By SARAH IRVING

Courtesy of Electronic Intifada

On 15 December 2010, the councilors of Marrickville, a suburb of Sydney, Australia voted by a 10-2 majority to support the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). A month later, they have belatedly become the subjects of vilification in the press owned by international media proprietor Rupert Murdoch and death threats from Australia’s lunatic fringe.

“What does the desert theocracy of Saudi Arabia have in common with Marrickville Council in Sydney’s Inner West?” howls an article in Murdoch’s Telegraph, under a headline comparing the local authority to North Korea. The piece — which manages to be factually inaccurate on subjects as diverse as kosher food laws and Palestine Liberation Organization factions — goes on to hail Israel as “one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial countries in the world. Its products and inventions find their way into computers, mobile phones and medicines.” The online version of the article seeks to demonstrate Israel’s virtues by illustrating it with both a photo gallery of Israeli swimsuit model Bar Refaeli and a video of her writhing in the sand on a photo shoot.

“This is what passes for ‘journalism’ and commentary over Israel/Palestine in Australia,” laments Antony Loewenstein, the Sydney-based author of Australian best-seller My Israel Question and co-founder of Independent Australian Jewish Voices. His blog also points out the inconsistencies and omissions in recent coverage of the incident by The Australian, supposedly a more serious paper than the Telegraph. The Australian quotes Anthony Albanese, a member of the Australian federal parliament whose constituency covers Marrickville council’s turf. Albanese claims that “Foreign policy is a fair way outside the parameters of the role of Marrickville Council” and suggests that the local authority stick to “local” issues.

But Councilor Cathy Peters, who supported the boycott motion at Marrickville, rejects the suggestion that boycotting Israeli products is outside her remit as a council representative. “It’s not a matter of foreign policy at all, but rather the right of a council to make decisions regarding our purchasing policy and the relationships and engagements we have with outside organizations,” she said in an interview with The Electronic Intifada. “It’s completely within our purview to make those decisions. We’ve done it before. We have an ongoing boycott of companies involved in Burma. The council has a long, proud tradition of making ethical decisions.”

Peters also stressed that many Marrickville residents had expressed their concerns about Israeli actions towards the Palestinians to local councilors. Marrickville mayor Fiona Byrne, writing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website, also described how “Marrickville Councilors interact with the people we represent on a day to day level. We have spoken with many local residents, with community and multi-faith groups who have told us of their feelings towards the unresolved issue of Palestine and Israel and their desire to be able to take direct action.” The boycott motion has also, she said, been supported by members of Jews Against the Occupation, and she cited the many Australian church and trade union organizations which have supported whole or partial boycotts of Israeli products and organizations.

Anthony Albanese has in the past been supportive of Palestine solidarity campaigns and critical of Israel’s human rights record, so his stance has surprised some local people. Jennifer Killen, a Marrickville resident who strongly supports the council’s twinning with Bethlehem and its boycott initiative, commented to The Electronic Intifada: “I’m very disappointed in my local member of parliament for not being more supportive of our hard-working local councilors at this time.” Killen also pointed out that the contact details of the councilors who voted for the boycott motion are on the website of the Sydney-based Coalition for Justice & Peace in Palestine, and called on international activists to support Marrickville where its MPs had failed to do so.

Councilor Cathy Peters, a Green Party member, emphasized that the boycott motion at Marrickville had cross-party support and that the former mayor of Marrickville, who visited its sister city of Bethlehem in 2010, was a member of the Australian Labor Party. But Antony Loewenstein and other Sydney commentators have suggested that the realpolitik of upcoming elections could be behind Albanese’s condemnation of the boycott vote. The Australian’s article mentions the risks to Albanese’s seat from the Green Party.

But it failed to highlight the fact that Carmel Tebbutt, the New South Wales state legislature member for Marrickville who is quoted in the same article, is also Albanese’s wife — and that her seat is under threat from Marrickville Green Mayor Fiona Byrne in upcoming state-level elections. The New South Wales Green Party adopted a strong boycott, divestment and sanctions position in December 2010 and Albanese’s attacks on the boycott motion could, Sydney commentators suggest, be an attempt to put some political space between himself and his spouse, and their Green challengers.

Outside the mainstream media, Australia’s nastier extremists have also waded in on the Marrickville debate. An article on the Australian Islamist Monitor website entitled “Australian Council Disgraces Itself” berates the local authority, saying that “you have got it all wrong — you have sided with the aggressors, the bullies, the friends of Hitler and those whom Hitler considered his friends in their antisemitism [sic].” The writer goes on to claim that “Israel is a tiny land surrounded by aggressive Muslim nations and as David Horowitz has pointed out repeatedly, the aim of those nations is to deny Israel the right to exist.” David Horowitz, cited by the Australian Islamist Monitor author, is an American commentator and founder of the Freedom Center who claims that “free societies” are “under attack by leftist and Islamist enemies at home and abroad.” As well as attacking Arab and left-wing campaigners, he has also been accused of racism against African Americans.

And one comment following the article reads: “This is insane I hate these people. I would like to have a 22 and pick them off one by one for target practice. Better still a suicide bomber in their midst. In fact I might make a giant blow up of the photo and sell it to a shooting range.” A “smiley” emoticon follows the comment. Immediately after it, the same commenter, “Skipping Girl,” adds: “God Bless Israel.”

Despite its claims to be “anti-racist in all its forms” and to support freedom of speech when this does not lead to violence, the Australian Islamist Monitor site is rife with hysterical and sometimes violent comments about Muslim people. A number of its contributors have links to more extreme hate sites and have made openly racist comments in other forums. The website’s membership is strictly controlled, with potential members approved by a human moderator as well as by electronic tests. However, in more than three weeks it has made no move to remove Skipping Girl’s bloodthirsty comments.

Cathy Peters says that she has been made aware that some threatening comments have been made regarding Marrickville councilors, but that the matter has been turned over to the council’s general manager for consideration. For her, the larger concern is how the issue of Palestine is debated in Australia.

I think it’s unfortunate that these kind of emotional comments have been triggered by an overall reluctance by the Board of Deputies and other groups to tolerate debate and criticism of Israeli policies regarding Palestine and the occupied territories,” she says, rejecting charges that Marrickville’s councilors have been influenced by “political correctness” or ideology. Her fellow members, she points out, include some “very experienced” local councilors with diverse backgrounds and political opinions.

The problem at the moment is one of groups trying to close down dialogue on the subject,” Peters insists. “What is really needed at the moment is a mature, calm debate on Israel’s policies on Palestine and how Australians should respond to them.”

Sarah Irving is a freelance writer. She worked with the International Solidarity Movement in the occupied West Bank in 2001-02 and with Olive Co-op, promoting fair trade Palestinian products and solidarity visits, in 2004-06. She now writes full-time on a range of issues, including Palestine. Her first book, Gaza: Beneath the Bombs, co-authored with Sharyn Lock, was published in January 2010. She is currently working on a new edition of the Bradt Guide to Palestine and a biography of Leila Khaled.

Courtesy of Electronic Intifada

Canadian and United Kingdom solidarity activists have scored recent victories towards deshelving cosmetics made in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.

Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East (CPJME) reported that on 11 January, Canadian retail chain The Bay dropped Ahava products from its stores. Ahava cosmetic products are made from materials from the Dead Sea in the West Bank, assembled in the Israeli settlement of Mitzpe Shalem, and are labeled “made in Israel.”

The company itself is partially owned by Mitzpe Shalem and another settlement, Kalia. An international campaign focusing on the boycott of Ahava products has been making waves across Europe and North America over the last two years.

CPJME stated that The Bay dropped Ahava products because they had not “been meeting expectations,” and that the company had “quietly informed” its customers who had objected to the store stocking Ahava products that they would not continue to do so (”The Bay drops controversial AHAVA products,” 13 January 2011).

However, two days later, The Bay (known also as HBC), issued a joint statement with Canada-based Jewish groups who had immediately protested the retail chain’s decision. The move to drop Ahava products was “solely for commercial reasons,” and that “at no point did political considerations enter into” the decision, the statement claims (”The Bay drops Ahava, but not because of boycott,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency,” 14 January 2011).

The announcement adds that Ahava products will be rebranded and will be back on shelves across Canada by this spring. The Bay “neither subscribes to nor endorses politically-motivated boycotts of merchandise from countries with which Canada has open and established trading relationships, including Israel,” the statement says.

The Stolen Beauty campaign, which has been a key organizer of international boycotts of Ahava products, released an action alert this week encouraging boycott supporters to thank HBC, regardless of its future plans and reasons for stopping its sales of Ahava. “Your message of thanks is crucial as right-wing, pro-occupation groups berate and pressure The Bay to reinstate sales of Ahava,” the alert stated (”Thank you for dropping Ahava products!”).

Nevertheless, The Bay’s decision followed a similar move by British retail chain John Lewis, which had publicly announced on 7 January that it has stopped stocking and selling Ahava products.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign issued a press release welcoming John Lewis’ decision, and reprinted part of a letter drafted by the company to the activist group (”John Lewis stops stocking Ahava products in Britain,” 14 January 2011).

Andy Street, John Lewis’ managing director, wrote: “As a socially responsible retailer, John Lewis takes very seriously the treatment of workers and their working conditions. We expect all our suppliers not only to obey the law, but also to respect the rights, interests and well-being of their employees, their communities and the environment … In relation to your specific enquiry about Ahava Dead Sea products, I can confirm that John Lewis has ceased stocking these particular products.”

Sarah Colborne, director of operations with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, stated that Ahava and other companies that profit from Israel’s illegal occupation are being sent a clear message by consumers.

“Although governments, including our own, are failing to end Israel’s violations of international law and human rights, we can all take action by refusing to buy Israeli goods and joining the movement for [boycott, divestment and sanctions],” Colborne said. “The [Palestine Solidarity Campaign] will continue to ensure that companies which profit from Israel’s occupation pay the price for their complicity in Israel’s crimes.”

Meanwhile, across the world, solidarity activists continue to campaign with the Palestinian-led call for boycott, divestment and sanctions.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) announced that two hundred Irish artists have signed onto its Israel boycott pledge, with singer-songwriter Dylan Walshe joining as the latest signatory.

IPSC launched its national campaign in August 2010 in an effort to encourage Irish cultural workers to “avail of any invitation to perform or exhibit in Israel, nor to accept any funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights (”Irish artists’ pledge to boycott Israel reaches 200 signatories,” 13 January 2011).”

Walshe joins high-profile Irish artists who have committed to the boycott, such as actor Stephen Rea and musician Christy Moore. Raymond Deane, IPSC Cultural Boycott Officer and contributor to The Electronic Intifada, stated in the press release that “[a]s the Israeli state becomes ever more racist, expansionist and oppressive, we have seen the growth in its isolation by international civil society through the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.”

Deane, who is also a composer and himself a signatory to the pledge, added, “[t]he success of this boycott pledge is indicative of wider feelings toward Israel, both in Ireland and around the world. Indeed, similar pledges and initiatives are being organized in many other countries.”

Palestine-based activists with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) issued a statement on 16 January calling for US solidarity groups to boycott the upcoming American tour of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, scheduled for February (”Boycott the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra on its US Tour!,” 16 January 2011).

PACBI said the orchestra is scheduled to perform in Palm Beach, New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. “We urge activists to continue the principled tradition of activists in New York and Los Angeles in 2007, when they protested the [orchestra’s] appearance in their cities,” states the press release.

“As befits an institution that identifies with the Israeli state, the [Israel Philharmonic] proudly announces its partnership with the army under a scheme whereby special concerts for Israeli soldiers are organized at their army outposts,” PACBI adds. “The orchestra has lent itself to the official Israeli propaganda campaign titled Brand Israel, which aims to divert attention from Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian rights to its artistic and scientific achievements.”

PACBI encourages boycott activists in the US to protest and boycott the orchestra’s concerts, saying that as long as it continues to partner with the Israeli government in “planning, implementing and whitewashing war crimes and international law violations,” Israel’s cultural establishment “cannot be exempted from the growing boycott movement.”

Activists with the Israeli group Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call From Within (BFW) drafted a letter to British Telecom (BT) on 18 January, calling for the company to cut ties with the Israeli telecommunications company Bezeq International (”Boycott From Within’s letter to BT,” 18 January 2011).

In January 2010, BT incorporated Bezeq International, a subsidiary of Bezeq Israel, into its Global Alliance. The Bezeq corporation provides telecommunication services to illegal Israeli settlement colonies in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Thousands of British customers of BT have already joined a campaign calling for the companies to cut ties.

“We are saddened and dismayed by your company’s complicity in severe breaches of international law and the violation of human rights through your relationship with Bezeq International, and call on you to end this relationship at once,” states the activists’ letter. “By partnering with Bezeq, [British Telecom] is supporting the infrastructure which enables illegal Israeli settlements, built in violation of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to exist,” the letter adds.

“We maintain that such willful blindness to Israeli crimes is not only immoral, but is also in contrast to [British Telecom’s] fiduciary responsibility to its investors, as it may put the company’s high-regard in the international community at risk.”

Meanwhile, BFW activists say they helped play a key role in the recent decision by French pop star Vanessa Paradis to cancel a planned concert in Tel Aviv.

After the group drafted a letter urging Paradis and her partner, American film icon Johnny Depp, to cancel their upcoming visit, the singer announced on 15 January that her performance was cancelled.

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that insiders close to the star claimed that Paradis “acceded to calls to cancel the show made by Palestinian solidarity groups” (”Did pop star Paradis cancel Israel concert over politics?,” 16 January 2011).

BFW activists have launched a similar campaign directed at American singer Macy Gray, who this week posted on her Facebook page that she was considering canceling her performance in Tel Aviv due to Israel’s “disgusting” treatment of Palestinians.

“I’m getting alot [sic] of letters from activists urging/begging me to boycott by NOT performing in protest of Apartheid against the Palestinians,” Gray posted on her page.

Activists with BFW stated that “[c]oming to perform in Israel has become a political act, a statement of support for the State of Israel’s ongoing crimes and human rights violations. It is also an act against a rapidly growing nonviolent, human-rights based civil society Palestinian movement.

Courtesy of Aljazeera

At least 165 Israeli professors have declared a boycott against a contentious college in the occupied West Bank, deepening an internal rift over the expansion of Israeli settlements there.

Organizers of the boycott said on Sunday that the academics signed a petition stating they are unwilling to undertake any activities at Ariel University Centre, because, they said, Ariel is an “illegal settlement” intended to prevent Palestinians from establishing an independent state.

“Ariel is not part of the sovereign territory of Israel, and we therefore cannot be required to go there,” the petition reads.

Ariel, a settlement of 19,000 people, lies deep inside the West Bank, and the Ariel University Centre of Samaria, with its approximately 8,500 students, is situated inside one of the larger settlements of the occupied West Bank.

Palestinians – who claim all of the West Bank, seized in 1967, as part of a future independent state -refuse to negotiate while Israel builds homes for Israelis on captured territories.

Some 300,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank, in addition to 200,000 Israelis living in East Jerusalem.

Petition signers criticised

Nir Gov, a professor at Weizmann Institute of Science, who organised the boycott, said the goal is not to punish the college’s student body - which includes many Arabs - but to hasten the end of the occupation.

“I have two young daughters and I want them to grow up in a democratic, free Israel,” Gov said.

“The occupation of millions of Palestinians without any human rights is really destroying it.”

Gov added that others have declined to add their names to the petition for fear of retribution by Israel’s right wing.

The petition was opposed by an umbrella group of Israeli university presidents and the hawkish political party Yisrael Beitenu.

Gideon Saar, Israel’s education minister, condemned the boycott in a statement, calling the petition a “provocation”, and Ron Nachman, Ariel’s mayor, told Israeli radio that the more academics boycott, the more he will build up the settlement.

Boycotting the boycotters

Israeli academics themselves have been subject to boycott calls from colleagues in Britain and Spain.

Israeli officials have angrily said such efforts are counterproductive and go against the ideals of academic freedom.

In 2010, more than 150 Israeli artists boycotted a new performing arts centre in Ariel, with 60 Jewish artists from the UK and UK signing on the Jewish Voices for Peace petition stating the same.

Also, hundreds of professors signed a petition opposing the college’s upgrade to university status.

The continued growth of Jewish settlements is at the heart of the current impasse in Mideast peace efforts.

The latest round of peace talks broke down in late September after an Israeli freeze on most settlement construction expired.

By Nadia Hijab

Courtesy of The Huffington Post

Three aspects of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Saban Center speech on Friday have escaped general notice. First, though she spoke boldly of asking “tough questions and expecting substantive answers” on the core issues of the conflict, the process will not culminate in a “just, lasting and comprehensive peace” as Clinton claimed, but rather a framework agreement. What is a framework agreement? As defined by United States peace envoy George Mitchell in early September at the short-lived revival of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks, this peculiar American innovation is said to be more than a declaration of principles but less than a full-fledged treaty. It is supposed to establish “the fundamental compromises” that would then be fleshed out in a comprehensive agreement to end the conflict.

This bodes ill for the Palestinians, who have already signed a declaration of principles as well as a dozen other compromise-filled agreements with Israel between 1993 and 2000. Worse, it sounds like they would now be expected to compromise on their right of return, while actual freedom awaits a peace treaty that would then still have to be implemented — who knows when? A second Obama term? Or his successor’s? And meanwhile, Israel would continue to colonize.

Then Clinton, perhaps unwittingly, further exposed the U.S. pretense of even-handedness. She claimed that the Obama administration, like its predecessors, does not accept the “legitimacy of continued settlement activity.” However, some of those predecessors defined all settlements as illegal. This administration’s phrasing, which it has used before, suggests that some settlements are more legitimate than others: it is “continued” activity that is said not to have legitimacy rather than the entire illegal enterprise. This puts the Obama administration in the same camp as George W. Bush, who also supported Israel’s territorial and other ambitions in his April 2004 exchange of letters with former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Finally, Clinton illustrated how completely the administration has bought into the Israeli discourse. In her eagerness to support an Israel that is both Jewish and democratic, she skated perilously close to racism. She warned that “the long-term population trends that result from the occupation” were endangering the Zionist vision. In other words, that another four million Palestinians might soon demand equal rights in an Israel that has effectively controlled all of mandate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea since 1967.

These are murky waters indeed. One cannot imagine a political leader in any real democracy applying the same reasoning to their country. Would U.S. leaders speak of long-term Black, Hispanic, or Muslim population trends that endanger America as a “white and democratic” or as a “Christian” state? In the modern era, democratic states are expected to be constructs in which all citizens are equal under the law, irrespective of race or creed.

In fact, as it stands today — and without the addition of another four million Palestinians — Israel is demonstrably not a democracy for its 1.6 million Palestinian citizens, who cite over 20 laws on the books that discriminate against them. Bills are regularly introduced in the Knesset, some by leading cabinet ministers, to tighten the screws on equality. Racism is rapidly on the rise among the population. In the most recent example, dozens of Israeli municipal chief rabbis signed a ruling forbidding renting homes to gentiles (read: Arabs). “We don’t need to help Arabs set down roots in Israel,” one of the rabbis explained, as though Palestinians have no rights in their native land. This is the democratic Jewish state Clinton extols.

The U.S. is now on the wrong side of the discourse in more ways than one. The letter sent this month by 26 former European Union leaders to top EU officials and member states challenged the open-ended nature of the U.S. peace process — and America’s monopoly over the Middle East — by proposing a deadline of April 2011 to refer the conflict to the international community if there is no progress.

The letter is remarkable for the bluntness with which it demands that Israel be held accountable for its actions and be made to pay for the costs of its occupation. The leaders’ call for sanctions is particularly important because it comes against the background of a fast-growing civil society movement to boycott Israel, as well as steps by a growing number of European pension funds to divest from companies involved in the occupation. It thus gives credibility to the growing BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement in the face of intensive Israeli attempts to tar it as anti-Semitic even though many BDS advocates are in fact Jews.

These are significant shifts in the discourse. As happened in the case of South Africa, when enough people frame the issues differently, then superpowers lose their sway and justice and equality for all are upheld as the only possible alternatives to conflict.

Nadia Hijab is co-director of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network.

Courtesy of BNC Palestine

Occupied Palestine – We, the undersigned Palestinian civil society organizations, including farmers’ unions, agricultural organizations and popular committees, reiterate the call of the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) for a full boycott of Carmel-Agrexco due to its complicity in marketing products of Israel’s illegal colonial settlements and in other Israeli violations of international law and human rights. Standing united with the Coalition Against Carmel-Agrexco in France and across Europe, we express our strong support for the legal action against Carmel-Agrexco taken by French civil society organizations before the Commercial Court of Creteil.

Carmel Agrexco, the partially state owned Israeli exporter is in violation of international law. Agrexco markets 60-70% of the agricultural produce grown in Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and plays a key role in the development of industrial scale Israeli agri-business. It profits from Israel’s illegal colonial settlements and the theft of Palestinian land and water resources in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) in violation of the IV Geneva Convention and provides an economic incentive for the continuation of Israel’s unlawful regime of occupation, apartheid and colonialism over the Palestinian people. Within the legal and ethical framework of corporate responsibility a company bears the responsibility for all its commercial undertakings that may violate human rights, labour and environmental standards. We moreover wish to emphasize that renowned international law experts as well as the International Court of Justice in its 2004 ruling on Israel’s illegal Wall in the OPT have affirmed that states have a legal obligation to discourage business relations which contribute to the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel. This includes business with Carmel Agrexco.

Israeli exports, and Carmel Agrexco products in particular, have been routinely mislabelled, and Israeli export companies and officials have consistently misled partner governments and companies, concealing the facts about products originating from the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The EU Court of Justice has ruled that such Israeli products do not qualify for preferential customs treatment under the EU-Israel Agreement and has criticised Israeli export authorities for being obstructive in their response to requests made by European Union officials. The UK government has expressed its doubts about the traceability of all products marked ‘made in Israel’.

Researchers have repeatedly documented evidence of Carmel Agrexco itself being involved in the deliberate mislabelling of produce from illegal Israeli settlements. We have recently become aware of attempts by the Israel lobby in France to counter efforts for bringing Agrexco into compliance with international law by the Coalition Against Carmel-Agrexco in France, claiming that a boycott of Agrexco would hurt Palestinian strawberry exports from Gaza. At a time when Israel is systematically destroying Palestinian agriculture, uprooting hundreds of thousands of fruitful trees, bulldozing massive farm areas, and denying Palestinians access to our water resources , no one should be deceived by such blatant Israeli propaganda efforts. Through its ongoing criminal siege of Gaza and its war of aggression against it, Israel has destroyed farmlands, water treatment plants, and sewage facilities, causing unprecedented levels of pollution, poverty and health crises in the occupied Gaza Strip.

By BNC Palestine

• UK, Sweden, Turkey, South Africa, and Ireland will not attend controversial conference hosted by Israel

• Many countries undecided or set to only send low-level delegations

• OECD General Secretary warns Netanyahu over Israeli Tourism Minister comments

• Palestine Legislative Council appeals for more countries to boycott conference

• Israeli membership of OECD ‘illegal under international law’

Occupied Palestine – An OECD ‘High Level Roundtable’ on tourism due to take place in West Jerusalem has been thrown into chaos by the decision of five countries not to attend and the disclosure by several others that only low-level delegations will take part. Following attempts by Israel to use the conference to further its territorial claims on Jerusalem and concerns raised by Palestinian civil society and its international supporters that the conference serves to whitewash Israeli violations of international law, the UK, Sweden, Ireland, Turkey and South Africa announced that they would be not be taking part. Although the UK denied that its refusal to attend was politically motivated , Sweden and Turkey openly stated that their withdrawals are political in nature. In a further blow to the credibility of the ‘high level’ conference at which ‘senior government officials’ were expected to discuss tourism policy , a number of countries will not send tourism ministers and instead low-ranking officials will represent member country governments. The Greek delegation to the OECD told campaigners during telephone calls that no officials from Athens will make the trip and instead a staff member from the Greek tourist information centre in Tel-Aviv will represent Greece. During other telephone calls to OECD offices, campaigners learnt that Denmark will only send a statistician and that Belgium and Norway are still considering what level of representation will attend. France will be represented at a “technical level” only. A number of countries are yet to decide whether Ministers should attend, campaigners understand. The withdrawals come following comments made by Israeli tourism minister Stas Misezhnikov that the situating of the meeting in Jerusalem – the first OECD meeting hosted by Israel since it became a member in May and only the second time an OECD tourism conference has been held outside of Paris – was in effect recognition by OECD members of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. In a strongly worded letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, OECD General Secretary Angel Gurria called the comments “factually incorrect and quite unacceptable”. Palestinian opposition to the tourism conference being held in Jerusalem has been consistent. In a letter to Mr Gurria last month, the Palestinian Boycott,Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), a broad Palestinian civil society coalition, called upon the OECD to move the conference. “Organizing this tourism conference in Israel sends once again a strong signal that OECD members are perfectly willing to be complicit with Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and actively support Israel’s PR efforts to whitewash its colonial and apartheid policies,” the letter said. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) both issued statements thanking UK and Turkey for boycotting the conference and calling on other countries follow suit. “We warmly salute all of the countries who have decided not to attend this conference. We urge OECD member states to make a principled stand for justice, international law and human rights by refraining from attending the OECD Tourism Conference to be held in Jerusalem. We are also asking citizens of OECD member countries to put pressure on their governments not to attend” said Hind Awwad, coordinator with the Palestinian Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), a broad Palestinian civil society coalition. “Israel is using its membership of the OECD to whitewash its violations of international law and further its processes of occupation, colonization and apartheid, just as Palestinian civil warned it would. Attending the conference can only be seen as a seal of approval for Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing policies in Jerusalem” she added. Spain had originally been declared as boycotting the conference, but it has since emerged that a low-level delegation will attend.

By: Gail Alfar

California voters will likely be faced with a ballot measure soon that will accomplish tremendous increased awareness of the apartheid in Palestine-Israel.  This increased awareness will likely cause many people to rethink where their retirement dollars are being invested.  Here is a little information about this Ballot Initiative that you will be seeing if you are a California voter.

Make time to sign it, 434,000 signatures are required to place a statewide measure on the ballot.  This measure requires the public retirement systems PERS and STRS to divest from certain companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

“Our government has done nothing to end Israel’s brutal occupation and violation of internationally recognized human rights,” said Sacramento resident Chris Yatooma, the founder of the Israel Divestment Campaign and the official proponent of the initiative, “including UN Resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.”

“Our tax dollars now help fund these violations of human rights to the tune of more than $3 billion a year in grants, adding up to a staggering $106 billion over the past five decades.” said Israeli-born campaign organizer Yael Korin.

“California retirement funds have their own disturbing record,” said local campaign organizer Sherna Gluck, a member of the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS).  “Our public retirement systems have more than $1.5 billion invested in at least eight companies that provide war materials and services used in violation of internationally recognized human rights, including support for the illegal Israeli settlements and the “Separation Wall.”

Public pension funds in Norway and Sweden have already divested from one of the companies identified by the initiative organizers.  It is time for California’s public retirement systems to make more ethical investments.

Organized by a diverse group of Californians, the initiative has been endorsed by two Nobel Peace Laureates: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one of the principal leaders of South Africa’s successful struggle to end Apartheid and Mairead Maguire, renowned Belfast peacemaker.

In an interview on examiner.com, Yatooma acknowledged that he had chosen Israel Divestiture Forum as the initiative’s official sponsor, because its acronym, IDF, is generally identified with the Israel Defense Forces.

“That’s just me having some fun,” Yatooma told interviewer Kujawsky. He also said he hoped to draw support from the Jewish community’s “peace camp,” African Americans, Latinos and “progressive” Democrats.

This is an expensive endeavor, if you are not in California, you may still help.  You can notify PERS and STRS and urge them to stop investing in the occupation.  Tell your friends in California to sign this petition, and you can donate.

In order to ensure the 434,000 signatures needed to qualify the ballot measure are obtained, donations are accepted to help fund expenses associated with the qualification of the ballot measure.  Any US citizen (not just Californians) may contribute to the campaign.  All donations will be deposited into the organization’s account with Bank of America.  Please know that any contribution/donation exceeding $99 dollars will result in public disclosure of a person’s name, address and employer on public finance disclosure forms submitted to the California Secretary of State’s Office. See http://www.israeldivestmentcampaign.org

You can expect to see more divestment calls in the future; one of the largest also involves TIAA-CREF, with Jewish Voice for Peace calling on them to divest from Israel’s brutal occupation.  Every time calls for divestment rise up, awareness of the occupation is increased, and with awareness, there is always a greater hope for change.

BY GAIL ALFAR

According to the online “Globes: Israel’s Business Arena” no reason was given by the Harvard University Management Company as to why all the Israel share holdings that the University had were sold.
This is notable that one of the world’s best known and consistently highest ranked leading academic institution has chosen to eliminate every one of its Israeli based investments.
The article states that shares in “Teva Pharmaceutical” were sold, that were valued at 30.5 million dollars. Teva has been a target of the BDS movement for years, it manufactures many generic drugs such as generic Prilosec (Omeprazole) and generic Allegra (Fexofenadine HCI), to name just a few.
Shares valued at almost 1.7 million were sold in “NICE Systems Ltd.” NICE is a large Israeli firm engaged in wiretapping and surveillance systems for private and government clients, with several contracts in South Africa through Transnet. Orsus was contracted by Transnet to connect three nerve centers in Johannesburg, Richard’s Bay and Cape Town. Their surveillance technology is an example of the type of high-tech ‘security systems’ that are regularly deployed against, and often tested on, Palestinians under occupation.
Harvard University Management Company also sold its shares in Israeli Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., valued at 3.6 million. Check Point’s software is reportedly developed on the basis of knowledge and experience directly acquired from military applications, the company “was founded by veterans of IDF communication, intelligence and computer units.”
Two other companies also lost Harvard’s endorsement: Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Ltd. Harvard University can no longer be accused of funding settlement activity through investments in Cellcom Israel Ltd. TIAA-CREF, the US pension fund giant, divested from Cellcom about one year ago, selling all of its shares for about $257,000. Harvard’s sale of Cellcom was valued at about $1,000,000, a significantly larger amount.
Partner Communications, whose motto is “I am free, I am orange,” took a blow for $1.8 million. Partner Communications claims it supports human rights through employing people from “all the nationalities and congregations of the Israeli society” in its mission statement. A complete neglect of the rights of Palestinian people, who are indigenous to the land, is poignantly obvious.
Is it possible that Harvard University has clauses that bind the university to standards of human rights, international law and democracy? Israel is in clear violation of these three conditions and global parties to investments, agreements and projects with Israel have to be challenged as their relations with Israel are clearly infringing upon their own rules and principles. Could Harvard University have, unofficially, just divested from Israel?
It should be impressed on the signatories of agreements (such as investing) with Israel that all those agreements inherently support the occupation, apartheid and human rights abuses in Palestine.

By: Michael Gillespie

United for Justice and Peace, the largest peace coalition in Greater Boston and Eastern Massachusetts, met at the Friends Center in Cambridge on June 19 to explore responses to Israel’s continuing siege of Gaza in the aftermath of the massacre of peace activists taking part in a Free Gaza flotilla on May 31. About 50 activists attended.
The three-hour meeting featured a panel discussion with Ann Wright (Col. U.S. Army, Ret.), a distinguished U.S. foreign service officer who resigned in protest from the Department of State in March 2003, the day before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and Husam Zomlot, a Palestinian scholar and diplomat. Zomlot served as PLO Representative to the UK from 2003 to 2008 and is currently a Research Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The discussion was moderated by Jeff Klein, a retired machinist, union leader, and activist with Dorchester People for Peace.
“The sequence of events has been quite remarkable in the last two years,” said Wright. “The international community is putting pressure on the Israelis and the Egyptians and the American government to end the siege of Gaza.”
“It’s taking the people of the world, it’s a citizens’ action that is forcing governments to listen to the people. We in the United States have had a particularly bad run of governments listening to us over the last 10 years. The Bush administration didn’t listen to us on anything, and, tragically, the Obama administration is not listening to us much either,” said Wright.
“I’ll tell you what: When the citizens of the world start getting together on these things, well, things happen. What happened with the Gaza Flotilla, where we had six ships that finally started sailing toward Gaza, was tragic. All were attacked in international waters 70 miles off the coast of Gaza in an act of piracy, an act of kidnapping, an act of murder, an act of theft, all crimes by anyone’s estimation.
“That’s what happened on six ships, three of which were passenger ships, two of which were cargo ships. Passengers numbered 600 on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ferry boat that was leased by a huge Turkish international NGO, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). If you go on their web site, www.IHH.org.tr, you’ll see that in contrast to what the Israeli government talks about this IHH as being a terrorist organization that does nothing but support Hamas, you’ll see that that organization that brought over 400 people from Turkey and over 200 people from other countries in the region, it is an organization that has world-wide reach similar to CARE, Catholic Relief Services, International Rescue Committee, all of those organizations that work internationally, IHH is one of them,” the retired U.S. Army Colonel and foreign service officer told her audience.
“[IHH] does work in Gaza, and, like virtually every organization that works in Gaza, it has to have dealings with the government, and that’s [the basis of the false Israeli charge that] IHH is an international terrorist organization.
“Actually, the U.S. government calls other people terrorists. We have three Congressmen and women now who are calling people like me, who were on the flotilla, and like you, who have been to Gaza, people like you all who support the right of Palestinians to have a life, we are called terrorists by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Brad Sherman (D-CA-27), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14). Sherman demanded that we be arrested and that we be charged with crimes of terrorism for taking part in the Gaza flotilla, so, last Thursday we had a giant protest in his office, but they refused to arrest us!
“It was really good. We had media like you wouldn’t believe. They were there to see what was going to happen when a U.S. Congressman calls for the arrest of American citizens. So we said, ‘OK! Arrest us! Come on!’ We had a press conference in the hallway. The police [that] were there, said ‘You can’t do this, you can’t do that,’ and we said ‘We’re going in the Congressman’s office. He wants to arrest us. We’re presenting ourselves!’
“It all goes to show that now we’ve got people on the run. We’ve got an Israeli government that, after that attack—it was a criminal attack—it was an attack that did not have to happen. If the Israeli navy wanted to stop those ships, there were other ways. As a military officer, I know there are other ways to stop ships besides boarding them forcefully and using live ammunition and killing people—killing nine unarmed people!
“There were no weapons on any of those ships. If there had been, we would have seen them. The Israeli military would have been parading them. Instead the only photos are of kitchen knives that were on the ship because they part of kitchens to feed 600 people. There was one ax that was onboard, an ax that every boat is required to carry because in case lines get tangled you have to chop them,” explained Wright.
Wright said there was violence on the Mavi Marmara after fire from the Israeli helicopters killed and wounded unarmed activists on the ship. Three masked Israeli commandos who rappelled onto the upper decks were overpowered and beaten, but the Captain of the ship and the director of IHH put a stop to all physical resistance and ordered that the three Israelis be treated by doctors onboard and promptly returned to Israeli control, said Wright.
“The tragedy on the Mavi Marmara was that the Israeli commandos killed people, shot people. They could have stopped the boat in a variety of other ways but the Israeli government chose to have a major confrontation, a confrontation that has really backfired on them, a confrontation that has governments of the world, to include by some miracle the United States government, finally saying that the blockade, the siege of Gaza is ‘unsustainable’ and that the deaths were ‘regrettable.’
“That’s in contrast to what the White House has been saying about Helen Thomas’s comments that [have been described as] ‘reprehensible.’ You would think that perhaps murdering people would be called ‘reprehensible,’ but no, that’s not quite where the U.S. government has gotten yet,” said Wright in part.
Zomlot began by offering his heartfelt thanks for all the people who have given their lives for the sake of a resolution of the humanitarian crisis in Palestine, and condolences to their families.
“The attacks on the flotilla and what happened with Ann and her group have really broken through to the core of the issue of the blockade of Gaza. These heroic acts of universalism, people coming together as civilians to break the siege, one of the most draconian sieges of modern history, are already bearing fruit. The siege, as we speak, is crumbling,” said the Palestinian scholar and diplomat.
“The moment I heard of what happened on the high seas off of Gaza I knew that it was the end of one of the most illegal, inhumane blockades of modern history. Your message has been heard. While your goods, your humanitarian supplies, your gifts for the Palestinian babies of Gaza, your pencils and tablets for schools, your medicines did not arrive, your message has arrived.
“It is a very loud and clear message. The message is that the agony and the suffering of the Palestinians is not only Palestinian. It is universal,” said the Palestinian diplomat, who noted that he was born in Gaza and lived there for many years.
Zomlot offered a brief overview of Israeli policy in Gaza, which he noted had always had two elements. One has been the effort to stifle Palestine’s economy.
“The Israeli policy has always been to ensure that Palestinians, as a political society, would not have an economy they could rely on. From 1991 onward until today, there was a policy of closure, a policy of individual deprivation and collective deprivation. … All those who wish to leave or enter Gaza, all those who wish to import or export from Gaza, would have to obtain an Israeli permit. And believe you me, that was not easy to get. It was extremely difficult. The last three or four years has only witnessed a heightening of that system of closure,” said Zomlot.
“The second goal of Israeli policy is political and geographical fragmentation. This is a classic policy of divide and rule as we all know. This policy has been in place at least since the Oslo Accords. Unfortunately, with the help of some major international actors, it has borne fruits of Palestinian political and geographic divisions,” said Zomlot, who added that rather than speak about the morality or the legality of Israel’s policies, he would address instead the practicalities.
“What is it you seek by creating a poor, deprived, leaderless, divided neighbor? What is it? Is it really to soften their position to strike a deal with them? It doesn’t work. You can always defeat an army, but you can’t defeat a nation, a society of mothers and teachers and lawyers. And even if you want to soften their position and you want to crush their will and their determination, what is the alternative you are offering? What is it that Palestinians are asked to concede? More than they have done so several years ago, conceding 70 percent of their land? It is very impractical, because we are all witnessing the backlash!” said Zomlot.
The Israeli goal was to isolate Gaza from the West Bank and divide the Palestinian people, said the Palestinian diplomat. “That’s the main policy!”
“I believe that if Israel intends to liquidate the Palestinian polity, the Palestinian society, for the sake of finishing off the job they started in 1948, then [Israeli policy] makes sense, and what is happening now makes a lot of sense. But if Israel intends to really strike a deal with its neighbor and create the two-state solution that Israel has been talking about all these years, then what is happening does not make sense,” said Zomlot.
The Palestinian scholar and diplomat told his audience he fears that Israeli leaders have no intention of striking a deal with Palestinians on any terms, that they have no intention of allowing a viable, peaceful Palestinian state.
Zomlot identified four principles as a way forward. Palestinians, he said, are moving toward national unity. “Everybody realizes that fragmentation of our polity and out land is only playing into the hands of those who do not wish us well.”
As Palestinians move toward national unity, they are adopting a policy of non-violent popular resistance, said Zomlot. “It’s a universal Palestinian conclusion that non-violent resistance that is popular and peaceful—the best example is the flotilla and what happened—is the most effective way of confronting Israel.”
Third, said Zomlot, is national institution building. “The most important thing right now is to try and empower Palestinians to continue living on their land by creating institutions for health, education, etcetera that will enable Palestinians to survive, to be steadfast where they are.”
“And last, and most important in my opinion, is you,’ said Zomlot. “All of you. That is, the International Solidarity Movement, justice groups, peace groups. This new movement, that we see everywhere in Europe, in the U.S., in Australia, in Asia, and in Africa is forming and taking a very solid shape. Believe you me, the more assertive you are, the more vocal you are, the more strong you are, the more united you are, the more Palestinians are reaching into the non-violent side of the story. Because this alliance brings strength to face the violence that Palestinians are suffering,” said Zomlot.
“This movement is growing,” declared moderator Jeff Klein, “not as big and as fast as we would like, but nevertheless it is clear that this movement is growing.”
Klein reminded his audience that it wasn’t so long ago that many activists who recognized the importance of a just resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict were reluctant to speak out and engage on the issue in the larger peace movement and at the big antiwar rallies.
“I’m happy to say I think that’s largely over with. The Palestine issue has become one of the core issues of the activist community on the Left, and that’s a big step forward,” said Klein.
One result of the solidarity movement to break the siege of Gaza its unexpected and powerful effects in the Middle East, noted Klein.
Subsequent events underscore Klein’s remarks and those of Wright and Zomlot. As counterproductive wars and a failed U.S. foreign policy driven by a bloated defense industry and the malignant influence of Tel Aviv and its pro-Israel lobby play havoc with Washington’s legitimate interests in the Middle East, Ankara’s principled policies and diplomatic initiatives are finding favor as Turkey’s influence in the region and beyond increases.
On July 8, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said during a visit to London that Israel would have to lift its blockade and be “held accountable” for its attack on the aid ships of the Gaza flotilla or face gradual stages of disengagement if it did not respond to Turkey’s demands. Ankara has closed Turkish airspace to Israeli military aircraft, withdrawn its ambassador to Israel, and said the envoy will not return until Israel meets Turkish demands.
“Time is running out for a two-state solution. It is in Israel’s interest to make sure that it is still possible,” warned British Foreign Secretary William Hague.
Hague described the blockade of Gaza as “unacceptable and unsustainable,” according a report in the Guardian (UK) by Ian Black, Middle East editor.
Wise diplomats and statesmen are now working for the welfare of all humanity, even as they strive to promote the interests of their own national and racial groups. They recognize that selfish political sagacity is ultimately suicidal, destructive of all those enduring qualities that insure planetary group survival.

Courtesy of Abnaa el-Balad

Iqraa Student Association and the National Democratic Assembly

We are Arab students at the Israeli universities writing to you in support of the proposed academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions. We believe that the boycott is timely and hopefully will help in upholding moral values of fairness, justice and equality which have been sorely missed in our region. Read the full story