you are not sure, shoot."

The first eye-witness accounts of the war by serving Israeli reservists and conscripts describes the Israeli use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields". They detail the killing of at least two civilians, the vandalism, looting and wholesale destruction of Palestinian houses, the use of deadly white phosphorus, bellicose religious advice from army rabbis and what another battalion commander described to his troops as "insane firepower with artillery and air force". The reports amount to the most formidable challenge by Israelis since the Gaza war to the military's own considered view that it conducted the operation according to international law and made "an enormous effort to focus its fire only against the terrorists whilst doing the utmost to avoid harming uninvolved civilians".

They are contained in testimonies from about 30 soldiers that were collected by Breaking the Silence, an army veterans organisation that seeks to "expose the Israeli public to the routine situations of everyday life in the occupied territories". Although the organisation has collected hundreds of testimonies from ex-soldiers before, this is the first time that it has done so from serving soldiers so soon after the events they describe.

They tell how:

* Unprecedentedly loose rules of engagement were put in place to protect Israeli troops. One soldier said his brigade commander and other officers made it clear that "any movement must entail gunfire". He added: "I don't remember if the brigade commander said this or someone else. I' m not sure. No one is supposed to be there. If you see any signs of movement at all, you shoot. These, essentially, were the rules of engagement. Shoot if you like if you are afraid or you see someone, shoot." Another soldier said his battalion commander had said the operation was not "a limited confrontation such as in Hebron, and not to hesitate if we suspected someone nor feel bad about destruction because it is all done for the safety of our own soldiers... if we see something suspect and shoot, better hit an innocent than hesitate to target an enemy". One soldier said the "awareness of each soldier going in is simply... a light finger on the trigger. You see something and you're not quite sure? You shoot".

* Houses were systematically demolished. Despite official accounts that homes were only destroyed for strictly "operational" reasons, one reservist, a veteran of the conflict in Gaza since before 2005, said "I never knew such fire power" used by tanks and helicopters for the "constant destruction" of houses. The soldier said that some houses had been destroyed for normal operational reasons, such as because they had been booby trapped or used by militants to fire from, or had contained tunnel openings. But he said others were destroyed for the "day after" – to make a "very large" area "sterile", to allow better "firing capacity, good visibility and control" once the operation was over. This meant, demolishing houses "not implicated in any way, whose single sin is that it is situated on a hill in the Gaza strip" .

* A civilian man between 50 and 60 who was unarmed but carrying a torch was shot dead after the unit's commander ordered his soldiers not to fire warning shots but to hold their fire until he was 50m away. The soldier said the company commander announced over the radio after the incident: "Here's an opener for tonight". The soldier said that the commander was challenged over why he had not authorised deterrent fire when the man was further away: "He didn't agree and couldn't give a damn, and finally the guys felt that even if they could take this up with the higher echelons it wouldn't be effective." Another soldier said his unit commander shot dead an old man hiding with his family under the stairs of a house. While the soldier said that the killing of the man was a mistake, it had happened as the unit entered the house using live fire.

* Palestinian human shields – or "johnnies" as they were termed by soldiers on the ground – were suborned to enter surrounded houses ahead of troops, including houses known to contain armed militants. One account corroborates the story of one such human shield that was exposed in The Independent, that of Majdi Abed Rabbo in Jabalya in northern Gaza, who was ordered three times to enter a house to report on the condition of three armed Hamas militants inside.

* Military rabbis prepared troops for battle. One soldier said an army rabbi had "aimed at inspiring the men with courage, cruelty aggressiveness, expressions as 'no pity. God protects you. Everything you do is sanctified'... there were specific scenarios discussed... but from the context it was pretty obvious he came to tell us how aggressive and determined we need to be, that we must win because this is a holy war". Leaflets distributed at military synagogues had stated that "the Palestinians are like the Philistines of old, newcomers who do not belong in the land, aliens planted on the soil which should clearly return to us".

* Mortars – rarely if ever used in Gaza before – were widely deployed. They included 120mm mortars of the sort that killed up to 40 civilians outside the UN el-Fakhoura school in Jabalya which was being used as a shelter, and in a nearby house. One soldier explained that while "with light arms you've got an 80 per cent chance of hitting the target with your first shot, with mortars it is much less". Another said: "I finally understood. We were firing at launcher crews in open spaces. But it didn't take much to aim at schools, hospitals and such. So I see I'm firing literally into a built-up area. I don't know to what degree it was still inhabited because the army made considerable attempts to get people to leave. But I understand that... [tails off]."

The testimonies appear to reinforce evidence from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and journalists who visited battle zones just after the war in January that white phosphorus was used for purposes other than "marking", "range-finding" and "smoke screening". Those purposes included to ignite homes suspected of being booby trapped.

Houses that troops occupied were vandalised. One testimony stated: "One of the soldiers... opened the child's bag... he took out notebooks and ripped them. One guy smashed cupboards for kicks out of boredom. There were guys arguing with the platoon commander before we left the house why he wouldn't let them smash the picture hanging there..." A reservist soldier said that there was a "big difference between the way we treated the contents of the house and the way the regulars did. The regulars wouldn't take care even of the most basic sanitary stuff like going to the toilet, basic hygiene. I mean you could see that they had defecated anywhere and left the stuff lying round".

A spokeswoman for the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), Lieutenant-Colonel Avital Leibovitz, sought to challenge the motives and credibility of the report. She said "more than a dozen" military police investigations were under way into incidents that took place during Operation Cast Lead. While the IDF continued to operate according to "uncompromising ethical values", it was ready to investigate allegations of misconduct but not on the basis of anonymous testimonies which she could not be sure were from soldiers.

The Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard said the report showed that the Gaza operation violated the "number one principle in international laws of war": that of distinguishing between the civilian population and combatants.

Yehuda Shaul, a founder of Breaking the Silence, said the group had names and details for all the testimonies – all of which had been taped – and that anonymity was to protect the testifiers from any disciplinary or criminal proceedings. The army already knew the name of at least one, he said.

Gaza invasion: Witnesses on the front line

On military briefings ahead of the invasion

"We talked about practical matters... but the basic approach to war was very brutal, that was my impression... He said something along the lines of 'don't let morality become an issue. That will come up later'. He had this strange language: 'Leave the nightmares and horrors that will come up for later, now just shoot'... The basic approach was that there were no chances taken. If you face an area that is hidden by a building, you take down the building. Questions such as 'who lives in the building?' are not asked."

On problems with identifying targets for bombing

"It got to the point where we would try to report to field intelligence about a figure sticking out its head or a rocket being launched, and the girl [at field intelligence] would ask, 'Is it near this or that house?' We'd look at the aerial photo and say, 'Yes, but the house is no longer there'. 'Wait, is it facing a square?' 'No more square.'... Later I went in to the look-out war-room and asked how things worked, and the girl-soldiers there, the look-outs, resented the fact that they had no way to direct the planes, because all their reference points were razed... It's highly possible that now the pilot will bomb the wrong house."

On the rules of engagement

"[The Brigade commander] went so far as to say this was war and in war, no consideration of civilians was to be taken. You shoot anyone you see. I'm paraphrasing here, not literally quoting, but the gist of the matter was very clear."

On the rabbinate's role in the conflict

"The rabbi said we are actually conducting the war of 'the sons of light' against 'the sons of darkness'. This is in fact a statement with highly messianic language... It turns the other side as a generality into 'sons of darkness' while we become 'sons of light'. There is no differentiation which we would expect to find between civilians and others. Here is one people fighting another people, with all the messianic implications. But that's the point: this is also religious propaganda. In other words, the army is not a revival meeting. They do not put on a uniform in order to be Judaized."

On soldiers' responsibility

"Anything we did there, we'd answer ourselves: there's no other choice, but this is how we shirk our responsibility. You bring yourself to this kind of deterministic situation, a moment that I have not chosen, where I no longer have any responsibility for my own actions. Even if your choice is the right one, you must admit you chose it. You have to admit you chose to go into Gaza. As soon as you did, you've brought people into a moral twilight zone, you've forced them to handle dilemmas and part of that confrontation failed. As soon as you say 'there is no other choice', you're shirking your responsibility. Then you don't need to investigate, to look into things."

from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-soldiers-reveal-the-brutal-truth-of-gaza-attack-1746485.html

[faceless]

that last paragraph is powerful stuff - this guy and those who have spoken out are the only heroes I've heard about recently. It's just a shame that they had to be there in the first place, but that's the bastard Israeli government for you.

[luke]

Israel prepares 'defense brief' ahead of UN Gaza reports

A group of legal experts from the Foreign Ministry is writing a defense brief for the government in advance of two harsh reports on Operation Cast Lead expected to be released soon.

The ministry's defense brief is expected to be finished in a week or two, ahead of two United Nations reports that are expected to be highly critical of the extent of civilian injuries in the Gaza Strip during the operation.

A draft of the two reports is expected to be given to Israel around the end of August, before they are officially presented to the Human Rights Council in mid-September.

Sources in Israel believe that the release of the UN reports could lead to legal action against Israel in one of the two international courts in The Hague.

The first of the two reports, considered the harshest critique since the war, is being compiled by an investigative committee chaired by Judge Richard Goldstone, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The second report is under preparation by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Legal experts in the Foreign Ministry told the special ministerial committee following suits against Israeli public figures abroad and various reports on Operation Cast Lead that they believe the release of the two UN reports could lead to legal proceedings against Israel or individual Israeli public figures in the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

A government source in Jerusalem said the Foreign Ministry's legal department has been at work on the document, which will contain the "Israeli narrative" of the operation, together with the international department of the Justice Ministry and members of the international law department of the Military Advocate General. The work is proceeding discretely due to the sensitivity of the subject.

The source said the document would be extensive and include the "whole story" from the Israeli perspective: the reasons for the operation, the security situation in the south after disengagement, the phases of the operation, the government's decisions and the orders given to the army. The document will also include legal aspects and legal opinions on the actions taken by the forces and details of the various actions taken.

"The road to international courts is very short from the point we are at right now," the government source said.

The Goldstone report, with which Israel is not cooperating, is expected to be the harsher of the two.

Israel argues that the mandate of the UN probe is one-sided against Israel, and therefore any cooperation by Israel would legitimize its conclusions and recommendations.

The hearings the committee held last month in Geneva became a platform for accusations against Israel of "war crimes" in the Gaza Strip. Most of the witnesses were Palestinians; however, Noam Shalit, the father of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, was among the few Israelis who testified and who were reportedly treated disparagingly.

Israel has cooperated with the second report, that of the Commission on Human Rights. Last week the Foreign Ministry deputy director for international organizations, Eviatar Manor, met with the Human Rights Commissioner in Geneva and told her the report "had no basis in reality" and that it was written by Arab UN personnel based on Palestinian newspaper reports.

from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1103109.html

[faceless]

"Israel argues that the mandate of the UN probe is one-sided against Israel"

oh those poor little war criminals... I suppose they supported the German Nazis at the Nuremberg trials on the same grounds?

[major.tom]

[luke]

Court rejects Gaza war crimes case

The High Court has thrown out a legal bid by a Palestinian human rights group to hold the British government to account for its "complicity" in Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Ramallah-based Al-Haq accused the government of failing in its international legal obligations to stop "aid and trade" with Israel, including supplying arms, following Israeli incursions into Gaza in December and January which led to the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians.

The government argued that, were it to condemn Israel for its actions, it would sour relations between the two states.

This is despite Britain being accused last week at the United Nations, along with other UN members states, of silence over Israel's continued blockade of the ravaged West Bank region.

Addressing a UN meeting in Geneva last week, general assembly president Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann accused Britain and other member states of "standing silent" while Israel breached UN resolutions calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza.

"With governments and the UN standing mute, unwilling or unable to provide assistance or protection to the people of Gaza," he said, "international civil society had taken the lead."

Referring to civilian convoys which deliver aid to the besieged region, often in the face of hostile opposition from the Israeli military, he stated: "The UN would do well to follow that example in bringing pressure to bear on the occupying power."

He also reminded UN members states of their obligation "to protect any civilian population facing violations of international humanitarian law."

But today at the High Court in London, a judge ruled that the court was "not competent" to deal with what was an issue involving the government's foreign policy.

Lord Justice Pill, sitting with Mr Justice Cranston, said that Al-Haq's claim sought condemnation of Israel and for the courts of England and Wales to decide whether Israel was in breach of its international obligations.

The judge said this was "beyond the competence" of the domestic courts and ruled: "While there may exceptionally be situations in which the court will intervene in foreign policy issues, this case is far from being one of them."

In his written judgement, Justice Cranston cited Foreign Office claims that granting the application would "imperil amicable relations between states" and that "compelling the government to take a public position on the matters in the claim would risk hindering the UK's engagement with peace efforts in the Middle East."

He further concurred with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who argued that, to allow the case, would mean that any non-governmental organisation anywhere in the world would be able to bring a claim for judicial review in similar circumstances.

But Palestine Solidarity Campaign director of campaigns Sarah Colbourne said: "This ruling does not negate the complicity of the British government in the crimes against the Palestinian people.

"In international law, the government is bound to uphold the rights of the Palestinian people whenever they are violated."

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said: "The UK takes its domestic and international legal obligations very seriously. We vigorously defended the proceedings and are pleased that the court has agreed with us that the case was wholly inappropriate for resolution by the domestic courts."

from http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/britain/court_rejects_gaza_war_crimes_case

[Colston]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/opinion/28benn.html?em

[faceless]

I've fixed that popout. Some sites like the NY Times don't let you embed their pages. You need to test them by using 'preview post'. Then you can go back and change if required.

[modern]

...and I thought the site had been hacked!!!

[Colston]

[faceless]

Palestinian children fly kites during a festival on the beach of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip

------------------

This says a lot about their ability to not be destroyed...

[major.tom]

[faceless]

I'm just glad to see that they're not all hiding in their cellars but are outside showing that even under such oppression they can still enjoy themselves.