By Clive Hambidge *

A military conquest

"... We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours ... When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry round like drugged roaches in a bottle." (Rafeal Eitan)

A 'moral articulation' by successive American administrations as to the primary reason for their unilateral support of 0.001% of the world's population, namely Israel, is not standing up to international law or American scrutiny. The perpetuated myth of an Israel surrounded by mortal enemies, battling heroically for its democratic rights against all odds fades as the world of right mindedness recognises in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip the daily abuse and horror for Palestinians under illegal occupation in Israel's 'battlefield' to test new weaponry. That abuse, brought into sharp focus by the U.S Department of State in early 2004, is systematic; perpetrated by Israel in 2011 and paid for by U.S tax payers' dollars in the form of indiscriminate, unwise and illegal aid according to America's own laws. The reason? Unquestioning support for Israel's militarised political continuum, where de jure occupation became de facto annexation, and where, according to Special Rapporteur Falk "the unbridled assault upon Palestinian rights" continues.

If one consciously moves in time backward and forward, that is in American/Israeli time, one finds the same pattern no matter the date. There is no change no progress. It is like watching a film, a play no matter where you cut, what montage you see, what curtain is lifted and what scene you view, it is the same film, the same play, the same day, from the same violent script. It is a continuum of brutal actions designed to oppress Palestinians enough to make them leave their own land. Pick a date at random and one finds the paradox of continuum. Israel is waiting for Godot

"Estragon: All the dead voices.
Vladimir: They make a noise like wings."

Matt Bowles, writing for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, makes plain the facts: America for decades allowing Israel to place "US aid into its general fund, effectively eliminating any distinction between types of aid. [means] Therefore, U.S. tax-payers are helping to fund an illegal occupation, the expansion of colonial-settlements projects, and gross human rights violations against the Palestinian civilian population." Facts continually denied by Israel, as it ruthlessly pursue 'the doctrine of politics free from law'.

Israel's persistent but illusory claim that its 'international human rights treaty obligations do not apply in the OPT' has been, according to Amnesty International, 'rejected' by the U.N Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Against Women, the Committee Against Torture, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the International Court of Justice', and every conscionable citizen on the planet.

So to February 2004, the U.S Department of State in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices makes clear the egregious human rights violations and status of Israel in the OPT 2003, "The international community does not recognize Israel's Sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories." All accredited missions are to be found rightfully, and legally, in Tel Aviv. "Israel's overall human rights record in the occupied territories remained poor and worsened in the treatment of foreign human rights activists." These abuses came in a fiscal year 2003 where Israel received from the U.S "a foreign military financing grant of $3.1 billion and a $600 million grant for economic security." (Jewish Voice for Peace - JVP); U.S dollars used in the advancing of Israel's policy of 'continuum' namely the illegal colonisation of Palestinian lands, the tormenting of its people and those that would assist them. Lest we forget, it was in March 2003 that Rachel Corrie, an American citizen performing a fundamental rule of law principle by campaigning for human rights in the OPT, lost her life under the tracks of a caterpillar bulldozer: 'Made in the U.S.A'.

The U.S Department of State found in the bloody year of 2003 that amongst other violations of international law:

• "Israeli soldiers placed civilians in danger by ordering them [Palestinians] to facilitate military operations."
• "Israeli forces sometimes arbitrarily destroyed, damaged, or looted Palestinian property".
• "Israeli security forces often impeded the provision of medical assistance to Palestinian civilians."
• "Israeli security forces harassed and abused Palestinian pedestrians."
• "Israel conducted mass, arbitrary arrests in the West Bank during military operations, summoning and detaining males between the ages of 15 and 45"
• "Israel carried out policies of demolitions, strict curfews, and closures that directly punished innocent civilians ... Israel often demolished homes after suspects had already been killed or arrested."
• Israel "maintained" according to the Department of State "that such punishment of innocents would serve as a deterrent against future terrorist attacks."

These insidious patterns have been sustained by all Israeli administrations and represent a 'continuum': a calculated militaristic policy of intimidation and worse toward the innocent civilians of Palestine. This being so, I must add my concerns to the concerns of the Rachel Corrie Foundation that "the State Departments Country Reports on Human Rights systematically exclude the State Departments own analysis of Israel's failure to perform a credible investigation into the killing of Rachel Corrie," and further concerns that "reports generated by international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which noted a pattern of negligence in Israeli investigations into civilians killed by the IDF, were ignored in the creation of the Country Reports."

In recognition of the illegality of American Aid to Israel, the Rachel Corrie Foundation in its submission to the U.N Universal Periodic Review called upon the U.S to "enforce 22 U.S.C. 2304 (1994), protocol on Human Rights and Security Assistance, and the "Leahy Amendments" to the Foreign Operations Appropriations and Defence Appropriations Acts (e.g. P.L. 105-118 570), which prohibit the provision of security assistance to countries and military units that engage in a pattern of gross violations of human rights." Where, according to JVP, "Massive military aid promotes militarism, which has led to a reliance on military, rather than diplomatic means to work for a solution to this ongoing conflict.". The planned aim of 'continuum'.

The Continuum

"Zionism is a colonising adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. There is no other ethic" (Jabotinsky)

The U.N Mission Report (UNMR) on the Israeli operation in Gaza between December 27^th 2008 and 18^th January 2009 highlights that all Israel's operations must be viewed not as isolated moments in history where Israel feels threatened and then responds but, operation[s] that decidedly fit "into a continuum of policies aimed at pursuing Israel's political objectives with regard to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole." Reel back, fast forward, press hold, you find 'continuum': "After we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a State, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine." (Ben Gurion)

"The continuum is evident most immediately with the policy of blockade that preceded the operations [i.e Cast Lead] and that in the Mission's view amounts to collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the Government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip." (UNMR). Further, the Mission found "An analysis of the modalities and impact of the December-January military operations [also] sets them, in the Mission's view, in a continuum with a number of other pre-existing Israel Policies with regard to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The progressive isolation and separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, a policy that began much earlier and which was consolidated in particular with the imposition of tight closures, restrictions on movement and eventually blockade, are among the most apparent." 'The plan that never changed' is the continuum that ever is, until God forbid "There is no more Palestine. Finished . . ." (Moshe Dayan)

Nothing has changed since 2004, nothing has changed since 1948. And nothing has changed in 2011. Pick a date between 1948 and 2011 and one finds systematic abuse, atrocities, and deaths of Palestinian civilians. One might pick Operation 'Defensive Shield' 2002, Operation 'Summer Rains' 2006 or 'Autumn Clouds' November 2006, I have picked December 2008/January 2009 and 'Cast Lead' from Israel's seasonal slaughter. Here's a U.N Report of 2009.

The 2009 Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict concluded, "The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51 (2) and 75 of Additional Protocol 1, article 27 of the Four Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In some cases the Mission additionally concluded that the attack was also launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population."

In addition, the Mission found all of this was planned meticulously by Israel, "legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission [concluded] that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability."

One would remind Israel's planners of Article 7 of the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), "The official position of an individual who commits a crime against the peace and security of mankind, even if he acted as head of State or Government, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment." And of these compassionate words thundering through the centuries from Caliph Abu Bakr to "the first Moslem Arab Army invading Christian Syria:

Do not commit treachery, nor depart from the right path. You must not mutilate, neither kill a child or aged man or woman. Do not destroy a palm tree, nor burn it with fire and do not cut any fruitful tree." (634 A.D)

After Cast Lead, Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, reported that "During and after "Operation Cast lead", human rights organizations asked the Attorney General (AG) to open an investigation based on prima-facie evidence of gross-violations of international law; the AG rejected our request. Previous requests to the Military Advocate General (MAG) to open investigations into numerous other cases were also denied." Adalah further found "petitions filed to the Supreme Court against the MAG and AG's policy of not opening criminal investigations into the killing of Palestinians remain pending years later. It also appears that the Supreme Court's inaction has resulted in a brake on the submission of petitions by human rights organizations."

"Israel cannot build a society based on the principles of democracy, human rights, and compliance with international law while brutally occupying another people and their land. The United States is currently paying for that occupation with its annual aid," (JVP, Statement on Peace, U.S Military Aid and Israel, 2004.) and further, "When Palestinian doctors remove bullets from the bodies of Palestinian children, the bullets are typically stamped. Made in the U.S.A." Nevertheless, and, in remorseless fashion the United States defies international opinion, its own law and international law in providing massive military aid to its client state Israel. America supplies the boots that fit the feet that press on the necks of Palestinians.

Massive military aid for continuum

"The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war" (Ben Gurion)

The Congressional Research Service Report (CRSR) of 16^th September 2010 U.S Foreign Aid to Israel reported, "Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance." The Bush Administration unsurprisingly sanctioned an increase of 6 billion dollars in U.S military assistance to Israel in August 2007. And the Obama Administration, also unsurprisingly, responded to the Bush Neo Con reverberation by requesting $3 billion U.S in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel for fiscal year of 2011. So, add those figures in your moral mind space to this cumulative 'conservative estimate' given by the U.S organisation 'If Americans Knew' of "total direct aid to Israel [1949 to 2008] of $113. 8554 Billion. Massive by any standards.

Decades of murder and mayhem began with a trade loan in 1949 of $100.000. God only knows when and how it will end. Today the billions of US taxpayers dollars that pour through the 'aid funnel' are used to buy arms and equipment such as caterpillar bulldozers made in the U.S; indeed a stipulation by the U.S is that Israel uses "75% of its military aid from the U.S. It funnels this money to more than 1,000 U.S arms suppliers, which in turn lobby for policies that benefit them at the expense of peace in the Middle East." (JVP).

According to the CRSR, by giving unconditional aid to Israel, America seeks to and "maintains ...[Israel's] qualitative military edge over potential threats, and prevent[s] a shift in the security balance of the region." in fact that aggressive 'military edge' keeps Palestinians locked down in interminable suffering and the region a tinderbox. And make no mistake the 'qualitative military edge' is not for Israel but for The United States of America and its continued hegemonic ambitions through its proxy, Israel.

U.S blood money was/is for "a militarized Israel that will serve the U.S. interest of controlling the Petroleum reserves of the Middle East ... policy debate in elite circles takes for granted, on all sides, the goal of maintaining U.S. control over Middle East petroleum resources and the flow of petrodollars." (Chomsky, Fateful Triangle). If we take a sordid trip down Israel's blood soaked memory lane we find U.S Aid increasing in direct proportion to Israel's military aggression, perceived success therefore usefulness to American interests. Israel's continuum is vital for American control over the oil reserves of the region.

Stephen Zunes, The Strategic Functions of U.S. AID to Israel, shows how U.S Aid shoots up after Israeli military successes and its long term strategic cooperation with America. From the "spectacular victory" in the 1967 war, through the Civil War in Jordan 1970-71 and the countering of 'attacking Arab armies' in 1973, to the "fall of the Shah, election of the right wing Likud, and the ratification of the Camp David Treaty in 1979", through the years 1983-84 "when the United States and Israel signed memoranda of understanding on strategic cooperation and military planning." U.S Aid kept rising 450%, 800%, increasing, sevenfold, quadrupling, as did Israel's aggression. America force feeding Israel with military aid through the 'aid funnel,' whilst Palestinian children can scarcely keep mind, spirit, and body together.

Then came Clinton, Bush, Obama, all maintaining Israel's 'qualitative edge', all maintaining Israel's brutal military occupation. All, letting down the Palestinians' lawful drive for legitimate Statehood. All U.S Aid equated with destruction, acquainted with death. The long suffering Palestinians sold out with 'no objections' from the 'liberal left of America.'

Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush "I'm doing it for my daddy" junior, and Obama, all preserving 'Continuity Of Government' (C.O.G.) indeed, all cogs in the all consuming gas guzzling American machine. It will all end in tears and it won't be Palestinian tears, for they have wept too much and for too long for their lost freedom and their lost children.

O Captain My Captain

"Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice." (Moshe Dayan)

Questions are being asked of Captain America from unlikely and likely quarters. Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, "The question for the Obama administration, Congress and, in the end perhaps the American public, is given present economic problems, should the United States supply the money to make up for the reductions the Israelis are making in their own defence budget." A financial question of course. A superior question, because a moral one, is if, the American public, who should be asked first, were informed of the extent, nature and illegality of U.S Aid to Israel, would the American public then sanction any military aid to Israel at all?

As Hassan Fouda of Northern California Friends of Sabeel reminds, "Congress is planning deep cuts in social security, unemployment compensation, educational grants and other programs that help vulnerable Americans. Transferring billions of taxpayer's money to Israel now is immoral. Americans need to speak up and be heard.

Valuing Human Rights

Special Rapporteur John Duggard stated, "It is pointless for the Special Rapporteur to recommend to the Government of Israel that it show respect for human rights and international humanitarian law ... in these circumstances, the Special Rapporteur can only appeal to the wider international community to concern itself with the plight of the Palestinian people." (2006). After the end of the Israeli military operation Cast Lead 2008-2009 in Gaza, John Ging the UNRWA Director of Operations recalled a discussion that he had with a teacher in Gaza about 'strengthening human rights education in schools'. One would assume that the teacher had for obvious reasons a sceptical view of such an undertaking. In fact, recounts Ging "the teacher unhesitantly supported the resumption of human rights education." She said, "This is a war of values, and we are not going to lose it."

* Clive Hambidge is Human Development Director at Facilitate Global. He can be contacted at: clive.hambidge@facilitateglobal.org

Related posts:

• Doron Zahavi (aka Captain George), a suspected Israeli torturer gets key police job in Jerusalem
• UPDATE: Captain ‘R’ is FREED
• Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama: tragic hero vs political prostitute

Gaza not represented in blockade whitewash

By Stuart Littlewood * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"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 Nation, 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 is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

Related posts:

• As Turkey Freezes Israel Ties, Critics Decry “Whitewashed” U.N. Report on Gaza Flotilla, Blockade
• Beyond The Gaza Flotilla Attack: What Needs To Be Done, And How
• Guilty As Charged: UN Report on Gaza Flotilla Massacre

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

Despite no legitimate provocation, Israel began terror bombing Gaza on December 27, 2008. Invasion followed, attacking innocent civilian men, women and children for over three weeks, using missiles, bombs, shells, and illegal weapons against defenseless people. Mass slaughter and destruction ensued.

Brazen crimes of war and against humanity were committed. No culpable officials were held responsible. Security Council no-fly zone protection wasn't ordered. International community leaders approved or were silent. Washington was complicit by supplying Israel with weapons, munitions, and encouragement. Obama acts the same as Bush, waging a quartet of lawless wars and using proxies in others.

Operation Cast Lead remains one of history's greatest crimes. Yet Israel was green-lighted to wage it with impunity, what it's done numerous times in its history, besides terrorizing Palestinians by:

• illegal military occupation;
• collective punishment and intimidation;
• air and ground attacks;
• isolating Gaza illegally under siege;
• intermittently bombing and shooting its residents, including noncombatant farmers, fishermen and children;
• regular residential neighborhood incursions;
• bulldozing homes;
• dispossessing residents;
• land seizures;
• arbitrary arrests;
• torture as official policy, including against women and children;
• targeted assassinations;
• denying refugees their right of return;
• movement and free expression restrictions;
• violence, not peaceful coexistence;
• confrontation, not diplomacy;
• war, not peace; and
• denying Palestinian sovereignty, as well as equal justice, human rights and civil liberty protections.

Israel is a rogue terror state, a democracy in name only affording rights solely to Jews. Remember Cast Lead, one of history's greatest crimes. Justice Richard Goldstone documented them convincingly in his 575 page report titled, "Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict."

It covered Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza siege, the impact of Israel's West Bank military occupation, and much more, including:

• events between the "ceasefire" period from June 18, 2008 to Israel's initiated hostilities on December 27, 2008;
• applicable international law;
• Occupied Gaza under siege;
• an overview of Cast Lead;
• obligations of both sides to protect civilians;
• indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians, causing many hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries;
• "the use of certain weapons;"
• attacking "the foundations of civilian life in Gaza: destruction of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing;"
• using Palestinians as human shields;
• detention and incarceration of Gazans during the conflict;
• the IDF's objectives and strategy;
• impact of the siege and military operations on Gazans and their human rights;
• the detention of the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit;
• internal Gaza violence - Hamas v. Fatah;
• the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem;
• Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive or lethal force during demonstrations;
• Palestinians in Israeli prisons;
• Israeli violations of free movement and access rights;
• Fatah targeting Hamas supporters in the West Bank, and restricting free assembly and expression;
• rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians;
• repression of dissent, access to information, and treatment of human rights defenders in Israel;
• Israeli responses to war crimes charges;
• proceedings by Palestinian authorities;
• universal jurisdiction;
• reparations; and
• conclusions and recommendations.

It collected enough information "of a credible and reliable nature....to make a finding in fact." It established clear evidence of crimes, determining they were deliberate or reckless. An accompanying press release said:

"(T)here is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity."

It explained that Israel falsely used the pretext of rocket attacks to attack "the people of Gaza as a whole" illegally.

A detailed discussion of Goldstone's findings can be accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/09/goldstone-commission-gaza-conflict.html

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Report Remembers Cast Lead

In its December 2010 report titled, "The Illegal Closure of the Gaza Strip: Collective Punishment of the Civilian Population," the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) remembered Cast Lead, saying it exacerbated isolation:

• killing over 1,400 Gazans, mostly civilians;
• injuring thousands more, many seriously; and
• causing "extensive destruction of houses and civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and industry."

Moreover, Israel violated Security Council Resolution 1860 (January 8, 2009), calling for "full withdrawal of Israeli forces," as well as "unimpeded humanitarian assistance" for Gazan victims. As a result, deepening crisis ensued.

On April 1, Richard Goldstone's Washington Post op-ed headlined, "Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes," saying:

"Our report found evidence potential war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity by both Israel and Hamas." The latter ones, in fact, were minor by comparison, responding only to Israeli provocations.

Israel's, however, "were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where....evidence (pointed to no) other reasonable conclusion."

Goldstone, however, softened his initial condemnation by commending Israel's Cast Lead inquiry, ignoring how all its internal investigations whitewash crimes of war and against humanity - most recently the Gaza and May 2010 Freedom Flotilla massacres.

According to PCHR:

"Rather than uphold the rule of law, the Israeli investigative and judicial system is artfully manipulated to provide an illusion of investigative and judicial rigour, while systematically perpetuating pervasive impunity" for crimes too extreme to ignore.

Whitewash Examples

On April 29, 2009, IDF Chief of Staff, General Gabi Ashkenazi authorized publication of the findings of five military investigate teams. Unsurprisingly, they concluded that:

"(T)throughout the fighting in Gaza, the IDF operated in accordance with international law. The IDF maintained a high professional and moral level while facing an enemy that aimed to terrorize Israeli civilians whilst taking cover amidst uninvolved civilians in the the Gaza strip and using them as human shields."

It continued at some length justifying brazen Israeli crimes of war and against humanity. In contrast, a year after hostilities ended, Human Rights Watch called Israeli attacks "indiscriminate, disproportionate (and) at times seemingly deliberate, in violation of the laws of war," condemning IDF investigations as no "substitute for impartial and thorough investigations into laws-of-war violations" they whitewashed.

In his April 1 op-ed, Goldstone failed to explain and denounce them. Instead, he defended the indefensible.

Netanyahu's (Jacob) Turkel commission investigation of Israel's Freedom Flotilla massacre also produced lies, distortions, omissions, false conclusions, and exoneration of cold-blooded murder, ordered by top government and military officials who got off scot-free like Cast Lead criminals.

Specifically, it concluded that Israel's (illegal siege) does not break international law....(and) there were clear indications that the flotilla intended to break the naval blockade....By clearly resisting capture, the Mavi Marmara had become a military objective," despite on board activists having no weapons and offering no resistance. Saying so was a lie.

In contrast, an independent UN Human Rights Council investigation "concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in Israel prior to deportation."

It added that Israel's attack:

"was unnecessary, disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and resulted in the wholly avoidable killing and maiming of a large number of civilian passengers."

Also that at least six of the dead were killed by "extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions," some shot multiple times in the head at close range.

Moreover, similar tactics were used before, during, and after Cast Lead, facts Richard Goldstone knows and should have explained instead of suggesting civilians may not have been "intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

Indeed they always are under Israel's "Dahiya Doctrine," targeting civilians as official policy. Named after the Beirut suburb IDF attacks destroyed in the 2006 Lebanon war, it's how all Israeli wars are waged. IDF Northern Commander Gabi Eisenkot explained, saying:

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force at the heart of the enemy's weak spot (civilians) and cause great damage and destruction. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages (towns or cities), they are military bases. This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

It also prioritizes damaging or destroying assets, economic interests, and centers of civilian power, requiring long-term reconstruction even though international law prohibits attacking civilians and non-military related targets. Israel spurned international law in Cast Lead, against humanitarian Flotilla activists, and in all its belligerent confrontations.

Instead of condemning this policy, Goldstone softened his criticism, contradicting his detailed findings, replicated by other reputable human rights studies, unequivocally accusing Israel of crimes of war and against humanity.

A Final Comment

On March 25, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution, urging the General Assembly address Israel's Cast Lead impunity by asking the Security Council to request investigation, action and resolution by the International Criminal Criminal Court (ICC).

For over two years, justice for thousands of Palestinian victims has been denied. Gaza remains illegally under siege. Meaningful action is demanded. Crimes this great can't be tolerated.

Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council can request ICC action. Washington's veto, of course, looms. Nonetheless, it's high time other members demanded, shamed, and did whatever it takes to assure long-suffering Palestinians justice. Then do it for other victims of injustice instead of authorizing war on Libya when it should have acted resolutely to prevent it.

* 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.

Related posts:

• Palestinian Authority Recommends Whitewashing Gaza War Crimes
• Committee of Independent Experts on Gaza War
• Israeli Settlers’ Terror

The film (in five parts below) is part of Al-Haq's campaign to stop collective punishment practiced by Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

In the Spider's Web provides an overview of these punitive measures against the Palestinian civilians. While the film mainly addresses the accounts of two women, it also highlights the impact that collective punishment has on the whole civilian population. The film also takes the audience to a girls; school in Hebron, where it shows a typical day in the lives of these students. The documentary also seeks to capture and relay some of the disastrous implications of the continuing construction of the Annexation Wall and the further expropriation of land for its construction.

Watch this and ask yourself: Could I (YOU) live like this?

In the Spider's Web (pt. 1):

In the Spider's Web (pt. 2):

In the Spider's Web (pt. 3):

In the Spider's Web (pt. 4):

In the Spider's Web (pt. 5):

Related posts:

• Documentary: Occupation 101
• Documentary: Two Schools in Nablus
• Documentary on JNF’s Illegal Canada Park