An Israeli solider shoot and kill Mustafa Tamimi at near point-blank range with a tear-gas canister to the face.

There is a famous scene in Mary Shelley's classic where Victor Frankenstein realises that he created a monster and that this monster might be the end of him. Such is the scene that comes to mind when thinking about the news emerging from the occupied West Bank in recent days. Israeli settlers, living in illegal colonies in Palestinian territory, rioted again. This time, however, they did not go after their usual target - Palestinian civilians - rather, they raided an Israeli military base where they injured an Israeli soldier.

Suddenly, the Israeli government sprang into action. An emergency meeting of the Israeli cabinet was called. Officials - Israeli officials - even began to use the term "terrorist" to describe the perpetrators.

Just a day earlier, Israeli settlers from the Settlement of Yitzhar raided the Palestinian village of Asira al-Qibliya, causing damage to property and terrifying residents. Also, in the past week alone, three different Palestinian mosques in Ramallah, Salfit and Jerusalem suffered arson attacks at the hands of Israeli settlers.

These sorts of attacks against Palestinians are a regular occurrence. Arsons, stonings, destruction of property, shootings, physical attacks and harassment are but a few of the daily occurring categories we have kept track of in the Palestine Centre's Settler Violence database. In 2011 there have been a record number of violent settler attacks. In fact, in each of the previous five years, settler violence has increased from one year to the next.

Despite this undeniable fact, the Israeli government has done little to crack down on this type of violence. The main reason why settler violence has been able to increase, year after year, is because the settlers continue to feel emboldened when their attacks against Palestinian civilians go undeterred.

The Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three geographic areas. In Area A, in which most Palestinian urban centres fall, the Palestinian Authority is responsible for security (although the Israelis routinely enter Area A at will) but in Areas B and C, which comprise over 80 per cent of the territory, it is the Israelis which are responsible for security. This means Palestinian police are not permitted to protect Palestinian civilians from Israeli settlers in most of the West Bank. The problem is, of course, that the Israelis are not doing this job either and so it should come as no surprise that 95 per cent of settler violence occurs in Areas B and C.

Often the Israeli Army turns the other way when Israeli settlers attack Palestinians. In some cases caught on video, Israeli soldiers stand idly by while settlers rampage. In other cases, like the one earlier this year in Qusra, the Israeli army intervenes to protect settlers once they've started altercations with villagers. That is how Isam Oudeh was killed - defending his own village - in September.

Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli state's failure to adequately respond to it highlight an important aspect of the Israeli occupation's Apartheid-like policies. The Israeli Human Rights Organisation B'Tselem documented 835 cases of Palestinian minors being arrested for stone-throwing from 2005-2010. Of these, 99.88 per cent were convicted in military trials. There have been hundreds of stone-throwing attacks by Israeli settlers in 2011 alone, yet few are ever arrested - let alone convicted - and throwing stones is among the least of their crimes.

Last week, a 28-year-old Palestinian named Mustafa Tamimi in the village of Nabi Saleh was protesting the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and particularly the confiscation of land and water resources belonging to his village. These had been taken by the neighbouring Israeli settlement of Halamish with the support of the Israeli military.

Tamimi was shot and killed at near point-blank range with a tear-gas canister to the face.

For years, the Israeli military that governs the West Bank and the state that directs it have supported deplorable policies to repress protesters like Tamimi, who oppose settlement expansion. But the state fails to implement policies to crack down on settlers who seek the exact opposite, and often use violent means to achieve their objectives.

No one should be surprised. The problem of settler violence is a monster that Israel has created, nourished and supported. Now, with attacks on Israeli military bases, the monster may even have turned on its creator.

When will this tragic horror end?

When we realise that it is the military occupation and its underlying policies that have brought it to life.

This article originally appeared on AlJazeera.net.

* Yousef Munayyer is a writer and political analyst based in Washington, DC. He is currently the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development.

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Besides its Knesset, security forces and intelligence services, Israel's High Court and Civil Administration ravage Palestinian civil society repressively. Two examples illustrate the problem.

Israeli soldiers guard bulldozer demolition a Palestinian house

Through late June, Israel's Civil Administration, its Judea/Samaria (West Bank) governing body, illegally "demolished more Palestinians homes....than in all of last year." Most often, soldiers and Border Police accompany them, forcefully evicting longtime residents.

Over the most recent seven day period, 33 residential buildings were demolished in Jordan Valley Fasayil, al-Hadidiyeh, and Yarza communities, as well as southern Hebron Hills Khirbet Bir al-'Id. As a result, 238 Palestinians, including 129 minors, lost homes.

Since January 2011, 103 Israeli controlled Area C (62% of the West Bank) structures were demolished, affecting 706 Palestinians, including 341 minors. This represents a sharp increase over 2010 and 2009 when 86 and 28 were bulldozed respectively.

At the same time, Civil Administration officials made few plans to help Palestinian communities. Instead, they prevent new construction and development beyond what now exists, "making it impossible for Palestinians to build legally in these areas."

Israel contrives ways to enforce policies. For example, some homes are demolished in areas the IDF declares "firing zones," including half of Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea land, even places located along main traffic arteries or next to or comprising settlements. As a result, even though Palestinian dwellings date back generations, they're prohibited from living there henceforth.

Discriminatory planning and building laws affect communities like Khirbet Bir al-Id, adjacent to the 1998-built Mizpe Ya'ir outpost. Though illegal, Israel approved connecting it to water, electricity, other public services, and basic infrastructure, funding it, including an access road. Moreover, it did nothing to prohibit its establishment, compared to Civil Administration harshness, demolishing Palestinian structures on their own land without permit permission.

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) helps rebuild homes. It also resists "land expropriation, settlement expansions, by-pass road construction, policies of 'closure' and 'separation,' " destruction of agricultural land and crops, and the occupation's repressive effects overall, beyond its original mission to oppose and resist Palestinian house demolitions.

From June 1967 - July 28, 2010, ICAHD said Israel destroyed nearly 25,000 Palestinian structures, based on Interior Ministry, Civil Administration, OCHA, other UN sources, and Palestinian Center for Human Rights data, as well as Israeli and other Palestinian human rights groups, Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), its own field work, and other sources.

It classifies demolition types as:

• punishment for actions associated with the structures (about 8.5%);
• administrative for lacking building permits (about 26%);
• land-clearing/military demolitions for any reason, including achieving IDF goals or accompanying extrajudicial assassinations (about 65.5%); and
• other undefined reasons.

Israel, in fact, annexes Palestinian land one home demolition at a time. From July 10 - 25, 2011, ICAHD will again rebuild a bulldozed home, belonging to the Abu Omar family. Built in 1990 on privately owned land, Israel demolished it in 2005.

Israel soldiers guard a bulldozer demolition a Palestinian house

Since then, the Omars got by in a small house provided by neighbors and an ICAHD-built small, temporary shelter. Omar describes the experience as "dying every day." ICAHD decided to help him. The family response was gratitude and eagerness to regain what they lost. "Their courage to defy the Israeli Occupation's atrocious practice of demolition, forced eviction, and land expropriation is an inspiration to" everyone to resist.

ICAHD stresses that the "right to adequate, permanent, and safe housing, when fulfilled, provides the foundation for the realization of other rights," including to work, education, healthcare and other social benefits, as well as self-determination and political, civil and human rights. "When Palestinians are denied their right to housing, other economic, social, cultural, and political rights" are compromised.

As an occupying power, Israel is legally bound to provide them, and is prohibited from collectively punishing. It nonetheless persists because world leaders don't stop it. Palestinians, of course, lose out in isolation, ignored by powers that can help.

Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) Orders Cast Lead Victims Case Reheard

On June 23, a Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) press release headlined, "Israel (HCJ) vacates verdict in Case Lead Case: Appoints New Panel of Judges and Orders Case on behalf of 1,046 victims be Re-heard."

Earlier on April 28, Israel's High Court dismissed a Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) petition filed on behalf of over 1,000 Cast Lead victims. It asked the High Court to order Israel's State Attorney "to refrain from raising a claim under the (two-year) statute of limitations in future civil suits" for just compensation.

An earlier article discussed the case.

Pertinent information from it is repeated below.

At issue, is the universally recognized right to compensation for violations of international law, what neither Israeli governments nor its High Court respect. Its April 28 dismissal of legitimate redress is a blight on its reputation as an equitable tribunal. It's also a serious setback for Israel's victims.

"Significantly, the Court's decision to dismiss the petition was procedurally flawed." It denied PCHR its lawful right to reply by May 3. It showed Court complicity with rogue officials and soldiers, shielding them from justice, as well as denying legitimate compensation to their victims.

Moreover, the UN Cast Lead Fact-Finding Mission concluded that such actions amount to "persecution, a crime against humanity."

International law, in fact, recognizes the right of all victims to redress, including compensation, when violations have been committed against them. Yet Gazans are now prevented from "accessing justice, in violation of their fundamental rights." They now face three major obstacles:

(1) Statute of limitations: Under Israeli law, civil damage claimants have two years to act from the date of the incident, or lose out entirely. However, Gaza's closure and other restrictions prevented them from submitting filings within the required time. In fact, before August 2002, the period allowed was seven years.

(2) Monetary barrier: Israeli courts require claimants to pay court insurance fees before filing. While courts may, in fact, wave them, they're always applied to Palestinians, putting them under an unfair burden. Moreover, exact amounts aren't fixed. They're determined on a case-by-case basis. For lost or damaged property, they're usually a percent of its value. In cases of injury or death, no formal guideline exists.

PCHR said that in recent wrongful death cases it filed, claimants had to pay insurance costs of $5,600, an insurmountable amount for most Palestinians. "Simply put," said PCHR, "claimants from Gaza - crippled by the economic devastation wrought by the occupation and the illegal closure - cannot afford this fee and their cases are being dismissed and closed," denying them justice.

(3) Physical barriers: Under Israeli law, valid testimonies require victims or witnesses be in court to undergo cross-examination. Under siege, however, since June 2007, Gazans were denied permission to appear. As a result, their claims were dismissed.

Moreover, PCHR lawyers are prohibited from entering Israel to represent clients and must hire Israeli ones at extra cost. However, plaintiffs also are denied entry to meet with attorneys, and they, in turn, get no permission to enter Gaza. In fact, the entire process is rigged to insure injustice, another indictment of cruel and discriminatory intolerance.

PCHR said the policies and practices it challenged "perpetuate a climate of pervasive impunity." As a result, they effectively made Gaza an "accountability free zone," what, in fact, applies throughout Occupied Palestine, reinforced by rogue justices misinterpreting international law by violating it.

On June 15, Israel's High Court in part agreed, ordering new judges rehear the case, whether or not justice this time will be rendered. It's rare Palestinians get it in any Israeli military or civilian court.

PCHR's petition was litigated by Michael Sfard and Carmel Pomerantz, challenging the two-year statute of limitations and numerous other judicial barriers, including blockading Gaza under siege. It's on behalf of 1,046 Cast Lead victims, representing most cases prepared after the war.

"They cover virtually the entire spectrum of international humanitarian law violations," including "the most infamous cases," affecting the Samouni, Abu Halima, and Al-Daia families. The Al-Samounis lost 23 of their 48 members, Masouda Al-Samouni saying:

"I have no hope, no future. I lost everything in the offensive. I was in the corner with my children just watching. I was screaming and crying. I saw everything, the blood and the brains. There was smoke everywhere. I saw my brother-in-law falling down, and my mother-in-law. I realized that my three brothers-in-law and my mother-in-law were dead....I was injured in the chest and couldn't move....I was bleeding and five months pregnant."

Soldiers entered Ateya Al-Samouni's home forcibly, shooting him in cold blood. Mona Al-Samouni saw her parents shot to death. Others witnessed similar trauma. Survivors suffer from depression and nightmares. They're also impoverished.

The Halima family's experience was similar, losing eight members, including six children. Seven others were injured, including four children.

Israel killed the entire Al-Daia family, destroying its residence, then blaming the tragedy on an operational error when, in fact, it deliberately targets non-military sites, including homes, schools, hospitals, universities, mosques, historic sites, and many others unrelated to military necessity.

As a result, most Cast Lead casualties were civilians. It was no accident. It's now up to Israel's High Court to provide redress, though no amount will restore lost lives or remove permanent scars.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Greta Berlin* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

An Israeli army dog is seen here at the Oketz military base in central Israel. Palestinians desperate for work in Israel will go to extremes to sneak past the West Bank barrier, but now they face a new hurdle -- army attack dogs sent to attack them. AFP/Yoav Lemmer

Israel Using Attack Dogs Against Palestinian Workers

Whether this kind of brutality works or not, Israel has followed in the footsteps of the United States, using dogs to terrify Palestinian workers trying to get into Israel to find jobs. According to one Palestinian laborer, dogs are let loose to hunt down anyone trying to enter Israel looking for work, a new phenomenon which has been occurring for about two months.

Although the army's justification is that using dogs is a way of protecting the sprawling separation barrier from Palestinian vandals looking to create openings, the Israeli Human Rights organization, B'tselem, is appealing to the army senior command. Victims of the dog attacks are not security suspects, but rather day laborers seeking to enter Israel to find work and who do not have the proper permits to do so.

Are occupation soldiers using Palestinian workers as guinea pigs, trying out the dogs in preparation for use on the upcoming flotilla to Gaza? There is evidence this is exactly what they are doing. In the past few months, the Israeli military has boasted it will use trained attack dogs on our passengers.

According to one military source, "As soon as you put an attack dog in an area where soldiers are supposed to get to, it keeps the place sterile and prevents anyone from approaching. Dogs can be placed by crane or other means. They'll be the first, and after them, the soldiers."

These attack dogs, from the Oketz Unit, are trained to immobilize enemies by biting. "The dogs are weapons in every sense -- like snipers or tank shells -- but they are biological weapons," Yehida, an online military magazine, said in an article about the unit.

Is Israel really going to follow in the footsteps of the Nazis in Dachau and Buchenwald concentration camps and use dogs against the Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others on board flotilla ships?

During the trial of an alleged concentration camp guard in Georgia in 2007 Director Eli M. Rosenbaum of the Office of the Special Investigations (OSI), "The brutal concentration camp system could not have functioned without the determined efforts of SS men, who, with a vicious attack dog, stood between the victims and the possibility of freedom."

Attack Dogs used against protesters in the US Civil Rights Movement

Those who remember the Civil Rights movement in the US, remember when Sheriff Bull Connor on May 3, 1963 changed police tactics to keep black protesters out of the downtown business area in Birmingham, Alabama. Connor allowed white spectators to push forward, shouting, "Let those people come forward, sergeant. I want 'em to see the dogs work."

When the hoses were turned on, bystanders began to throw rocks and bottles at the police. To disperse them, Connor ordered police to use German shepherd dogs to keep them in line.

Attack Dogs Used in Apartheid South Africa

Dogs were used in South Africa during and after Apartheid as a means to terrify the local population. As late as 2000, a graphic video showed six white policemen laughing and joking as they set their patrol dogs on a group of defenseless black men suspected of illegally entering the country. One man, squirming on the ground, grimaces in agony. He is kicked by a dog-handler who eggs on his snarling dog as it bites into the man's leg and arm while he pleads to be left alone. The sound of laughter is audible during the hour-long video and one of the police officers jokes that it is a "training video."

US Military Used Attack Dogs in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib

The US military used attack dogs in Abu Ghraib, a technique they had learned from Guantanamo. In a 2005 article in the WashingtonPost, military interrogators at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq learned about the use of military working dogs to intimidate detainees from a team of interrogators dispatched from the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Dogs Used against Civilians and Unarmed Detainees

In every case, these dogs were used against civilians and unarmed detainees, people who were protesting human and civil rights abuses, concentration camp detainees trying to flee, Iraqi civilians caught up in the wide net of suspicion after 9-11.

None of these victims was armed.

And neither are we.

Israel Threatens to use Attack Dogs on Unarmed Civilians of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla

We go to break Israel's illegal siege on Gaza, a blockade that international bodies have determined is collective punishment. We are standing up for the rights of people living in an open-air prison, just as the protestors in Birmingham and South Africa stood up for the rights of the oppressed.

If Israel is considering bringing attack dogs onto our ships while we sail to Gaza, Israeli officials should be brought up on war crimes charges for taking such action against civilians who are expressing support for an imprisoned people.

We need to ask: Does Israel have the right to attack us with vicious dogs while we sail? Does Israel understand that we are civilians, or do Israeli officials believe, as did their racist predecessors, that we are fair game?

The international community should insist that Israel let us through to Gaza without dogs, snipers and armed commandos attacking us.

* Greta Berlin is one of the founders of the Free Gaza Movement and was on board the Free Gaza when it sailed to Gaza in August 2008 bearing the first internationals in 41 years to reach the besieged strip of Mediterranean territory. She is a passenger on the US Boat, the "Audacity of Hope," that will sail in the international Gaza Freedom flotilla to break the naval blockade of Gaza at the end of June, 2011.

By Jesse Bacon | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Saturday, a child the same age as my daughter was killed in Gaza. She was not killed by a missile, or a suicide bomber, or any of the other dramatic ways children die in the Middle East. She was killed by an Israeli policy, that the people of Gaza are to be imprisoned as punishment for who the adults voted for. While many children have been killed by this policy, this case sounds particularly horrific. Her family and Physicians for Human Rights tried valiantly to get her admitted into Israel for treatment, to no avail. I can imagine no worse nightmare for a parent, to watch your child dying knowing there is medical care a few miles away that you are not allowed to seek out. The next time someone tells you things aren't so bad in Gaza any more, or that Israel is not responsible for what goes on there, remember this story. There can be no justification for allowing a sick child to die when you have the means to prevent it.

PHR-Israel has the story:

Nasma Abu Lasheen died on Saturday, October 16, 2010 in Gaza. Israel failed to issue her an urgent entry permit for life-saving medical treatment at Ha-Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel. She was two years old.

Abu Lasheen, a young resident of Gaza diagnosed with Leukemia, was referred for emergency treatment in Israel on October 6, 2010. When requests to the Israeli Army for an entry permit went unanswered for several days, by way of B'tselem, the family contacted Physicians for Human Rights- Israel (PHR-Israel) for additional help. That very same day, on October 13, 2010, PHR-Israel contacted the Gaza District Coordination Office (DCO) demanding a permit be issued immediately to the baby and her father to enable their entry into Israel. A military approval was finally granted the next afternoon, October 14, 2010.

Abu Lasheen's medical condition had been deteriorating rapidly and by the time the permit was received, the treating doctor in Gaza, Dr. Mohammad Abu Sha'aban, said she was too sick to travel. Nasma died in the early morning hours of October 16, 2010.

PHR-Israel immediately lodged a complaint with the head of the Israeli DCO, demanding an immediate inquiry into those responsible for the delayed response.

Abu Lasheen's death comes just days PHR-Israel testified to the Israeli Turkel Commission which investigates the Flotilla incident, on the humanitarian situation in Gaza Strip as a result of Israel's closure policy. In their October 13th testimony, PHR- Israel pointed to the rising numbers of Gaza patients denied exit for treatment in hospitals outside the Strip, a phenomenon that has intensified since Israel's tightened closure took effect June 2007. PHR-Israel emphasized that for the patients, a delayed or non-approved permit could mean the difference between quality of life and preventable pain and suffering, and in many cases, even the difference between life and death, as demonstrated by the Abu Lasheem case.

PHR- Israel calls on the Israeli authorities at Erez Crossing to investigate those responsible for delays involved in Nasma Abu Lasheen's case. PHR- Israel reiterates its demand that Israel fulfill its obligations vis-à-vis the residents of Gaza by ensuring them full and timely access to medical treatment unavailable in the Gaza Stip.

For more information, please contact Ran Yaron, Director of PHR-Israel's Occupied Territories Department by telephone: +972-54-7577696, or via E-mail ranyaron@phr.org.il

By Jonathan Cook * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The disclosure of the details of a letter reportedly sent by President Barack Obama last week to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will cause Palestinians to be even more sceptical about US and Israeli roles in the current peace talks.

According to the leak, Obama made a series of extraordinarily generous offers to Israel, many of them at the expense of the Palestinians, in return for a single minor concession from Netanyahu: a two-month extension of the partial freeze on settlement growth.

A previous 10-month freeze, which ended a week ago, has not so far been renewed by Netanyahu, threatening to bring the negotiations to an abrupt halt. The Palestinians are expected to decide whether to quit the talks over the coming days.

Netanyahu was reported last week to have declined the US offer.

The White House has denied that a letter was sent, but, according to the Israeli media, officials in Washington are privately incensed by Netanyahu's rejection.

The disclosures were made by an informed source: David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a close associate of Dennis Ross, Obama's chief adviser on the Middle East, who is said to have initiated the offer.

The letter's contents have also been partly confirmed by Jewish US senators who attended a briefing last week from Ross.

According to Makovsky, in return for the 60-day settlement moratorium, the US promised to veto any UN Security Council proposal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next year, and committed to not seek any further extensions of the freeze. The future of the settlements would be addressed only in a final agreement.

The White House would also allow Israel to keep a military presence in the West Bank's Jordan Valley, even after the creation of a Palestinian state; continue controlling the borders of the Palestinian territories to prevent smuggling; provide Israel with enhanced weapons systems, security guarantees and increase its billions of dollars in annual aid; and create a regional security pact against Iran.

There are several conclusions the Palestinian leadership is certain to draw from this attempt at deal-making over its head.

The first is that the US president, much like his predecessors, is in no position to act as an honest broker. His interests in the negotiations largely coincide with Israel's.

Obama needs a short renewal of the freeze, and the semblance of continuing Israeli and Palestinian participation in the "peace process", until the US Congressional elections in November.

Criticism by the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington may damage Obama's Democratic Party unless he treads a very thin line. He needs to create the impression of progress in the Middle East talks but not upset Israel's supporters by making too many demands on Netanyahu.

The second conclusion – already strongly suspected by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his advisers – is that Netanyahu, despite his professed desire to establish a Palestinian state, is being insincere.

The White House's private offer meets most of Netanyahu's demands for US security and diplomatic assistance even before the negotiations have produced tangible results. For Netanyahu to reject the offer so lightly, even though the US was expecting relatively little in return, suggests he is either in no mood or in no position to make real concessions to the Palestinians on statehood.

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported on 1 October that senior White House officials were no longer "buying the excuse of politicial difficulties" for Netanyahu in holding his right-wing governing coalition together. If he cannot keep his partners on board over a short freeze on illegal settlement building, what meaningful permanent concessions can he make in the talks?

The third conclusion for the Palestinians is that no possible combination of governing parties in Israel is capable of signing an agreement with Abbas that will not entail significant compromises on the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state.

One US concession – allowing Israel to maintain its hold on the Jordan Valley, nearly a fifth of the West Bank, for the forseeable future – reflects a demand common to all Israeli politicians, not just Netanyahu.

In fact, the terms of Obama's letter were drafted in cooperation with Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister and leader of the supposedly left-wing Labour Party. When he was prime minister a decade ago, he insisted on a similar military presence in the Jordan Valley during the failed Camp David talks.

Ariel Sharon, his successor and founder of the centrist Kadima Party, planned a new section of the separation wall to divide the Jordan Valley from the rest of the West Bank, though the scheme was put on hold after American objections.

Today, most Palestinians cannot enter the Jordan Valley without a special permit that is rarely issued, and the area's tens of thousands of Palestinian inhabitants are subjected to constant military harassment. B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, has accused Israel of a "de facto annexation" of the area.

But without the Jordan Valley, the creation of a viable Palestinian state – even one limited to the West Bank, without Gaza – would be inconceivable. Statehood would instead resemble the Swiss-cheese model the Palestinians have long feared is all Israel is proposing.

* Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair".

Get in there first - that's the secret

If it wasn't for the "war on terror" America and Israel wouldn't be enjoying such military fun and games and reaping such fat rewards. Whole new industries are flourishing thanks to the considerable effort they've devoted to sowing the seeds of terror.

The Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR), for example, is an American-Israeli corporation "created to help organizations succeed and prosper in a world threatened by terrorism".

Its partners include The Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute - "your gateway to business in Israel". Their global intelligence division even maintains a presence in London where, they claim, "our intelligence-gathering and analysis, research, training and consulting services reduce your vulnerability to global and regional forms of terrorist threats and mass-casualty events". It's just a coincidence, of course, that Britain's most important security bodies - the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee - are all headed by senior Israel flag-wavers with access to highly classified material.

ITRR recently staged a Mass Casualty and Terrorism Workshop in Jerusalem attended by students from Philadelphia University. Topics included mass casualty management, security and counter-terrorism, forensic medicine as it relates to terrorism and visits to suicide bomber sites. "These site visits include actual video footage of the events... One student was amazed with the resiliency of the Israeli people and how quickly they are able to return a site 'back to normal'."

Just across the border in Gaza is the mother of all mass-casualty sites far more serious than anything Israel has had to cope with, although it caused it. A visit there would have opened students' eyes to how the Palestinians are never given the chance to return to 'normal' after Israel's endless terror onslaughts, robbed as they are of medical essentials and reconstruction materials.

I bet ITRR's workshop didn't cover that.

"First used by Zionists"

The other day I was sent a list of Zionist "firsts" pulled together in a handy aide-memoire. Let's call them claims for the time being. I've seen evidence for some, but others are new to me. A friend who watches things closely says the listing has been posted in forums repeatedly, with requests for any corrections.

Let's ask again. Can anyone refute these claims on delphiforums?

Here's the roll-call on who introduced terrorism (along with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) to the Middle East:

• Bombs in cafés: first used by Zionists in Palestine on 17 March 1937 in Jaffa. (actually grenades).
• Bombs on buses: first used by Zionists in Palestine on 20 August-26 September1937
• Drive-by shootings with automatic weapons: IZL and LHI in 1937-38 and 1947-48 (Morris, Righteous Victims, p681.)
• Bombs in market places: first used by Zionists on 6 July 1938 in Haifa. (delayed-action, electrically detonated)
• Bombing of a passenger ship: first used by the Zionists in Haifa on 25 November 1940, killing over 200 of their own fellows.
• Bombing of hotels: first used by Zionists on 22 July 1946 in Jerusalem (Menachem Begin went on to become prime minister of Israel).
• Suitcase bombing: first used by Zionists on 1 October 1946 against British embassy in Rome.
• Mining of ambulances: first used by Zionists on 31 October 1946 in Petah Tikvah
• Car-bomb: first used by Zionists against the British near Jaffa on 5 December 1946.
• Letter bombs: first used by Zionists in June 1947 against members of the British government, 20 of them.
• Parcel bomb: first used by Zionists against the British in London on 3 September 1947.
• Reprisal murder of hostages: first used by Zionists against the British in Netanya area on 29 July 1947.
• Truck-bombs: first used by Zionists on January 1948 in the centre of Jaffa, killing 26.
• Aircraft hijacking: world-first by Israeli jets December 1954 on a Syrian civilian airliner (random seizure of hostages to recover five spies) - 14 years before any Palestinian hijacking.

The only form of violent terrorism not introduced into Palestine by the Zionists was suicide bombing, a tactic used almost entirely by people fighting occupation of their "homeland" - think 1000s of Japanese in 1945, 100s of Tamils and 38 Lebanese in the 1980s - most of the latter being motivated by socialism/communism, not Islam - see http://amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017.

• Biological warfare - pathogens used by Zionists in 1948, prior to the seizure of Acre, putting typhus into the water supply.
• Chemical warfare - nerve gas very likely used by Zionists in February/March 2001 in at least eight attacks in Khan Younis and Gharbi refugee camps (Gaza) and the town of Al-Bireh (West Bank).
• Nuclear threats - made by Zionists e.g. 2003: "We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." - Remarks of Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel's Hebrew University, 1 February 2003.

And, if you think only Muslims need worry, then see http://www.masada2000.org/sharepain.html - "Israel has nuclear weapons and MUST use them and all those arming the Arabs must share the pain!". Comes with cute music.

To these we could add "sofa slaughter" with armed drones. The Israelis use this armchair technique extensively in Gaza, unleashing death and destruction on civilians by remote control at no personal risk to themselves. There are interesting variations too. For example, during the 40-day siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 the Israeli occupation force set up cranes on which were mounted robotic machine guns under video control. According to eye-witnesses, eight defenders, including the bell-ringer, were murdered, some by armchair button-pushers and some by regular snipers.

Right now we're witnessing a cyber-terror attack against Iran with an ultra-sophisticated virus that disables thousands of industrial computers, including those controlling Iran's nuclear programme. This is an extremely sinister development with frightening global implications. The presumption is that it's Zionist inspired and implemented by Israeli stooges and sympathizers since no-one else hates and fears the Iranians this much, but the truth may never be known.

Banned horror weapons spread terror

There's also the use, suspected or real, of prohibited weapons. In July 2006 doctors in Lebanon and Gaza were saying: "We never saw before wounds and corpses like those that arrive in the ward..." The majority of victims were women, children and elders caught in Israeli attacks in the street, in the market place and at home.

What they saw led doctors to believe that a new generation of weapons was being used. Common to all victims was the lack of visible wounds, but they had serious internal edema and hemorrhage with loss of blood from all orifices. All the bodies had a covering of dark powder, making them look black, but they were not burnt. Clothes and hair were not damaged or burnt.

Electron microscope scans showed the presence of phosphorous, iron and magnesium at below normally detectable levels. Elements that are used as additives to boost the blast of thermobaric (fuel-air energy) bombs and grenades were found on skin samples, but none of these could be seen by instruments normally used in hospitals and emergency wards.

Thermobaric weapons leave no fragments on or in the victims' bodies, making it all the more difficult to provide proper care for the injured. "This fact already puts them outside established conventions of war, regardless of whether they are used against military or civilians," say the doctors.

The effect of a thermobaric shell or grenade, according to the GlobalSecurity website, is devastating. "Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness. The destruction, death and injury are caused by the blast wave."

Another report, published by Defense Technology, says: "Each tissue type ... is compressed, stretched, sheared or disintegrated by overload according to its material properties. Internal organs that contain air (sinuses, ears, lungs and intestines) are particularly vulnerable to blast."

The United States uses 40mm thermobaric grenades developed for the war against "terror" in Afghanistan. These little beauties produce a thermobaric overpressure blast and "all enemy personnel within the effective radius will suffer lethal effects as opposed to the conventional fragmentation round."

The grenades are fired from a specially developed weapon. "You can put six rounds on target in under three seconds," one Marine Corps corporal said. "I thought this thing was sick."

America is reported to have lost nuclear bombs, so it shouldn't be too difficult for them to mislay shipments of thermobaric grenades, which in the wrong hands would wreak havoc in the metro or London's Underground.

Hoist by their own petard

A perfectly good form of words is used to brand, outlaw and crush any organization, individual or country the US doesn't like.

Under Executive Order 13224 ("Blocking Property and prohibiting Transactions with Persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support Terrorism"), Section 3, the term "terrorism" means an activity that:

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (ii) appears to be intended
(a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping or hostage-taking."

The order was signed 23 September 2001 by George W. Bush, the irony being that his definition of terrorism fits the United States and its bosom-buddy Israel like a glove.

Since then, of course, we've seen the Zionists commit the foulest act of state terrorism in recent times. During their Cast Lead onslaught they butchered at least 350 more children, and Gaza has been under daily attack ever since. So the "most moral army in the world" must have blown to bits, shredded, incinerated or smashed with snipers' bullets at least 1,400 Palestinian youngsters in the last 10 years. The numbers left maimed or crippled don't bear thinking about.

And let's not forget the assassinations and extra-judicial executions. In the US there's a presidential prohibition on assassination except in war situations, but if they can conjure up an intelligence "finding" that enables them to label the target a "terrorist", and claim the murder was an act of self-defence in a war situation, they're in the clear.

Assassination became official Israeli policy in 1999. Their preferred method is the air-strike, which is lazy and often messy, as demonstrated in 2002 when Israeli F-16 warplanes bombed the house of Sheikh Salah Shehadeh, the military commander of Hamas, in Gaza City killing not just him but at least 11 other Palestinians, including seven children, and wounding 120 others.

According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, 408 Palestinians have been killed in the course of targeted assassinations since the second Intifada (uprising) began in 2000. This systematic extermination is regarded as legal and legitimate by Israel's attorney-general.

In a sane world you'd expect the American and Israeli administrations to be hoist by their own petard, branded as "persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism", and punished in the same way they seek to punish others.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

By Lawrence Davidson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Nizar

This is not unusual for President Obama. From the beginning of his administration he has ignored history. His most notable early example was when he refused to investigate the prima facie war crimes of his predecessors, crimes which the Nuremberg prosecutors would have easily recognized. Instead he proclaimed a new day. We will look forward he said, and not backward. It was a foolish statement for such a reportedly bright man, for where does he think the new day and the fresh future come from? The present and the future are built on the past. With all due respect, only the very near sighted can suppose that they can defy historical gravity and float above it all, sublimely free of all roots.

So now President Obama takes the podium in New York and tells us the following:

1. Obama: "Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas-who stands up for his people in front of the world-is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children."

A. Historical Context: "President" Abbas is a heartily disliked fellow who helped usurp power from the legally elected government of Palestine. The United States under George Bush Jr. helped him do so. Thus, the Abbas's regime, internally supported by little else than the remnants of Fatah, is now in control of the West Bank and cooperates with the Israeli occupation army. Given such an historical record Abbas cannot "stand for his people in front of the world" except in the propaganda picture painted by his American ally. Abbas's regime is wholly dependent on U.S. and European money and American weapons and military training.

We can surmise two probable reasons why Abbas is presently sitting at the table with the Israelis: One - the Obama administration has twisted his arm, perhaps by threatening to abandon him if he does not "negotiate." They probably hope they can pressure him into signing a "peace" deal that no other Palestinian leader would ever touch. What "courage" Abbas has, at least to this point, does not go so far as to stand up to the Americans on whom he is so dependent. Two - the Obama administration has promised him support, whatever that might mean. This same level of dependency means Abbas must conveniently forget history-that such promises coming from Washington have always been worthless.

2. Obama: "If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that come with their own state [and] Israelis will never know the certainty and security that come with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to coexistence."

A. Historical Context: The Palestinians have been struggling for a state of their own for at least 75 years. They have been betrayed by outsiders so often that it defies reasons to believe that any America president truly cares about their pride and dignity. After so many years of struggle facing a foe who, by the way, has never cared a fig about "stable neighbors" or "coexistence" or even about "security" (which Israel equates with being armed to the teeth by the U.S.) the Palestinians have been able to find "pride and dignity" in one thing only-resistance.

3. Does President Obama know any of this? If so does he understand it? It is questionable for him next tells us that killing Israelis is not resistance and "it will do nothing to help the Palestinian people?" Oh. Well then, what will? What has? What can?

A. Historical Context: Only someone devoid of historical knowledge and context concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can possibly believe that it is the Palestinians who presently, as a strategy, go out of their way to target "innocent women and children." What isolated incidents of this sort you can find pale in comparison with the behavior of the ally Washington arms and protects. There is a recent B'Tselem report entitled, "Void of Responsibility: Israeli Military Policy Not to Investigate killings of Palestinians by Soldiers." It demonstrates that the Israelis have been killing innocent Palestinians with impunity. Historically, they have been doing so from a time before President Obama was born. Against this tireless brutality, Palestinian attacks on imperialist settlers and firing rockets devoid of warheads from that open air prison of Gaza that Israel has created, are tragic expressions of despair. And, sadly, historically, they are the only source of "pride and dignity" Israel and the United States have left to the Palestinians. Finally, it would take enormous hypocrisy for Obama, or any American leader whosoever, to point a moral finger at the Palestinians. Their hands are much too bloody to stomach anything like that.

4. Obama: "It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States."

A. Historical Context: Well, speak for yourself Mr. President. You certainly do not speak for a fast-growing number of people worldwide whose efforts in this regard you cannot stop. And it is this effort, this movement of civil society both within and without the U.S., that has the best chance of bringing down the racist regime to which you pledge such solidarity. Ideally, what will it be replaced with? Well, U.S. leaders are always saying they want to see more democracy in this world. And that is what Israel needs. It needs the Zionist government to be replaced with something truly democratic that will support real civil and political rights for all Israelis, regardless of religion. So, one can only hope that standing against those "chipping away" at Zionist racism puts President Obama on the wrong side of history.

It was Oscar Wilde, a man who had his own confrontation with a viciously discriminatory social system, who once said, "A set of assumptions committing suicide is always a depressing spectacle." And so it was on September 23 in New York. After so many years of tragedy we still witness our political leaders working from assumptions that are suicidal. That destroy justice and prolong oppression.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

By Stephen Lendman* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Palestinians carry the body of fisherman Mohammed Baker during his funeral in Gaza September 24, 2010. The Israeli terrorist navy fired on Baker killed him while he was fishing off the northern Gaza Strip shore. (Photo: REUTERS/Suhaib Salem)

With peace talks underway in Washington; Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt; Jerusalem; then New York, Israel, almost daily, commits crimes of war and against humanity. Some of the latest include:

• air strikes against Gaza, killing two Palestinian civilians in another one;
• peaceful protesters attacked in Gaza and the West Bank;
• live rounds and shells fired against farmers and workers in the Strip's border areas, killing an old man, his grandchild, another boy, and 30 sheep;
• over 100 live rounds fired at an Erez Crossing peaceful demonstration near Beit Hanoun;
• its medieval siege maintained, suffocating 1.5 million people and preventing 40,000 students from attending UN schools;
• violations against Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons escalated; most are political prisoners;
• 16 new Jordan Valley demolition orders for Palestinian barns and greenhouses issued plus others to bulldoze their homes;
• 87 incursions into West Bank communities and three in Gaza in the first half of September, arresting 43 civilians, including nine children; and
• unabated illegal settlement construction.

Israeli does what it pleases, defiling the rule of law, including letting its security forces kill with impunity, a new B'Tselem report confirming it. Titled "Void of Responsibility: Israeli Military Policy not to investigate Killings of Palestinians by Soldiers," it provides plenty of evidence.

Protests throughout the Territories occur regularly, in Bil'in village every Friday against the Separation Wall. April 17 was typical. Soldiers attacked demonstrators with tear gas, rubber bullets, at times live fire, and extended-range gas canisters. Used against Bassem Abu Rahmeh, it killed him from massive internal injuries, a case of cold-blooded murder.

B'Tselem and the family's attorney, Michael Sfard, wrote the Judge Advocate General's Office, demanding an investigation. After nearly a year's wait, the reply said:

"No support has been found for your claim that firing was executed directly at Abu Rahmeh" or that soldiers violated instructions."

This case is one of hundreds in which nonviolent Palestinian civilians were killed by IDF gunfire.

Soldiers indeed follow "instructions." They're told to open fire freely and kill with impunity.

Since September 29, 2000, the start of the second Intifada, 2,016 Palestinian civilians were killed, besides over 1,400 others during Cast Lead. "The vast majority of these cases have never been investigated." Most that are end up whitewashed, absolving guilty soldiers of culpability.

In October 2000, the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO) called the Intifada "armed conflict short of war," saying investigations wouldn't automatically be conducted when security forces killed Palestinians.

JAGO bogusly argued that under international law, "the fact that a civilian is killed during hostilities does not constitute even prima facie proof that a war crime has been committed or that the soldiers who were involved acted in a criminal manner."

In fact, Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) inquiries should follow all civilian killings, holding those responsible culpable, and learning ways to avoid future incidents.

Currently, investigations open only in exceptional cases, decisions taking months or years, "thus preventing effective handling of suspected criminal acts within a reasonable time from the day" they occurred. Establishing the Office of the Judge Advocate for Operational Matters to improve complaint handling brought no significant change.

From 2006 - 2009, B'Tselem demanded 148 cases be investigated. Only 22 were ordered, and 36.3% of them took a year or more to begin. Two resulted in no prosecution. The others still await resolution. Delay or inaction for the vast majority of them "makes it impossible to determine the considerations the Judge Advocate General's Office takes into account in deciding whether to order an MPIU investigation or to close the file."

B'Teslem examined cases not investigated and others involving a "serious suspicion of clear breach of international humanitarian law." Further, MPIU inquiries undertaken relied solely on soldier testimonies, not eyewitnesses providing conflicting accounts. As a result, IDF officials let soldiers and officers violate the law with impunity. They also encourage "a trigger-happy attitude, and show gross disregard for human life."

On June 2, 2007, Nablus resident Rami Samir Na'if Shana'ah was killed, his case like hundreds of others. Eyewitnesses said civilian clothed Israelis opened fire into a shop hitting him and another man. Local residents took them to the hospital where Shana'ah was pronounced dead. On August 1, 2007, B'Tselem demanded an investigation. Reminders sent to the Judge Advocate General's Office followed. As of February 4, 2010 (the latest information received), the case was still being processed.

Official MPIU investigations don't distinguish between Palestinians killed by live fire; others causing injury, not death; or if no one was harmed. What's needed are hard Israeli statistics on attacks resulting in death exclusive of others. They're the most serious, but all instances of soldiers attacking civilians warrant concern. Israel offers Palestinians nothing but violence, more of it, and no accountability for culpable soldiers.

According to B'Tselem figures, deaths numbered 1,510 from 2006 - 2009, exclusive of Cast Lead ones. Of these, at least 617 were confirmed noncombatants, mostly in Gaza, but they occur regularly throughout Palestine. Most are witnessed by bystanders whose testimonies are crucial to achieve justice. Yet Israel won't use them, clearly hiding the truth and obstructing justice.

Further, since September 2000, B'Tselem received no response from the Judge Advocate General's Office for "the vast majority" of cases warranting investigation, civilians killed in cold blood, responsible soldiers unpunished.

On April 7, 2008, B'Tselem got this reply (like other similar ones) from Major Yehoshua Gortler, the Judge Advocate General's legal assistant:

"Having examined the inquiry of the incident (in question) and its findings, along with other relevant material (including from B'Tselem and other human rights groups), the Judge Advocate General concluded that it was not proper to order an MPIU investigation in the matter."

The incident in question involved cold-blooded murder as well as breaches of discrimination and proportionality principles in international law. More about them below.

IDF undercover units were dressed as civilians, violating the laws of armed conflict against "perfidy." As a result, four civilians were killed, those responsible unpunished.

Nearly all these atrocities are whitewashed. Soldiers involved are absolved of murder, and get a green light to keep killing. Accountability is so rare, even for the most egregious incidents, that soldiers are almost entirely unrestrained. As a result, they show flagrant disregard for human life in violation of fundamental international law.

According to Jessica Montell, B'Tselem's Executive Director:

"Since the beginning of the Intifada, we have opposed the sweeping decision not to investigate the killing of Palestinians. This is even truer now, when it is impossible to view the situation in the West Bank as armed conflict. The legal status must reflect the reality in the field, as well as express the value given to human life and the obligation to protect civilians."

All cases involving noncombatant killings warrant investigations. Soldiers claiming they acted in self-defense or to save lives is contemptuously false. Saying unarmed civilians attacked or otherwise threatened them makes a mockery of truth. It's why legitimate investigations are crucial to prove it.

B'Tselem stresses that "Armed conflict does not exist in the Occupied Territories," as Israel contends. Yet each case involves "combat incidents....in which Palestinian bystanders are (killed) or injured by soldiers' gunfire....exchanges of gunfire while making arrests in the middle of the night, and (claiming they shot) Palestinians in good faith," saying they posed a threat.

Israel's High Court distinguishes between "operational" and "criminal" actions, ruling that:

"the point of departure regarding an operational incident is that it does not involve a criminal incident....The cases in which an investigation will be carried out by an investigative body regarding an operational incident are the exception. Operational activity has a unique character and objectives that clearly distinguish it from criminal actions."

"An attitude that views the actions of security forces as being close to criminal actions strikes at the ethical basis of actions of the security forces and is liable to impair their motivation in carrying out their functions faithfully. The readiness of soldiers, commanders, and defense personnel in carrying out their functions, in taking risks and in acting on behalf of national interests, at times endangering their lives, when they are acting under pressure and uncertainty, is liable to be significantly impaired if they know that the actions are liable to result in their being prosecuted as criminal suspects."

As a result, the Judge Advocate General relies on the "operational actions" defense to justify clear criminal acts, and by failing to investigate incidents and whitewashing ones undertaken grants culpable soldiers impunity.

"The argument that prosecuting soldiers on criminal charges will impair their functioning is....insufficient to negate the need for a criminal investigation." Ignoring accountability when someone dies can never be justified, a position taken by Tel Aviv District Court Judge Oded Mudrik, saying:

"I do not accept the basic assumption behind the military's argument that certain kinds of conduct by commanders should be made nonjusticiable." It disagrees with the definition of "negligence" in Penal Law....There is no legal system anywhere in the enlightened world that grants immunity to the command echelon of its army and places them above the law."

Under international law, the principles of distinction and proportionality are binding:

• distinction between combatants and military targets v. civilians and non-military ones; attacking the latter ones are war crimes except when civilians take direct part in hostilities; and
• proportionality prohibitions against disproportionate, indiscriminate force likely to cause damage to or loss of lives and objects.

In addition, parties to a conflict must take all precautions to avoid and minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to non-military sites.

Fourth Geneva also prohibits collective punishment "for an offence he or she has not personally committed." Measures must be taken to assure civilians are kept out of harm's way. Willfully attacking them is a crime of war or against humanity. Impunity is never justified.

Fourth Geneva's Article 146 prescribes that states must investigate grave breaches and prosecute persons who committed or ordered them. It further requires that measures be taken to assure "the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention," even when they don't rise to the level of war crimes.

In addition, domestic legislation must prohibit all acts violating international law, and require offenders be punished. Investigations are thus vital to assure it. A Judge Advocate General's "operational inquiry" is no way to determine truth. Yet it's used to decide if investigations are necessary. At all times, they're essential when incidents cause civilian deaths.

A Final Comment

B'Tselem's report shows that the Judge Advocate General's Office hasn't processed the vast majority of lawless civilian killings. Isolated cases only were opened. Most still await resolution, suggesting whitewash when, or if it comes.

Unless independent investigations are undertaken, "it is impossible to know whether soldiers violated orders or acted improperly." That's why they're vital.

"The killing of civilians who did not take part in hostilities requires an effective, unbiased investigation, carried out within a reasonable time after the incident." Not doing so "grants soldiers and commanders de facto immunity: a soldier who kills a Palestinian not taking part in hostilities is almost never brought to justice for his act. At the most, they are required to explain their actions in the framework of the operational inquiry," conducted to absolve, not implicate them.

Justice denied grants legitimacy to lawless killings, making a mockery of fundamental international law, an Israeli specialty.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.

By Lawrence Davidson* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I. The Usual Suspects

Back on August 23, 2010 Israel's most prestigious human rights organization, B'Tselem released a short report on the condition of water supplies in the Gaza Strip. Referencing the United Nations Environment Program as well as the Palestine Water Authority, B'Tselem reported that the Strip's underground water system is in such bad repair that, even if rehabilitation was begun immediately, it would take twenty years for it to be restructured as a modern system. This is compounded by the dilapidated state of the Gaza wastewater-system which is also antiquated. As a result it is estimated that "40% of the incidence of disease in Gaza is related to polluted drinking water." B'Tselem blames this shocking situation on the Israeli government. "Since it began its siege on the Gaza Strip, in June 2007, Israel has forbidden the entry of equipment and materials needed to rehabilitate the water and wastewater-treatment systems there." The blockade of these materials remains in place to this day. Finally, during its "Operation Cast Lead" invasion of the Gaza Strip, Israel targeted the water networks, treatment plants, wells, and even home water tanks.

Israel's great power patron is the United States. This arrangement entails American protection of the Zionist state from the legal consequences that should result due to its purposeful harming of civilians. The United States, sitting as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has, in recent years, cast some forty vetoes so as to shield its ally from accusations of violations of international law. Actually this action by the United States is entirely logical. Why so? Because both the U.S. and Israel are practicing the exact same tactics against civilian populations.

Back in September 2001 George Washington University professor Thomas Nagy revealed the existence of Defense Intelligence Agency documents" proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway." On May 12, 1996 some of the horrible consequences of this policy were revealed when the CBS news program 60 Minutes reported that roughly half million Iraqi children had died as a consequence of U.S. imposed sanctions. This led to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's infamous answer to the question, "is the price worth it?" Her reply was yes "we think the price is worth it." Albright later apologized, not for the murderous policy for which she was partially responsible, but rather for the fact that her answer to the above question had "aggravated our public relations problems" in the Middle East. As to domestic reaction, her comment "went unremarked in the U.S." Subsequently, in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the strategy of "rapid dominance" (more popularly known as "shock and awe"). The object of this strategy was to "paralyze" the enemy's "will to carry on" through the disruption of "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure." One of the targets of the bombing campaign that led off the invasion was Iraq's electrical grid. That directly impacted the country's ability to process clean water.

II. Resulting Criminal Status

Neither American nor Israeli behavior is legal under international law. It is all a violation of Article 54 of Protocol I, Part IV, of the Geneva Conventions (1977). The law reads, "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as ...drinking water installations and supplies...whatever the motive whether in order to starve out the civilian population, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive." What this means is that the political leaders of the United States and Israel (among other countries) who have devised and implemented this, and similar strategies, are indictable as war criminals. Further, they almost certainly know this to be so. That is why they must dismiss international law as "obsolete" as did Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his minions in 2004.

As to "motives" for purposely destroying the civilian infrastructures of whole nations, it would seem that in both cases, that of the United States in Iraq and Israel in Gaza, the aggressors sought to induce the civilian population to either just give up out of exhaustion or turn against the regimes ruling over them. The assumption that such a strategy will achieve such results is remarkably naive. Historically, it has almost never happened. For instance, despite the massive conventional bombing of British, Japanese and German cities during World War II, the populations rallied around their flags! And so, one can conclude that our present leaders and strategists who pursue such an end through these means simply know no history. This is a good example of a case where ignorance, here leading to massive death and destruction, is a de facto criminal state of mind.

III. The Issue of Double Standards

This state of affairs raises the seminal question of what will be the fate of international law as it applies to the protection of civilian populations? Today, the most we can say is that enforcement is selective and, in a certain odd way, "class based." In other words if you are the leader of a small state lacking a great power patron you are indeed subject to this sort of international law. For example, if you are the leader of Serbia, Sudan, Chile, Rwanda, Congo, etc. and persecute civilian populations you have a rather good chance of being brought before a tribunal such as the International Criminal Court. If, however, you are an American, Israeli, Russian, Chinese or British leader, etc. you have almost zero risk. You know the statue of Justice standing blindfolded holding up a scale? Well, she is peeking.

However, there is an interesting loop hole that can lead us around the problem of double standards. Since the 1990s the concept of universal jurisdiction has gained popularity. This is the legal notion that ordinary people in one country can seek to bring to trial those who allegedly violated public international law in an altogether different country. It is under this law that General Ernesto Pinochet of Chile was detained in England in 1998. Of course, the aged general, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of his countrymen, was relatively "lower class." That is, he was the ex-dictator of a country that has no real influence in the international arena and no great power patron. So, he was vulnerable.

What happens when such a law is applied to Americans or Israelis? Well, in 2003 U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in what can only be described as an act of imperial blackmail, threatened to remove NATO's headquarters from the city of Brussels unless "Belgium revoked legislation giving its courts the power to prosecute foreigners for alleged war crimes committed anywhere in the world." Rumsfeld was reacting against a move by Belgian human rights lawyers seeking the indictment of General Tommy Franks, then commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, for the illegal use of cluster bombs against civilian populations. The Belgian government quickly amended their universal jurisdiction law to meet American demands. Then in May 2010 Israel's opposition leader Tzipi Livni found that it was inadvisable to visit England because there was an arrest warrant waiting for her. The charge was war crimes associated with the Israeli invasion of Gaza. This attack took place while she was Foreign Minister. Livni was not Pinochet. For one thing she had a great power patron in Washington, and secondly the U.K. itself has a powerful Zionist lobby. The British government quickly announced that it would seek to rewrite the country's law on universal jurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion

The rules produced by our legislatures, by the United Nations Charter and by our ratified treaties are not supra-human. We make them for our own benefit so that we may live in communities with congenial standards of behavior and thus pass our days productively and in relative security. And, since we make them we can unmake them. That is exactly what too many of our leaders are now trying to do in terms of public international law. They have contrived such double standards that the laws against the wanton slaughter of civilians simply do not apply if committed by the strong. It is only the weak who are to be held accountable for their crimes.

If those in civil society do not like this arrangement they will have to fight hard against it. And here in the West it is our own state institutions and their leaders that we must fight against, for it is they who are the most ardent hypocrites when it comes to international law. It is they who demand immunity for the slaying of the innocent (who they conveniently dehumanize as "collateral damage"). They refuse to go after their criminal predecessors lest they too be held responsible for similar crimes (as in the case of President Obama). Where necessary they bully others into turning a blind eye to their crimes (as with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld). And, if we in civil society, press them hard they will simply seek to change the law to suit their dehumanizing policies. We might here repeat a question once asked, some 94 years ago by a Russian legislator who stood appalled by the bloody slaughter brought on by his government's strategy during World War I. He asked, "is this stupidity or is it treason?" I will leave the reader to seek his own answer.

There are so many battles to be fought that one can easily get frustrated and discouraged. In truth, however, they are really all just parts of a larger struggle. They add up to the struggle for humane rules, their universal application, and no double standards. The law must cease to be "class based." Only then can one approach a less unjust society than our present one. It is really a battle for the type of world we want to live in - our world or theirs.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Most of Gaza's factories have closed and its water is polluted as a result of Israel's siege policy, according to a new report being released today by the Israeli Human Rights group - B'tselem.

The siege policy has "led to economic collapse in Gaza," B'tselem noted in a 44-page report (PDF) that looked at Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem during the period from January 2009 to the end of April 2010.

Following is a summery of this report:

• The prohibition on bringing in raw materials and exports into Gaza, which has been in place since Hamas's takeover of the Strip in June 2007, forced 95 percent of the factories and workshops in the area to close.
• Before 2007, 4,000 types of goods were let into Gaza, compared with less than 150 that come in now. Among the restricted items are building materials such as iron and cement, which are needed to rebuild the 3,500 homes destroyed during last Israeli assault on Gaza - Operation Cast Lead.
• The quantity of goods that comes through the crossings is less than one-quarter of what entered prior to the siege.
• Before 2007, 70 trucks laden with export goods such as furniture, clothing and produce left Gaza daily for Israel. Now, only the export of strawberries and flowers to Europe is allowed in "certain instances". Goods are coming into Gaza through a system of tunnels set up under the border with Egypt, although the system is not enough to revive Gaza's economy.
• Electricity is a problem in Gaza. 98% of the residents suffer from blackouts ranging from eight to ten hours a day, while the remaining 2% do not receive any electricity at all.
• The power outages due to lack of fuel and spare parts have prevented the proper operation of wells and desalination plants.
• At the end of 2009, studies showed that 93% percent of the Gaza Strip's water was polluted, with high quantities of chloride and nitrates.
• "The water supply is defective and thousands of residents are not even connected to the water grid. Waste treatment has also been affected. Every day, some 100,000 cubic meters of untreated or partially untreated waste-water flow into the sea."
• A lack of pesticides and spare parts for irrigation systems makes it hard for farmers. Those with land near the border with Israel can no longer farm because access is forbidden or restricted, and those who violate these orders risk being shot.
• Fisherman cannot go out farther than three nautical miles, which limits the Strip's fish supply.
• The number of Palestinian fatalities at the hands of the IOF dropped from 456 in 2008 to 83 from January 21, 2009, through the end of April 2010. These numbers do not include Palestinian deaths that occurred during Operation Cast Lead.
• The report noted that Israel demolitions had continued in Area C of the West Bank, where from January 2009 to the end of April 2010, the occupation forces had destroyed 44 residential structures. The demolitions left 317 Palestinians homeless.
• In 2009, the Jerusalem Municipality demolished 48 buildings in east Jerusalem. The demolitions left 247 Palestinians homeless.
• The report notes that the IOF had not stop building settlements and no outposts been removed.
• According to the report, very few IOF or police investigations into allegations of wrongdoing against Palestinians had actually lead to convictions. From the start of the second intifada in September 2000 to the end of April 2010, B'tselem reported 255 cases of violence to the military advocate-general's office. Only 11 indictments were filed, and one of those was canceled.
• During that same period, B'tselem turned to the Justice Ministry's Police Investigation Department concerning 180 cases of violence, but only 12 indictments were filed.
• Since September 2000, B'tselem has submitted 220 complaints to the Israel Police, demanding investigations of cases where Israelis harmed Palestinians or damaged their property. Only nine of these complaints resulted in indictments.

B'tselem executive director Jessica Montell said that the report was being released to mark "the 43rd anniversary" of the end of the Six Day War, which marked "the beginning" of Israel's occupation.

"The ongoing occupation both violates" Palestinian rights and "poses clear dangers for Israel's democracy," Montell said. "For this reason we as Israelis must demand accountability for actions taken in our name in the occupied territories and work to change in policies that infringe human rights."

A new documented war crime.

28 April 2010 - A Palestinian youth, Ahmad Sliman Salem Dib, aged 19, died at Ash-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City after he was injured by Israeli fire while attending a demonstration near the border to protest the imposition of “no-go” zones by Israeli armed forces.

In the following video a group of Palestinians and internationals are seen walking from the Ash-Shaj'iya neighborhood, east of Gaza, toward the Israeli border fence. The youths reach a distance of a few dozen meters from the border, facing an Israeli military post. A soldier is seen near the post, observing events. None of the protesters are armed.

According to B'Tselem, the video shows a group of youths, some of them throwing stones at the military post. There is a sound of one shot. The injured youth is seen evacuated to receive medical treatment. He died later of his wounds. A previous shot, which was fired approximately 10 minutes earlier, was not captured on tape. The video was edited for length, B'Tselem noted.

Source: Ma'an News

By Jamal Dajani* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Israeli government's recent announcement of Army order No. 1,650 was just the latest act of provocation in a series of calculated measures to derail any possible resumption of peace negotiations. Under this new draconian measure, anyone who doesn't have a "permit" to be in the West Bank is to be considered an "infiltrator" and subject to expulsion or risk up to seven years in jail.

Expulsions and deportations are not something new for the Israeli military administrative system which was established in 1969, shortly after the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights in the 1967 Six-Day War. At the time, the Israeli military was given the legal power to expel "infiltrators" without trial for various unspecified "security reasons."

Two particular Palestinian communities will be impacted by order No. 1,650: Palestinians with Gaza residencies and Palestinians with East Jerusalem residencies, as well as foreign-born residents of the West Bank. But many Palestinian and Israeli experts believe that it's the foreigners living amongst Palestinians who are the real target of the Netanyahu government. Many believe that this is part of an ongoing Israeli effort to silence dissent and crack down on international solidarity members and activists who travel to Palestinian areas to support protests and rallies, often bringing with them the eyes of the outside world.

Now that Israel has almost completed its "Separation Wall", it wants to build a "Wall of Silence" and control the flow of information and limit the presence of foreign-born eyewitnesses on the ground. The question is, why now?

A "White Intifada" has begun to take hold in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Every Thursday and Friday, Palestinian peace activists, accompanied by members of the Israeli Peace Now movement and B'Tselem, as well as international supporters, gather to demonstrate against what they term as Israel's "Apartheid Wall" and land and home confiscations in the villages of Bil'in, Naalin, and the Sheikh Jarah neighborhood of East Jerusalem.

Two months ago, I witnessed a Friday demonstration in Sheikh Jarah where settlers tried to provoke peaceful demonstrators by harassing and spitting on them while Israeli Police and border patrol units watched from across the street. I was impressed by the demonstrators' calm and unfazed demeanor. Similarly, at the villages of Bil'in and Naalin, peaceful demonstrators have been brutally beaten and arrested by the Israeli army. Nevertheless, more keep coming back every week.

In February a Czech volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement was taken in the night from her house in Ramallah and deported by Israeli forces. This new order will give a blanket legal cover to the Israeli police and army to instantly deport foreign activists and aid workers spotted at demonstrations. Last December, at another demonstration I covered at Erez (Gaza-Israel Crossing), Israeli police did not engage the peaceful demonstrators who gathered calling for an end of the siege on Gaza. Instead, policemen were busy videotaping those who showed up, especially foreign nationals. Interestingly enough my Israeli Press Card was indefinitely delayed for renewal after my coverage of that story, but that's another subject on its own.

For years I've been hearing the popular question usually posed by Americans, "Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?"

During the past two trips that I've made to the Palestinian territories and Israel, I think that I discovered him/her in the eyes of the many peaceful demonstrators against the Israeli occupation. Nonviolent resistance could be the biggest threat to Israel's ability to justify it's continued military aggression and occupation of Palestinian lands. Order No. 1,650 is to neutralize the movement by deporting Gandhi.

Watch the Mosaic Intelligence Report!

* Jamal Dajani VP of International News, Series Producer of Mosaic News, Link TV

Source: Huffington Post

Including 5 year old children... The West close their eyes to this Israeli method of "justice"... No one asks why, if Israel knows where these people are, it cannot ARREST them and put them on trial?? The West accept assassination by Israel as a democratic method, and of course, take its word when it calls the dead "terrorists", apparently even if they are 5 and 8 year old children, and certainly if they are "civilians". And if they are elected politicians, all the better... even Palestinians can't vote for a dead man! WHITE colonialism rules...

Image by: Carlos Latuff

B'Tselem: Does Diskin view kids as terrorists?

Shin Bet chief says 1,000 terrorists killed in Gaza Strip in past two years. Human rights organization says 816 Palestinians killed in that period, including children

The human rights organizations in Israel and the Gaza Strip were angered by data presented Sunday by Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin during Sunday's cabinet meeting, according to which Israel had killed 1,000 terrorists in the past two years.

The B'Tselem organization expressed its surprise over Diskin's remarks, saying that according to its figures, 816 Palestinians were killed by the IDF in that same period, including 150 minors, 48 of them under the age of 14.

Security sources later corrected Diskin's remarks, saying that 810 terrorists were identified among the casualties, which included civilians.

"Does Yuval Diskin include five-year-old Maria Okal, eight-year-old Aya
al-Astal, nine-year-old Yehi Abu Slamia and his five-year-old brother Nasrallah among the list of terrorist?" organization officials asked. "Does the Shin Bet chief refer to the blood of these and other children as the blood of terrorists?"

The Palestinian organizations also refer to 1,000 people killed in two years, but according to them, most of the casualties were civilians. According to Samir Zakkut of the al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in the Gaza Strip, the data presented by Diskin were untrue.

These data, he said, were aimed at serving as excuses "in order to justify the crimes and the killing of civilians.

"All the figures point to the fact that the vast majority of the killed were not armed, but since we are in the 21st century, when no one in the worlds takes the killing of minors and innocent people for granted, the Israeli side needs excuses and lies, even in incidents in which gunmen are killed and innocent civilians are hurt," Zakkut added.

"Why are these people absent from Diskin's data? The Ghalia family from Jabalya, the Atmana family from Beit Hanoun, and the Ghaban family are only a few examples, and therefore it is very easy to contradict Diskin's claims."

According to Zakkut, Diskin's remarks raised the concern that these data were aimed at justifying a future attack, "while we are all waiting for the IDF's talked-about wide-scale operation in Gaza, which will lead to a high number of civilian casualties."

'Resistance improving'

Meanwhile, Abu Mujahad, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, slammed the fact that Diskin took pride in the killing of people fighting for their land and rights.

"If Diskin believes that the Palestinian resistance would suffer from the number of casualties, he is wrong. There were not 1,000 gunmen killed, but even if there were - we promise that 4,000 more have already been recruited to carry on.

"The amount of casualties will not influence the Palestinian resistance. The assassinations are a recruiting factor, rather than a deterring one, and the proof is that the resistance is improving," he said.

And: Shin Bet chief says 1,000 terrorists killed in Gaza since 2005