“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” – attributed to Mark Twain

by Stuart Littlewood

Meet another of Israel’s undesirables, Yuli Edelstein.

He is the regime’s Propaganda Minister (or to be more precise, Minister for Dis-information and Diaspora) and he runs the biggest lie machine in the world.

His task is to make the Israel ‘brand’ smell sweeter. The reason it stinks, of course, is the regime’s putrid morals and murderous conduct, which the lie machine works overtime to try to justify and excuse. It will always fail. You cannot build a decent brand image on lies, obnoxious behaviour and a massive attitude problem.

Edelstein hit the headlines over Christmas when he told everybody that the Arabs are “a deplorable nation”. He was speaking at a public diplomacy event (incredible as it may seem!) at Yor Yehuda, which I’m told means “light of Juda”.

http://972mag.com/israels-propaganda-minister-arabs-are-a-deplorable-nation/31324/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=01bd01c89f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

He said that “as long as the Arab nation continues to be a deplorable nation, which continues investing in infrastructure for terrorism, education to hate, and welfare for the families of shaheeds [martyrs], there will be no peace.”

The reporter asked Edelstein’s office if the minister was aware that there are some 80 million Arabs in the world, from Sudan to Syria. A spokesman replied: “Yes, there are – and the minister meant them all.”

That’s rich coming from someone whose own position doesn’t bear examination. I understand Edelstein lives in one of Israel’s illegal settlements, Neve Daniel, which is built on stolen Palestinian land in wilful breach of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

“Settlers” is too nice a word for such people. It suggests peaceful pioneers wishing to

integrate with the locals. Israeli “settlers” are anything but. They are aggressive squatters, half a million of them in over 100 illegal colonies – ugly blots on an otherwise lovely landscape. They include gangs of armed delinquents and religious nutters who terrorise local villagers, vandalise their crops, pollute their land and harass their children.  The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power to transfer parts of its own civilian population – and that includes Edelstein and his ministerial colleague the psychopath Avigdor Lieberman – into the territory it occupies. Which leaves these two charmers open to charges of war crimes.

Israel’s hasbara liars verge on the compulsive and pathological. Telling lies is routine; they are in denial of reality; they exaggerate; they come to believe their lies; they have no remorse; and they have no regard for the consequences. Despite this, the Western media lap up anything Tel Aviv’s liars spew out.

Edelstein’s capacity for silliness knows no bounds. When the US demanded that Israel suspend a planned project in East Jerusalem (which is Palestinian territory of course) and revoke planning permission, Ynet News reported Edelstein saying that such a demand to halt construction “proves how dangerous it is to get dragged into talks of a settlement freeze… Such talks will lead to a demand to completely freeze our lives in the entire State of Israel.”

And he let his Stalinist tendencies (Edelstein’s from the Ukraine) get the better of him earlier this year when he wrote to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook demanding the removal of a page that was calling for a third Intifada and had generated nearly 250,000 supporters.

How to do it (a teach-yourself primer)

It goes without saying that Israel’s lie machine has an instruction manual for those it recruits into its vile business. See it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Israel-Projects-2009-Global-Language-Dictionary

The manual’s general thrust is to win over the mass of “persuadables”, primarily in America but also in the UK. The strategy from the start is to isolate democratically-elected Hamas and to rob the resistance movement and the Palestinian people of their human rights. This quote at the beginning sets the tone: “Remember, it’s not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear.”

The lie machine’s top priority: demonise Hamas…

And this is how they try it on…

• “Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an

immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support. Right now, many Americans sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, and that sympathy will increase if you fail to differentiate the people from their leaders.”

• “Draw direct parallels between Israel and America—including the need to defend against terrorism…. The more you focus on the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral. Indeed, Israel is an important American ally in the war against terrorism, and faces many of the same challenges as America in protecting their citizens.”

Note how Israel’s strategy is almost totally dependent on the false idea that they and America are victims of terror and all western nations need to huddle together with Israel for mutual protection. Fortunately, level-headed people are beginning to realize who the terrorists really are.

It is surely obvious by now that allowing parallels to be drawn between Israel and America only serves to increase the world’s hatred of America. US citizens are very belatedly waking up to this, as are British citizens, but many continue to fall ass-over-tit into the trap.

Next, inject with “core values” and repeat over and over and over again…

• “The language of Israel is the language of America: ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘security,’ and ‘peace.’ These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social, and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American.”

If so fluent in this splendid language, why won’t Israel acknowledge their neighbours’ rights to democracy, freedom, security and peace and end their military oppression?

• “A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up and say ‘Hey—this person just might be saying something interesting to me!’ But don’t confuse messages with facts…. ”

Right, never let facts get in the way of a good message!  And, as George Dubya Bush, 43rd US President, said: “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

• “The fight is over IDEOLOGY, not land; terror, not territory. Thus, you must avoid using Israel’s religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews.”

If the fight isn’t about land, why did Israel steal it at gunpoint? And why won’t they give it back when told to repeatedly by the UN?

Then there’s the uncontrollable urge to possess the Holy City…

• “The toughest issue to communicate will be the final resolution of Jerusalem. Americans overwhelmingly want Israel to be in charge of the religious holy sites and are frankly afraid of the consequences should Israel turn over control to the Palestinians. Consider:

# 71% of Americans trust Israel most to protect the holy sites in Jerusalem, compared to 6.1% who trust the Palestinian authority most. 8.5% percent trust neither.

# 54% of Americans believe that “Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty” while just 23.9% believe that ‘Jerusalem should be divided into Israeli controlled and Palestinian controlled areas’.

Given the choice between the two, Americans of all political and demographic stripes trust Israel to protect and have sovereignty over Jerusalem.”

The Old City and east Jerusalem are Palestinian. Nevertheless, “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel,” says prime minister Netanyahu. Israel is in control right now and prevents Muslims and Christians from outside the City visiting the holy places. No way can Israel be trusted.

The UN’s partition plan decreed that Jerusalem should become a ‘corpus separatum’ under international administration. It is unlikely that the UN would wish to see its resolutions torn up or international law re-written for Israel’s sole benefit or to suit America’s misinformed opinion.

Oh, and let’s put the boot into the other demon, Iran…

• “Many on the left see an “Israel v. Palestinian” crisis where Israel is Goliath and

the Palestinians are David. It is critical that they understand that this is an Arab-Israeli crisis and that the force undermining peace is Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You must not call Hamas just Hamas. Call them what they are: Iran-backed Hamas. Indeed, when they know that Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah, they are much more supportive of Israel.”

By the same token we must call the racist regime what it is – US-backed Israel.

The plight of the Palestinians under Israel’s heel was of international concern long before Hamas appeared on the scene. Iran’s support for Hamas is difficult to quantify and probably less than we think. In any case it is peanuts compared to America’s support for Israel.

Hamas, as everyone knows, is an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada. Hezbollah came into being in 1982 in response to US-backed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. So the territorial ambitions of US-backed Israel provoked the rise of both. US-backed Israel’s problem is entirely self-inflicted and shouldn’t concern the rest of us at all.

The lie machine’s propaganda manual is indeed an evil document oozing poison. It shows better than anything else why the Israeli regime can never, never, never be trusted and is therefore no partner for peace.

Edelstein should reflect on how being a fabricator and dealer in lies, and a war criminal too, is about as low a thing as a man can be. But, Israel being Israel, creatures like him and that unprincipled mouthpiece Mark Regev are guaranteed a job.

Stuart Littlewood

29 December 2011

 *******

Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine can now be read on the internet by visiting www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk

Mohamed Khodr

“Liberty, Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name.”

–Madame Roland, French Revolution, on her way to the Guillotine

Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh

Much like Gandhi’s Salt March in India in 1930 the “March of Life” in Yemen began in the besieged bombed southern city of Taiz with tens of thousands of men, women, and children, walking for five days to the northern capitol city of Sana to protest the illegal immunity given the blood and money thirsty tyrant, President Ali Abdullah Saleh by the U.S. – Saudi Plan.

The plan calls for a transfer of power from Saleh to his vice president while he remains in power for three months. Yemen’s population wholeheartedly rejects this appeasing plan. Saleh is a chronic liar who has never lived up to any promise or agreement he’s ever made or signed, much life all of Israel’s prime ministers.

Upon arriving in Sana the peaceful March of Life became the “March of Death”, when the exhausted protesters were met by the murderous Republican Guard led by Saleh’s son, who opened fire on the protesters killing at least 13 and wounding scores of civilians.

In keeping with America’s blind support of Arab dictators, the Jewish American Ambassador to Yemen, Gerald Felerstein, held a press conference at the U.S. Embassy (even prior to the arrival of the March to the capitol Sana) arrogantly and obnoxiously warning that this March “is aimed to cause chaos and violence…it seems to have the intention not to carry out a peaceful march…and will provoke a violent response by the security forces”

These shocking remarks earned the Ambassador and the U.S. the scorn and hatred of the Yemenie population who’ve always known that Saleh is an American mole and puppet.

Like Saleh, President Obama, the Sultan of Drone massacres in the Arab and Muslim world. has betrayed his every promise as well as having shred the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the civil liberties of the American people. He has shown the world that he is a spineless leader who if opposed immediately caves in. A man apparently suffering from an inferiority complex to those in power whether in Corporate America, Congress, the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, special interests, the media; and most especially to Israel that slapped him back into kosher coherence and submissiveness more so than any previous American President.

As a coddler of murderous Arab tyrants he’s been late and conflicted to act courageously and forcefully to support the Arab Spring that seeks freedom from tyranny and free democratic governments.

In an inexplicable slap to American interests in Yemen, Obama has stupidly invited Saleh to come to the U.S. under the pretense of medical treatment; making the U.S. a state that harbors terrorists turning the Bush Doctrine of attacking States that harbor terrorists on its head.

What on earth would prompt Obama to harbor and coddle this terrorist and allow him entry into the United States?

The answer my friend is the alleged “war on terror” that has justified America’s wars and total support of dictators. As long as these tyrants purportedly are fighting a real or imagined anti-American “terror” group, they are free to annihilate their people while keeping their rule and stolen treasures under American protection.

If you kill “them”, you are a U.S. ally, thereby entitled to billions of tax dollars, weapons, international protection, and be hailed as a freedom fighter.

To America, Saleh’s value lies in his alleged fight against “Al Qaeda.”.

Hilary Clinton became the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Yemen in early January 2011, just two weeks prior to the uprising. She outlined the reason behind America’s support for Saleh the murderer.

She said:

“We face a common threat posed by the terrorists and al-Qaeda… I want to be frank about the fact that there are terrorists operating from Yemen’s territory today…stopping these threats would be a priority for any nation, and it is a priority for us.”

Hence, the lives of billions of civilians on this planet are simply collateral damage to western imperialistic thirst and greed for natural resources found under the feet of the dark people, no more so than the oil beneath Arab feet.

America thinks with its guns; not its mind, and certainly not its heart.

Obama should retain some honor and dignity for himself and his country by refusing to allow Yemen’s terrorist, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to enter this nation.

Rather he should refer him to the International Criminal Court for prosecution of his war crimes. But that would mean America truly believes in the sanctity of life, human rights, and justice; virtues belied by its addiction to war and oil.

American can ill afford to lose the Arab and Muslim world due to its blind adoption of Israel’s policies of constant war and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as well as its support of Arab dictators.

Past and future American Presidents in their stupefying short term foreign policy in the Arab/Muslim world will make the prophecy of a “Clash of Civilizations” a reality; and such a conflict can only lead to the demise of the American-Israeli-European imperial hegemony.

President Obama, for the sake of your legacy, America’s national interests, American values of freedom and justice, you must reject Saleh’s entry into this country. He deserves prison not a suite in a New York City Hotel.

*****

Mohamed Khodr is an American Muslim born in the Middle East. He is political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Dear Friends 

In the last several weeks Intifada Palestine website has been attacked by Zionists who want to disrupt us from telling the truth. Zionists are afraid of truth . This is the latest example of their shameful actions on the Social Network Digg to stop us from informing our readers the truth about the Occupation of Palestine.

we are in the fight of our lives with Zionists,  Mainstream Media and sponsors to bring you the truth about the occupation of Palestine  Our goal is to provide a solid Alternative platform to dissect, highlight and broadcast all stories of Palestinian global resistance movements, and struggles for freedom and justice in the Occupied Palestine territories and also those complicit in the crimes against the Palestinian people, that are underplayed or ignored by Mainstream Media. We are also committed to expose the Zionist lobbies control of American policy for the Middle East

The Intifada Palestine  is more determined than ever and will continue the struggle to expose Zionism and report to our readers the daily suffering of the Palestinian People under Zionist  Occupation.

Elias F. Harb

Editor

intifadapalestine@gmail.com

“Shaking off“ is the literal translation of “intifada“.

by Paul Balles

Here’s a story to contemplate:

From a passenger ship, everyone can see a bearded man on a small island. He is shouting and desperately waving his hands.

“Who is it?” a passenger asks the captain.

“I’ve no idea. Every year when we pass, he goes nuts.”

At times I feel like the bearded old man going nuts over the passing ship missing the point.

Previously, I mentioned seven subjects that have been covered up. The taboo topics included:

• The USS Liberty cover-up

• Israel’s nuclear programme

• 9/11 truth seekers discoveries

• Big business corruption

• Bush administration crimes

• Plight of the Palestinians

• Murder by un-manned drones

The last of these seven items has emerged from under wraps following a spate of public criticism over the assassination of an American citizen by a remote controlled drone.

I received several comments and a letter from a reader who indicated a desire to know more about the other topics. She wrote:

“I would love to know more about ‘the obscured issues that deserve more than a passing interest’…Could you please send me the websites so that I can educate myself and get to have an idea of what is really going on.”

In the age of Google and other available research tools, the request came as something of a surprise. It shouldn’t have. Those who regularly use the internet for research often forget that our readers don’t know.

Those who find the internet a treasure trove of answers to almost any question concern ourselves with reliability not availability.

The best brief answer to the question about where to look is to type the whole question into Google.  If the sites that Google brings up don’t appear to answer your question, reword your query.

Another reader wrote, “Yes, these subjects should be investigated but it won’t happen.”

He’s right. Unless those of us who believe they should be investigated keep harping on these issues, they will fade away.

Strangely enough, the assassination question associated with murders by unmanned drones, forced that issue out from undercover.

Fortunately, the legality, the morality and the danger of blowback associated with assassinations reached the public arena.

The plight of the Palestinians has received more than usual attention since the Palestinian Authority decided to petition the UN for more complete recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Forced into a corner by the prospect of becoming a one-state apartheid regime, Netanyahu has now agreed to negotiate all issues related to a two-state solution. He’s buying time with words.

Big business corruption has been garnering the best kind of attention to its self-serving oligarchy by demonstrations now taking place in major cities internationally.

With steadfast attention to their goal and continued marching toward public action that the government has reneged upon, the jobless may have found truly rewarding employment in their protests.

It’s doubtful that the remaining four will elicit enough public attention or support to force action or investigations.

USS Liberty (AGTR-5) The ship Israel couldn't sink and still can't 40+ years later. (courtesy uss-liberty.com)

The USS Liberty cover-up receives occasional attention from veterans or veterans groups who usually have more urgent needs and broader concerns demanding their time and energy.

Israel’s nuclear weapons program will continue under wraps with the US and EU giving no more than occasional lip service to the IAEA, whose findings they ignore.

Too many of the US government’s present staff were also part of the Bush administration for those guilty of war crimes to be prosecuted from the top down.

Despite the plethora of legitimate questions about the 9/11 attacks, the fantasies of some have led to dismissal of all truth seekers as conspiracy theorists.

If going nuts as the ship passes helps, three rescues show promise.

*****************

Paul Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He’s a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the GULF DAILY NEWS . Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Palestinian prisoners associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) began a hunger strike last week on September 27 against conditions imposed on detainees by the zionist regime.

The prisoners are calling for an end to the humiliating treatment and abuse of prisoners, and of those trying to visit them. They are also demanding an end to the solitary confinement of Ahamd Sa’adat, general secretary of the PFLP.

Sa’adat was arrested in January 2002 by Palestinian Authority security at the behest of Israel. He was held without charge or trial at Jericho prison until March 2006, when Israeli forces laid siege to the prison and kidnapped Sa’adat and several comrades.

The zionists eventually tried Sa’adat, convicting him of membership of a prohibited organisation [the PFLP], of holding a post in a prohibited organisation, and of incitement. For these ‘crimes’ he was sentenced to 30 years in December 2008, and has been held in solitary ever since. He has now joined the hunger strike as well.

The Israeli prison regime responded immediately by threatening to increase repression against striking prisoners, by moving them into isolation or to other prisons entirely. This prison transfer tactic has been used frequently by the regime to break up comrades and to disrupt the organisation of resistance within the prison system.

The prisoners answered by announcing that they will escalate their campaign by rejecting all prison orders and refusing to wear their uniforms.

As republicans mark the 30th anniversary of the ending of the 1981 Irish hunger strikes, we in éirígí extend our solidarity to the Palestinian prisoners who have been steadfast in their resistance to the attempts of the zionist regime to subjugate them. We also once more pay tribute to our comrades in the PFLP, who have taken this action for the sake of all prisoners of the Israeli occupation, and for their families and friends as well.

On Wednesday 5th October, éirígí will hold a candlelit vigil in support of the prisoners on hunger strike outside the Israeli embassy, Pembroke Road, Dublin. The vigil will begin at 6.30pm. Bígí linn.

We print below the prisoners’ statement announcing the commencement of the hunger strike.

“We, the comrades of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Zionist prisons and detention centers, declare to the steadfast, struggling brave masses of the Palestinian people and to all free people in the world:

We announce that we will begin an open-ended hunger strike on Tuesday morning, September 27, 2011, in response to the official policies of the Zionist government and its fascist prison administration. We demand our rights and our dignity, as we struggle for the victory of our values and ideals.

Our goals for this hunger strike:

1. End the solitary confinement and isolation of our comrade, General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and the PLO Central Council, Ahmad Sa’adat, Abu Ghassan.
2. End the policy of isolation for all prisoners;
3. End the policy of systematic humiliation by the occupation army against the Palestinian people at checkpoints and crossings, particularly targeting visitors to prisons, and end the arbitrary denial of visits to the prisoners, especially the prisoners from the Gaza Strip. End the humiliation and abuse of prisoners during transfer.

The principles of our revolution include the rejection of all forms of injustice, and for us to struggle and confront the occupier in all areas and places in our own manner. Accordingly, we call upon all of the Palestinian and Arab people, political forces and institutions, human rights and civil society organizations, to raise their voices for us, so that we do not become easy prey for a vicious occupier.

We promise to all of our people, and to the legacy of the martyrs of Palestine, that we will continue on our path until victory.
Great glory to the martyrs …
Victory to the revolution …
Victory is inevitable.”

Click here for previous coverage of the issue of Palestinian prisoners including Video footage from a demo outside the Israeli Embassy in Dublin

Source: eirigisligeach.blogspot.com

Warped “inquiry” invites mega-mischief

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (C) meets with Panel of Inquiry on the Flotilla Incident on the 10 August. [ Image U.N News Centre

 by Stuart Littlewood

“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…  the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.”

That’s the conclusion of the Palmer inquiry, brought to you by that freak-show the United Nations, under its Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

It’s completely at odds with what other experts have said. The UN itself has already accepted that Israel’s blockade is illegal. One of its own fact-finding missions declared that it constituted collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus was illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The action by Israel’s military in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and couldn’t be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations [the right of self-defence]. “No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal”.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights also concluded that the Israeli blockade was illegal. “Due both to the legal nature of Israel’s relationship to Gaza – that of occupier – and the impact of the blockade on the civilian population, amounting to ‘collective punishment’, the blockade cannot be reconciled with the principles of international law, including international humanitarian law… The flotilla did not seek to travel to Israel, let alone ‘attack’ Israel… Israel could have diplomatically engaged Turkey, arranged for a third party to verify there were no weapons onboard and then peacefully guided the vessel to Gaza.”

Craig Murray also knows a thing or two about such matters, having headed the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He was responsible for giving political and legal clearance to Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to enforce the UN authorised blockade against Iraqi weapons shipments. He commented: “Right of free passage is guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas… Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.”

But, he explains, San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict. “Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict… San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”

Furthermore, Security Council resolution 1860 (2009) emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and calls for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”. Israel has imposed a land blockade for decades and until very recently had a hand in keeping Gaza’s land crossing with Egypt closed. The 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is also ignored. So the only sensible channel for “unimpeded provision and distribution” is by sea.

Panel “cannot make definitive findings”

The Terms of Reference for the inquiry handed down by Ban Ki-Moon set out a ‘method of work’, which is described in the report this way…

“The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability…

“The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States….  the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. The information for the Panel’s work came primarily through its interactions with the Points of Contact designated by Israel and Turkey.”

So it could not summon individuals or approach individuals or organizations direct. It could only do so through the Points of Contact designated by Israel and Turkey.

“The legal views of Israel and Turkey are no more authoritative or definitive than our own. A Commission of Inquiry is not a court any more than the Panel is. The findings of a Commission of Inquiry bind no one, unlike those of a court. So the legal issues at large in this matter have not been authoritatively determined by the two States involved and neither can they be by the Panel.”

The 4-man panel included a representative each from the governments of Turkey and Israel, and was headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer (Chair) and Alvaro Uribe, 58th president of Colombia. Palmer was the 33rd prime minister of New Zealand if that’s any consolation.

Note the absence of anyone to represent the views of the party targeted by the blockade. Ban Ki-Moon didn’t think it necessary to invite someone from (horror of horrors) the government of Gaza. Can you imagine, if the tables were turned, the merry hell Israel would kick up if not represented on an inquiry about the legality of a blockade on one of its ports?

Limited to this, couldn’t do that… Ban Ki-Moon’s inquiry was warped from the start. “This Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique,” says the report, slitting its own throat.

Key passages from Palmer’s nonsensical 105 pages speak for themselves:

“The naval blockade is often discussed in tandem with the Israeli restrictions on the land crossings to Gaza. However, in the Panel’s view, these are in fact two distinct concepts… the land crossings policy has been in place since long before the naval blockade was instituted. In particular, the tightening of border controls between Gaza and Israel came about after the take-over of Hamas in Gaza in June 2007. On the other hand, the naval blockade was imposed more than a year later, in January 2009. Second, Israel has always kept its policies on the land crossings separate from the naval blockade. The land restrictions have fluctuated in intensity over time but the naval blockade has not been altered since its imposition. Third, the naval blockade as a distinct legal measure was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods.

“Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks…. Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated. In addition, there have been substantial material losses. The purpose of these acts of violence, which have been repeatedly condemned by the international community, has been to do damage to the population of Israel. It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.”

Did they never consider the most obvious step of all – ending their illegal occupation?

“The Israeli report to the Panel makes it clear that the naval blockade as a measure of the use of force was adopted for the purpose of defending its territory and population, and the Panel accepts that was the case.

“Although a blockade by definition imposes a restriction on all maritime traffic… the Panel is not persuaded that the naval blockade was a disproportionate measure for Israel to have taken in response to the threat it faced.

“The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory.”

What about Gaza’s right to similarly defend its territory and population? It sounds like the Panel regards Gaza and the West Bank as the aggressor.

“It would be illegal if its imposition [i.e. the blockade] was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise. On the contrary, it is evident that Israel had a military objective. The stated primary objective of the naval blockade was for security. It was to prevent weapons, ammunition, military supplies and people from entering Gaza and to stop Hamas operatives sailing away from Gaza with vessels filled with explosives… The earliest maritime interception operations to prevent weapons smuggling to Gaza predated the 2007 take-over of Hamas in Gaza. The actual naval blockade was imposed more than one year after that event. These factors alone indicate it was not imposed to punish its citizens for the election of Hamas.”

 A catalogue of distortion

There are several things wrong with these assertions. Israel’s unending acts of violence have also been repeatedly condemned by the international community and there’s a string of UN resolutions to prove it. But they are never implemented.

Israel slapped a naval blockade on Gaza long before January 2009. Israeli gunboats were shelling Gaza and shooting up Gazan fishing boats in 2007 when I was there. An Interim Agreement signed in 1995 allowed the Israelis to weave a tangled web of security zoning in Gaza’s coastal waters and to dictate what happens off-shore and who comes and goes. It’s the sort of agreement no Palestinian would have signed except with a gun to his head.

Being “interim” these restrictions were not expected to last beyond 1999. But they are still in force. They predate rockets from Gaza, speaking of which why doesn’t Palmer, instead of trotting out details of these home-made missiles, tell us how many Israeli bombs, rockets, shells and prohibited ordnance have been fired at the Gazan population by Israeli jets, tanks and warships? Palmer talks about the 25 Israeli deaths and hundreds of injuries and “the enormity of the psychological toll” on the Israeli population. Regrettable as those casualties are, they are nothing compared with the mega-deaths and countless thousands maimed, the wholesale destruction of infrastructure and the psychological toll inflicted by Israel on the Gazans.

The people of Gaza couldn’t care less whether Israel keeps its policies on land and naval blockades “separate”. It’s the combined effect that counts.

As for the claim that the primary purpose of the blockade is security, the Panel clearly hasn’t studied the Wikileaks cables from 2008, one of which reads: “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.” Israel wanted it “functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”.

And according to documents released under a Freedom of Information petition by Gisha, an Israeli law centre, Israel operated “a policy of deliberate reduction” of basic goods in the Gaza Strip. Gisha’s director accused Israel of “paralyzing normal life in Gaza”. The documents confirmed that the siege was not for security reasons but aimed at keeping Gazans at near-starvation level. Since around half the population are growing children this act of collective punishment has meant that hundreds of thousands are undernourished.

The Panel might have asked why, since no rockets have been fired from the West Bank, the shredded remains of that part of Palestinian territory is still under occupation, blockade and cruel restriction?

Palmer, Uribe and Ban Ki-Moon need to wake up to Israel’s never-ending campaign of disinformation. Palmer for example repeatedly refers to “the takeover of Gaza” by Hamas when Hamas, as everyone else knows, was democratically elected.

“It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles into Israel or is permitting others to do so.  The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside its territory.”

There’s nothing about Gaza’s right to self-defence or even self-preservation. Then this warning…

“Once a blockade has been lawfully established, it needs to be understood that the blockading power can attack any vessel breaching the blockade if after prior warning the vessel intentionally and clearly refuses to stop or intentionally and clearly resists visit, search or capture. There is no right within those rules to breach a lawful blockade as a right of protest. Breaching a blockade is therefore a serious step involving the risk of death or injury.

“Given that risk, it is in the interests of the international community to actively discourage attempts to breach a lawfully imposed blockade.

“The imposition of a blockade involves the use of force, which can only be employed in the exercise of a right of self-defence. Measures taken by States in the exercise of their right of self-defence are required under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to be notified to the Security Council.”

 Occupier is the victim of resistance?

So Palmer’s bizarre re-framing of the situation – that the illegal occupier Israel is the victim of the Palestinians’ lawful resistance and that Israel’s security must be given priority over everyone else’s – will have given Tel Aviv something to smirk about. Worse, it gives Israel and its stooges around the world reason to think they have a green light for imposing a permanent blockade, for Israel will always dream up bogus threats to its security.

But the Palmer report, surely, cuts both ways. By the same token it gives the green light to Palestine, if ever it obtains the weaponry to impose a blockade of its own, and to Lebanon, Syria, Iran and maybe Free Egypt to play the naval blockade game against Israel, whose unsupervised nuclear arsenal, scant respect for international law and liking for armed trespass pose a much greater threat to the region than random garden-shed rockets from Gaza ever did.

And what does this whitewash mean for the Palestinians’ UN bid for statehood? Is the newly fledged state to begin its young life with a land and sea blockade in place because Palmer and Uribe say it’s all legal and above-board and Israel’s security comes first? Let us not forget that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under blockade too.

The Turkish representative on the panel, Mr. Süleyman Özdem Sanberk, has rightly dissociated himself from some of Palmer’s key ‘findings’: “On the legal aspect of the blockade, Turkey and Israel have submitted two opposing arguments. International legal authorities are divided on the matter since it is unprecedented, highly complex and the legal framework lacks codification. However, the Chairmanship and its report fully associated itself with Israel and categorically dismissed the views of the other, despite the fact that the legal arguments presented by Turkey have been supported by the vast majority of the international community. Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful.

“Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful. The Report of the Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission received widespread approval from the member states.

“Freedom and safety of navigation on the high seas is a universally accepted rule of international law. There can be no exception from this long-standing principle unless there is a universal convergence of views.”

The Palmer report deserves condemnation and is getting it. Such dangerous tripe belongs in the wastepaper basket. At the outset the inquiry Panel said it couldn’t make definitive findings and was not competent to determine the legal issues, yet it immediately set about concocting its own distorted judgement based especially on the dubious legal views of Israel, which it admitted are “no more authoritative or definitive than our own”.

So what is the Secretary-General’s mischievous game in setting this up?

As if we didn’t know…

Stuart Littlewood

5 September 2011

**********************

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation.

************************************************************

SEE ALSO:

Prof. Richard Falk

INTIFADA – EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – With Richard Falk  -  The Shock Resulting from Flotilla Attack has Reinforced the Campaign to de-Legitimize Israel

Five months into the bombing campaign, it is no longer possible to believe the initial official version of the events and the massacres attributed to the “Gaddafi regime”. Moreover, it is now essential to take into account Libya’s legal and diplomatic rebuttal, highlighting the crimes against peace committed by television propaganda, the war crimes perpetrated by NATO military forces, and the crimes against humanity sponsored by political leaders of the Atlantic Alliance.

by Thierry Meyssan / Voltairenet.org

Just under half of Europeans still support the war against Libya. Their position is based on erroneous information. They still believe, in fact, that in February the “Gaddafi regime” crushed the protests in Benghazi with brutal force and bombed civilian districts in Tripoli, while the Colonel himself was warning of “rivers of blood” if his compatriots continued to challenge his authority.

During my two months’ investigation on the ground, I was able to verify that these accusations were pure propaganda intoxication, designed by the NATO powers to create the conditions for war, and relayed around the world by their television media, in particular Al-Jazeera, CNN, BBC and France24.

However, the reader who doesn’t know where he stands on this issue and who – despite the brainwashing of September 11 and Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – is reluctant to accept that the United States, France, the UK and Qatar were actually capable of fabricating such lies, will be able to forge an opinion over time. NATO, the largest military coalition in history, has failed after five months of bombardments to overthrow the one it designated as a “tyrant.” Every Friday, a large demonstration in support of the regime is organized in a different city and all experts are unanimous in considering that Colonel Gaddafi enjoys at least 90% of popular support in Tripolitania and 70% across the entire country, including the “rebel” areas. These are people who every single day put up with the blockade, aerial bombardments and ground fighting. Never would they be defending with their flesh and blood someone who committed against them the crimes of which he has been accused by the “international community.” The difference between those in the West who believe that Gaddafi is a tyrant who fired on his own people, and those in Libya who believe that he is a hero of the anti-imperialist struggle, is that the former live in an illusion created by TV propaganda, whereas the others are exposed to the concrete reality on the ground.

That said, there is a second illusion to which the West has succumbed – and in the “Western” camp I now include not only Israel, where it has always claimed to belong, but also the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Turkey which, though of Eastern culture, have chosen to embrace it -, the illusion to think that it is still possible to devastate a country and kill its people without legal consequences. It is true that, until now, international justice has been the justice of the victors or the powerful. One may recall the Nazi official who heckled the judges at Nuremberg telling them that if the Reich had won the war, the judges would have been the Nazis while those held accountable for the war crimes would have been the Allies.

More recently, we saw how NATO used the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to try to justify post facto that the war in Kosovo was “the first humanitarian war in History,” according to the expression employed by Tony Blair. Or again, how the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was used in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government, then to decapitate the Lebanese Hezbollah, and probably soon to accuse the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Not to mention, the International Criminal Court, the secular arm of the European colonial powers in Africa.

However, the development of instruments and organs of international justice throughout the twentieth century has gradually established an international order with which the superpowers themselves will have to comply or which they will have to sabotage in order to escape their responsibilities. In the case of Libya, the violations of international law are countless. The main ones, presented below, were established by the Provisional Technical Committee, a Libyan ministerial coordination organ, and expounded at various press conferences by the legal adviser to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, French attorney Marcel Ceccaldi [1].

TV channels which, under the leadership of their respective Governments, have manufactured false information to lead to war, are guilty of “crimes against peace“, as defined by the relevant UN General Assembly resolutions in the aftermath of World War II [2]. The journalist-propagandists should be considered even more culpable than the military who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity, to the extent that none of these crimes would have been possible without the one that preceded them: the “crime against peace.”

The political leaders of the Atlantic Alliance, who diverted the object and purpose of Resolution 1973 to engage in a war of aggression against a sovereign state, are personally responsible before international justice. Indeed, according to the jurisprudence established by the Tokyo Court following the Second World War, crimes cannot be ascribed to either States or organizations, but to individuals. Plundering the assets of a state, establishing a naval blockade and bombing infrastructure to cause people to suffer, attacking an army inside its barracks and ordering the assassination of enemy leaders or, failing this, terrorizing them by murdering their families, all amount to war crimes. Their systematic perpetration, as is the case today, constitutes a crime against humanity. This crime is imprescriptible, which means that Messrs. Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Al-Thani will be pursued by the law for the rest of their lives.

NATO, as an organization, is legally responsible for the material and human damage of this war. The law leaves no room for doubt that the organization must pay, even though it will surely try to invoke a privilege of jurisdiction to dodge its responsibilities. It will be up to the Alliance to decide how the bill for the conflict should be split among Member States, even though some of them may be on the verge of bankruptcy. This will be followed by disastrous economic consequences for their peoples, guilty of having endorsed such crimes. In a democracy, no one can claim to be innocent of the crimes committed in its name.

International justice will have to address more specifically the case of the Sarkozy “administration” – I use this Anglicism here to underscore the fact that the French president has been piloting his Government’s policy directly, without going through his prime minister. Indeed, France has played a central role in preparing for this war since October 2010 by organizing a failed military coup and then, as early as November 2010, by planning with the United Kingdom the bombing of Libya and the landing of ground troops on its soil, which was then believed to be feasible, and finally by actively conspiring in the lethal unrest in Benghazi which led to the war.

In addition, France, more than any other power, has deployed Special Forces on the ground – without uniforms, no doubt – and violated the arms embargo by supplying the insurgents, either directly or through Qatari airplanes. Not to mention that France has violated the UN freeze of Libyan assets, funnelling part of the fabulous cash from the Libyan Sovereign Fund to the CNT puppets, to the detriment of the Libyan people who wanted to guarantee the well-being of their children in the face of oil depletion.

These gentlemen from NATO, who hoped to escape international justice by crushing their victim, Libya, in a few short days so that it would not survive to pursue them, will be disenchanted. Libya is still there. She is filing complaints with the International Criminal Court, the Belgian courts (whose jurisdiction NATO falls under), the European Court of Justice, and the national courts of aggressor states. She is undertaking steps before the Council of Human Rights in Geneva, the Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations. It will be not be possible for the big powers to extinguish these fires all at once. Worse, the arguments they will use to evade a court will ricochet against them in another court. In a few weeks or months, if they have not succeeded in destroying Tripoli, they will have no other way out to avoid humiliating convictions than to negotiate the withdrawal of the complaints at a very high price.

Thierry Meyssan

[1] Putting an end to the confusion that prevailed at the beginning of the war when various departments hired lawyers for different disorderly proceedings, Libya has appointed Marcel Ceccaldi in July to oversee all proceedings.

[2] “Journalists who engage in war propaganda must be held accountable”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 16 August 2011.

 ******************

Thierry Meyssan, French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English :9/11 the Big LiePentagate

by Franklin Lamb

RussiaToday on Jul 15, 2011

The U.S., along with more than 30 other nations, has decided to recognize Libya’s rebels as the legitimate government of the country. The Libyan Contact Group, convening in Turkey, has also urged Colonel Gaddafi to give up power. Dr. Franklin Lamb – a director of an organisation called Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace – says it’s just another dangerous case of the U.S. misjudging an ally.

Source: Dandelion Salad

by Uri Avnery

IT WAS all rather disgusting.

There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu.

It was worse than the Syrian parliament during a speech by Bashar Assad, where anyone not applauding could find himself in prison. Or Stalin’s Supreme Soviet, when showing less than sufficient respect could have meant death.

What the American Senators and Congressmen feared was a fate worse than death. Anyone remaining seated or not applauding wildly enough could have been caught on camera – and that amounts to political suicide. It was enough for one single congressman to rise and applaud, and all the others had to follow suit. Who would dare not to?

The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one.

The most depressing part of it was that there was not a single lawmaker – Republican or Democrat – who dared to resist. When I was a 9 year old boy in Germany, I dared to leave my right arm hanging by my side when all my schoolmates raised theirs in the Nazi salute and sang Hitler’s anthem. Is there no one in Washington DC who has that simple courage? Is it really Washington IOT – Israel Occupied Territory – as the anti-Semites assert?

Many years ago I visited the Senate hall and was introduced to the leading Senators of the time. I was profoundly shocked. After being brought up in deep respect for the Senate of the United States, the country of Jefferson and Lincoln, I was faced with a bunch of pompous asses, many of them nincompoops who had not the slightest idea what they were talking about. I was told that it was their assistants who really understood matters.

SO WHAT did the great man say to this august body?

It was a finely crafted speech, using all the standard tricks of the trade – the dramatic pause, the raised finger, the little witticisms, the sentences repeated for effect. Not a great orator, by any means, no Winston Churchill, but good enough for this audience and this occasion.

But the message could be summed up in one word: No.

After their disastrous debacle in 1967, the leaders of the Arab world met in Khartoum and adopted the famous Three No’s: NO recognition of Israel, No [] negotiation with Israel, NO peace with Israel. It was just what the Israeli leadership wanted. They could go happily about their business of entrenching the occupation and building settlements.

Now Netanyahu is having his Khartoum. NO return to the 1967 borders. NO Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. NO to even a symbolic return of some refugees. NO military withdrawal from the Jordan River – meaning that the future Palestinian state would be completely surrounded by the Israeli armed forces. NO negotiation with a Palestinian government “supported” by Hamas, even if there are no Hamas members in the government itself. And so on – NO. NO. NO.

The aim is clearly to make sure that no Palestinian leader could even dream of entering negotiations, even in the unlikely event that he were ready to meet yet another condition: to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” – which includes the dozens of Jewish Senators and Congressmen who were the first to jump up and down, up and down, like so many marionettes.

Netanyahu, along with his associates and political bedfellows, is determined to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by all and any means. That did not start with the present government – it is an aim deeply embedded in Zionist ideology and practice. The founders of the movement set the course, David Ben-Gurion acted to implement it in 1948, in collusion with King Abdallah of Jordan. Netanyahu is just adding his bit.

“No Palestinian state” means: no peace, not now, not ever. Everything else is, as the Americans say, baloney. All the pious phrases about happiness for our children, prosperity for the Palestinians, peace with the entire Arab world, a bright future for all, are just that – pure baloney. At least some in the audience must have noticed that, even with all that jumping.

NETANYAHU SPAT in Obama’s eye. The Republicans in the audience must have enjoyed that. Perhaps some Democrats too.

It can be assumed that Obama did not. So what will he do now?

There is a Jewish joke about a hungry pauper who entered an inn and demanded food. Otherwise, he threatened, he would do what his father did. The frightened innkeeper fed him, and in the end asked timidly: “But what did your father do?” Swallowing the last morsel, the man answered: “He went to sleep hungry.”

There is a good chance that Obama will do the same. He will pretend that the spittle on his cheek is rainwater. His promise to prevent a UN General Assembly recognition of the State of Palestine deprived him of his main leverage over Netanyahu.

Somebody in Washington seems to be floating the idea of Obama coming to Jerusalem and addressing the Knesset. It would be direct retaliation – Obama talking with the Israeli public over the head of the Prime Minister, as Netanyahu has just addressed the American public over the head of the President.

It would be an exciting event. As a former Member of the Knesset, I would be invited. But I would not advise it. I proposed it a year ago. Today I would not.

The obvious precedent is Anwar Sadat’s historic speech in the Knesset. But there is really no comparison. Egypt and Israel were still officially at war. Going to the capital of the enemy was without precedent, the more so only four years after a bloody battle. It was an act that shook Israel, eliminating in one stroke a whole set of mental patterns and opening the mind for new ones. Not one of us will ever forget the moment when the door of the airplane swung open and there he was, handsome and serene, the leader of the enemy.

Later, when I interviewed Sadat at his home, I told him: “I live on the main street of Tel Aviv. When you came out of that plane, I looked out of the window. Nothing moved in the street, except one cat – and it was probably looking for a television set.”

A visit by Obama will be quite different. He will, of course, be received politely – without the obsessive jumping and clapping – though probably heckled by Knesset Members of the extreme Right. But that will be all.

Sadat’s visit was a deed in itself. Not so a visit by Obama. He will not shake Israeli public opinion, unless he comes with a concrete plan of action – a detailed peace plan, with a detailed timetable, backed by a clear determination to see it through, whatever the political cost.

Another nice speech, however beautifully phrased, just will not do. After this week’s deluge of speeches, we have had enough. Speeches can be important if they accompany actions, but they are no substitute for action. Churchill’s speeches helped to shape history – but only because they reflected historic deeds. Without the Battle of Britain, without Normandy, without El Alamein, those speeches would have sounded ridiculous.

Now, with all the roads blocked, there remains only one path remains open: the recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations coupled with nonviolent mass action by the Palestinian people against the occupation. The Israeli peace forces will also play their part, because the fate of Israel depends on peace as much as the fate of Palestine.

Sure, the US will try to obstruct, and Congress will jump up and down, But the Israeli-Palestinian spring is on its way.

__________________________________

Uri Avnery is peace activist, journalist, writer, founding member, Gush Shalom (peace bloc), independent peace movement (1993) former publisher and editor-in-chief, Haolam Hazeh news magazine (1950-1990) former member of the Knesset (three terms: 1965-1969, 1969-1973, 1979-1981) founding member, Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (1975).  He is famous for crossing the lines during the Battle of Beirut to meet Yassir Arafat on 3 July 1982, the first time the Palestinian leader ever met with an Israeli. Avnery is the author of several books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including 1948: A Soldier’s Tale, the Bloody Road to Jerusalem (2008); Israel’s Vicious Circle (2008); and My Friend, the Enemy (1986).

Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman Meets MPs from Europe and Britain

FRANKLIN LAMB / Al Manar

The Palestinian Return Centre (PRC), in partnership with the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) sponsored a delegation of British  and EU MEPs to the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon several weeks ago and the 10 member delegation has just released their findings.

It was a quick 48-hour trip filled with tightly scheduled briefing, mainly from Lebanese politicians, including President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister designate Najib Miqati as well as UNRWA officials, some Palestinian civil society organizations. In addition, the delegation visited refugees in Burj  Barajneh, Nahr al Bared and Shatila Refugee camps.

Sir Gerald Kaufman

Sir Gerald Kaufman, MP, who led the delegation, told the Lebanese media:

“When I went to Gaza in 2010 I thought I had seen the worst that could be seen of the appalling predicament of Palestinians living in conditions which no human being should be expected to endure. But what I saw in the camps in Lebanon is far worse and far more hopeless.”

From the Lebanese politicians, the visitors like other delegations before them, heard basically the same vague support for Palestinian civil rights that they have been repeating for more than 20 years.

Typical were the words of Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman who explained to the delegation that: “Lebanon does not have the capacity to absorb 400,000 people; we simply cannot offer them a good life. The truth is that we will not see peace in the Middle East without the implementation of the refugees’ right of return.”

Of course the Lebanese Presidents presentation obscures the central issue almost completely.  Suleiman’s 400,000 Palestinian refugees, is a bit more accurate than some other politicians who use the scare tactic bogey figure of 500,000.  In fact there are close to 250,000 Palestinians remaining in Lebanon and they are not seeking to be “absorbed” or even presented by Lebanon with “a good life”, as Suleiman and others mistakenly and regularly aver.  All they and the international community demand is that Lebanon’s Palestinian refugees be granted the elementary civil rights that all refugees everywhere are entitled to.  Most urgently, the right to work and to own a home.

Pm Hariri and PM designate Milkati meet European and British Mp’s

The Lebanese politicians are correct that it’s also an international problem and Lebanon has never been asked to shoulder the whole burden, but rather to do its part by granting the internationally mandated elementary civil rights.  For the past 63 years Lebanon has shirked its duty.

Almost without exception the brief  Lebanese presentations included ‘escape clauses’  absolving one or another of the 18 Lebanese confessions from responsibility and explaining why the particular party represented in the briefing really wanted to alleviate the “Perpetual Hell” of the quarter million Palestinian refugees packed into 12 “official camps”  and twice that many informal “gatherings.”  But, as they explained to their guests, there exists a laundry list of reasons why the simple act of allowing Palestinians in Lebanon the full right to work and to own a home should not be expected anytime soon.

The Parliamentary delegation heard nothing that countless visitors have not heard before. But the importance of their visit was that they came at all, learned quickly about many more details of this human tragedy and what needs to be done than they explained they were previously unaware of, and that to a member, they vowed to do something about it upon return to their countries.

As British journalist and photographer, Stuart Littlewood reminds us, the  delegations report once more shines light on binding international treaties and conventions that recognize the right to return, including the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the  International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the  International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

The right of return for refugees is guaranteed under Humanitarian and Human Rights Law including international customary law with incorporates the 1952 Refugee Convention even though Lebanon has to date declined to sign it. Also applicable to granting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon elementary civil rights are countless UN resolutions.

The members of the delegation pledged that they will work with their governments to assist Lebanon with granting the internationally mandated civil right to work and to own a home.

The European MP’s visit was refreshing and a welcome break from the stream of American officials and Congressman who visit Lebanon without visiting Palestinian camps and whose main work recently has been to threaten Lebanese politicians to tow the US line and oppose the Lebanese national resistance while being ever vigilant not to antagonize Israel.  The delegation made clear that Israel is the main culprit that caused today’s humanitarian crisis but Lebanon’s new government, when formed, must act without further delay to grant civil rights to her refugees.

The Parliamentary delegation made the following findings of fact”

• The Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are victims many times over and they are still denied access to their homeland.
• They are the victims of Lebanon’s civil wars and the numerous Israeli
  invasions and occupation.
• They are victims of the unwillingness of the international community to
  secure justice and the unwillingness of the Lebanese authorities to grant
  them their basic human rights.

Among the delegations recommendations relevant to Lebanon, and which are nearly identical to the findings of more than two dozen workshops and conferences and three dozen studies of the subject over the past two decades:

• The international community, including Israel, is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of Palestinian refugees and providing them with protection.
• While Lebanon and many members of the United Nations offer appropriate
  rhetoric, this must be matched with concrete steps to tangibly improve the lives of the refugees in Lebanon and put an end to the catastrophic conditions in which they live.
• An appropriate solution is needed that restores and protects the human rights of the refugees, including their right to return to their land.
• In Lebanon, Palestinian refugees have a status that falls far short of even second class citizenship. This should be corrected without delay.
• As Israel has shown no inclination to respect the rights of Palestinian refugees under international law, it is incumbent on the international community to enforce a resolution.
• The European Union and its member states, including the United Kingdom, should significantly increase their funding to UNRWA to allow the agency to fulfill its remit.
• Negotiators, politicians and activists should ensure that Palestinian refugees remain at the center of all peace talks.
• Lebanon’s position on the refugees is woefully inadequate. The 17th August 2010 law should be implemented immediately as a first step to normalizing the lives of Palestinian refugees by improving human, civil and property rights and lifting restrictions on the professions available to Palestinians.

On housing, all restrictions that limit the right to adequate housing for Palestinians should be removed, including any legislation that discriminates against Palestinians who are not officially citizens of a recognized state. A degree of security of tenure should be guaranteed and restrictions on bringing building materials into refugee camps should be removed, including the fines or penalties imposed on Palestinians for attempting to make their homes habitable.

As regards the environment, minimum levels of sanitation and access to clean water for all Palestinian refugees should be ensured.

As regards employment, restrictions on Palestinian access to all professions should be
lifted and the process of obtaining work permits eased.

As regards education, Lebanon should ensure that all children under its jurisdiction have access to education equal to that enjoyed by Lebanese nationals.

As regards non-ID refugees, their status in Lebanon should be regularized and refugees provided with identification documents.

With the new incoming government there is every reason, opportunity and ability for Lebanon to meet its obligations and earn the respect of all countries and people of good will.  Against the backdrop of the great Arab Awakening of 2011,  Lebanon can also help propel their unwanted guests back to their own country, Palestine.

Palestinian Refugee Camps in Lebanon

Lebanon needs the help of human rights activist worldwide, including the hundreds of bloggers who write eloquently on the subject without really affecting the lives of those who most need their solidarity and support. If these activists would become involved with the issue of Palestinian civil rights in Lebanon in their countries by urging their governments to insist that Lebanon apply international humanitarian laws to Palestinian refugees who today remain forced to live in seemingly interminable misery, this problem can be solved without more delay.

_________________________

Franklin Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com.