As a Palestinian organisation dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Al-Haq is deeply concerned by the Israeli security cabinet's unanimous decision on Wednesday, 19 September to declare the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity," ostensibly paving the way for the imposition of collective penalties on the 1.5 million Palestinian civilians living in the Gaza Strip. These include intensifying the already severe border closures, limiting the provision of essential supplies, and dramatically reducing the supply of electricity, all of which will exacerbate the existing dire humanitarian crisis. Labelling the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity" attempts to distract from Israel's occupation of the territory and the international legal obligations incumbent upon it as the occupying power. Under international law the test for occupation is "effective control," which exists if the occupying power "has a sufficient force present, or the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt." Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to meet this requirement to disastrous effect. Furthermore, Israel retains full control of the Gaza Strip's land borders, population registry, airspace and territorial sea. These facts establish that the Gaza Strip remains an occupied territory, along with the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Accordingly, Israel, as the occupying power, is required by law to ensure the safety and well-being of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli security cabinet's use of the term "enemy entity," having no basis in international law, in no way alters Israel's legal obligations in respect of the Palestinian civilian population of the Gaza Strip. Rather, it represents a wilful misinterpretation of relevant international law aimed at relinquishing Israel's legal obligations. The decision by the security cabinet to punish Gaza's entire civilian population for rocket attacks carried out by Palestinian armed groups amounts to collective punishment as prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, which holds, "[n]o protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." Furthermore, customary international humanitarian law, binding on Israel, prohibits rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Already suffering from a crippling siege following the January 2006 elections, and subsequent humanitarian crisis, the situation of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip will be severely exacerbated by limitations on the supply of fuel and electricity. These limitations will impact all aspects of Palestinian life in the Gaza Strip, including the functioning of water pumps and essential sanitation services. Israel's wilful disregard for the harm caused by the security cabinet decision is apparent from statements such as that of Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzahi Hanegbi, who remarked, "there is no need to pamper the civilians of the Gaza Strip with fuel and electricity." International law establishes the clear obligation that Israel, to the fullest extent possible, as the occupying power, has the "duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." Far from ensuring the food and medical supplies, Israel has imposed the near total closure of Gaza Strip's borders since January 2006. These closures, which the security cabinet now threatens to compound, have exacted a massive humanitarian toll on the Palestinian civilian population. In addition to the ongoing sanctions, the aim of the decision of the Israeli security cabinet is clearly to diminish popular support for Hamas in the Gaza Strip by imposing intolerable living conditions on a population already subjected to a belligerent occupation. As such, these measures amount to an attempt to coerce 1.5 million Palestinians to bend to the political will of Israel and certain members of the international community. Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting coercion against protected persons clearly states that this prohibition applies to both physical and moral forms of coercion, covering both direct and indirect pressure, and that "[c]oercion is forbidden for any purpose or motive whatsoever,…" The security cabinet decision represents a clear and deliberate effort to obscure Israel's responsibilities as an occupying power as well as its sustained violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian civilian population of the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the decision constitutes a cynical manipulation of both the letter and the spirit of international humanitarian law. The obligation upon Israel to provide for the essential needs of the occupied population is not a matter of beneficence, nor may depravation be used by an occupying power as a policy tool. Israel must seek to uphold it obligations under international law, not limit and avoid their application. Al-Haq therefore urges: • Israel to immediately cease all forms of collective punishment of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip, already suffering from the devastating impact of sanctions imposed in the aftermath of the January 2006 legislative elections. • The international community and High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to take immediate and decisive action within the framework of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law to compel Israel to cease its violations of the fundamental rights of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. • EU institutions and member states to make effective use of the European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law (2005/C 327/04) to ensure Israel compliance with international humanitarian law under paragraph 16 (b), (c) and (d) of these guidelines including public statements condemning Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and considering the imposition of restrictive measures and sanctions.
UK High Court of Justice to Hear Legal Challenge on UK Sale of Arms-Related Equipment to Israel
A full public hearing will be held before the UK High Court of Justice in London on 10 -11 October 2007 in the case of R (Saleh Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Following the blanket refusal by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to respond to the claimant’s request for a justification of UK policy on arms-related sales to Israel, the High Court will hear arguments in a claim filed on 15 November 2006 by UK Solicitor Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), in cooperation with Al-Haq.
PIL will argue that the UK’s sale of arms-related equipment to Israel is in breach of UK obligations under international law as well as UK statutory law, specifically, the UK Export Control Act of 2002, which incorporates the “consolidated criteria” governing the export of military equipment. According to these criteria, the UK government may not issue export licenses to countries where there is a clear risk that the export might be used for “[i]nternal repression…in violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments” or where export would be “inconsistent with…the UK’s international obligations”. The “consolidated criteria” also makes clear that “special caution and vigilance” should be exercised in the case of prospective arms-related sales to countries where serious human rights violations have been established by competent bodies.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest judicial authority in the United Nations, in its 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the Israeli Annexation Wall definitively established that Israel’s human rights record is severely compromised. The Court declared the illegality of the construction of the Wall and its associated regime in the West Bank under both international human rights and humanitarian law. The ICJ called for its dismantling and found that all States have a legal obligation to neither recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall nor render any aid or assistance in maintaining the situation.
The claimant, Saleh Hasan, a 60-year old resident of Bethlehem, is one of tens of thousands of Palestinians who until now have found no effective remedy for Israel’s unlawful acts. In 2005, Israel used military equipment to bulldoze agricultural assets and permanently confiscate his land in order to make way for the Wall. That same year, one year after the ICJ advisory opinion on the Wall, the UK’s arms-related exports to Israel saw a two-fold increase.
PIL will argue that the UK government had and continues to have clear evidence from authoritative international bodies that Israel might use equipment imported from the UK for purposes prohibited under the “consolidated criteria.” As such PIL will seek a declaration from the High Court that in future the UK Government must be transparent about how it has satisfied itself that there is no risk of a breach of these criteria and to make publicly available information that establishes there is no risk of any arms related products from the UK being used for repressive purposes. In the absence of any legal justification for continuing its current policy, Al-Haq, PIL and Palestinians like Saleh Hasan call on the UK government to suspend all arms-related exports to Israel until such time as Israel complies in full with its obligations under international law.
This hearing is of great significance, and any support you can offer is most welcome. Aside from actually attending the hearing, it would be greatly appreciated if you could forward this letter to any other parties you think may be interested. Al-Haq is in the process of organising various public meetings prior to the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact haq@alhaq.org if you have any questions, comments or require further information pertaining to the case.
PIL will argue that the UK’s sale of arms-related equipment to Israel is in breach of UK obligations under international law as well as UK statutory law, specifically, the UK Export Control Act of 2002, which incorporates the “consolidated criteria” governing the export of military equipment. According to these criteria, the UK government may not issue export licenses to countries where there is a clear risk that the export might be used for “[i]nternal repression…in violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments” or where export would be “inconsistent with…the UK’s international obligations”. The “consolidated criteria” also makes clear that “special caution and vigilance” should be exercised in the case of prospective arms-related sales to countries where serious human rights violations have been established by competent bodies.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest judicial authority in the United Nations, in its 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the Israeli Annexation Wall definitively established that Israel’s human rights record is severely compromised. The Court declared the illegality of the construction of the Wall and its associated regime in the West Bank under both international human rights and humanitarian law. The ICJ called for its dismantling and found that all States have a legal obligation to neither recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall nor render any aid or assistance in maintaining the situation.
The claimant, Saleh Hasan, a 60-year old resident of Bethlehem, is one of tens of thousands of Palestinians who until now have found no effective remedy for Israel’s unlawful acts. In 2005, Israel used military equipment to bulldoze agricultural assets and permanently confiscate his land in order to make way for the Wall. That same year, one year after the ICJ advisory opinion on the Wall, the UK’s arms-related exports to Israel saw a two-fold increase.
PIL will argue that the UK government had and continues to have clear evidence from authoritative international bodies that Israel might use equipment imported from the UK for purposes prohibited under the “consolidated criteria.” As such PIL will seek a declaration from the High Court that in future the UK Government must be transparent about how it has satisfied itself that there is no risk of a breach of these criteria and to make publicly available information that establishes there is no risk of any arms related products from the UK being used for repressive purposes. In the absence of any legal justification for continuing its current policy, Al-Haq, PIL and Palestinians like Saleh Hasan call on the UK government to suspend all arms-related exports to Israel until such time as Israel complies in full with its obligations under international law.
This hearing is of great significance, and any support you can offer is most welcome. Aside from actually attending the hearing, it would be greatly appreciated if you could forward this letter to any other parties you think may be interested. Al-Haq is in the process of organising various public meetings prior to the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact haq@alhaq.org if you have any questions, comments or require further information pertaining to the case.
Statement calling for Palestinian national unity to counter Israel
The head of the dismissed Palestinian Prime Minister's Diwan, Dr. Mohammad Almadhoon, on Sunday urged all Palestinian factions to form a national unity cabinet or advisory council for the sake of facing up to challenges coming from occupation forces.
Almadhoon called on officials and policy makers, in a statement he issued, to revive the field work committees and joint operations chambers to work together to achieve national reconciliation and face up to any threats.
He called for coordinating the work of all in order to form this new leadership representing all factions.
He urged Fatah and Hamas to return to the negotiation table and "accept one another after bringing to a halt their disputes." "Everyone should work together in order to achieve the unity within the Palestinian ranks and prevent further inter-Palestinian fratricidal bloodshed, " he said.
Almadhoon called on officials and policy makers, in a statement he issued, to revive the field work committees and joint operations chambers to work together to achieve national reconciliation and face up to any threats.
He called for coordinating the work of all in order to form this new leadership representing all factions.
He urged Fatah and Hamas to return to the negotiation table and "accept one another after bringing to a halt their disputes." "Everyone should work together in order to achieve the unity within the Palestinian ranks and prevent further inter-Palestinian fratricidal bloodshed, " he said.
Israel sold weapons to Myanmar Junta, then lies about the sales.
Now hold on to your seats as this may come as a shock, but Israel has been lying thru its teeth about weapon sales to the Burma/Myanmar junta that is violently opposing a peaceful uprising, by shooting Buddhist monks.
Or maybe Israel doesn't consider submachine guns and artillery pieces "weapons."
The 9/29 Israel paper Ha'aretz carried a story entitled "Israel urges Myanmar gov't to refrain from harming protesters."
The story stated that... " Israel is concerned by the situation in Myanmar...." And that "Israel denies selling weapons to Burma or Myanmar."
Concerned about the situation or concerned that some of those Israeli weapons will be used to murder monks?
From the World War IV Report:
Israeli military aid to Burmese regime: Jane's Report
Submitted by David Bloom on Sat, 09/29/2007 - 20:14.
The Burmese junta currently shooting unarmed protestors received a cynical plea for restraint from the Israel government on Sept. 29. According to the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, the Israeli foreign ministry announced "Israel is concerned by the situation in Myanmar, and urges the government to demonstrate restraint and refrain from harming demonstrators." The article ended by pointing out that "Israel denies selling weapons to Burma or Myanmar." (Ha'aretz, Sept. 29)
Not true, according a March 1, 2000 report in the authoritative British publication Jane's Intelligence Review by William Ashton. The article, titled "Myanmar and Israel develop military," details how Israeli companies and the Israeli government have been supplying and developing weapons for the Burmese regime, and sharing intelligence:
In August 1997 it was revealed that the Israeli defence manufacturing company Elbit had won a contract to upgrade Myanmar's (then) three squadrons of Chinese-built F-7 fighters and FT-7 trainers. The F-7 is a derivative of the Mikoyan MiG-21 'Fishbed' jet fighter.
And to see proof of even more Israeli weapons sold to Myanmar's ruling junta, like machine guns and artillery pieces, check out this article in JANE's Intelligence Review.
Int. Obs. for Palestinian affairs Wrong way to democracy in the Middle East
A recent debate aired by NPR exposes the weaknesses of Western approaches
to democracy in the Middle East.
to democracy in the Middle East.
The debate asked the question:
The usual people were invited, and gave the expected sorts of answers. For example, Flynt Leverett stated:Is it really in the United States' interest to promote free elections in countries where the most politically powerful groups may be fundamentally anti-American and undemocratic?
...
...the formal proposition was "Spreading Democracy in the Middle East is a Bad Idea."
While there is no evidence
that democracy reduces the incidence of terrorism, there is ample evidence -- from places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- that holding more open elections in these and other societies would produce governments that are more anti-American than incumbent regimes ... The best hope for modernization, and ultimately liberalization, in the Arab and Muslim worlds today lies in incumbent regimes who recognize that, first of all, economic modernization is essential to their country's future."
Natan Sharansky stated:
"When you defeated
Germany and Japan in the Second World War, you spent enormous efforts -- economical, intellectual, financial -- to support, to promote democracy, and today Japan and Germany is not a threat... When Soviet Union fell apart and Russia went towards freedom, it almost became your ally. Today, when freedom is there in retreat, in a big retreat, it becomes again a threat to America. ... You take North Korea, you take Iran ... whenever there is a threat to America it means that
democracy is there, in retreat."
.
The above discourse would be funny were it not sad. It is part of a debate about ignorance, rather than a debate about democracy in the Middle East.
Firstly, the idea that an outside party can "spread" (that is, impose) democracy, is a bit self-contradictory, don't you think?
Second, the well-meaning notion that what was done following World War II can be repeated in the Middle East springs from a misunderstanding of what happened in Europe and Japan following World War II. Germany, Japan and Italy were more or less industrialized societies with a large and educated middle class. They understood what democracy meant. It was only necessary to remove the societal forces that were repressing democracy, for democracy to flourish. The logical absurdity of "imposing democracy" is expressed in practical consequences. In the long run, as bad examples in Eastern Europe and Russia have shown, democracy really cannot be imposed. Societies tend to adopt the kinds of governments that their people and cultures are able to support.
The underlying logic of the debate implies that democracy is equivalent to elections. Therefore, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority may be counted as democracies, and if the Muslim Brotherhood would win elections in Egypt and Syria, that would be considered "democratic" as well. This is the central error of the "pro-democracy" camp. There cannot be democracy in societies that are not ready for it, no matter what sort of elections are held, or what might be written in the constitution. If they had elections in Medieval European countries, they would have voted to burn witches and heretics at the stake, a result similar an election of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas or the Hezbollah. Democracy requires respect for fundamental rights of minorities, and democracy cannot coexist either with theocracy or clan-oriented society. Either God (or His self-appointed spokespersons) decides or the clan heads can decide, or the people decide --- the different value systems cannot coexist. If everyone must vote as the clan head or the Mullah dictates, it is not democracy.
Democracy also implies and requires efficient and honest administration. There is always, unfortunately, some corruption in any government, but no government can keep the support of the people if it is intent on systematic robbery and does nothing for its people. What is the point of "democratic" procedures in such countries? If the funds that are voted for public housing, reconstruction, military expenditures and hospitals find their way into someone's Swiss bank account, and if the government is too weak to carry out any of its decisions, democracy is meaningless. Therefore, the Palestinian system was never a democracy, and the Iraqi government is not a democracy.
Among the "realists," the opponents of democracy like Flynt Leverett, the conceptual delusions are just as rife and equally dangerous. Pouring money into an oligarchy is never going to produce the type of economic progress required for democracy. It will not create an independent middle class, because the oligarchs would not allow a class that threatens their rule. Moreover, the problem with the "Our SOB" approach to foreign affairs, is that you find yourself supporting SOBs. SOBs are SOBs. They do what is good for themselves, and they don't stay bought. They will take your money and your military support and use it for their own purposes. They may follow a formally pro-US foreign policy, while spreading hatred of the US through "private" funding of "charities" and through a "free press," as is illustrated by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Moreover, SOBs are fair weather friends. When they see you are in trouble, they will desert. Certain Middle Eastern countries are sensing the weakness of the United States in Iraq, and are therefore gradually distancing themselves from the United States and cozying up to its enemies. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was received with honors recently in the capital of a certain desert kingdom, supposedly a great friend of the United States. Memorably, in the autumn of 2000, in the midst of frantic US calls to stop Palestinian violence and get back to the negotiating table, a conference of US Middle East "allies" called on Yasser Arafat and the PLO to resist compromise and reaffirmed the "right of resistance." These "allies" included states that had signed peace treaties with Israel as well. Today, while the US supports Palestinian moderate Mahmoud Abbas, certain US "allies" insist on supporting Palestinian "unity" - that is, surrender of the PLO to the Hamas. None of these "allies" could be mistaken for democracies, either.
The above issues seem to be so obvious, that one wonders if the participants in the debate were arguing in good faith, or simply acting as advocates for the respective lobbies and special interest groups that they represent.
However, they didn't choose the issue to be debated. The biggest fallacy of all is embedded in the very premises of the debate. It is a grotesque confusion that illustrates the shambles surrounding United States policy aims in the Middle East. The question of the debate assumes that the problem with groups like Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas, is that they are anti-US or anti-Israel. Suppose there was a violent Jihadist movement that called for hanging of homosexuals, repression of women, funding of extremist madrassahs and establishment of a Caliphate in all the Arab lands, but they were willing to be great friends of the United States and possibly to tolerate Israel, or make believe that they do. Should they get US support? Apparently, that is the case, since the U.S. is quite willing to support such regimes, and that is what people like Flynt Leverett advocate. Therefore, support for "our SOB" regimes can be considered a "good idea" while support for democracies is a bad idea. In the long run, of course, a regime that doesn't allow women to drive automobiles, cuts off the hands of thieves and funds extremist madrassas is going to come into conflict with the United States and other Western countries. Supporting such regimes or their currently available analogs just because they are not "anti-US" is rather short-sighted.
Suppose the U.S. is faced with a choice between an oligarchy that is "pro-US" and provides cheap oil, and a democracy that nationalizes oil production and is therefore "anti-US." Which one are they going to support following Leverett's criteria? Is it really realistic or fair to expect that people in the Middle East will support the United States even when it is against their own best interests?
The worst part of the anti-democracy policy is that it does not, and cannot work. In Europe, the United States was fortunate enough to be on the side of democracy. Imagine how much hatred of the US would have built up in Eastern Europe and Russia if the US had supported the Nazi and Soviet regimes. Such nightmare regimes must always come to an end, and then there is always a reckoning. If the US becomes the main support of oligarchical regimes, rather than the main enabler of democracy, then it somewhat justifiably comes to be seen as the main obstacle to democracy. People will then support almost any regime that is anti-US. That is what happened in Iran after all.
In case you are wondering, those who favor "realism" over support for democracy seem to have won the debate, since audience sentiment shifted against democracy. There is something wrong when Americans decide that democracy is a bad idea, no?
Ami Isseroff
| |