Gaza: There can be no peace without justice. Former NDP MP Jim Manly makes the case for boycott and sanctions against Israel

After weeks of the Israeli assault on Gaza, people in Canada and around the world have been shocked into a state of awareness. They have seen images of mutilated children, a father carrying parts of his son’s body in a plastic bag, whole neighbourhoods reduced to rubble and hospitals and schools used as UN refugee centres being bombed.

Protests against this war are a global phenomenon. In the UK, a government minister has even resigned to protest British complicity and called for a ban on weapons exports to Israel. The world is crying out: This carnage must stop. Everyone is holding their breath now, in the midst of a 72-hour ceasefire.

Many people also find it deeply distressing that in spite of the slaughter and mayhem, most people in Gaza support the Hamas position that there can be no permanent ceasefire until Israel ends its blockade; they are upset to learn that support for Hamas is growing, rather than diminishing, as the death toll mounts. Hamas has been consistently dismissed by Western leaders as nothing but a terrorist organization. These leaders and their followers should consider the claim of Jimmy Carter, former US president, and Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and United Nations high commissioner for human rights, that they should recognize the legitimacy of Hamas “as a political actor—one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people.”

The conscience of the world would be greatly eased by a truce, any kind of somewhat permanent truce, so that people could forget this tragic business and move on. However, Palestinians in Gaza say, in a voice of quiet desperation, We cannot agree to any ceasefire that abandons us to the slow but sure strangulation of the blockade. There can be no ceasefire and no peace until the blockade is lifted.

In other words, there can be no peace without justice.

Making Gaza unlivable

The Palestinians realize that the eight-year blockade of Gaza and the present military assault are simply different aspects of the same struggle, as were the military offensives of 2008-09 and 2012. Netanyahu and his government also know this, even if many people in Israel don’t know or don’t care. Netanyahu is probably just as happy to keep his people in ignorance, and he would like nothing more than for the rest of us to remain unaware as well.

Even before the blockade, Israel consistently imposed serious restrictions that made it difficult for the Palestinian people of Gaza to carry on with business as usual. Since the blockade began in 2007 they have found that what used to be difficult is now almost impossible. Israel has been shown to count the calories they allow into the territory “to put the Palestinians on a diet”, and classified cables recently released by Wikileaks show that the Israeli government has been pursuing a deliberate policy of economic sabotage, designed to keep the Palestinian economy on the perpetual verge of collapse, since at least the 1980s.

In August 2012, the UN Country Team in Occupied Palestinian Territory issued a publication called Gaza in 2020: A Liveable Place? based on a wide-ranging series of reports by the UN and other organizations. It points out that Gaza, already one of the most densely populated areas of the world, will by 2020 have increased its population by another half-million people to a total of 2.1 million in an area of 365 km2. Already high food insecurity among 60 per cent of the population will become even worse: “In a densely populated, largely urban territory, food self-sufficiency is not an option. Such a territory will always depend on trade, services, and worker movement, all of which remain limited as a result of the closure.”

An unemployment rate of 29 per cent (47 per cent for women and 58 per cent for youth between 20 and 24 years) will also worsen because the blockade prevents normal exporting business; fishing has been confined to a three-mile limit, and 35 per cent of Gaza's agricultural land cannot be accessed because of the "buffer zone" separating Gaza from Israel. Because of the blockade, “Gaza’s economy is largely dependent on external aid, the tunnel economy . . . and remittances.”

In 2012 the coastal aquifer that Gaza relies upon for its water was already overtaxed; due to salinization from the ocean and nitrates from uncontrolled sewage, only 10 per cent of the water was safe for drinking. By 2016 the aquifer may become totally unusable, and by 2020 the damage could become irreversible.

The lack of adequate electricity and frequent interruptions also has a strong negative impact on all aspects of life in Gaza.

Two hundred and fifty new schools were needed in 2012, and with the increased population this need will increase to 440 new schools by 2020. An urgent need for safe and adequate medical services will also require an increase in the number of doctors, nurses, medical equipment and hospital beds by 2020.

As the report’s conclusion states,

“[Without] sustained and effective remedial action and an enabling political environment . . . the daily lives of Gazans in 2020 will be worse than they are now. There will be virtually no reliable access to sources of safe drinking water, standards of healthcare and education will have continued to decline . . . and the vision of affordable and reliable electricity for all will have become a distant memory. . . . The already high number of poor, marginalized and food-insecure people depending on assistance will not have changed and in all likelihood will have increased. . .

It is essential that the inhabitants of Gaza are able to exercise and enjoy the full range of fundamental human rights to which they are entitled. They must be able to live safe and secure lives free from the various forms of violence which afflict them at present . . . and have ready access to the world beyond Gaza for religious, educational, medical, cultural, commercial and other purposes.”

The report makes clear that the people of Gaza need the blockade to end and in its place have long-term sustainable help to overcome the damage. Instead they have been subjected to a ruthless process of ethnic cleansing using methods that vary from restrictive regulations, to blockade, to violence by a dehumanized military force against an unarmed civilian population.

As the death toll spirals towards 2,000, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, has called for "the conquest of the entire Gaza strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters." In a letter to Netanyahu he outlines an elaborate plan to ship survivors to tent encampments in the Sinai until arrangements can be made for them to emigrate to other parts of the world. His objective is to rebuild Gaza and its suburbs "as true Israeli touristic and commercial cities."

It becomes obvious that as long as the blockade of Gaza continues, the Palestinian people of Gaza will not be free from this sadistic Israeli dream of ethnic cleansing.

What we can do

Now is the time when the people of the world must stand with the people of Gaza and demand an end to the blockade, an end to all oppression and an end to military aggression.

People around the world must show support for Palestine financially and politically. We can stand with the Palestinians of Gaza by supporting the proposal for a new international Flotilla for Peace, which will send peaceful boats to Gaza with crews from all over the world. The Flotilla will once more use the power of non-violence against the violence of the blockade.

Another non-violent method for putting pressure on Israel, one in which we can all be active participants, is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. This movement consists of refusing to buy Israeli goods, divesting investments in companies that support the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and pushing government to impose sanctions.

We must stand with the Palestinian people of Gaza and call for an end to the blockade. Only then can there be peace. Peace with justice.

About the author

Jim Manly was born 1932 in Saskatchewan, and moved with his family to Nanaimo in 1943. Ordained by the United Church in 1957, Jim served as minister in northern B.C., Vancouver Island, Ottawa and Vancouver before retiring in 1997. From 1980 to 1988 Jim Manly was the NDP Member of Parliament for Cowichan-Malahat-the Islands. He was NDP critic for Indian Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, and International Development. Jim and his wife Eva continue to be active in their community with a focus on First Nations issues, the environment and Palestine/Israel with Mid-Islanders for Justice & Peace in the Middle East and United Network for Justice & Peace in Palestine/Israel.

Read More

RICHARD SILVERSTEIN & HIS THOUGHTS ON ISRAEL MURDERING ITS OWN SOLDIERS

Introduction by Gilad 

Atzmon: The following is a 

superb article by Richard 

Silverstein. It explores 

the history and meaning of 

the IDF’s Hannibal 

Directive  - an Israeli military protocol designed 

to prevent IDF soldiers from being captured alive 

by enemy forces.  The directive orders commanders

to take necessary measures, including 

endangering the life of an abducted soldier, to foil 

a kidnapping. In practice, the Hannibal Directive 

orders IDF combatants to kill their comrades in a 

case of abduction.

Silverstein is horrified by the directive and its 

ethical and legal implications. He also believes 

that such a homicidal protocol is inconsistent with 

the Israeli military’s alleged heritage of caring for 

its soldiers.  But Silverstein’s perspective may be 

mistaken.

It must be noted that military and civil law are 

distinctively different domains. While civil law 

serves to protect societal and individual rights, 

military law serves the system as a whole. This 

explains, for instance, why collective punishment 

is common and even acceptable within the context 

of a military legal discourse.  It serves the 

military’s interests as opposed to the rights of 

individuals.  The amusing adage “military law is to 

law as military music is to music,” captures the 

ethical absurdity that is entangled with military law

The Hannibal Directive is consistent with Israeli 

national and military interests. From the point of 

view of Israel’s strategic interests, a captured 

soldier entails compromises Israel would prefer to 

avoid.

Silverstein writes, “The Hannibal Directive 

embraces a fascist perspective in which the 

individual is subsumed within the mass.  He has 

no specific individual value unless he is serving 

the interest of the nation.  And his interests may, 

when necessary be sacrificed to the greater good.” 

Silverstein is addressing the issue from an ethical 

perspective within the spirit of enlightenment. But 

Zionism and Jewish nationalism are inherently 

anti-enlightenment ideologies. Zionism denotes 

the birth of the ‘Jewish people,’ the idea that 

every Jew is an integral part of a larger collective 

with clear tribal interests that outweigh the 

individual. Accordingly, in an extreme situation, 

the interests of the tribe are far more important 

than the individual rights. The Hannibal Directive 

is a glimpse into the depth of the Jewish collective 

bond and  tribal commitment. It exposes the level 

of commitment and sacrifice expected of tribal 

members.   

Silverstein identifies the directive as fascist, but 

he should remember that Zionism predates 

Fascism and unlike Fascism that was largely 

defeated, Zionism has so far prevailed.

Israel Murders IDF Soldier to Prevent His Capture

http://www.richardsilverstein.com

by Richard Silverstein

I’ve devoted a good deal of my life to Israel.  I’ve 

studied, read, visited, lived, breathed it.  Not in the 

way diehard pro-Israel fanatics do.  But in a different 

way that matched my own intellectual and political 

proclivities.  It’s a subject that is rich, varied, 

troubling, bedeviling, and exhilarating.  But every once 

in a while I learn something I never thought possible; 

and I don’t mean this in a good way.

Tonight, my Israeli source informed me that Sgt. Guy 

Levy, serving in the armored corps, was captured by 

Hamas fighters.  He had been part of a joint 

engineering-armored-combat unit searching for 

tunnels.  Troops entered a structure and discovered a 

tunnel.  Suddenly, out of the shaft sprang two 

militants who dragged one of the soldiers into it.  By 

return fire, one of the Palestinians was killed, while the 

other fled, presumably with the soldier.

This Israeli report, which was censored by the IDF, 

says only that the attempt to capture the soldier failed. 

 It says nothing about his fate.  The expectation of 

anyone reading it would be that the soldier was freed. 

 But he was not.  In order to prevent the success of the 

operation, the IDF killed him.  Nana reports that the 

IDF fired a tank shell into the building, which is the 

same way another captured soldier was killed by the 

IDF during Cast Lead.

I would presume that once the militant fled into the 

tunnel with his prisoner that the IDF destroyed the 

tunnel and entombed those within it, including the 

soldier.  I would also presume that the IDF knows he is 

dead because they retrieved his body.

To the uninitiated this will seem a terribly strange, 

uncivilized, even immoral act.  But that’s where I 

learned something I’d never known before about the 

IDF.  There is an unwritten secret regulation written by 

the IDF High Command, but nowhere codified in 

writing.  Its existence is protected by military 

censorship.  Journalists have rarely written about it. 

 When they have it’s usually been in code or by 

inference.

It’s called the Hannibal Directive.  Though the 

Wikipedia article doesn’t explain the reference to 

Hannibal, I assume it relates to the death of the great 

Carthaginian general, who took poison rather than 

allow himself to be captured by his mortal enemy, the 

Romans.  Though Sara Leibovich-Dar wrote in 

2003 that the name came from a military computer!

In my long history of dedication to this subject, I’ve 

rarely seen anything that has disturbed me as much. 

 The Hannibal Directive is:

…A secret directive of the Israel Defense Forces with 

the purpose of preventing Israeli soldiers being 

captured by enemy forces in the course of combat.

…The order, drawn up in 1986 by a group of top Israeli 

officers, states that at the time of a kidnapping the 

main mission becomes forcing the release of the 

abducted soldiers from their kidnappers, even if that 

means injury to Israeli soldiers.

The order allows commanders to take whatever action 

is necessary, including endangering the life of an 

abducted soldier, to foil the abduction…

As happens so often in these cases, an IDF commander 

instrumental in drafting the order denied the horrific 

logic of the directive and then offered an example of 

how he would proceed which only confirmed it:

In a rare interview by one of the authors of the 

directive, Yossi Peled…denied that it implied a blanket 

order to kill Israeli soldiers rather than let them be 

captured by enemy forces. The order only allowed the 

army to risk the life of a captured soldier, not to take 

it. “I wouldn’t drop a one-ton bomb on the vehicle, 

butI would hit it with a tank shell”, Peled was quoted 

saying. He added that he personally “would rather be 

shot than fall into Hizbullah captivity.”

In other words, the IDF will do almost everything in its 

power to prevent capture of its soldiers including 

killing him.  It might not put a bullet directly in his 

brain, but it would certainly shell a home or vehicle in 

which he was situated.

Perhaps there’s a lingering bit of the liberal Zionist I 

once was here, but I’d always heard that Israel 

never leaves a soldier behind.  It does everything 

possible to bring all its troops home, and once 

captured does everything possible to retrieve or 

free them.

All this time I was sorely mistaken.  When all hope is 

lost of liberating the soldier from captivity, he dies. 

 What’s equally disturbing is that the existence of the 

directive is an open secret.  Commanders warn their 

soldiers that no one may be captured and that if you 

are you must commit suicide.  If you can’t do that, 

then they will do their best to kill you.  Perhaps they 

don’t articulate it precisely in those words, but that’s 

the clear intent.

Lest you think Hannibal is a theoretical regulation, it 

has been implemented before and captured soldiers 

have been killed by the IDF.  Most recently it happened 

during Operation Cast Lead:

During the war there was a case where the Hannibal 

directive was invoked. An Israeli soldier was shot and 

injured by a Hamas fighter during a search of a house 

in one of the neighborhoods of Gaza. The wounded 

soldiers’ comrades evacuated the house due to fears 

that it was booby-trapped. According to testimony by 

soldiers who took part in the incident the house was 

then shelled to prevent the wounded soldier from being 

captured by Hamas.

You have every right to ask: what soldier in his right 

mind would follow such an order.  There are 

thankfully examples of ones who refused.  But there 

are a number who didn’t including the tank 

commander who fired on his comrade in that home in 

Gaza, killing him.

You also have a right to ask how the IDF could 

approve such a regulation.  The answer is it didn’t.  It 

has never been vetted by military lawyers.  If it had 

been, the High Command might’ve been told it was an 

illegal, immoral directive which had no standing.  Then 

the IDF would have to implement an order its highest 

legal authorities had deemed treif.  That would never 

do.  So neither the generals, nor the Judge Advocate 

has ever delved into the matter.  It is yet another 

example of the national security state refusing to 

examine the deepest, most troubling principles on 

which it is based.

Implementation of the Hannibal Directive comes on the 

heels of the freeing of Gilad Shalit after five years in 

captivity.  The nation freed 1,000 Palestinian prisoners 

in order to release Shalit.  Israeli hardliners screamed 

bloody murder about freeing murderers with blood on 

their hands.  Some said it would have been better if 

Shalit had died rather than face this ignominy.

I believe that Benny Gantz and Bibi Netanyahu aren’t 

prepared to go through such a trauma again.  They 

believe their constituency would understand if they 

killed a soldier rather than lose him to capture.  Let’s 

make no mistake about this: it is a purely political 

calculation.  A nakedly, cynical political calculation.  It 

suggests that the interests of the nation trump the life 

of the individual.  These are considerations of an 

authoritarian state and not a democratic one.  A 

democracy values the individual.  It recognizes that the 

nation cannot exist without the individual.  Even that 

the nation should not exist unless it respects and 

values that individual.

The Hannibal Directive perverts such principles.  It 

embraces a fascist perspective in which the individual 

is subsumed within the mass.  He has no specific 

individual value unless he is serving the interest of the 

nation.  And his interests may, when necessary be 

sacrificed to the greater good.

I thank Dvorit Shargel for raising an important, and 

thorny issue. She implored me to consider the trauma 

of Levy’s family hearing their son was killed not by 

Palestinian fire, which would be painful enough, but 

by his own comrades.

It’s very doubtful the IDF would tell the family the 

truth unless it had no other choice. So then the 

question is, should we allow the IDF to lie just to cover 

up the use of the Hannibal directive and allow the 

family to believe he was killed by the enemy instead of 

his own?

My answer to this reluctantly is No. The greatest good 

is served by transparency. By knowing the truth, 

telling the truth, forcing everyone involved to explain 

what they did and why. Secrecy and pandering helps 

no one, even the dead soldiers’s family. I am sorry if 

this causes them added suffering. But blaming me is 

blaming the messenger not the real culprit.

Here is some of the discussion around the matter 

conducted by military ethicists (if there can be such a 

thing):

Dr. Avner Shiftan, an army physician with the rank of 

major, came across the Hannibal directive while on 

reserve duty in South Lebanon in 1999. In army 

briefings he “became aware of a procedure ordering 

soldiers to kill any IDF soldier if he should be taken 

captive by Hizbullah. This procedure struck me as 

being illegal and not consistent with the moral code of 

the IDF. I understood that it was not a local procedure 

but originated in the General Staff, and had the feeling 

that a direct approach to the army authorities would 

be of no avail, but would end in a cover-up.” He 

contacted Asa Kasher, the Israeli philosopher noted for 

his authorship of Israel Defense Forces’ Code of 

Conduct, who “found it difficult to believe that such an 

order exists,” since this “is wrong ethically, legally and 

morally”. He doubted that “there is anyone in the 

army” believing that `better a dead soldier than an 

abducted soldier’.

On this point however Asa Kasher was apparently 

wrong. In 1999 the IDF Chief of StaffShaul Mofaz said 

in an interview with Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth: “In 

certain senses, with all the pain that saying this 

entails, an abducted soldier, in contrast to a soldier 

who has been killed, is a national problem.” Asked 

whether he was referring to cases like Ron Arad (an Air 

Force navigator captured in 1986) and Nachshon 

Wachsman (an abducted soldier killed in 1994 in a 

failed rescue attempt), he replied “definitely, and not 

only.”

The legality of the order has never formally been 

examined by the IDF’s legal department. According to 

Prof. Emanuel Gross, from the Faculty of Law at the 

University of Haifa:…”Orders like that have to go 

through the filter of the Military Advocate General’s 

Office, and if they were not involved that is very 

grave,”he says. “The reason is that an order that 

knowingly permits the death of soldiers to be brought 

about, even if the intentions were different, carries a 

black flag and is a flagrantly illegal order that 

undermines the most central values of our social 

norms.

I hate to harp on this, but liberal Zionists enjoy 

claiming Israel is a nation of laws.  That is upholds the 

rule of law.  But this is clearly not the case.  No 

democratic nation would permit such a directive after 

undergoing legal review.  So the answer in Israel is 

simply to prevent it from undergoing any such review. 

 It allows the flourishing of a secret code that governs 

critical aspects of the Israeli military.

Read More