By Ann Wright

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right when he suggested that the WikiLeaks revelations were “embarrassing” and “awkward.” But his assessment — and that of so many other government officials — stems from the magnitude of what he left unsaid.

These revelations are not merely embarrassing. They also contain evidence of government actions and policies that are an abuse of power and that violate international human-rights standards to which we as Americans are committed.

For instance, through the information coming from WikiLeaks documents, the public is now aware of “FRAGO 242” — an official order not to report evidence of prisoner abuse by Iraqi security forces. This policy violates the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by Congress in 1994. The treaty explicitly requires allegations of cruel or inhuman treatment to be investigated and brought to a halt.
Advertisement

In recent days, WikiLeaks has released cables that show government officials helped conceal the heinous execution of family members of suspected combatants in Iraq. The site of the murders, which included the execution-style slaying of two children and three infants, was obliterated by a subsequent coalition airstrike.

Taken as a whole, the material shows a pattern of concealing abuse by both U.S. and coalition forces. The information revealed by WikiLeaks is thus a critically important tool for those who seek to uphold basic human-rights standards and the professional conduct of U.S. military forces.

These revelations also bring our system of classification into question. Although Pfc. Bradley Manning has not yet been brought to trial, President Barack Obama has publicly declared that the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst “broke the law” by allegedly sending this restricted information to WikiLeaks.

Many civilians — and a surprising number of military personnel — are unaware that this system of classification is not grounded in any law passed by Congress. In fact, the entire edifice that allows the use of classification rests solely on the basis of executive orders that have been renewed and modified by various presidents. The ability to restrict information from the public is essentially an unchecked assertion of executive power.

However, according to Obama’s policy for classification of government documents (Executive Order 13526), there are several situations under which government information must never be classified. The government cannot use classification procedures “to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency … or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

Administration officials have not provided any evidence that these WikiLeaks revelations have harmed our national security. They have, however, acknowledged that some of the material is personally, and professionally, embarrassing.

But they continue to act as if evidence of illegal or otherwise unethical behavior simply does not exist.

If online conversations attributed to Manning are accurate, it appears that his self-described “turning point” came when his own commanding officer refused to acknowledge clear evidence of an abuse of power. According to these conversations, Manning says he was told to investigate 15 Iraqi academics who had been brought in for questioning by Iraqi security forces, for the crime of supposedly printing “anti-Iraqi literature.”

After running the printed material through a translator, Manning realized that it was actually an article titled “Where Did the Money Go?” which sought to expose corruption within Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Cabinet. Manning’s commanding officer is said to have told Manning to “shut up” and find out how he could bring in more detainees. The message was clear: He could not rely on the chain of command to address evidence of wrongdoing.

This incident would be consistent with other revelations that have since emerged from the WikiLeaks embassy cables. Several diplomatic cables express concern about al-Maliki’s politicization of his security forces, using them to abuse political opponents.

In July, the Red Cross and a group of Iraqi parliamentarians asked for an investigation into an alleged torture facility being run by one of al-Maliki’s elite units in Baghdad’s Green Zone. That same month, the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction issued a report that noted more than $17 billion in funds that have gone missing.

The pattern of ignoring or otherwise concealing clear evidence of abuse has become so familiar that, to many, it now seems normal. But pretending that problems don’t exist won’t make them go away.

A recent report from the Council of Europe, which convenes the European Commission on Human Rights, stated that the current “deficit of transparency” among Western security and intelligence institutions leaves no choice but for the public to rely on whistle-blowers to hold governments accountable.

Instead of punishing and silencing alleged whistle-blowers like Manning for revealing uncomfortable truths, we should honor their courage to stand up for what’s right.

That’s all we should ask any American to do.

Ann Wright is a 29-year veteran who retired as a U.S. Army Reserve colonel and who later served as a U.S. diplomat in nine countries and deputy ambassador in four U.S. embassies. She is a member of the Advisory Board for the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Article courtesy Stars and Stripes

By William Pfaff

Most Americans would likely agree that the main shock delivered to Americans and the American government by the 9/11 attacks was that of vulnerability. Another such shock is impending. It is the national vulnerability that will be revealed this month by the American veto of a Palestinian demand for full United Nations membership.

During the century and a half preceding 9/11, Americans enjoyed national and individual invulnerability to devastating foreign attack, unlike the people of any other major nation. Much has been made in recent years of how nuclear dread lay over the land in the 1950s. My own experience was that even the Cuban Missile Crisis was not what it subsequently was made out to have been. I am sure that the people actually making decisions in Washington quaked in their boots and prayed, which is why nothing happened. The menace was on the one hand so great that there was nothing to do about it (crouching under a table or possession of a shovel notwithstanding), but on the other hand no one in power was so stupid as to initiate a nuclear attack.

The American conviction of national invulnerability marched on. The Vietnam outcome threatened it, but it was easy for Americans, especially those who were not in authority, to say well, yes, but of course we could have won if we had really wanted to use our power.

Iraq is not today really perceived by public opinion as a defeat, only as mistake, muddle and incompetence, and, besides, our troops will (supposedly) be gone by 2012, and what’s past will be past.

In Kabul, Gen. David Petraeus in 2009 promised Barack Obama and the nation that the United States Army could be relied upon for victory in 2010. Now Petraeus has left the army to pursue higher aspirations. Christopher Edley Jr., a member of the Obama presidential transition team and dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkrley, said that the team deemed the President-elect, with no military experience, vulnerable to official blackmail on national security and retroactive Bush administration justice issues, and so advised him to do whatever military and security officials proposed. Public confidence in President Obama on Middle Eastern issues may not be high today, while confidence in the Republicans seems even lower, but few Americans feel vulnerable to Middle Eastern risk. Least of all do they feel threatened by Israel’s actions.

This is likely to prove a serious mistake. National vulnerability has returned. A State Department official has confirmed that the United States intends to veto the expected Palestinian demand for U.N. Security Council recognition as a member state. The U.S. Congress, moreover, under pressure from Israel’s American friends, has declared that it will then cut off funding for the Palestinian Authority.

Egypt and the Arab governments will be angry, but the Arabs have been angry before with the invulnerable United States, and nothing has come of it—except for the 9/11 attacks and a war “on terror” that has gone on for a decade.

Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and former ambassador to the U.S., has rather desperately been trying to warn America. He has published his warning in articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and circulated it on the Web. He writes that, if Washington vetoes the Palestinian petition, “American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.”

A veto will provoke uproar among Muslims everywhere. Everyone already knows this, but the Obama administration ignores it.

Al-Faisal indirectly forecasts that, in the case of a veto, the American “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia will come to an end, and says that the Saudis will “adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy”—as Turkey already has done, one notes. The Saudi kingdom would oppose the American-supported Maliki government in Iraq, refuse to open an embassy there, and possibly end its support for American policy in Afghanistan and Yemen.

Al-Faisal also says that Saudi Arabia, by far the largest supporter of the Palestinian Authority, would be unable to give the Palestinians all of the financial aid and religious and political legitimacy that they would need to deal with Israel in such changed circumstances. He notes that, in recent polls, 70 percent of Palestinians anticipate a new intifada if they are vetoed at the U.N.

He warns that the region and the nations principally involved are far better served by continuing cooperation and good will between longstanding allies Saudi Arabia and the United States, and that “Saudi Arabia is willing and able to chart a new and divergent course if America fails to act justly with regard to Palestine.”

The American nation and economy, and its relations with nations far beyond the Middle East, are deeply vulnerable to the political catastrophe against which al-Faisal warns.

However, what al-Faisal does not say is that the U.S. is the only nation to possess the strength and opportunity to act preemptively to solve this crisis. Israel now is incapable of rescuing itself because of its quasi-permanent internal political deadlock.

President Obama could spectacularly reverse policy and save the day. He could declare that the U.S. will vote in support of Palestine’s full membership in the U.N. It will use all of the means at its disposal to support Israeli withdrawal of illegal settlements from territory designated as part of the Palestinian state in the 1948 U.N. partition of Mandate Palestine. It will do all in its power to impose the solution that everyone—including realistic Israelis and the Palestinians—understand to be the inevitable, permanent and just solution of this problem.

The world would be dazzled. Barack Obama’s place in history would be assured.

Article courtesy William Pfaff and Truthdig

By Stephanie Nebehay

Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, a panel of human rights experts reporting to a U.N. body said on Tuesday, disputing a conclusion reached by a separate U.N. probe into Israel’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year’s raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.

A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in “flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law.”

The four-year blockade deprived 1.6 million Palestinians living in the enclave of fundamental rights, they said.

“In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel’s closure policy toward Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians,” they said in a joint statement.

An earlier fact-finding mission named by the same U.N. forum to investigate the flotilla incident also found in a report last September that the blockade violated international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the blockade violates the Geneva Conventions.

Israel says its Gaza blockade is a precaution against arms reaching Hamas and other Palestinian guerrillas by sea.

The four-man panel headed by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer found Israel had used unreasonable force in dealing with what it called “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers.”

Turkey has downgraded ties with Israel over the incident.

Richard Falk, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and one of the five experts who issued Tuesday’s statement, said the Palmer report’s conclusions were influenced by a desire to salve Turkish-Israeli ties.

“The Palmer report was aimed at political reconciliation between Israel and Turkey. It is unfortunate that in the report politics should trump the law,” he said in the statement.

About one-third of Gaza’s arable land and 85 percent of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli military measures, said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, another of the five.

At least two-thirds of Gazan households lack secure access to food, he said. “People are forced to make unacceptable trade-offs, often having to choose between food or medicine or water for their families.”

The other three experts were the U.N. special rapporteurs on physical and mental health; extreme poverty and human rights; and access to water and sanitation.

Article courtesy Reuters – Photo courtesy Gulf News

By Ahmed Moor

Israel is under pressure. The decline of American influence in the Middle East has combined with the Arab revolutions, Turkey’s regional ascendancy and the Palestinians’ statehood bid at the UN, to erode its global position.

Additionally, an increased awareness of Israeli apartheid around the world has worked to undermine the historically sufficient “security” argument used to justify the occupation of Palestine. It has been a short 20 years since the theatrical Arafat-Clinton-Rabin lawn party, and Israel has already traversed most of the distance to comprehensive global isolation.

Israeli analysts were right in their assessments of the consequences of the revolution in Egypt. In that country, most people are sensitive to the Palestinian point of view. Many of them believe that Zionism, which is Jewish nationalism in historical Palestine, is only the most recent iteration of European colonialism.

They are unsympathetic to the argument that it was necessary to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to establish Israel. Moreover, they believe apartheid – the system by which Israel governs the Occupied Territories - is an atrocity.

For decades an imperious Egyptian dictatorship worked to protect Israel from popular opinion in Egypt. Its primary inducement was American money – about $2bn of it annually. But the revolution capsized Hosni Mubarak’s American jackboot and today Israel is forced to confront the irrepressible Egyptian call for Palestinian freedom.

Now Hosni Mubarak is on trial and the Egyptian-Israeli relationship is being similarly scrutinised. The Israeli ambassador’s recent flight from Cairo is a reasonable indication of where the relationship stands today. It is also probably a forward indicator.

History blindsided the Israelis in February; there was nothing they could do to preserve their strongman in Cairo. With Turkey, however, Israel’s political leadership worked with bizarre zealousness to undermine a reliable ally. By orchestrating a series of moves that showcased Israel’s contempt for Turkish lives, pride, property and humanitarian concerns, Tel Aviv succeeded in poisoning the only normal relationship it had with a Muslim-majority country.

Significantly, this occurred as Turkey sought to play a greater leadership role in the region.

Ignoring all the signals

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan signalled in 2009 – during Israel’s war on Gaza, which killed 1,400 Palestinians – that Israeli attacks on civilians would not be tolerated. The following year, Israeli commandos killed eight unarmed Turkish civilians and an American on international waters. The Turkish response was to demand an apology and compensation for the victims’ families. The Israelis refused, further incensing the Turkish leadership.

The relationship between the two countries worsened in recent weeks with the leak of a UN report on the flotilla. The report had been pushed by the Americans, who sought to use it as a vehicle for mending Ankara’s relationship with Tel Aviv. Significantly, it was to have been published after the Israelis apologised for the deaths of eight of the nine civilians (Obama has not asked Netanyahu to apologise for killing the American teenager).

Absent the apology, however, the report appeared to absolve Israel of its responsibility for the deaths, even going so far as to justify its illegal maritime siege of the Gaza Strip. The Turks reacted angrily and instructed the Israeli ambassador to return to Tel Aviv. The Israeli diplomatic mission was formally downgraded, and Turkey suspended all military ties between the two countries. Ankara also announced that Turkish naval vessels would accompany the next humanitarian mission to Gaza. The move is a direct challenge to de facto Israeli control of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Tel Aviv’s serial miscalculations vis-a-vis Ankara can be attributed to a myopic analytical scope.

The Israelis failed to successfully interpret macro-level developments in Europe and their impact on Turkey’s regional alignment; the advantages of joining the European Union have steadily declined as the financial crisis has grown more severe.

Simultaneously, the prospect of playing a regional leadership role has grown to outweigh the bit-player role Europe seemed to offer. NATO, of which Turkey is a member, has decreased in strength and influence, permitting the Turkish leadership to exercise greater national autonomy.

It is understandable, then, that the Israelis have reacted to an insistent Turkey with bewilderment. Historically, US influence in both Ankara and Cairo insulated the Israelis from the consequences of their boastful and bellicose self-regard.

Today, however, hegemonic decline means that for the first time in decades Washington cannot rescue Israel’s leaders from their own bad decisions. That reality continues to go unrecognised in Israel, where the leadership persists in making bad decisions.

Last week, for instance, Israeli Major General Eyal Eisenberg threatened the region with “all-out total war“ and the “possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used“ (Israel is the only country in the region with nuclear armaments). More recently, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that Israel ought to arm and support PKK terrorists in Turkey.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are taking action on their own behalf.

The Palestinian observer delegation at the United Nations formally submitted its bid for statehood this week – a move that has long been anticipated by observers. The Americans, who still enjoy defending Israeli belligerence, have promised a veto. Despite that, the vote will result in greater Israeli isolation internationally due to widespread recognition that apartheid is wrong.

Most indications suggest that Israel’s increased global isolation will continue apace. The new Egyptian leadership – no matter who it is comprised of – will continue to object to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. An increasingly assertive Turkey will not be mollified by American entreaties and will continue to apply pressure on behalf of the Palestinians, who will pursue their right to freedom through international forums.

Indeed, the only way for Israel to gain acceptance in the broader Middle East is by ending the occupation. But that is a decision the Israelis don’t appear ready to make.

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American freelance journalist based in Cairo. He was born in the Gaza Strip, Palestine.

Article courtesy English Al Jazeera.net

By Stephen Lendman

Palestinians must use their legal rights for statehood, whether or not Washington or Israel approve.

Palestinians worldwide want it. So do supporters and up to 140 countries. They comprise more than enough to ensure it and full de jure UN membership.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) can petition the General Assembly directly. It has sole admittance power, not the Security Council only able to recommend.

UN Charter Article 80(1) and others empower the General Assembly to recognize Palestinian statehood and take all necessary measures to end Israel’s illegal occupation.

If Washington invokes its Security Council veto, the GA can override it under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377.

The choice is in Mahmoud Abbas’ hands. Later this month, he can either support his own people or don his collaborationist hat. His recent comments and body language suggest the latter, whatever his next moves.

Hopefully enough pressure will push him in the right direction to back long denied recognition and justice for millions deserving more than they’re now getting.

On September 8, Mohamed Elshinnawi headlined his Voice of America article, “Palestinians and UN – Statehood or Stalemate?” saying:

Palestinians seek General Assembly recognition, “but the final vote could fall short of the two-thirds majority required for final passage.”

False! As explained above, up to 140 countries express support, including China, Russia, Brazil, India, Japan, and most others, well more than enough needed for a simple two-thirds majority of voting members. Abstentions and no-shows don’t count.

Abbas is expected to address the General Assembly on September 23 when he’ll submit his request. Law Professor Francis Boyle explains practical membership benefits, saying:

“With admitting the Palestinian state as a full member in the UN, it will be able to file formal state-to-state complaints against Israeli officials….” If it “ratif(ies) the Genocide Convention, (it can) sue Israel at the International Court” for redress.

Theoretically it may be able to halt settlement construction entirely, and automatically make all diaspora Palestinians citizens of a new state they’re free to return to as international law mandates, including Resolution 194’s Article 11, stating:

“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

He said Palestine’s upgraded status would provide a strong incentive for Israel to negotiate in good faith and reach the much promoted two-state solution to end the conflict.

He also argued that statehood would incentivize Israel to negotiate in good faith, to end years of conflict and agree to an equitable two state solution within 1967 borders as Palestinians demand – 22% of sovereign Palestine.

Former Israeli UN ambassador Gabriela Shalev said Israel should understand invoking Resolution 377 is possible. In 1956, when France and Britain vetoed a Security Council resolution, condemning their attack on Egypt, General Assembly members used the measure to override.  Passed in 1950 during the Korean War, it came when Washington wanted power to circumvent Soviet Russia’s Security Council veto power.

It lets the General Assembly recommend various “collective measures,” including sanctions and use of force if permanent Security Council members can’t reach unanimity, and “there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”

Former US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Schifter said General Assembly members involved Resolution 377 in 1981 to advance Namibian independence. It called on member states:

“to render increased and sustained support and material, financial, military and other assistance to the South West Africa People’s Organization to enable it to intensify its struggle for the liberation of Namibia.”

It also urged members to cease “all dealings with South Africa in order totally to isolate it politically, economically, militarily and culturally.”

Why not do the same for Palestine if America invokes its veto. The power is there to be used for long overdue rights too important to kick down the road and delay, even if risk US and Israeli hostility.

Many other allies are supportive, so the power of numbers may compensate, especially for the world’s newest state, millions don’t want to end up stillborn.

On September 9, Ma’an News said Palestinians “on Thursday began a campaign in support of their UN membership bid, as their senior leaders met to fine-tune the plan to become the UN’s 194th member state.”

Abbas met with senior Palestinian representatives including Fatah central committee members, the PLO’s executive committee, and leaders of various Palestinian political parties.

At issue is finalizing details of the likely bid to be submitted to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon later this month.

In Ramallah, a solidarity march to UN headquarters was held to present a letter, requesting his support. Campaign coordinator Ahmed Assaf said:

“Today we began our campaign on the ground and we chose the UN building because it represents the United Nations and we expect them to respond to our demands.”

“We are no less important than the other 193 states in the United Nations, and our message will ask for our state to be 194.”

He added that campaigning for statehood will continue until “Palestine is finally admitted as member state number 194.”

Latifa Abu Hamid, mother of seven sons who spent time in Israeli prisons (Israeli forces killed her eighth one), said:

“I’m delivering this message to the UN to say we have a right to our own state just like everyone else in the world and we have a right to see the end of the occupation.”

The letter called on Ban to “stand by justice and do right by our people.”

“The admission of the state of Palestine to the UN is an important step towards ending the occupation and achieving Palestinian independence and realizing a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.”

“We hope that you will join the international consensus and support the Palestinian bid for its long overdue recognition.”

About 100 marchers chanted, “We want our identity. We want a state.” We want as many supportive states globally as possible.

On September 9, Ban Ki-moon said it. Does he mean it, affirming support for Palestinian statehood, but added that member states must decide.

Washington will invoke its veto. According to State Department spokesman Victoria Noland:

“It is not a surprise that the US will veto the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN in the city of New York. A Palestinian state can only be established through direct peace talks with Israel. So, yes! We are going to use the veto against the Palestinian bid.”

On September 8, New York Times writer Isabel Kershner headlined, “Palestinian Leader Says US Is ‘Too Late’ on UN Bid,” saying:

Abbas said America’s last-ditch efforts “to prevent the Palestinians from applying for membership in the United Nations this month were ‘too late.’ ”

As of now, they’ll petition the Security Council first. If America invokes its veto, General Assembly affirmation will be sought.

However, if the quartet arranges a settlement construction freeze and agreement on using pre-1967 borders based on land swaps, Palestinians “will go to the United Nations and we will return back to talks.”

Israel offered them with no preconditions, meaning they’re stillborn before getting started and worthless.

It’s time to move forward for full recognition, whether or not Washington and Israel approve.

The power of numbers solidly backs what’s long been denied. This time perhaps it’s enough for full recognition by invoking Resolution 377 if necessary.

Article courtesy OpEd News

Turkey’s naval forces would escort Turkish humanitarian aid ships bound for the Gaza Strip, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister has said, following Israel’s refusal to apologise for its deadly raid on an aid flotilla heading to the besieged Palestinian territory in May 2010.

“We have humanitarian aid to be sent there. And our humanitarian aid will not be attacked anymore, as happened to the Mavi Marmara,” he told the Al Jazeera on Thursday.

“Turkish warships will be tasked with protecting the Turkish boats bringing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.”

Israeli commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara, the ship which aimed to break Israel’s naval blockade, and killed nine people – eight Turks and one US citizen of Turkish origin – in international waters, causing a diplomatic row between the two countries.

Erdogan also said that Turkey would closely monitor international waters and had taken steps to prevent what he called Israel’s unilateral exploitation of natural resources in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Responding to Erdogan’s interview, Dan Meridor, Israel’s intelligence minister, told Israel army radio: “These remarks are grave and serious, but we have no wish to add to the polemic.

“It is better to stay quiet and wait – we have no interest in aggravating the situation by replying to such [verbal] attacks.”

Opposition critical

Turkey’s opposition too criticised Erdogan’s comments on Friday.

Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party, said Turkey’s Red Crescent was already sending aid to Gaza without breaching the blockade.

He called on Erdogan to “justify” in parliament the threats to send warships to escort aid ships.

Turkish-Israeli relations hit a low last week after a UN report on the deadly Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship said that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was legitimate but its raid on the flotilla trying to break the blockade was “excessive and unreasonable.”

Turkey has since expelled top Israeli diplomats, cut military ties with the country, pledged to lobby other nations in support of the Palestinians’ statehood bid at the UN in September and promised increased Turkish naval patrols in the Mediterranean.

Israel has expressed regret for the loss of lives aboard the flotilla, but has refused to apologise, saying its forces acted in self-defence.

Turkey, however, is still seeking an apology in order to normalise a relationship once seen as a cornerstone of regional stability.

Article and photo courtesy Al Jazeera

By PCHR

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns the report of the Panel of Inquiry (Palmer Committee) established by the UN Secretary-General to investigate the attack on Mavi Marmara, one of the ships of the Freedom Flotilla, while it was in international waters and headed to the Gaza Strip, carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza’s civilian population. PCHR believes that the Committee prioritized political considerations over the rule of international law and the rights of victims, while legitimizing the policy of collective punishment represented in the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip.

According to unofficial excerpts published by New York Times on 01 September 2011, the report concludes that the naval blockade of Gaza is legal as a matter of international law. Consequently, it does not demand Israel to apologize for the crime it committed against human rights defenders who were attempting to transfer humanitarian aid to Gaza, which left 9 civilians dead and injured at least 50 others. The report considers that Israel used excessive force against the Freedom Flotilla, and urges it to compensate families of the victims. PCHR believes that the recommendations of the report do not commensurate with the crimes it addresses. Forensic medical reports have indicated that the majority of victims were shot several times from short ranges. PCHR reiterates that the attack against Mavi Marmara is a hideous crime, in which excessive and lethal force was used, killing and wounding dozens of international civilian solidarity activists on board on the Freedom Flotilla.

PCHR believes that the Panel of Inquiry, established by UN Secretary-General Mr. Ban Ki-moon on 02 August 2010, which started its mission on 10 August 2010, is purely political, and consequently, its conclusions are purely political. It is not expected to provide legal opinions, like when it claims that the blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza is legal as a matter of international law. The Panel was comprised of Mr. Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, as Chairman; Alvaro Uribe, former Columbian President, as Vice-Chairman; the Israeli Joseph Itzhar, as a member; and the Turkish Sűleyman özdem Sanberk, as a member. Several civil society groups in Columbia and Latin America accuse the Panel’s Vice-Chairman, Alvaro Uribe, of perpetrating serious human rights violations in his country over several years.

PCHR further believes that the Panel of Inquiry lacks professionalism as its conclusions contradict various legal opinions issued by many international legal experts and UN bodies concerned with human right and international humanitarian law, which have all considered that the blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip is illegal and constitutes a form of collective punishment, prohibited under Article 33 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. It is also a war crime, the recurrence of which must be prevented by all parties, including the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. PCHR views the mobility of international humanitarian organizations and human right defenders is logical to break the illegal blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip since mid 2007, when Israel imposed a total siege and closed all border crossings of the Gaza Strip after Gaza International Airport had been completely destroyed in 2000.

In light of the above, PCHR condemns the initial findings concluded by Palmer Committee, which contradict the position of the international community towards the blockade impose on the Gaza Strip, particularly international reports addressing the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the Gaza Strip, including, inter alia, reports of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. The findings of the report of Palmer Committee are also in contradiction with the Goldstone Report prepared by the Inquiry Mission on Gaza Conflict established by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate the Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009, which considered the blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip illegal. They are further in contrast with the legal opinion issued by the ICRC, a preeminent organization for interpreting international humanitarian law, which indicated that the closure policy constitutes a form of collective punishment against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, and an explicit violation of Israel’s obligations under international law.

Accordingly:

1- PCHR totally rejects the findings of the report of Palmer Committee considering it is politicized and disregards for the international law. PCHR calls upon all international organizations to condemn the report, and not to deal with the findings that contradict with international law and human rights standards.

2- PCHR emphasizes that this report will bring more pains and suffering for 1.6 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip under an illegal siege that violates the international humanitarian law and human rights law.

3- Reiterates that the blockade is illegal as it constitutes a violation of international law, as confirmed by the UN bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian Territories, reports of the ICRC and reports of international human rights organizations, including the International Federation for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

4- PCHR calls upon the international community to intensify efforts to stop the policy of collective punishment against the population of the Gaza Strip and lift the blockade that has been imposed for the past five years.

5- PCHR calls for opening an international criminal investigation into this crime based on the available legal evidence and documents, including the forensic medical reports of victims.

6- PCHR supports the move of the Government of Turkey to the International Court of Justice, as the highest international judicial body to consider this crime, and reminds of its Advisory Opinion on the wall in the West Bank issued in July 2004, which considered the siege imposed on the Occupied Palestinian Territory a form of collective punishment prohibited under the international law. PCHR calls upon all States and international organizations to support the Turkish move in this regard.

Article courtesy Palestinian Center for Human Rights

Israel continues attacks on the captive civilian population of Gaza

Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) Press Release

In the early morning of Thursday, 25 August 2011, two Palestinian civilians were killed and 25 others, including 11 children and 7 women, were wounded as Israeli warplanes bombarded a sports club in a densely-populated area in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia.

The attack resulted extensive damages to dozens of neighboring houses and facilities. On Wednesday, 24 August 2011, an elderly farmer and a worker were killed and four civilians were wounded, while three other persons are missing inside a tunnel at the Egyptian border due to an Israeli air strike against the tunnels. These crimes are part of the Israeli military escalation against the Gaza Strip, which started on Thursday 08 August 2011. As a result of such escalation, 17 Palestinians were killed, including two children, and 14 others were wounded by shrapnel and dozens were injured to glass fragments because of attacks. Besides, civilian properties were damaged as a result. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) is gravely concerned over increasing casualties resulting from the Israeli excessive use of force and targeting civilian facilities that are located in densely-populated areas, which reflects disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians and property.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, at approximately 00:05 on Thursday, 25 August 2011, Israeli warplanes launched a missile on al-Salama Sports Club near Beit Lahia project’s market in the northern Gaza Strip. The attack resulted in the full destruction of the 3-storey building; the first floor includes a gym, the second floor includes the administration offices and a multi-use hall, while the third one includes a football and volleyball field established on a 1,000-square-meter area. Additionally, two Palestinian civilians were killed due to the attack, as they were in the garden of an adjacent house belonging to Abdul Rahman Mohammed al-Masri in the northwestern side of the club. The victims are: Salama Abdul Rahman al-Masri, 18, the son of the house’s owner, who died immediately; and Alaa ‘Adnan Mohammed al-Jakhbeer, 22, from Jabalya, who was accompanying al-Masri. Al-Jakhbeer suffered from a hemorrhage in the pelvis because of shrapnel and was transferred to the hospital, but he died two hours later. Additionally, 25 Palestinian civilians, including 11 children and seven women, sustained wounds and bruises due to the falling of smashed glass and stones at them. Moreover, extensive damages were caused to al-Huda Children Complex in Beit Lahia to the north of the club. The Complex established on an area of 1600 square meters consists of a kindergarten and a primary school. Dozens of houses surrounding the Club, three stores and three vehicles were damaged.

On Wednesday, 24 August, IOF killed an elderly famer, Isma’il Nemr Ammoum, 62, from al-Buriej refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. His body was torn apart and had not been found until the evening. Ammoum’s body was transported to al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Hospital in Deir al-Balah, where he was identified. According to investigations conducted by PCHR, Ammoum was working in a farm belonging to al-Khaldi family in the northeast of al-Buriej refugee camp when he was targeted by a missile from an Israeli warplane.

In another crime, at approximately 23:30, the Israeli warplanes launched a missile on al-Brazil neighborhood in the south of the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, targeting a tunnel in the area. As a result, a worker, Hisham ‘Adnan Abdul Razeq Abu Harb, 20, from al-Shaboura refugee camp in Rafah, was killed. Besides, another four persons were wounded, three of whom are workers and the fourth is a member of the National Security Forces. The wounded were transported to Martyr Mohammed Yusef al-Najjar Hospital in the town, where their wounds were described as moderate. The Palestinian Civil Defense declared that three workers were missing in the atragted tunnel.

PCHR condemns IOF’s crimes against the Palestinian civilians, and:

1- Stresses that targeting houses, densely-populated areas and civilian targets reflects IOF’s disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians, and warns of more escalation of crimes against Palestinian civilians and their property in light of statements and threats launched by Israeli political and military leaders, which will bring about more victims in the Gaza Strip;

2- Points out that crimes committed by IOF constitute acts of reprisal and collective punishment in violation of Article 33 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War; and

3- Believes that the failure of the international community, particularly the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to effectively act to stop crimes committed by IOF serves to encourage Israel and IOF to commit more crimes against Palestinian civilians and their property. The legal protection provided by the United States to Israel, and deliberate obstruction of the application of international humanitarian law, in addition to the conspiracy of silence practiced by European States towards crimes committed against Palestinian civilians do not only place Israel above the international humanitarian law, but also encourage it to unrestrictedly commit more crimes against Palestinian civilians.

By Alison Weir

He looks at the camera with bright eyes and the beginning of a smile, wearing a miniature dark blue zipper sweatshirt, the cuffs folded up a bit to make it fit.

I can imagine his mother dressing him that morning, making sure he would be warm enough. I wonder if she’s the one who took the picture. Someone has written on the photo “kisses.”

It’s not a formal picture. He’s outside on a sunny day. It looks like he was probably moving when the picture was snapped; his arms seem to be swinging a little. As with most almost two-year-olds, I suspect it was hard to get him to stay still long enough for a photo.

It’s a happy picture, the kind that makes you smile; perhaps it reminds you of funny, energetic little children you know or remember.

Until you see the next picture. It was taken on his second birthday. His name was Islam Quraiqe.

Death from a drone strike is not pretty. The small body is charred, ripped apart; internal organs are pouring out.

He had been riding with his father and uncle on a motorcycle in Gaza when the missile hit them. His 29-year-old father, a member of the Palestinian resistance, and 32-year-old uncle physician were also killed. Five bystanders, including a woman, were injured.

The missile was fired remotely by an Israeli sitting in front of a video screen and operating one of the many drones that periodically fly over Gaza and shoot Palestinians like fish in a fishbowl. The operators are usually female, the preferred group for this kind of desk job.

The drones, which look like small, pilotless jets, are equipped with precision-guided missiles.

Those operating them receive real-time video feeds from sensors located on the drone: a color nose camera, a TV lens, an infrared camera for low light and night, and a synthetic radar for looking through smoke, clouds, or haze. The cameras produce full-motion video as well as still-frame radar images.

Numerous articles extol the virtues of Israeli drones. An Aug. 17 article by David Rodman reports: “The Israel Air Force (IAF) has a rich history of employing unmanned aerial vehicles in battle with excellent results.” Rodman crows that, with the possible exception of the United States, “Israel is the country most closely identified with [drone] operations in the post-World War II period.”

Islam was the second 2-year-old to be killed by Israeli forces in two days.

The first was killed by an Israeli “precision” rocket the day before. The boy’s name was Malek Sha’at. His father was also killed. The only picture available online is of a small shrouded body.

An article at WorldNetDaily.com by reporter Aaron Klein proclaims that Israeli weapons are “capable of taking out stationary and moving targets with minimal collateral damage.”

Perhaps Klein is right. Two years of life is decidedly minimal. Intolerably so.

Context

During this period (Aug. 18-20, 2011) Israeli forces killed approximately 15 Palestinians, including at least one other child, a 13-year-old, and injured about 60, nine of them children. Gazan resistance forces killed one Israeli and injured about 20. Gazan hospitals, hard hit by the years-long Israeli siege, report that they have run out of 150 medicines and 160 types of medical equipment.

The Israeli assaults were allegedly triggered by attacks, by unknown gunmen on the Egyptian border with Israel, that killed eight Israelis on Thursday, Aug. 18. Israeli forces killed the attackers in Eilat, also shooting dead, according to the BBC, five Egyptian policemen. The Israeli defense minister told Egypt afterward that “Israel regrets the deaths.”

There is no evidence connecting Gazan resistance groups to the attack, and they have denied responsibility for it. Hamas and all the armed factions in Gaza had maintained a unilateral de facto ceasefire since 2009. A handful of small groups, however, have refused to abide by the ceasefire.

Groups in Egypt have periodically taken actions opposing Israel. Egyptian authorities say they have identified three of the attackers, who appear to have been based in the Sinai, there are reports that Israeli intelligence warned of the attack ahead of time, and there is mounting information suggesting that the attackers may have been Egyptian, not Gazan.

While many reports describe the Israeli actions as retaliatory, Israeli attacks on Gaza occur regularly and were already ongoing before the Eilat attack.

Two days earlier, on Tuesday, an Israeli airstrike killed a 29-year-old Palestinian man in the morning, and Israeli ground soldiers killed a disabled teenager later in the day. The youth was shot more than 10 times, mostly in the head. On Wednesday night there were more Israeli air attacks throughout Gaza. (The Los Angeles Times called this a period of “relative calm.”)

Some analysts suggest that the recent Israeli escalation against Gaza may have been prompted, at least in part, by Netanyahu’s desire to deflect energy from the massive social protests that have been enveloping Israel recently.

The death toll among Gazans and Israelis has been notably disproportionate. In Israel’s December-January 2008-2009 “Cast Lead” assault, Israeli forces killed approximately 1,387 Gazans, while resistance forces killed nine Israelis. In the preceding year, Israeli forces killed 713 Gazans, while Gazan resistance fighters killed eight Israelis. Between Cast Lead and the end of July 2011, Israeli forces killed approximately 200 Gazans, while Palestinian resistance groups killed approximately five Israelis.

Most of Gaza’s residents are refugee families who were forcibly pushed out by Israel in its 1947-49 founding war, in which non-Jews, who originally made up over 70 percent of the inhabitants, were expelled.

In violation of international law, they have been prohibited from returning to their homes and have lived under crippling Israeli occupation for decades. Palestinian land is continually confiscated by Israel for Jewish-only use. A popular uprising against Israeli occupation began in the fall of 2000.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Aug. 21: “Those who operate against us will be decapitated.” That night at least 100 Israeli military vehicles stormed into the West Bank city of Hebron, closing the city off for hours and rounding up more than 50 Palestinians, including several academics and members of charitable associations.

On Saturday, Aug. 20, Israeli Aerospace Industries proudly unveiled its latest drone, known as the GHOST, which the company announced “is at the forefront of technology thanks to years of experience and knowledge acquired in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Israel partisan and author David Rodman reports that Israeli drones “played a substantial part” in Israel’s 1982 Lebanon War (in which Israeli forces killed at least 17,825 Lebanese, compared to approximately 368 Israelis killed by the Lebanese resistance) and that their use in what he acknowledges in profound understatement were “asymmetric conflicts” — the 2006 Second Lebanon War (Israeli forces killed at least 1,125 Lebanese, almost all civilians, a third of them children; Lebanese resistance forces killed 164 Israelis, almost three-quarters of them soldiers) and the Cast Lead operation – “sparked renewed global interest in Israeli drone operations.”

Rodman states: “In terms of the technological sophistication of its UAV force, Israel is unquestionably well ahead of the pack. Only the United States is in the same league.”

Article and photo courtesy Alison Weir

Last night, 19 August, more than a dozen Israeli air strikes hit the Gaza Strip, bringing the total killed since Thursday to 15 and approximately 50 injured. Among the killed are three children, ages two, five and 13.

On Friday night an Israeli warplane hit a civilian car, killing a family of three, including a Gazan doctor and his five-year old son.

The spokesperson for Emergency in Gaza, Adham Abu Salmiya told media that Israel is using new kinds of weapons in its most recent attack on the confined coastal enclave. Doctors are reporting that they have seen an increase in amputations and new kinds of injuries.

Maha Elbanna, a Palestinian-American journalist based in Gaza City, told The Palestine Monitor in a phone interview that the images of the wounded are particularly gruesome.

“There is a picture of a teenage girl with shrapnel cuts in her face that are very deep, like I’ve never seen before. I have seen shrapnel wounds before and these are very strange,” Elbanna said.

On Saturday morning, while speaking to The Palestine Monitor, Elbanna said she could hear F16’s flying overhead.

“There is so much damage across Gaza—in the north, south and in Gaza City,” said Elbanna, who also works for the Palestinian Medical Relief Society.

“When I came into the office this morning, most of the building was broken.”

Israel’s most recent onslaught came after eight Israelis were killed in an attack in the south of Israel. The Israeli Ministry of Defense, mirrored closely by Israeli media reports, was quick to claim the source of the attacks was the Gaza Strip. However, as of yet, no evidence has emerged to support this claim.

“So far there is no evidence that anyone in Gaza is responsible for what happened,” Elbanna stressed.

Neither Hamas or the Popular Resistance Committees have claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attacks. Five members of the PRC’s have been murdered in the last two days.

While Israel is claiming to be targeting military bases, its victims are largely civilian.

“This is a campaign that is turning into a massacre and civilian areas are targeted,” Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, the Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative, said.

Spokesperson Abu Salmiya said that Israeli missiles struck a concrete factory, gravely injuring two civilians.

Dr. Barghouthi and doctors from PMRS in the Gaza Strip call upon the international community to demand that Israel cease its indiscriminate attack on the people of Gaza.

Article courtesy Palestine Monitor