The Russell Tribunal on Palestine recently found the state of Israel to be guilty of apartheid (EPA)

I firmly believe that the Russell Tribunal has credibility as a venue for truth-telling despite being established and funded by ordinary citizens concerned about the denial of Palestinian rights and Israeli defiance of international law. RToP makes no pretense of being "a court" with enforcement powers, but it does deny allegations of "cooking the books" because it knows in advance that there will be a finding of guilt. Indeed it is this knowledge in advance, based on abundant and non-contested evidence, that explains the motivations for mounting the extraordinary effort to raise the funds and handle the logistics required to organise a proceeding of this type. Such a tribunal makes no real effort made to discover the truth, although representatives of those accused were formally invited to present their defence, but rather its calling is to document the truth. Israel has made no secret of the policies, laws and practices that were presented in Cape Town, although it describes them differently, hides and obscures their application, and draws a different set of conclusions.

Russell's historic initiative

It was the celebrated British philosopher, Bertrand Russell who suggests in his autobiography that he felt that the world needed to know about the Vietnam War in a manner free from self-serving slant and Cold War propaganda, and so he invited leading moral authority figures in the world to take part in an unrestricted inquiry into the alleged criminality associated with the American role in Vietnam.

In Russell's opening statement at the International War Crimes Tribunal convened in 1966 to investigate the atrocities by the US in Vietnam, he declared that the initiative had no clear precedent but that such openness was helpful as it allowed the tribunal "to conduct a solemn and historic investigation, uncompelled by reasons of State or other such obligations". He ended his remarks by making clear the distinctive objective of the undertaking: "May this Tribunal prevent the crime of silence".

In effect, the narration of the criminality is undertaken not primarily to speak truth to power, which is generally deaf to voices from below, but to speak truth to people, awakening public opinion from its apathy to the responsibilities of being human (concern for the victimised other) and duties as citizens of free society to ensure that a government acting in its name upholds the law. Russell expressed this orientation as embodying very grand, some would say grandiose, expectations: "our task is to make mankind bear witness to these crimes and to unite humanity on the side of justice in Vietnam".

Actually, the outcome of the Russell Tribunal was virtually unreported at the time (except derisively), and later its work was known only to small coteries of anti-war activists and intellectuals, and even they were often confused at the time about whether such a one-sided unauthorised event was helpful to the general cause of peace and justice in the world. With the passage of time, the Russell experience has gained in influence and reputation, but it remains a large exaggeration to claim, as Marvyn Bennum does in an otherwise excellent article, "Understanding the rational, logic and procedures of the Russell Tribunal", [Cape Argus, October 31, 2011] that the Russell tribunals had "a profound impact on world opinion", although this historic initiative did set the standard in most respects for subsequent enactments of such an approach, including the RToP.

Unfortunately, although Russell's words are often invoked as the core justifying claim, the reality after some 45 years is that such undertakings, and there have been many since this first one, are rendered almost mute by a media that thinks and feels like a state, which is especially so when the allegations are directed at the lead constitutional democracy that sits firmly at the pinnacle of geopolitical power and influence. The wall of silence does not crumble easily if sustained by the combined corporate and military muscle at the disposal of Washington.

As Russell said in 1967 at the second session of the Vietnam Tribunal, "[w]e are not judges. We are witnesses". This witnessing is meant to be politically effective than mere pronouncements of injustice and criminality, and it has gradually in recent years become more so. As the state system has moved to criminalise certain forms of conduct, and even to establish an International Criminal Court, it seems more plausible to demand that the law should be applied to the strong as well as the weak, and less of a usurpation of governmental functions for persons acting on their own to do what institutions of the state are failing to do, that is, assess charges of guilt.

It may seem to be the case that the Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal gave the game away at the outset by putting the words "investigate the atrocities by the United States in Vietnam". Such provocative language makes us think about the nature of the game, and how it should be played. To deal with the impunity of the powerful in abusing the weak, the supposed uncertainty of outcome in a governmental trial (where some version of the myth of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is in force) is not present in this kind of setting. The very premise of the Russell Tribunal, and the many subsequent replicas, is that there is such certainty present as to generate moral outrage sufficient to give rise to the inquiry.

Frank Barat, the main organiser of RToP put the issue slightly differently, by observing "[o]ur intention has never been to find out if Israel were guilty or not, nor to start a debate about it. This work has already been done by UN bodies, human rights organisations, aid organisations and countless violated UN Security Council resolutions". And further, "[i]t is our duty to stand with the oppressed in its quest for justice".

In this respect, those civil society tribunals that try to imitate to the extent a judicial model of inquiry and decision risk generating confusion. They make it more reasonable for critics to point out that if the tribunal purports to be trying to ascertain guilt rather than denounce it on the basis of a preexisting legal consensus, then a pretense of "judicial process" does make itself subject to criticism as a hypocritical fraud. To some extent, the recently concluded Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, while impressive in many respects, fell into this trap by emphasising the legal credentials of its "judges" who were almost all exclusively jurists who were only locally known and by putting forward a kind of token defence on behalf of Bush and Blair who were charged with crimes in connection with the Iraq War. The Russell Vietnam Tribunal, in contrast, had clearly signalled its rejection of this vocational law model by using such a loaded word as "atrocities" in naming itself, by not seeking to appoint individuals with a law background to serve on its panel of judges, and by not mounting any defence on behalf of those accused (although a ritualised invitation was issued to the American president, Lyndon B Johnson, to do so).

Obviously, this issue raises a question for the future. Is it better to mimic the state-centric model of judicial process in a criminal case to the extent possible or is it preferable to produce a morality pageant in which a true story is told with as much passion, reasoning, and proof as possible? Of course, international law can be invoked in the pageant model as explained by Barat when he writes that the RToP "by using international law as its basis, proposes a no-nonsense way forward. The law is on the side of the Palestinians, so let's make good use of it. The Tribunal intends to assist the people working on a just peace for all with the legal means they have crucially been lacking for too long". [Frank Barat, "What is the point of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine?"] The pro-Palestinian claim here seems to correspond with a fair reading of relevant international law on all crucial dividing issues: settlements, Jerusalem, refugees, occupation, land, water, and the utmost issue, self-determination. So stacked it reinforces the moral condemnation.

Goldstone's charm

Realising that the objective is to overcome "silence", the RToP was greatly helped by the publication of a slanderous attack on the prospective undertaking in the pages of the New York Times by the notable South African public figure Richard Goldstone. [Goldstone, "Israel and the Apartheid Slander", NY Times, October 31, 2011] Never before in the more than four decades of such proceedings had an influential media venue in the West stooped to take notice of such happenings prior to their occurrence. Not only did Goldstone call global attention to RToP, but he created a platform for response that was used by John Dugard, another South African of global stature with special expert credentials as to conditions in Palestine as well as to the experience of apartheid in South Africa. The Goldstone attack suggests that it sometimes better to have enemies than friends!

In the article almost ludicrously Goldstone wrote, "In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute. 'Inhumane acts... committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and discrimination'..." Really! The list of discriminatory laws, the dual administration of settlements and Palestinians, the checkpoint treatment of Palestinians, the settler only roads, the non-protection of Palestinians living under occupation, the midnight abusive arrests of children certainly suggest a pattern of inhuman acts even to an uninformed mind!

Without naming the participants, among whom were a death camp survivor, Stephane Hessel, a former member of Mandela's cabinet - Ronnie Kasrils, a world renowned author - Alice Walker, a distinguished English barrister - Michael Mansfield, QC, and a former American congresswoman - Cynthia McKinney, Goldstone calls them "critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known". The question, of course, is not whether these outstanding personalities have strong opinions on the matter at issue, but whether they have credibility based on their reputation for bearing witness truthfully and effectively. [For insightful interviews by Hanan Chehata with these leading RToP participants see the Middle East Monitor website].

RToP in South Africa

The RToP chose South Africa as the site for this session on apartheid quite obviously to claim continuity with the universally condemned racist regime that governed the country until 1994. This continuity was reinforced by having Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, renowned opponent of apartheid in South Africa and someone who early drew the analogy to Israeli treatment of Palestinians, deliver an opening address at the session in Cape Town.

This lineage was further reinforced by the presence of Ronnie Kastrils, a Jewish member of the RToP panel, as well as receiving testimony from the world respected South African jurist, John Dugard, who was prominent both for his opposition at home to apartheid and because in his role as UN HRC Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine he called the occupation as an instance of the international crime of apartheid.

But there was also some cost paid for emphasising this link to South Africa, which was the only real basis for Goldstone's rant directed at RToP. Goldstone called the comparison "an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations". In effect, it allows the misleading argument to be made that since there are significant dissimilarities between Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and the South African racist regime the allegation would seem to rest on the credibility of the comparison.

As should be understood by people of good will by now, the apartheid experience in South Africa gave rise to the formulation of an international crime of apartheid as specified in the 1973 International Convention and included in the 2002 Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, but it does not delimit future occurrences of the crime of apartheid. In this latter legal instrument, apartheid is set forth as one of eleven types of "crimes against humanity" in Article 7(1)(j) of the treaty.

The crime of apartheid

The most controversial, and at the same time far reaching feature, of the RToP finding was to conclude that Israeli responsibility for establishing an apartheid regime applied not only to Palestinians living under occupation, but also to the Palestinians minority living with discriminatory regulations in Israel and to the Palestinian diaspora consisting of 4-5 million refugees and exiles.

Seen in isolation, it seems like an unconvincing extension of the meaning of apartheid, even if separated from its South African connection, to consider Palestinian citizens of Israel, even if victims of severe and humbling discrimination, as living under an apartheid regime or even more so to view diaspora Palestinians in this manner. But there is moral and psycho-political weight to the unanimous view of the RToP jurors that the core right of self-determination applies to the Palestinian people as a whole, including not living under direct Israeli military control.

The RToP divides its rationale for finding guilty of committing the crime of apartheid into three main parts: (1) race as defining identity in Israel/Palestine relations (tribunal agrees that race in the international definition of the crime should be interpreted broadly to include ethnic and national character); (2) inhuman acts (specified in relation to Israeli treatment of Palestinians, as integral to the crime, particularly "colonisation and appropriation of Palestinian land" and coercive fragmentation of the Palestinian community in "different physical spaces"; (3) a systematic and institutionalised regime as pervading the subjugation of the Palestinian people (preferential treatment of Jews, dual legal arrangements, restrictions on residence and mobility, deportations and house demolitions are elements in what the tribunal calls "Israel's institutionalised regime of domination". [See Victor Kattan's excellent detailed analysis of the RToP finding of apartheid in his "The Russell Tribunal on Palestine and the Question of Apartheid", al-shabaka brief, November 23, 2011].

Assessing RToP

The importance of the RToP session is to strengthen the civil society case against the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people. As such, it adds a certain quality of gravitas to such international initiatives as the Freedom Flotilla and the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign. Thanks to Goldstone, and to the organisational skills of the tribunal, there has also been a certain media visibility for RToP that has been absent in most comparable undertakings, including the recent Kuala Lumpur proceedings against George W. Bush and Tony Blair. In this sense, the crime of silence that disturbed Bertrand Russell during the Vietnam War is still being committed, but it has been to a degree mitigated by the legacy he continues to inspire.

Indirectly, also, the very existence of RToP should encourage states to be more active in exerting their own authority to implement individual accountability under international criminal law via reliance on universal jurisdiction. At present, the impulse to reassert such national agency to supplement weak international enforcement mechanisms has been set back by a geopolitical backlash led by the US in the aftermath of the Spanish indictment and British detention of Augusto Pinochet a little more than a decade ago. This struggle between the vitalisation of international criminal law and geopolitical actors demanding impunity will help determine whether global governance is primarily a regime of power or a regime of just law.

Finally, we notice that the jurisprudence of conscience, that is, applications of law without punitive capacity in relation to alleged violators, is maturing in two parallel directions. The first illustrated by the Russell legacy, including at this recently concluded inquiry into Israeli apartheid, rests its methodology on law established by testimony of legal experts and findings of individuals whose credibility depends primarily on their moral authority and cultural stature, a jury of conscience. The second illustrated to a degree by the Kuala Lumpur proceedings, seeking to replicate the behaviour of courts under the informal auspices of civil society, and seeks to base its credibility on a pervasive legal framework, including the makeup of the panel making findings and recommendations and extending to providing a defence on behalf of the government and individuals charged with criminal behavior. Hopefully, the fourth and final session of RToP, to be held in 2012 in the US, will in addition to providing an overview of the allegations against Israel, will also offer guidance to those who see a continuing need for a jurisprudence of conscience as a critical arena of struggle in the ongoing quest for humane global governance.

* Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume, International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

He is currently serving his third year of a six year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

Related posts:

• “Peace or Apartheid” are not the only options for Israel
• Israel 2007: worse than apartheid
• Olmert insists on racist, Apartheid-style Israel as “state of the Jewish people”

By James M. Wall * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I have been studying an excellent documentary, Occupation 101, an examination of the root causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The case of Judge Richard Goldstone broke too late to make it into the film, but I have a suggestion for the film makers: Start work on a sequel. Call it The Goldstone Affair: The Loyal Zionist Judge Who Came in From the Cold.

On April 1, 2011, Goldstone wrote an op ed column for the Washington Post in which he offered a light clarification of the negative report of Israel's 17-day 2008-09 military assault in the Gaza Strip.

Goldstone's Post mea culpa gave Israel's current tribal leaders the opening they demanded, an opening which they are now exploiting to rewrite the script of what actually happened in the Gaza assault.

The mea culpa, with clarifications that are skimpy in the extreme, brought public humiliation to Goldstone. It also warns any Zionist loyalist who enters enemy territory that there are consequences for disloyalty.

The hasbara (public information/propaganda) specialists in the current Israeli government found a few morsels in Goldstone's 500-word newspaper column to feed to the media and to appease American PEPs (progressive except for Palestine) who had been reeling for months over the detailed 552-page (including annexes) Goldstone Report.

Those hasbara specialists, or someone, may even have suggested the column's most effective line to Goldstone. It sounds more like a spin-doctor's phrase than something that would have come from the computer of a conservative South African Jewish judge.

The line the media seized upon is the one in which Goldstone, or whoever shaped the final version (a Post copy editor, perhaps?) was this: "If I had known then what I know now".

Exactly what would have changed in the report, if he had "known then what I know now?"

Roger Cohen has some suggestions. He calls the column a "bizarre affair":

[Goldstone] says his report would have been different "if I had known then what I know now." The core difference the judge identifies is that he's now convinced Gaza "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

His shift is attributed to the findings of a follow-up report by a UN committee of independent experts chaired by Mary McGowan Davis, a former New York judge, and what is "recognized" therein about Israeli military investigations. Well, Goldstone and I have not been reading the same report.

McGowan Davis is in fact deeply critical of those Israeli investigations - their tardiness, leniency, lack of transparency and flawed structure. Her report - stymied by lack of access to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank - contains no new information I can see that might buttress a change of heart.

On the core issue of intentionality, it declares: "There is no indication that Israel has opened investigations into the actions of those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw Operation Cast Lead."

Cohen concludes that whatever it was that prompted the Goldstone column remains "a mystery".

Why did Goldstone do it? He knew his Zionist masters would manipulate his column for their benefit, not for his.

Was he so naive about Zionist politics that he did not know that in the final days of the Gaza assault Israel was already preparing its hasbara (propaganda) campaign to counteract the international negative impact of the assault?

Could he have missed this January 15, 2009, Ha'aretz news report, written by Barak Ravid, that revealed the government's plans to prepare for the aftermath of its murderous assault on Gaza's civilian population?

The Foreign Ministry has created a special task force to prepare for the aftermath of the Israel Defense Forces' Gaza operation. . . . .

The working assumption is that Israel has suffered a blow to its image in the West in the wake of heavy civilian casualties in the Strip. Israeli officials believe after the fighting stops and foreign journalists are allowed entry into the territory that negative sentiment toward Israel will only grow as the full picture of destruction emerges.

These tribal leaders know how to plan ahead.

What they had not counted on was that the UN investigation of this destruction would be led by a South African judge with impeccable Zionist credentials. Unfortunately for Israel, he was also honest, a jurist who followed the facts as they emerged.

The result was the Goldstone Report that brought world approbation, and possible criminal charges, against Israel's leaders and its soldiers.

Zionism's hasbara operatives plugged that loophole by exploiting Goldstone's devotion to Zionism.

The parallel between the judge who wanted to go home to Zionism, and John LeCarre's 1961 novel, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, is not absolute. But LeCarre's Alec Leamas and Richard Goldstone, have this in common: They were both gripped by a love which blinded them to the reality that their masters were not be trusted. (Richard Burton. who played Leamas in the 1965 Martin Ritt film, is shown in the poster at left.)

William Boyd wrote an essay for the London Guardian (July 24, 2010) about LeCarre's spy:

Leamas, betrayed, hoodwinked, terminally fatigued, is in a state of existential despair at the end of the novel. The opportunity to escape means nothing to him - but it does mean everything to him that the girl he is with, Liz Gold, innocent, unwittingly drawn into the Circus's plotting - should escape. Leamas knows unequivocally at the end of the book that he is going to be betrayed again .... but he tries all the same to thwart that betrayal.

Boyd sets up the ending of the novel:

Leamas has been sent into Communist East Germany by agents of the British Secret Service "who have used Liz as brutally and pitilessly as they have used their trusted agent Leamas."

Judge Goldstone's fatal weakness is that the Zionism he loves is no longer the Zionism he once knew. The British Secret Service that sent Leamas into the cold is also not the Service a younger Leamas signed up to serve.

Leamas' spy masters knew he would do anything to save the woman he loved. Goldstone's Israeli minders knew what motivated him. His home and his family are in South Africa. His tribe is Zionism.

The American Jewish publication Forward writes that when Goldstone returned home to South Africa last May for his grandson's bar mitzvah - an event he almost missed because of protests planned against him - he also attended a secret meeting.

The meeting was conducted by Avrom Krengel, chairman of the South African Zionist Federation. Krengel aggressively critiqued the Goldstone report at the meeting.

Krengel had this to say, later, about Goldstone:

"It's interesting with Goldstone. He's not an assimilated Jew. He very much regards himself as, and wants to be, part of the community. That always came into play. He's not a Finkelstein or Chomsky."

Exactly, just as the British Secret Service knew their spy, so do Israel's tribal leaders know their judge.

The Forward writes that the May, 2010 meeting between Judge Goldstone and ten members of the South African Jewish community "had a profound impact on Goldstone, according to several participants who were there."

Debating face to face with the community really shook him," said David Saks, associate director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, who received a read-out on the meeting right after it took place. "When he saw the extent of the anger and he couldn't answer the accusations against him... I think he realized he was wrong.

. . . It was a heavy meeting. They went in very hard against him. There were no smiling handshakes afterwards. Avrom's opening statement was pretty merciless."

In my American Southern White Protestant tribe, we would refer to this confrontation as Goldstone's "come to Jesus" meeting.

Daoud Kuttab, a leading Palestinian journalist, had more to say about Goldstone's meeting in South Africa: He wrote in the Jordan Times:

It is very rare that a judge would actually go back on a decision or judgement even if that was not a judicial act in the normal sense of the word. A mea culpa using an op-ed after a committee report has been submitted is extremely unusual. This is where the case becomes scary.

For months, the social persecution of Judge Goldstone has been widely publicised. The head of the South African Zionist Federation, Avrom Krengel, boasted to Yedioth Ahronoth's Aviel Magnezi how the Jewish community pressured Goldstone: "He suffered greatly, especially in the city he comes from. We took sides against him, and it encourages us to know that our way had an effect."

Kuttab also reported that Goldstone was allowed to attend his grandson's bar mitzva only "after the judge agreed to meet with the leaders of the South African Zionist Federation".

Whatever initially might have been right about Zionism as a movement, the Goldstone affair is a further indication that Zionism has been badly misused by Israel's current leadership.

Ha'aretz writer Meirav Michaeli correctly identifies the paranoia that appears to motivate Israel's leaders:

It is often said that a wise man learns from the mistakes of others, while a fool learns from the mistakes of his own. Those who do not learn from their own mistakes confirm that insanity is repeating the same act while expecting a different result. In our case, this insanity is an insanity of persecution.

Our belief that "the world is against us" has in recent years turned into a real obsession, a sense that we are constantly under attack, a fear of delegitimization, an insanity of persecution. It is unclear whether Israel is truly capable of differentiating between a real enemy and those who wish it well, or if it is simply complaining about being persecuted because it believes this serves its interests.

It is not "good for the Jews" when a good man like Richard Goldstone is forced to come in from the cold to a Zionism that has betrayed him.

* James M. Wall is currently a Contributing Editor of The Christian Century magazine, based in Chicago, Illinois. From 1972 through 1999, he was editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine. Jim launched personal blog April 24, 2008.

The photo of Judge Goldstone is by Getty/Images. The photo of Meirav Michaeli is from Ha'aretz.

Related posts:

• Judge Goldstone’s wobble sends wrong signal
• Obama should back Goldstone report
• Goldstone Report Copy

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

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

Professor Richard Falk put it most eloquently:

"The idea of Nuremberg after World War Two was that crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes are also offences against the whole of international society...”

The law that was applied to surviving German criminals of World War Two would not be respected unless those who sat in judgment upheld it in relation to their own behaviour.

The UN Special Rapporteur was speaking in London at a parliamentary briefing on Universal Jurisdiction, the principles of which the British government intends to undermine for the benefit of its Israeli friends.

"Universal jurisdiction is part of the struggle against impunity for the Israeli military and the country's political leaders,” said Falk. “That impunity has been possible both because Israel itself doesn't impose accountability on those who perpetrate violations of international criminal law and because the US, and to some extent European countries, have given a geopolitical insulation to Israel in relation to its responsibilities as a sovereign state."

The UN's Goldstone report and the international law panel appointed after the Gaza flotilla incident also raised the issue of impunity and accountability. Falk feels that the most effective way of implementing international law is now through the activism of civil society and through national legal institutions.

Universal Jurisdiction is a good tool for the job. A private individual may apply to a magistrate for an arrest warrant if he has serious evidence. The Attorney General's consent is needed for the prosecution to go ahead, but even if that consent is withheld the magistrate may still issue a warrant if he considers there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the war crime was committed and admissible evidence is presented which establishes this.

The beauty of the private warrant is that it can be issued speedily.

The bringing of a private prosecution for a criminal offence is an ancient right in common law and, in the words of Lord Wilberforce, "a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of the authority."

Lord Diplock, another respected Lord of Appeal, called it “a useful safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law".

And that's precisely what we're up against - a capricious, corrupt and biased administration that wants to let 'friendly' war criminals off and protect them from arrest while they visit Britain. The government argues that foreign politicians, no matter how blood-soaked, should never be made to feel unwelcome and that the current law impedes Britain's ability to use its diplomatic powers. In future the Director of Public Prosecutions will consider each application at the arrest warrant stage.

As protestors point out, this is a recipe for political interference and delay, which will enable suspects to slip away - the “inertia and partiality” Wilberforce warned about.

In short, the overriding principle that no-one, regardless of nationality, should feel able to commit war crimes with impunity, is being sacrificed so that the likes of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister who was responsible for launching the murderous assault on Gaza's civilians nearly two years ago (an atrocity she was later reported to be proud of and happy to repeat), and other Israeli psychopaths need not fear arrest if they come here.

Meanwhile mountains of evidence of Israel's war crimes are just waiting to be tested in court.

The UK, like all other countries that think themselves civilised, is under an obligation to enact legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. In other words, there should be no hiding place for the world’s vilest criminals.

But Britain’s heart isn’t in it. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the Foreign Office colluded with America to circumvent our obligation under the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which Britain signed along with 107 other countries. Leaked US embassy papers show that David Miliband, our previous foreign secretary, approved a 'temporary exemption' allowing the US to carry on storing cluster bombs offshore at Diego Garcia (a British territory) and transfer them onto US aircraft stationed on the island, hiding the arrangement from parliamentary scrutiny.

Wikileaks also revealed that Conservative party politicians lined up before the general election to promise they would run a "pro-American regime".

Britain’s barmy army of ‘Israel-firsters’

Running a pro-American regime means running a pro-Israel regime, since American policy is dictated by the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby. Stephen Walt, whose book exposed it, told Al Jazeera in the run-up to the US elections: "Almost all of the major candidates are falling over themselves to demonstrate how deeply committed they are to America's special relationship with Israel. Hardly a word of criticism is directed at anything Israel does and that is due to the activities of the lobby."

John Mearsheimer, co-author of the book, said: "If you look at who is pushing the US to use military force against Iran, the two driving forces are Israel and the Israel lobby."

In a series of private meetings with British Conservatives, leaked US cables tell how foreign secretary-in-waiting William Hague offered a "pro-American" government. Hague also said the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher". He said whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. “We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it.”

The US diplomat Richard LeBaron commented: "The UK's commitment of resources - financial, military, diplomatic - in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled.”

Hague is, in his own words, "a longstanding friend of Israel and someone who joined Conservative Friends of Israel at the age of 15". He once said: "The unbroken thread of Conservative Party support for Israel that has run for nearly a century from the Balfour Declaration to the present day will continue."

Liam Fox, now defence minister, was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: "...We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression - Israel's enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided."

Fox, Hague and David Cameron were known for their subservience to Israel long before they took power. In 2006 The Jewish Chronicle reported on the backers bankrolling David Cameron's bid for power, providing a fascinating insight into how the pro-Israel lobby infiltrates government and destroys the principles of integrity and accountability so necessary in public life. When Cameron became Conservative leader he proclaimed: "The belief I have in Israel is indestructible - and you need to know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on Israel."

CFI's Parliamentary Chairman and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee,

James Arbuthnot, addressed the following remarks to Parliament praising Israel: "Everyone in this House should have an interest in Israel, because it is a country that embodies the values that we should stand for. Israel [has] become a bastion of the rule of law, democracy, free speech, business enterprise and family values. If that is not what this country also stands for, I am disappointed."

Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel brazenly state that their first aim is "to maximise support for the State of Israel within the Liberal Democrats and Parliament".

“You discredit the rule of law”

Our last foreign secretary, David Miliband, actually apologised to Tzipi Livni and Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman for the arrest warrant issued against Livni in London a year ago. He promised Lieberman to begin working immediately to change the UK laws.

But the general election overtook him. Miliband’s grovelling promise was echoed by his replacement, Hague, who announced: "We have had good discussions with Israeli ministers on Universal Jurisdiction where the last government left us with an appalling situation where a politician like Mrs Livni could be threatened with arrest on coming to the UK...” He said it was "completely unacceptable… We have agreed in the coalition about putting it right, we will put it right through legislation that will be introduced… The Justice Secretary will bring into the House of Commons adding to legislation going through the House of Commons later this year and I phoned Mrs Livni amongst others to tell her about that and received a very warm welcome for our proposals".

At the same time he insulted the public’s intelligence by saying: “The UK is committed to upholding international justice and all of our international obligations. Our core principle remains that those guilty of war crimes must be brought to justice.”

During a recent trip to Israel Hague had the door slammed in his face by the petulant racist regime, cancelling strategic talks in order to ratchet up the pressure.

Even the Zionists’ 63-year record of land thieving, piracy, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate slaughter, mass abductions and imprisonment, torture, everyday terror and wholesale contempt for international law and human rights, isn’t enough to diminish the blind loyalty of our high-placed elected servants to the thugs of Tel Aviv.

In the fight to preserve Universal Jurisdiction and some semblance of honour, we can see how the odds are stacked. The corruption, bias and inertia the law lords warned of run deep. I leave the last word to Richard Falk, who makes the point that if a country like Britain, with its proud constitutional tradition, applies international criminal law only to those its leaders don’t like at the time – for example, Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic - “you discredit, in a fundamental way, the rule of law which really does depend on equals being treated equally.

“If that is not done then double standards become very manifest; it also has the effect of saying that geopolitics and foreign policy always trump the law.”

* 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.

Related posts:

• Letter to British Liberal Democrats: protecting war criminals “just about lowest thing anyone could do”
• Britain hangs out ‘welcome’ sign to war criminals
• GET THE WAR CRIMINALS ARRESTED NOW

A diverse group of Arizona State University students joined together to protest IOF Sargent Nadav Weinberg's lecture on the "Ethics of the IDF." The students organized a silent protest to give a voice to the Palestinian civilians who have been silenced by IOF policy.

Indeed, talking about the "Ethics of the IDF," while the IDF is accused of committing war crimes and possible crime against humanity by the United Nations is shameless propaganda. This is the same IDF that is responsible for maintaining the longest military occupation in modern history. Additionally, Amnesty International called IDF's operation in Gaza, in December 2008 and January 2009, "22 days of death and destruction." The U.N. investigation by Richard Goldstone found that "the assault was designed to humiliate and terrorize a civilian population." Roughly 1,500 people were killed by the IDF during the assault, a third of them women and children.

In this protest, Arizona State University students stand up for justice and equality, giving a voice to Palestinian civilians. Here's a clip of the protest:

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OybpkWlNhgU
Alternative link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC9e6vnMrI

Hat tip: Danielle Back
ASU SJP website is here: http://sjpalestine.com/

Related posts:

• Israeli Soldier in Bil’in, Palestine: “This is Lebanon!”
• Protest call for Valentine’s boycott of Leviev
• LSE Students Disrupt Israeli Foreign Minister Lecture

The voice of joy, the voice of rejoicing is heard in Israel: The Americans and British have also committed for war crimes, not only us.

By Gideon Levy | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The voice of joy, the voice of rejoicing is heard in Israel: The Americans and British have also committed for war crimes, not only us. WikiLeaks' revelations have inflamed all our noisy propagandists: Where is Goldstone, they rejoiced, and what would he have said? They were relieved. If the Americans are allowed to do it, so are we.

Indeed, the Americans are not allowed, and neither are we. When the traffic police stop a driver for speeding, the argument that "others do it" will not help him. When Richard Goldstone exposes war crimes in Gaza, the claim that "everyone does it" will not help us. Not everyone does it, and when they do, they should be excoriated and penalized.

According to the logic of Israeli propagandists, some of whom are disguised as journalists, Israel should now proudly look at the rest of the world: They killed more people there. There is no need to improve prison conditions in Israel - in China the situation is much worse; there is no need to upgrade health services - in America 50 million people have no insurance; no need to reduce the gap between rich and poor - in Mexico it is greater; we can continue to assassinate without trial - the British also do it; human rights are protected here - the Iranians are much worse; Israel has no corruption - look what's happening in Africa; the United States has the death penalty - let's have it too; it is even permissible to kill dissident journalists - look at the Russians.

Yes, war is cruel, the world is full of crimes and injustice, but not one of them exonerates Israel, even if Israel's sins seem pure as snow compared to those of the great United States. Now is the time to sharply censure America, not to forgive Israel.

It is the task of all patriots and people of conscience to express their fury over any such revelations, especially, of course, in their own country. Israelis must aspire to a more just and much more law-abiding country, without reference to what is going on in the world. True, we are not the worst; far from it. The number of civilians killed in Iraq, as was revealed, is a thousand times more horrific than the number killed in Gaza. So what? Even if the world holds us to a harsher standard, our hands do not become any cleaner. The world is more strict with us for various reasons, some justified, and at the same time treats us favorably and turns a blind eye to many other things. And in any case, the determining factor should be what we see in the mirror, if we look at it honestly.

Our rejoicing propagandists have changed their tactics now: no longer "the most moral army in the world," a contention any reasonable person can see is ridiculous. Now they say: "We are terrible, like all the rest." That claim does not hold water, especially because Israel is not judged only by one or another of its military operations, but by its decades-long occupation, with no end in sight. Such a lengthy occupation is unparalleled in the modern world and a disgrace to Israel, no matter what America is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WikiLeaks has proven that in the end the truth will out; it is hard to hide anything in this era. Goldstone also showed it, albeit much less dramatically. Some two years after Operation Cast Lead, even the Israel Defense Forces is still dealing with it here and there, investigating and trying officers and soldiers who did what the Goldstone report, which so infuriated Israel, said they did.

Israel should thank Goldstone, and America should thank Julian Assange. Their revelations prove the futility of war and its crimes. Imagine how much hatred America has sown in Iraq, with its thousands of mourning families, and how much hatred Israel has sown in Gaza, with its thousands of mourning families and its ruination.

How futile are all the assassinations and the torture, abuse and false arrests, with Iraq and Gaza looking as they do.

What are we brandishing? More than 100,000 dead in a terrible, useless war, the whim of a democratic leader? True, George W. Bush should now be sent to The Hague. But the fact that others are doing it, as Assange's revelations show, is the consolation of fools, and theirs alone.

(Haaretz)

Related posts:

• “Criminal pirate” Israel makes a fool of the OECD only days after it clasped the viper to its bosom
• Selling Cell Phones with Soccer Balls and Criminal Walls
• International Criminal Tribunal for Israel

Illustration by David Dees

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
--Elie Wiesel, Nobel Prize Speech, 1986

Dear Mr. President Barack Obama:

Again, congratulations on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Hundreds of Millions of people around the world hoped and prayed that this prize will give you the courage, motivation, and strong will to bring peace to the world, most especially in Palestine.

But Israel in its humiliating defiant "slap and insult" to you and your government's stated policy to freeze settlement construction, even temporarily, continues unabated to build more illegal settlements, demolishing more Palestinian homes, expelling Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, continuing its inhumane siege of Gaza, now for 3 years, continuing to build the Apartheid Wall that annexes more Palestinian land; steals water from Palestinians, and allowing daily settler violence against Palestinian civilians including children; all with total impunity knowing that our government always "caves" in to the assault by Israel's powerful lobbies such as AIPAC with support from an AIPAC compliant Congress and a media that portrays Israel as infallible. Former Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) upon leaving the Senate noted: "You can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here."

Your wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are causing daily civilian deaths with no end in sight. Iraq is still occupied by our military and mercenaries and when we allegedly leave we would've established permanent military bases to ensure oil and contain Iran. You're blind adoption of Israel's demand to bomb Iran is a repeat of the same lies and media hysteria that pushed us into devastating Iraq.

But first I feel compelled for the record to inform you that I am a SEMITE while Elie Wiesel and the rest of the American Jewish community are not.

It is you Mr. President who's been disrespectfully called an "Anti Semite" by Hagai Ben-Artzi, Netanyahu's brother in law.

Sir, If the U.S., the most powerful nation on earth can easily be "slapped" and "insulted" and still remain politically paralyzed to respond and deal with a small nation who's very founding and support is due to this nation, do you then expect the Palestinians to have any say in their future or for that matter Arab leaders who's regimes are dependent on our protection?

What conceivable concessions can the Palestinians offer Israel except to voluntarily leave their remaining land, a mere 12% of their previous homeland.

You began your presidency with some chutzpah in dealing with Israel but like all previous Presidents you've retracted any semblance of courage in dealing with the Israeli Palestinian issue or facing down Israel, the little nation that could.

You've gone out of your way to appease the Jewish community, having lunch with Elie Wiesel (imagine a U.S. President meeting with one Jew to comfort his concern about Jerusalem, ignoring Christian and Muslim concerns), sending Clinton to comfort the American Jewish Community on Israel while joining the Zionist call of the wild to attack Iran, forcing General Petreus to withdraw his remarks that link the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a direct threat to the lives of our military men and women in the Muslim world, and your repetitive reassurance to Israel that their "security" is sacrosanct while it is the brutal military aggressor, occupier and dictator of millions of Palestinians. Mr. President, what about the security of Palestinians who are killed on a daily basis either by Israeli troops or terrorist settlers? You've been unable to convince Israel to even allow meager food, water, and medicines into besieged Gaza.

On May 10 you announced your nomination of Elena Kagan as the third Jewish American to the Supreme Court, if confirmed, making the Jewish constitution of the Supreme Court to be one third although they only make up 1.7% of the U.S. population. The Supreme Court has no Protestant Justice despite their constituting the largest percentage of the U.S. population. I am confident that this appointment of a lawyer with no judicial experience is just another appeasement to the Jewish community to comfort their concern about your Israeli policy and to keep their money flowing to the Democratic Party. They needn't worry. No politician at any level in America dares to speak out against Israel if he/she seeks office. It's a death sentence.

The entire world wants Israel to end its illegal Occupation as per hundreds of U.N. Resolutions but your administration is adopting the hypocritical position that it's Iran, not Israel, that is in violation of Security Council Resolutions.

Israel and its supporters have brilliantly succeeded in inflaming one Arab/Muslim nation after another to divert the world's attention from its murderous regime in the Occupied Territories. First it was Egypt, then Libya, Lebanon, Syria, then Iraq, Darfur, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now Iran. Does anyone remember Darfur after years of hysterical obsession by our politicians and media? The media has passed on to Israel's diversion du jour, Iran, deliberately not reporting that a peace agreement has been reached between the Sudanese government and the militias in Darfur.

As Ariel Sharon said: "The Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."

What incredible manifestation of Jewish power exists then that one Jew, Elie Wiesel, is able to convene a meeting of the U.N. Security Council, accompanied by the hapless George Clooney, to discuss the situation in Darfur. No other ethnic American could convene the Security Council on any other issue.

Our government has been Israel's poodle and patsy since 1948. Pity the American people whose consumer obsession and disinterest in governmental affairs, except along party or single issue lines, has created a void in Washington D.C. that is filled by powerful Corporate and foreign interests.

Mr. President, your Cairo words now run hollow, your courage is wanting, thus peace in the Holy Land is once again dead until the next President picks up the mantle of a "peace process" knowing he too shall fail.

Again in our capitol Wall Street comes before Main Street and our national interest is subservient to Israel's interest. Our citizens continue to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of their hard earned tax dollars during periods of ballooning deficits to a rich nation, Israel, while our young men and women in the military die for a forced "passionate attachment" to a foreign nation.

With all due respect Mr. President, the love and enthusiasm you received in Denver upon your election is slipping wide and fast. How ironic, how tragic, that a black President ignores what it means to be enslaved by white European colonial powers.

The persecuted Jews of Europe are now the brutal persecutors in Palestine with our money, weapons, and vetoes.

For 62 years Israel has foiled and sabotaged every American, U.N., and International peace initiative as it strives for a "Greater Israel", an Israel without Arab Christians and Muslims. The followers of Jesus Christ have been intimidated into silence about the brutality and ethnic cleansing of their Christian brethren in the Holy Land

Mr. President, under Jewish influence, you and Congress immediately rejected the much respected and accepted Goldstone report on Israel's "war crimes" in Gaza without even reading its content and evidence. That's power that no American person or group can ever dream of achieving.

How hypocritical and ironic that Netanyahu at the U.N. General Assembly chastised the world for its "silence" on Iran's nuclear program with these words: "Have you no shame, have you no decency?" Where is Israel's shame and decency in its commission of "war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide" against millions of Palestinians made refugees in their own homeland.

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army"
--David Ben Gurion, in Nahum Goldman, 'The Jewish Paradox', translated by Steve Cox, 1978

How will your conscience, Mr. President, answer God when your held accountable for failing to use America's power and might to bring peace to the Holy Land choosing instead to appease a small minority of Jewish Americans whose policies run counter to the majority of Jewish Americans who want a two state solution, simply to keep your power, rain in Jewish millions, and through shameful appeasement seek their support for a second term. Like every American politician you've sold your soul to kosher dollars and thus the legacy of your memory and soul will join the tragic dustbin of failed men in the annals of humanity. .

I am confident that your administration's feigned work for peace will again be blown in the wind of history.

With due respect, I remain

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Related posts:

• Mohamed Khodr – President Obama: You’ve Sold Your Soul for Re-Election Money
• The US Congressman who sold his soul to the Israel lobby
• Letter to President Obama: Why Are We Supporting Israel’s War Crimes in Gaza?

Supporting Goldstone without repudiating Israel, Zionism and Jewish collusion is cowardly

By Debbie Menon* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

This is a beautifully written and sympathetic letter addressed to Justice Richard Goldstone, from 25 souls out of a few million, and I am sure Dr Goldstone appreciates their sympathy.

Dear Judge Goldstone,

As rabbis from diverse traditions and locations, we want to extend our warmest mazel tov [congratulations or good luck] to you as an elder in our community upon the Bar Mitzvah [male coming of age] of your grandson. Bar and Bat Mitzvah [i.e. male and female coming of age] is a call to conscience, a call to be responsible for the welfare of others, a call to fulfill the covenant of peace and justice articulated in our tradition.

As rabbis, we note the religious implications of the report you authoured. We are reminded of Shimon Ben Gamliel's quote, "The world stands on three things: justice, truth and peace as it says 'Execute the judgment of truth, and justice and peace will be established in your gates' (Zekharya 8:16)." We affirm the truth of the report that bears your name.

We are deeply saddened by the controversy that has grown up around the issuing of the report. We affirm your findings and believe you set up an impeccable standard that provides strong evidence that Israel engaged in war crimes during the assault on Gaza that reveal a pattern of continuous and systematic assault against Palestinian people and land that has very little to do with Israel's claim of security. Your report made clear the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructures such as hospitals, schools, agricultural properties, water and sewage treatment centres and civilians themselves with deadly weapons that are illegal when used in civilian centres.

This is the ugly truth that is so hard for many Jewish people to face. Anyone who spends a day in Palestinian territories sees this truth immediately.

Judge Goldstone, we want to offer you our deepest thanks for upholding the principles of justice, compassion and truth that are the heart of Jewish religion and without which our claims to Jewishness are empty of meaning. We regret that your findings have led to controversy and caused you not to feel welcome at your own grandson's Bar Mitzvah. We believe your report is a clarion call to Israel and the Jewish people to awaken from the slumber of denial and return to the path of peace.

Rabbi Everett Gendler, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Rabbi Brant Rosen, Rabbi Brian Walt, Rabbi Haim Beliak, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Rabbi Michael Feinberg, Rabbi Shai Gluskin, Rabbi David Shneyer, Rabbi David Mivassair, Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman, Rabbi Douglas Krantz, Rabbi Margaret Holub, Rabbi Rebecca Alpert, Rabbi Mordecai Liebling, Rabbi Phyllis Berman, Rabbi Zev-Hayyim Feyer, Rabbi Eyal Levinson, Rabbi Doron Isaacs, Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill, Rabbi Erin Hirsh, Rabbi Michael Rothbaum, Rabbi Benjamin Barnett, Rabbi Julie Greenberg, Rabbi Linda Holtzman, Rabbi Ayelet S.Cohen, Rabbi Jeffrey Marker

This is nice. The situation surely calls for a sympathetic note from fellow Jews who understand the importance of what has happened to Dr Goldstone at the advent of his grandson's Bar Mitzvah,.

Such a note of understanding, and the expression of unity and sympathy, are commendable. However, given the personal nature of the event in question, the rabbis could have chosen to express themselves in a private communication. The fact that they chose to express themselves very publicly begs the question why?

Was it to send a note of understanding and sympathy to a man who has been denied his paternal privileges and dignity in his own faith and ritual, or was the purpose to indicate the degree of holiness (we are holier than they who torment you) of a few rabbis who have a message or purpose of their own?

I admire the strategic thinking and purpose of the rabbis who wish to express sympathy and brotherhood with their co-religionist, Richard Goldstone, in his dismay at the treatment he has received at the hands of the hypocrites in his own family and synagogue.

But I read not a single hint of a solution, in terms of a proposal for change, or remedy in the rabbis' letter.

"Return to the path of peace..." is empty rhetoric until someone defines a path for peace. There are many paths for peace, and it can even be argued that Israel has a "path for peace", albeit one that is paved with the bodies of Palestinians and the death and destruction wreaked over six decades of aggressions and massacres.

Empathy for the demonization of Goldstone is in one sense justified, but empathy for the Palestinians living under oppressive occupation for decades, and enduring years of blockade and violence in Gaza, is where the focus and concern of all people of conscience and pundits in the media should be.

I hear none of the pious rabbis vociferously and unequivocally repudiating Israel, Zionism and world Jewry for what they have done to Palestinians and for the ethnic cleansing which continues to this day in broad daylight.

Those who condemn this evil seldom receive visibility in the mainstream media. A case in point is Judith Weisman who has given pretty powerful testimony and even more powerful poetry, built on some very hard truths about Zionism and Israel. Another laudable example is Michael Neumann who, totally condemning Israel and Zionism, said: "In the end, you will give the Palestinians some scrap of a state. You will never pay for your crimes and you will continue to preen yourself, to bask in your illusions of moral ascendancy. But between now and the end, you will kill and kill and kill, gaining nothing by your spoilt-brat brutality?"

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx1eRkBgzcA

Leading Israeli Scholar Avi Shlaim says, in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, that "Israel is committing state terror" in Gaza and preventing peace.

Avi Shlaim makes excellent points, but he neglects to mention that Israel and its lobbies in America, through money and the media, have an absolute lock on this and all other Middle East issues.

Anything that an American president might want to do for peace with Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iran that is not in accordance with the Zionist interests would be a political kiss of death for him. The powerful 100,000-strong American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other lobbies would go all out to ruin him, and they would succeed.

Watch Anthony Lawsons' most recent video for some powerful and tragic truths about the Lobby's influence in American politics.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZZ5zGAWKE

* Debbie Menon is an independent writer based in Dubai. Here blog is http://mycatbirdseat.com/ and she can be reached at: debbiemenon@gmail.com

Related posts:

• Cowardice asks the question…
• Richard Goldstone: A Man Of Conscience
• Khalid Amayreh – Kill Enemy Children: Jewish Edict

Illustration by Poderiu

By Anait Brutian* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The Thursday, April 15, 2010 issue of Pamela "Atlas" Geller's Atlas Shrugs News Blog headlined: "Anti-Semite Richard Goldstone Barred from Grandson's Bar Mitzvah"⁽¹⁾. Considering Geller's credentials – the site won the 2005 "Best New Blog" Jewish & Israeli Blog Award – the headline's intentional name-calling comes as no surprise. Her personal opinion is summarised in the following statement: "Me? I might have invited him so I could spit in his face, kick him in the ass and throw his tuchas [too-khas –buttocks, rear-end ⁽²⁾] to the curb, but this is better" ⁽³⁾. The insults don't stop there. In line with Alan Dershowitz, who called Judge Richard Goldstone a "traitor" and Elie Wiesel, who branded the Goldstone report "a crime against the Jewish people" ⁽⁴⁾, she calls him "a terrible enemy – murderer of the Jewish homeland" ⁽⁵⁾.

The news item that sparked the ugly rhetoric is a private matter concerning the bar mitzvah of Richard Goldstone's grandson at Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Orthodox Synagogue in Sandton, Johannesburg, South Africa ⁽⁶⁾, where the event is scheduled to take place. According to JTA report of April 15, 2010, Jewish groups including the South African Zionist Federation, had planned to protest outside the synagogue, if Judge Goldstone were to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah ⁽⁷⁾. Few days later, the Chairman of the South African Zionist Federation Avrom Krengel announced: "Goldstone had 'definitely not' been barred from the bar mitzvah, but ... he would not receive a welcome reception should he choose to attend ... We'll exercise our constitutional right to protest" ⁽⁸⁾.

The negotiations between the South African Zionist Federation and Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Synagogue resulted in the following announcement from Richard Goldstone: "In the interests of my grandson, I've decided not to attend the ceremony at the synagogue" ⁽⁹⁾. Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag, the head of the South African Beth Din (Jewish religious court) praised the outcome: "People have got feelings about it, they believe he [Judge Goldstone] put Israel in danger and they wouldn't like him to be getting honor ⁽¹⁰⁾. However, Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag should count himself among the very few that lauded the decision. Arthur Chaskalson, a retired chief justice of South Africa, considered it "'disgraceful' to put pressure on a grandfather not to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah ... If it is correct that this has the blessing of the leadership of the Jewish community in South Africa, it reflects on them rather than Judge Goldstone ... They should hang their heads in shame" ⁽¹¹⁾.

Similarly, Congressman Gary Ackerman, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia that holds jurisdiction over United States policy towards Israel, among other countries in the Middle East ⁽¹²⁾, wrote to Avrom Krengel of the South African Zionist Federation that he was "appalled and utterly disgusted by reports that Judge Goldstone will not be able to attend the bar mitzvah of his grandson due to protest threats by Jewish groups in South Africa" ⁽¹³⁾. Acknowledging his criticism of the Goldstone report, Ackerman admitted that "there was 'absolutely no justification or excuse for carrying legitimate opposition and criticism of Judge Goldstone's (wretched) professional work into the halls of his family's synagogue, much less the celebration of a 13-year-old Jewish boy's ritual acceptance of responsible membership in the Jewish community'" ⁽¹⁴⁾.

Critical reaction poured from the World Union for Progressive Judaism, despite Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag's praises for the arrangement whereby "Goldstone would stay away on his own volition" – the Rabbi called it "quite a sensible thing to avert all this unpleasantness." "Goldstone has done 'a tremendous disservice not only to Israel but to the Jewish world," Rabbi Kurtstag, the head of South African Jewish religious court said. "There ... [are] strong feelings in the synagogue against Goldstone attending ... His name is used by hostile elements in the world against Israel, and this can increase anti-Semitic waves'" ⁽¹⁵⁾. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), the representative body of the Jewish community in South Africa, denied allegations that they had applied "intense pressure" ⁽¹⁶⁾ to keep Judge Goldstone away from the synagogue. The SAJBD stated that "while 'certain senior Jewish communal and religious leaders were certainly involved in the discussions around the topic, in no way did they attempt to dictate to or otherwise pressurize the family into arriving at their decision'" ⁽¹⁷⁾. In a typical sweep of apologetics, the SAJBD declared: "The SAJBD strongly believes that diversity of opinion in our community needs to be tolerated and respected, whether it emanates from the left, right or center" ⁽¹⁸⁾. This is idle talk but it signals a paradigm shift in the direction of feigning more tolerance towards the critics of Israeli policies.

In reality, the Goldstone report angered Israel and all those that chose to ignore human rights violations in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, at a conference organized in Jerusalem by President Shimon Peres, called the condemnation an "anti-Israel vitriol" demanding member states to replace it with "recognition of Israel's legitimacy and right to exist in peace and security" ⁽¹⁹⁾. Rice made no direct reference to the Goldstone report, which concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes. She met with Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the "architect" of the Operation Cast Lead ⁽²⁰⁾, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who had earlier spoken of his "belief that the Arab-Israeli conflict would not be resolved in the coming years," and that "people should learn to live with it" ⁽²¹⁾, President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Goldstone report was discussed during the meeting with Peres. As for Netanyahu, he hailed Washington's opposition to the Goldstone report and thanked Rice for her government's "ongoing support of Israel at the United Nations" ⁽²²⁾.

Both Barak and Netanyahu called the UN report "one-sided," claiming that it undermined "Israel's right to defend itself" ⁽²³⁾. The accusation, completely unfounded as it is, ignores the fact that Israel had refused cooperation from the start – it had not allowed the UN mission to enter Israel or the Palestinian Territories – the assignment was made possible only through the Egyptian government that allowed entry to Gaza at Rafah ⁽²⁴⁾. According to Uri Avnery "However much Israel may attack the commission report as one-sided and unfair, the only plausible explanation of its refusal to cooperate with fact-finding and taking the opportunity to tell its side of the story was that it had nothing to tell that could hope to overcome the overwhelming evidence of the Israeli failure to carry out its attacks on Gaza last winter in accordance with the international law of war. No credible international commission could reach any set of conclusions other than those reached by the Goldstone Report on the central allegations" ⁽²⁵⁾.

The report is impartial. It investigates Israeli and Palestinian war crimes, noting that "The Mission is persuaded that, in light of the long standing nature of the conflict, the frequent and consistent allegations of violations of international humanitarian law AGAINST ALL PARTIES (my emphasis), the apparent increase in intensity of such violations in the recent military operations, and the regrettable possibility of a return to further violence, meaningful and practical steps to end impunity for such violations would offer an effective way to deter such violations recurring in the future. The Mission is of the view that the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would contribute to ending such violations, to the protection of civilians and to the restoration and maintenance of peace" ⁽²⁶⁾. The report suggests that "In view of the gravity of the violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity ... the Mission recommends that the United Nations Human Rights Council request the United Nations Secretary-General to bring this report to the attention of the United Nations Security Council under Art. 99 of the Charter of the United Nations so that the Security Council may consider action according to the relevant Mission's recommendations ... ⁽²⁷⁾. The list of recommendations includes requiring the Government of Israel "to launch appropriate investigations that are independent and in conformity with international standards, into the serious violations of International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law" within a period of three months ⁽²⁸⁾. While the Palestinians welcomed the Report, Israel called it "a diplomatic farce," claiming that it harmed the "Middle East peace efforts" ⁽²⁹⁾. Judge Goldstone dismissed this claim suggesting that "Israel's attempt to brand his report as an obstacle to peace" is "a shallow, utterly false allegation" and that there was no peace process to be harmed; "Israel's Foreign Minister did not want there to be one" ⁽³⁰⁾.

Indeed, Israel had disregarded all available diplomatic alternatives "to achieve security on its borders" ⁽³¹⁾. According to Richard Falk, an international law professor at Princeton University and an appointee to two UN positions on the Palestinian Territories, "the report takes no notice of the temporary ceasefire that had cut the rocket fire directed at Israel practically to zero in the months preceding the attacks, nor of Hamas' repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza. Further it was Israel that had seemed to provoke the breakdown of the ceasefire when it launched a lethal attack on Hamas militants in Gaza on November 4, 2008" ⁽³²⁾. The Report does not challenge the central premise of Operation Cast Lead that tried to justify the war as a consequence of the Hamas rocket attacks. In doing so, it adopted the government's "dubious proposition" that "Israel was entitled to act against Gaza in self-defence, thereby excluding inquiry into whether crimes against the peace in the form of aggression had taken place" ⁽³³⁾.

In many ways, the report was more sensitive to Israel's argument that "Hamas was guilty of war crimes by firing rockets into its territory" and that "Israel was acting in self-defence against a terrorist adversary" ⁽³⁴⁾, than many previous reports had been. A well-documented previous report, called "Breaking the Silence" collected testimonies from more than 650 soldiers that served in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since the Second Intifada. The testimonies – some given anonymously – demonstrate cases of abuse towards Palestinians. "... Looting and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but are still excused as military necessities, or explained as extreme and unique cases." The "testimonies portray a different and grim picture of questionable orders in many areas regarding Palestinian civilians. These demonstrate the depth of corruption which is spreading in the Israeli military. While this reality, which is known to Israeli soldiers and commanders, exists in Israel's back yard, Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye and to deny that which happens in its name" ⁽³⁵⁾. Israel has always rejected international criticism of the conduct of its military, claiming that "the IDF was the most moral fighting force on the face of the earth" ⁽³⁶⁾. The Goldstone Report concentrates on IDF's "excessive and indiscriminate" use of force especially in relation to civilian, non-military targets in Gaza ⁽³⁷⁾.

In an interview conducted by Rabbi Michael Lerner and Rabbi Brain Walt on October 1, 2009, Goldstone acknowledged that "even though Israel might have been entitled to use force ... it was disproportionate force." He pointed out that there was no justification for the destruction of thousands of homes, factories and agricultural land. He further acknowledged that there was no doubt that it was deliberate: "The Israeli army has very sophisticated weaponry, and I don't think they make many mistakes as to what they target" ⁽³⁸⁾. A similar point was raised during the October 23, 2009 interview with Bill Moyers: "I saw the destruction of the only flour-producing factory in Gaza. I saw fields plowed up by Israeli tank bulldozers. I saw chicken farms, for egg production, completely destroyed. Tens of thousands of chickens killed. I met with families who lost their loved ones in homes in which they were seeking shelter from the Israeli ground forces. I had to have the very emotional and difficult interviews with fathers whose little daughters were killed, whose family were killed. One family, over 21 members, killed by Israeli mortars. So, it was a very difficult investigation, which will give me nightmares for the rest of my life" ⁽³⁹⁾. "These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment, and constitute war crimes. The government of Israel obviously has a duty to protect its own citizens. That in no way justifies a policy of collective punishment of a people under effective occupation, destroying their means to live a dignified life and the trauma caused by the kind of military intervention the Israeli government called Operation Cast Lead" ⁽⁴⁰⁾.

The question of intentionality upsets Goldstone's critics. However, he insists that "None of the Israeli responses have even said a word about the property destruction, the bulldozing of agricultural fields, the bombing of water wells, the bombing of sewage works that caused a huge spill over a huge area. There has been no attempt to justify that" ⁽⁴¹⁾. As hard as Israel attempts to deny it, the destruction of civilian infrastructure proves Goldstone's argument that the attacks aimed at weakening the support for Hamas, and this in itself is a violation of International Human Rights. Furthermore, according to Goldstone, "an attack on civilian objects, as opposed to military objects" is a war crime ⁽⁴²⁾. The angry Israeli rejections of Goldstone Report – Shimon Peres called it "a mockery of history" that "fails to distinguish the aggressor and a state exercising the right of self-defence" – insist that the Report originated in a "bastion of anti-Israeli attitudes at the UN's Human Rights Council" ⁽⁴³⁾, and therefore cannot be even-handed. Richard Falk calls it a cry of "foul play" designed to avoid "looking at the substance of the charges" or "the politics of deflection" whereby "the attention of an audience" is deliberately shifted "away from the message to the messenger" ⁽⁴⁴⁾. However, Israel's blunt dismissal of the report and its recommendations are inconsistent with the advice it gave the IDF officers wishing to travel abroad. The IDF did not specify the details but many of its officers, who participated in the Operation Cast Lead, were asked to consult legal experts at the Foreign Ministry before travelling. They were also advised to avoid visiting a number of countries where existing legislation enables the issue of arrest warrants against those linked to war crimes ⁽⁴⁵⁾. The Foreign Ministry adopted the same rhetoric as the Defence Minister Ehud Barak and the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating that "The Ministry is aware of efforts undertaken by Palestinian groups and their supporters to harm IDF officers through legal and public relations means, and is working to prevent such efforts" ⁽⁴⁶⁾.

Instead of creating an open, impartial, independent process that allowed victims to testify and perpetrators to be brought to justice, Israel found fault with Judge Richard Goldstone and the UN that mandated the Mission. The legal credentials of Judge Goldstone, who authored the UN report on the war in Gaza, were impeccable. Goldstone is an internationally respected jurist that served as chair of the commission that investigated the crimes of the security forces during the apartheid regime in South Africa. He was the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda ⁽⁴⁷⁾. Following the UN report, Goldstone was assaulted by various leaders of the Jewish community and tagged an Anti-Semite ⁽⁴⁸⁾ – an accusation not only inconsistent with his heritage but also with the fact that he was a member of the International Panel, established in 1997 to investigate the Activities of Nazism in Argentina (CEANA) ⁽⁴⁹⁾, he is a member of the governing board of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem ⁽⁵⁰⁾ and a life-long supporter of Israel ⁽⁵¹⁾. Nevertheless, he became a persona non grata in Zionist circles since the release of the UN report. One can easily dismiss Pamela "Atlas" Geller's unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations – for one thing, the personal attacks and the foul language warrant no serious consideration ⁽⁵²⁾ – but interfering with his private family life is something to consider more seriously.

The smear campaign against Judge Richard Goldstone bore no fruit, but it confirmed the simple truth put so eloquently by Richard Falk: "The more damning the criticism, the more ferocious the response. From this perspective the Goldstone Report obviously hit the bull's eye" ⁽⁵³⁾. Pointing at the intentionality, the deliberateness "of shooting unarmed civilians who pose no threat, of shooting people whose hands were shackled behind them" ⁽⁵⁴⁾, targeting and destroying civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, the Report helped fuel international condemnation of Israel. Bulldozing agricultural fields, destroying flour factories, chicken farms, homes, bombing water wells or sewage works ⁽⁵⁵⁾, denying access to adequate amounts of water, destroying Palestinian villagers' rainwater harvesting cisterns and confiscating water tankers ⁽⁵⁶⁾ DO NOT AMOUNT TO SELF-DEFENCE. These are deliberate attempts to undermine International law, basic Human Rights, to punish the entire population for voting Hamas into power and to break the Palestinian people's resolve for achieving self-determination.

The recent Israeli reaction to Goldstone report can only mean one thing: the international community has finally woken up to the injustices committed in the name of self-defence. Foreign and Justice Ministry officials acknowledged that the 575-page Goldstone report is "widely seen to have done damage to Israel's reputation" ⁽⁵⁷⁾. The same idea was reinforced by Col Ben-Tzion Gruber in a You Tube video ⁽⁵⁸⁾, posted at Atlas Shrugs ⁽⁵⁹⁾. Amidst all the falsehood, and make-belief, there was one true statement uttered by Col Ben-Tzion Gruber: "I think that we have to do much more because we are losing the media wars" ⁽⁶⁰⁾. Indeed, they are! Benjamin Netanyahu's rhetorical question -- "Ladies and gentlemen, Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report provides a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?" ⁽⁶¹⁾ – thrown at the face of UN Human Rights Council, is a show of defiance that amounts to nothing. One has to agree with Richard Falk on his evaluation of the Report: "... Whatever happens in the UN System and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the weight of the report will be felt by world public opinion. ... A very robust boycott and divestment movement was gaining momentum ever since the Gaza War, and the Goldstone Report can only lend added support to such initiatives. ... The Palestinians have been winning ... [the] non-military war. Such a war fought on a global political battlefield is what eventually and unexpectedly undermined the apartheid regime in South Africa, and has become much more threatening to the Israeli sense of security than has armed Palestinian resistance" ⁽⁶²⁾.

References:
(1), (3), (5), (52), (59) Atlas Shrugs http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/04/antisemite-richard-goldstone-barred-from-grandsons-bar-mitzvah.html

(2) Some Yiddish Words http://www.hebrew4christians.net/Glossary/Yiddish_Words/yiddish_words.html#T

(4) The Magnes Zionist http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2010/02/alan-dershowitz-richard-goldstone-naomi.html

(6) The Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Sandton http://www.sandtonshul.co.za/

(7), (10), (11), (16) JTA the Global News Service of the Jewish People http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/15/1011590/goldstone-barred-from-grandsons-bar-mitzvah

(8), (9) JTA the Global News Service of the Jewish People http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/19/1011646/group-protests-will-greet-goldstone-at-bar-mitzvah

(12) Congressman Gary Ackerman http://ackerman.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=10&sectiontree=2,10

(13), (14), (15), (17), (18) JTA the Global News Service of the Jewish People http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/20/1011671/moves-on-goldstone-bar-mitzvah-spark-brouhaha

(19), (22), (29) Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091021/pl_afp/mideastdiplomacyusisraelrice

(20), (21), (23), (30), (57) BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8316770.stm

(24), (25), (31), (32), (33), (34), (36), (37), (43), (44), (53), (62) Sabbah Report http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/09/22/richard-falk-why-the-goldstone-report-matters/

(26) UNFFMGC, Report p. 545 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

(27) UNFFMGC Report, pp. 545-546 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

(28) UNFFMGC Report, p. 546 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

(35) Breaking the Silence http://www.shovrimshtika.org/about_e.asp

(38), (41), (42), (48), (49), (55) Tikkun http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20091002111513371

(39), (4), (54), (61) Bill Moyers Journal http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10232009/watch.html

(45), (46) Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123814.html

(47), (51) The Journal http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6006-gazas-goldstone-on-the-backseat

(50)Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/war-crimes-white-wash

(56) Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/israel-rations-palestinians-trickle-water-20091027

(58), (60) Pro-Israel Rally with Col Ben-Tzion Gruber outside Waldorf -- Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq_dGtdrGYw

* Anait Brutian (B. Mus. with Honours in Theory, McGill University; M. A. in Music Theory, McGill University) is a student in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill. Her previous research includes a self-published book entitled: Reconciling Geometry, Rhetoric and Harmony: A Fresh Look at C. P. E. Bach. She is currently working on another book on mathematical paradigms in literature (Old and New Testaments), art, architecture, and music. She can be contacted at anaitbrutian@videotron.ca

Related posts:

• Ronnie Kasrils – Who’s Afraid Of Richard Goldstone?
• Richard Falk: Goldstone is historic blow in the war Israel is losing- the ‘Legitimacy War’
• Richard Falk – Why The Goldstone Report Matters

By Dr. Hanan Chehata

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW – With Prof. Richard Falk the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied (OPT), since 1967. In 2001 Falk served on a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian territories with John Duggard. He is also an American Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University with a long and distinguished career in academics, politics and law. He recently gave this exclusive and revealing interview to the Middle East Monitor’s Dr Hanan Chehata.

HC: Following your appointment as UN Rapporteur to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in 2008 you traveled to Israel in order to begin your investigations. Can you tell us a little more about how you were received by Israel?

RF: I was denied entry and expelled at Ben Gurion Airport when I tried to enter Israel for the purpose of carrying out my duties as UN Special Rapporteur. These duties consist mainly of reporting on Israeli compliance with human rights obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and include duties of compliance with respect to international humanitarian law. Israeli authorities confined me for more than 15 hours in a detention cell with five other detainees before putting me on a plane. I was given no explanation beyond that my expulsion order came from the Israeli Foreign Ministry that had objected to my appointment from the outset. As my itinerary on the West Bank had been previously submitted to the Israeli embassy in Geneva, and as visas had been granted to the two UN employees assisting me on the mission, it seems clear that Israel wanted to have the incident at the airport rather than tell me in advance that I would be denied entry. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN officials did object to the Israeli refusal to allow me to do my job as Special Rapporteur. It should be pointed out that the UN Charter in Article 2(2) requires Members to cooperate with the UN in carrying out its functions, and that this duty is reinforced by an international treaty outlining this duty of cooperation.

HC: You were denied entry into the OPT. Have you been allowed at any point to enter the territory? If not, how have you been able to do your job?

RF: I have tried repeatedly through formal requests to Israeli authorities to gain entry to the OPT, and these requests have been ignored rather than denied. There may be a possibility of visiting Gaza on an official basis based on Egyptian cooperation. This has so far been difficult to arrange. As far as doing my job is concerned, it is certainly a major disadvantage to be denied entry, but my reporting job can be done without any handicap due to the abundance of open and diverse sources of information and documentation on the critical dimensions of the occupation. I would have to rely on such sources in any event even if access was possible.

HC: In light of the way that Israel has reacted to you and your reports and more recently to the Goldstone report it seems that Israel’s regard for the UN, if anything, has become more hostile. Why do you think Israel seems to hold the UN in such contempt and is there any way for the UN to compel Israel to cooperate with their investigations and abide by UN recommendations?

RF: Israel has a rather opportunistic approach to the UN. It is hostile when it is the object of criticism, and it rejects the authority of the UN in relation to its duties as the Occupying Power of the Palestinian Territories. It consistently complains about the bias of the UN, especially the Human Rights Council, and attacks those that serve the UN as civil servants or appointed officials. Most recently it has mounted a series of vicious attacks on Richard Goldstone who headed a fact-finding mission to assess allegations of Israeli and Hamas war crimes associated with the Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead) that took place between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.

At the same time, Israel participates fully in the General Assembly, and uses its relationship with the United States to block adverse decisions in the Security Council. What was unusual about its response to the Goldstone Report was the extremely high profile repudiation of the findings and recommendations. Normally, as with the 14-1 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the unlawfulness of the separation wall built on occupied Palestine, Israel merely rejects the external criticism of its policies, and moves on with very little commentary, especially by its top political leaders. We must assume that the Goldstone Report touched a raw nerve in the Israeli political sensibility that explains its almost hysterical reaction, including vindictive attacks on the person of Justice Goldstone, himself a devoted Zionist and distinguished international jurist. It would seem that the conclusion that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians and the civilian infrastructure of Gaza in violation of the international criminal law was too authoritative a repudiation of Israeli policies toward the occupation to be ignored. The fact that the Goldstone Report also recommended that steps be taken to implement these conclusions by holding those responsible for the behavior to be criminally responsible was a further challenge to the legitimacy of Israel’s claims to be upholding its security by launching Operation Cast Lead.

HC: Why have the UN taken no measures against Israel for their breaches of international law?

RF: The quick answer is that the geopolitical impunity enjoyed by Israel is a consequence of unconditional U.S. support, and a reluctance in most European countries to be critical of Israel given the lingering sense of guilt about the Holocaust. A more thoughtful response is that there have been periodic attempts within the UN to hold Israel accountable for violations of international law. The General Assembly and Human Rights Council have frequently condemned Israeli policies in the OPT. The ICJ found that the separation wall was unlawful as constructed on Palestinian territory, and the General Assembly accepted these conclusions overwhelmingly. The Goldstone Report is itself a gesture in the direction of holding Israel accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity as perpetrated in Gaza. In this sense there have been a variety of efforts to condemn Israeli policies and practices from the perspective of international law, but an insufficient will to implement these efforts, and so the end result is a sense of the virtual irrelevance of international law as a behavioral constraint on Israel.

HC: Is the USA the biggest factor impeding the UN in coming to the aid of Palestinians?

RF: I think that in the absence of US support, the UN would be acting vigorously on behalf of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, including the imposition of an embargo on arms sales and support for economic sanctions. The European countries would in this altered setting in all likelihood stand aside, neither being strong supporters of UN actions on behalf of the Palestinians, nor defenders of Israel.

HC: Israel opposed your appointment from the very beginning making allegations that you were biased against their state. Is there any justification whatsoever to these claims?

RF: As I have responded, by now many times, I am not biased, but dedicated to being truthful and accurate, as well as interpreting the relevance of international law and human rights standards as objectively as possible. It is true that I have been critical of Israel in the past, but again on the basis of a widely shared consensus as to the facts and their most reasonable legal implications. The test of bias should be distorted treatment of facts or strained interpretations of law. To be critical of official Israeli policies is not to be anti-Israeli any more than to be critical of American foreign policy, which I have been over the years, means that I am anti-American. To be a citizen in a democracy, or to be a world citizen, means to follow the guidance of your conscience wherever that might lead.

HC: You have been depicted as a supporter of Hamas, how do you respond to such claims?

RF: Again, my effort has been to describe the actuality of Hamas’s positions on contested issues and to report upon its actual role in the OPT, especially Gaza. I have been impressed by the Hamas effort to negotiate a ceasefire with Israel from the time of its election in January 2006, and its consistent effort to reestablish a ceasefire, including one for a long duration. I have also taken note of the refusal of Israel to take advantage of such diplomatic opportunities, and its insistence on treating Hamas as a terrorist organization with whom no negotiations can occur. I have also criticized Israel for punishing the population of Gaza by imposing a blockade that restricts the flow of food, medicine, and fuel to subsistence levels, or worse. Such a blockade is a flagrant form of collective punishment prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. I believe that Hamas should be treated as a political actor, that the blockade should be terminated immediately, and that the UN should insist on the end to the blockade as a condition of Israel’s normal participation in the activities of the Organization.

HC: It seems that supporters of Israel try to equate the words anti-Semitic with anti-Zionist which are of course two different things. They have accused people such as Judge Goldstone, Prof. Ilan Pappe, Prof. Avi Shlaim and you of being “self-hating” Jews. How do you feel about this?

RF: It seems more extreme even than this. Justice Goldstone, for instance, is pro-Zionist, and yet stands viciously accused of being a self-hating Jew, apparently because he dared to be critical of Israel. This means that any defection from either the official policies of the state of Israel or from the Zionist project will be occasion for a Jew to be branded as ’self-hating.’ It is my view that the Jewish tradition considered biblically and over the course of time would require a Jew to honor conscience and truthfulness above tribal identities should these conflict.

HC: As a Jewish gentleman yourself how do you feel about the fact that Zionists and the Israeli government claim to speak in the name of all Jews?

RF: As my prior answer suggests, no government has the authority to speak in the name of others, and certainly Zionism, a movement I have never supported, and Israel, a state to which I owe no special allegiance, is not entitled to represent me because I happen to be Jewish. I have real problems with any coerced allegiance to a political or religious entity, and believe that the crime of treason sets up an unacceptable potential tension between the dictates of conscience and subservience to the will of the state.

HC: In 2007 you described the Israeli policies towards Palestine as a “holocaust-in-the-making“. Given the tightening of the siege on Gaza, which has now lasted over 1000 days, Operation Cast Lead etc.. would you now say that the situation has developed into a full blown holocaust?

RF: This is a delicate issue of language. Genocide is a word with a great emotional resonance, and special historic associations for the people of Israel. I wrote these words before I was appointed as Special Rapporteur, and although I would not retract them, I have refrained from using the word genocide since accepting the UN job. There is an ambiguity in the word genocide: it has legal, moral, and political connotations. It would be difficult to establish a genocidal intent on Israel’s part, given the way in which the ICJ approached the issue in the Bosnia Case. At the same time, I lament the continuation of the siege of Gaza, consider it a crime against humanity, and feel that the UN and many states are complicit to varying degrees.

HC: Your predecessor Prof. John Dugard compared the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to that of apartheid South Africa. Is this a view that you concur with after your own experiences there?

RF: Comparisons of this sort can be illuminating, although misleading at the same time. There are many indications of rigid separation, especially on the West Bank, as well as discriminatory regulations that make the situation for Palestinians resemble that of the black Africans suffering under apartheid, and deserving of comparable opprobrium. At the same time there are differences: the South African leadership defended apartheid as a preferable policy for race relations, whereas the Israelis do not offer an ideological justification for their separate treatment of the two peoples, claiming either the security rigors of occupation or the inevitable consequences of being ‘a Jewish state.’ Prolonged occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, along with the second class citizenship imposed on the Palestinian minority living behind the green line, are humanly abusive, but distinctive in their character, and it is important to understand these realities on their own terms.

HC: The world is watching as genocide unfolds in Palestine and yet nothing is being done to stop it. What can be done, and what should be done by the international community at this stage to ensure that the rights of the Palestinian people are protected?

RF: It is a scandalous refusal to take seriously the pledge after World War II of ‘never again.’ The liberal democracies in Europe and North America have allowed their hatred of Hamas to be a justification for inflicting and sustaining a humanitarian catastrophe on an entire civilian population denied even the option to become refugees. Even neighboring Arab governments have done far too little by way of opposition. And the UN has been largely mute. If ever there was a case where the imposition of sanctions was justified it would be in relation to Israel so long as it maintains the Gaza blockade. Civil society initiatives have challenged the Israeli policies most effectively, including such dramatic efforts as those associated with the Free Gaza Movement and Viva Palestina. These symbolic challenges expose the failures of the international community as constituted by the government of sovereign states to do uphold international law and international morality even in extreme situations of the sort that exists in Gaza, and add political weight to the BDS movement that is gathering strength in various parts of the world. The Palestinian solidarity movement has become the successor to the Anti-Apartheid Campaign as the most important popular struggle on behalf of global justice in the early 21st century. Of course, there are two time horizons that must be taken into account: the emergency horizon in Gaza that requires with utmost urgency the ending of the blockade; the justice horizon throughout occupied Palestine that requires a just peace at the earliest possible time.

HC: Israel has stated that it launched Operation Cast Lead as an act of “self-defence”. However you, and many others, have said that this is not an honest depiction of how events unfolded and that there are other “unacknowledged reasons“ as to why Israel launched its mass assault on the citizens of Gaza. Could you tell us what you think those “unacknowledged reasons” might be?

RF: Of course, unacknowledged reasons are kept secret because their admission would be awkward. As the question suggests, Israel had a diplomatic option by way of a ceasefire if security and self-defense were its concerns. The more plausible explanations for the timing and undertaking of Operation Cast Lead are the following: to redeem the reputation of the Israeli Defense Forces, which had been damaged by their operational failures in the Lebanon War of 2006; to send Iran a message that the IDF was ready to inflict major damage on an adversary without concern for the limitations of international law or world public opinion; to show Israeli domestic public opinion that the Kadima leadership was determined to use whatever force required to uphold Israeli state interests; to destroy Hamas, and reestablish Fatah control in Gaza, and unified Palestinian representation under the auspices of the Palestine Authority; striking Gaza aggressively while the supportive George W. Bush was still in the White House, and prior to the arrival of the untested Barrack Obama; obtaining the release of the single IDF soldier held captive, Gilad Shalit, which would have been hailed in Israel as a sentimental victory.

HC: Colonel Desmond Travers (a co-author of the Goldstone report) has recently called for certain weapons that Israel has used, or has been suspected of using, to be banned internationally, including white phosphorus, Dense Inert Metal Explosives (DIME), flechettes and Tungsten. Would you support him in this call?

RF: Yes, definitely. All of these weapons inflict cruel injuries, and are already considered unlawful if used in proximity to civilians, which was done throughout Operation Cast Lead.

HC: You have pointed out that Hamas were democratically elected in a free and fair election, that it had proposed a 10 year truce with Israel and has, over the years, expressed readiness to work with other Palestinian groups and yet it is still regarded by Israel and its allies as a terrorist organisation. Isn’t it about time for Israel, the Quartet and others to sit down and talk with Hamas?

RF: It was a mistake from the outset not to take Hamas at their word as turning away from violence and toward political action. When initially elected Hamas established a one-year ceasefire unilaterally, which they kept despite a series of Israeli provocations, including the assassination of Hamas leaders by missile attack. It would seem that Israel, and the United States, were comfortable with the situation of divided Palestinian leadership, and with the accompanying argument that there was no Palestinian partner with whom Israel could negotiate. Hamas has basically displayed a willingness to establish a ceasefire, including one of long duration, along its border with Israel. International actors should even now, however belatedly, treat Hamas as the de facto governmental authority in the Gaza Strip and treat it diplomatically as a normal political entity. To attach the label ‘terrorist organization’ is to signal an unwillingness to substitute diplomacy for violence and a refusal to lift the cruel and criminal siege that is now causing such damage to the physical and mental health of the entire civilian population of Gaza.

HC: You have said that “the American public in particular gets 99% of its information filtered through an exceedingly pro-Israeli media lens.” What is your take on the coverage of the situation by the media in Europe?

RF: I am less familiar with the European coverage, but my strong impression is that although it is generally favorable to Israel, it is less unbalanced in its reportage, and more objective. Also, there is greater access to sources sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, including Al Jazeera.

HC: The Palestinian Authority recently called for the deferral of your last report on the OPT, why have you not insisted on its immediate debate in the Human Rights Council?

RF: I do not possess the authority to challenge what takes place in the Human Rights Council. I have conveyed my disappointment to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and I hope that the report will be discussed at the June meeting of the HRC, and that these difficulties will not recur in the future. The report is a comprehensive attempt to depict the unlawful dimensions of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

HC: Is there any hope that Israel will be held accountable for its war crimes against the Palestinian people?

RF: I am not optimistic about accountability being achieved by way of the appropriate international procedures, especially referral to the International Criminal Court for further investigation and possible indictment. The geopolitical veto exercised by the United States on behalf of Israel, possibly reinforced by the EU, will block the implementation of the recommendations in the Goldstone Report probably without ever coming to a formal vote. Perhaps, if public pressure is heightened the geopolitical protection of Israel will become visible rather than, as at present, provided behind closed doors and in the deep recesses of the UN bureaucracy.

But there are two other ways in which some degree of accountability might be achieved: first, as recommended in the Goldstone Report, reliance on universal jurisdiction, which potentially empowers national criminal courts to investigate charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity with respect to Israeli military or political leaders who could be detained or extradited to face charges if entering a country that has introduced universal jurisdiction provisions into its law; second, as undertaken already by the Russell Foundation in Brussels, the formation of a citizens’ tribunal with a panel of jurors made up of respected moral authority figures, and passing upon the allegations against named Israeli officials. This kind of initiative would be symbolic in nature, but it would provide a documentary record, encourage support for BDS forms of nonviolent coercion, and represent an expression of condemnation of those accused and found guilty by world public opinion and by parts of the world media.

HC: You have the unenviable task of being an academic in an American university and a UN human rights Rapporteur in Palestine, how difficult has it been for you to function in both environments after your criticism of Israeli human rights policies?

RF: The tension is present, but so far has not been too serious. There is a shift in mood throughout the United States, making criticism of Israeli policies less controversial than had been the case in the past. The long arm of AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby remains dominant in Washington, D.C., but there is less impact than in the past on the country as a whole.

Source: Middle East Monitor

Related posts:

• Richard Falk: Goldstone is historic blow in the war Israel is losing- the ‘Legitimacy War’
• Richard Falk – Why The Goldstone Report Matters
• Video: Interview with Richard Falk

By Paul J. Balles* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

We all know what Illegitimate children have been called, Illegitimate countries have not; especially if the foetus grew out of a media that ignores the illegitimate conception.

There are illegitimate governments. A few years ago, a blogger who didn't use his own name asked the question: "How Do We View Illegitimate Governments That Do Not Have the Consent of the Governed?"

His answer: "Well it depends."

"When they serve our purposes, we are quick to recognize them and open diplomatic relations. Even when the changeover in power is by military coup."

We Americans tried to bastardize Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez. On the other hand, we supported General Musharraf's overthrow of the government in Pakistan. Military coups actually do a job of delegitimizing the government in power.

The difficult term delegitimize, which seems to be the best way to describe the event, has been said, "To revoke the legal or legitimate status of a government."

Webster says it means "to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority of a government."

Oscar Arias Sanchez defined it: "To revoke the legal or legitimate status of: 'Out of poverty sprout social instability and desperation, which delegitimize governments that declare themselves democratic'."

The example is particularly relevant to Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians. The Israeli Palestinians have been kept in poverty, even in Israel where the pretence that they are part of a democratic society is a ruse.

"Strangely ironic, the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as illegitimate under the occupation is coming around to the realization, by increasing numbers, that the illegitimate party is Israel."

What will be done to delegitimize Israel?

"The campaign, involving boycotts, protests and calls for divestment..." said the Israeli Reut Institute. The Institute predicted where and who would be involved.

In a summary of their report, the Reut Institute said the international effort--dominated by left-wing activists and non-governmental organizations in London, Toronto, Brussels, Madrid and the San Francisco-Oakland area--seeks to "turn Israel into a pariah state by undermining its moral legitimacy and ultimately aspiring towards eliminating the 'Zionist entity..."

Several novel events, apart from the campaigns to delegitimize Israel have taken place recently, forcing media attention. Two top military men--Centcom head General David Petraeus and Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have both questioned Israel's usefulness to the United States.

In the past, the Zionist controlled US media was able to ignore critical statements about Israel by retired generals and admirals. However, both Petraeus and Mullen are frontline commanders. When they say that the American relationship with Israel harms American interests, the media has to listen and report it.

Second, leading figures in the US administration--the President, Vice President and Secretary of State finally stood up briefly to Israel when Israel flaunted settlement expansion in American faces. The settlements have been considered the most illegitimate activity of the Israeli government. The media couldn't avoid reporting Israel's insulting behaviour.

Third, while the American public has resisted calls for war with Iran, the Israeli hawks and American Zionists have continued their propaganda campaigns for preemptive bombing. The public has grown tired of the Israeli self-serving propaganda that could drag America, with the consent of a Zionist controlled Congress, into another Mideast war.

Last, a number of respected leaders and scholars have spoken out against Israel's misadventures. Former President Jimmy Carter has persuaded a number of Americans that Israel is an apartheid state, whether he intended that result or not.

In addition to Carter, two leading scholars, political science professor John Mearshimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University have decried The Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) and US Foreign Policy.

The Goldstone report, by a South African Jewish judge, on the responsibility of Israel for the carnage in Gaza has, as Richard Falk noted, "...challenged the UN to impose accountability on the Israeli political and military leadership for their alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Thus the ground for delegitimization is fertile. What can be done? Richard Falk has observed, "by boycotting cultural and academic activities, by disrupting trade relations through divestment moves or through refusals to load and unload ships and planes carrying cargo to or from Israel, and by pressuring governments to impose economic sanctions."

Meanwhile, the Reut report in Israel is preparing the Israelis for a counter campaign, something that Zionist organizations in both Israel and America have mastered. They start with a warning that implies the old anti-Semitism label.

Their report says these "Hubs of delegitimization...are places that combine an internal dynamic of strong fundamental anti-Israeli activity that stretches far beyond legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, with a strong global impact..."

The reasoning for the choices of venues? The Institute says, "These hubs are usually global metropolises that concentrate international media, leading judicial institutions, major academic centres, international NGOs and human rights organizations."

What will the Zionists do to counter the delegitimization efforts? Remember, they are the greatest distorters of truth ever to subjugate the world's media.

They will create comparisons designed to mislead: Reut said there is a "coalescence" between "two parallel processes" - the so-called delegitimization forces, such as NGOs and leftist organizations, and the militant Islamist efforts led by groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Since they have already portrayed Hamas and Hezbollah as scoundrels and terrorists, this ploy will transfer those negative images to the organizations involved in delegitimization efforts.

They have already recommended that Mossad, Israel's spy agency, become involved. The Reut Think Tank recommends that Mossad "intelligence agents should, in addition to passing on information to decision-makers on crucial issues like global terrorism and the Iranian nuclear program also pay closer attention to perceived attacks on Israel's legitimacy."

What will Zionists do to try to defeat the efforts to delegitimize Israel? As usual, they will ignore or deny any criticism of Israel. They will repeat every slogan or line that has ever conjured up sympathy for Israel.

They will advise Israeli spokespersons on what to say against any of the measures questioning the legitimacy of Israel. They have been at this for decades. The spokespersons will advise political commentators and members of Congress so they all take the same lines.

Israeli spokespeople will dismiss the assumption that Israel is like South Africa as inherently anti-Zionist and racist. They will claim it assumes that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination.

Zionists will insist that initiatives that single out Israel assume that the entire fault for the conflict is on one side, and ignores terrorism. They will argue that those who sponsor these initiatives admit that their goal is the destruction of Israel.

Israel supporters repeatedly argue that no other state is singled out for this treatment despite flagrant violations of human rights in China, Sudan, Iran, Libya and elsewhere.

They will condemn those who subscribe to delegitimizing activities, using ad hominem attacks instead of arguments against the issues. Zionists will accuse critics of ant-Semitism or of being self-hating Jews if the critics are Jewish.

The best result of delegitimizing Israel will be the attention that the media will be forced to pay to it. They will be hard pressed to give coverage to Israel's critics and to avoid the one-sided defences of Israeli misdeeds and illegitimacy.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

Related posts:

• The Palestinians are Winning the Legitimacy War: Will it Matter?
• Richard Falk: Goldstone is historic blow in the war Israel is losing- the ‘Legitimacy War’
• Americans – Are you with Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullen or with Israel ?

By Nadia Hijab* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

They hail from opposite parts of the globe, but they have much in common: Jewish; experts on and passionate defenders of international law; and pummeling bags for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. And the future of the law of war lies at the heart of the campaigns against them.

Richard Goldstone, whose international stature was cemented as chief prosecutor in the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, has been excoriated by Israel and its allies ever since his team submitted the report on the Gaza war requested by the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2009. The steady stream of invective (the report is "full of lies," and he has "used his Jewishness to jeopardize the safety and security of Israel" are just two of the milder attacks) has also targeted his family and taken a toll on the publicly stoic judge.

Richard Falk, professor emeritus at Princeton University and UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, has been attacked by Israel for years. But now, in a new twist, he is being hung out to dry by the Palestinian Authority in perhaps the unkindest cut of all.

The PA pummeling is more discreet. It has quietly suggested to Falk himself that he resign. One reported reason is that Falk can't do his job because Israel will not allow him into the country -- though this should, one would have thought, be all the more reason to defend him.

And the PA has asked the Human Rights Council to take Falk's report off the March 22 agenda and "postpone" it to June, which the Council has done. The PA-appointed representative to the UN in Geneva insists that there are simply more important reports than Falk's on the agenda -- yet at the same time he says the PA has "many" reservations about the Falk report. The real reasons seem to be that the PA did not like the mention of Hamas in Falk's report and his earlier criticism when the PA tried to "postpone" the Goldstone Report in September under pressure from Israel and the United States. A public outcry among Palestinians reversed that decision.

The attacks on Falk and Goldstone are hard for the two men to bear. And they tear at the very fabric of international law and the mechanisms put in place to uphold it. The Human Rights Council has stepped on a slippery slope by agreeing to postpone Falk's report. Instead of listening to the PA (and Egypt) the Council should have backed its special rapporteur. If it does the unthinkable and relieves Falk of his duties because the PA does not want him, the system of independent special rapporteurs would be undermined, just as it would if the Council gave in to Israeli or American pressure.

Undermining the Goldstone Report would be an equally harsh blow to the human rights system. Several earlier reports have called for the application of international law to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including the International Court of Justice's seminal opinion on the illegality of Israel's separation wall in the West Bank. But the Goldstone Report has been published at a time when people are ready to listen, which is partly why Israel is fighting it with such ferocity and on so many fronts.

On one of those fronts, Israel is trying to change international law itself, as Israeli human rights advocate Jeff Halper reveals in an important article, "The Second Battle of Gaza." Halper identifies the Israeli figures leading the campaign "to alter international law in ways that enable them -- and by extension other states involved in 'wars on terror' -- to effectively pursue warfare amongst the people while eliminating both the legitimacy and protections enjoyed by their non-state foes."

No one is more aware of the dangers to international law than Palestinian human rights advocates. Their organizations have acted as a group to support the implementation of the Goldstone Report and to protect Falk and his role.

Last month, 11 Palestinian human rights groups wrote to the High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressing dismay at the PA actions against Falk. His reports have provided "powerful instruments to advocate for Palestinian people's rights" they said, urging Pillay to ensure that Falk enjoyed the highest level of support from her office. They also called on her to reinforce the independence of the special rapporteurs from UN member states so as to protect the UN's own credibility.

More recently, 19 Palestinian groups wrote to PA president Mahmoud Abbas criticizing Falk's treatment and pointing out the repercussions for the Palestinians' internationally recognized human rights.

If the attacks on the two Richards succeed, the Palestinian cause will suffer and the world will be a poorer and more dangerous place -- one in which the might of the strong is legally allowed to prevail against the rights of the weak.

* Nadia Hijab is an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.

Source: Agence Global via Australians for Palestine

Related posts:

• Richard Falk: Goldstone is historic blow in the war Israel is losing- the ‘Legitimacy War’
• Alan Hart – ZIONISM UNMASKED: A fairy tale that’s become a terrifying nightmare
• Under investigation

Palestinian children stand in line in front of a priest holding an effigy of 'baby Jesus' during Christmas eve mass in Gaza's Der Latin church December 24, 2009. Less than 100 Gazans gathered in the church to take part in the celebrations. REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis

Obama talks about love while justifying wars, but in the Middle East, neither works.

By Christopher Dickey (Newsweek Web Exclusive) | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Maybe it seems beside the point, even on the eve of Christmas, to ask ourselves what would Jesus do in the Holy Land today. The narrow confines of Gaza, Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria are places where God's love was long ago supplanted by war for land and ill will among men. It has been a year now since the bloody and fruitless Israeli effort to crush Hamas in what amounts to a massive prison for a million people. Peacemakers in the Middle East are rarely blessed, and often reviled; just ask special envoy George Mitchell. And the truth rarely sets anyone free, as proved most recently by the fact-filled United Nations report by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, which was dissed by Washington and dismissed by Israel.

But given that it's Barack Obama who's president of the United States, the Jesus question has a relevance today it wouldn't have had even a year ago. No, Obama is not the messiah. I'm not saying that. But Obama actually uses the word love in a way that Jesus would have understood. So while the question of what Christ might do in today's Holy Land is hypothetical, the question of what Obama will do is not. And some of his most cherished ideas about peace, love, and understanding could be put to the test Dec. 31 when activists are hoping to stage a massive Gaza Freedom March.

It is precisely the kind of protest Obama himself called for in his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo last June when he said Palestinians must abandon violence, and held up the example of the civil-rights movement in the United States, and of similar struggles by people from South Africa to South Asia, from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.

The choice would seem to be a clear one between the policies of terror, occupation, corrosive combat, and cynical politics that we've seen for so long from both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership, or policies of civil disobedience and sweet reason, which is what Obama says he wants. But don't expect to hear much about that march when it happens, if it happens at all. Egypt as well as Israel may make it impossible for foreign peace activists to join the marchers in Gaza. Protests come and go in the Palestinian territories, but only blood normally draws media attention and even then, not much.

Palestinian children play on the ruins of houses destroyed during the three-week offensive Israel launched last year, in Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip on Christmas Eve December 24, 2009. December 27 marks one year since the start of a three-week offensive Israel launched in Gaza during which more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis

Perhaps the only hope that a massive nonviolent march will have to make an impact is if Obama himself takes note. But since Cairo, he has been stymied by hardball politics in Israel. Thus in June Obama flatly stated that the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements, which sounded tough. But he quickly discovered that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu didn't really give a damn what Obama accepts. After much hand wringing, Washington finally coaxed Netanyahu into announcing a partial temporary freeze on some new apartment blocks and houses on the West Bank, but construction of public buildings and projects already begun goes right ahead.

Oslo was a chance for Obama to set things straight: either he believes in the power of nonviolent protest to affect the future of peace in the Middle East or he does not. But as he made his pitch to the Europeans to send more NATO troops to the "just war" in Afghanistan, he wandered away from his old theme in the Middle East. The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it, Obama said. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism—it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Fair enough. But few conflicts are as clear-cut as the fight against the SS or Osama bin Laden.

I kept wondering when Obama, this admirer of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, would pay more than lip service to their greatness and get down to the core question of peace among Arabs and Jews. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred, he said in Oslo. And nowhere is that truer than in Gaza. But Obama did not mention Gaza.

The American president called on all nations, strong and weak alike, to abide by international standards that govern the use of force, but there was no reference to the many detailed allegations in the Goldstone report and elsewhere charging that Israel and Hamas both committed war crimes.

A Palestinian Christian woman holds her baby in the Deir Al Latin Catholic Church after the Christmas Mass, in Gaza City, Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009. AP Photo/Khalil Hamra

I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation, said Obama. But he was talking about Iran and North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe. He did not say the United States should engage with Hamas, and he did not encourage the Israelis to do so.

In a ringing phrase, Obama declared no holy war can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint, no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith—for the one rule that lies at the heart of ever major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. But was Obama talking about radical Israeli settlers in the West Bank or the Israeli forces blowing apart factories, farmlands, and private homes in Gaza a year ago? Or for that matter Hamas? He didn't mention them.

Adhering to the law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature, said Obama as he moved toward the end of his speech, using without reservation that word that is at the core of the Gospels. And Obama called on us to reach out for that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. But the only specific reference to the Holy Land that he offered was a passing remark that the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.

No, I don't know what Jesus would do, but I know what Obama should do. He can embrace the most important finding of the Goldstone report, which is essentially a call for Israel and Hamas to embrace a process of truth and reconciliation similar to the process that helped to heal the wounds of apartheid. (Thus far, the State Department has been claiming the report is actually an obstacle to peace.) And Obama should use his moral authority, while there's some left, to open the way for peaceful protest in Gaza, instead of allowing Israel and Egypt to shut it down. When the president visited a Boys and Girls Club in snowy Washington the other day, he told the kids that what the birth of baby Jesus "symbolizes for people all around the world is the possibility of peace and people treating each other with respect." It's time Obama worked harder to apply that principle in the part of the world where Baby Jesus was born.

Christopher Dickey

Related posts:

• A Call from Gaza
• Huwaida Arraf – Free Gaza and Palestine
• Humanity Targeted in Gaza

Prominent Jewish-American professor says Gaza rockets were 'symbolic resistance' to Israeli siege.

LONDON - Prominent Jewish-American Professor Norman Finkelstein accused Israel of perpetrating "war crimes" in Gaza through its ongoing siege of the Strip and its war at the turn of the year.

His accusation came within an international conference titled, "UNRWA and Future of Palestinian Refugees", organized in London Wednesday.

Prof. Finkelstein said the causes and effects of the war on Gaza are now coming to light, both in the Goldstone Report and in the recent arrest warrant issued by the UK for Tzipi Livni, who stated that she was "proud of everything she had done in Gaza".

Briefly assessing the history to the siege, Prof. Finkelstein noted that the ceasefire that was agreed between Israel and Hamas June 2008 was broken by Israel, not Hamas: whilst Hamas stopped its rocket attacks, Israel did not lift its illegal blockade on Gaza and launched a night raid on Gaza, whilst the eyes of the worlds were watching 4th November 2008 US elections.

Six Hamas resistance fighters were killed, provoking Hamas to respond, which it did by resuming rocket attacks. Prof. Finkelstein emphasised that this is not violence so much as "symbolic resistance".

He quoted one Palestinian who referred to the rocket attacks as "modest home made rockets are a cry of protest to the world".

Prof. Finkelstein commented that if we are going to condemn Hamas for these rocket attacks, we must suggest how else they should resist the pressure placed on them by persistent Israeli attacks, subjugation and persistent blockades that drain the small area of land.

If we cannot provide an alternative, we cannot criticise, he argued.

Prof. Finkelstein emphasised the disproportionate nature of the Israeli attacks.

The ratios of death and destruction are striking: 100 Palestinians were killed to 1 Israeli; 600 Palestinian civilians were killed to 1 Israeli; and 6000 Palestinian homes were destroyed to 1 Israeli home, he explained.

On this basis, Prof. Finkelstein said, it cannot be called a war as a minimum condition of war is that there are at least two sides firing at each other. Israeli soldiers themselves have stated that Israel used "insane amounts of firepower."

Israel's claims that the extent of devastation and death was due to Hamas using human shields and purposely positioning themselves in dense civilian areas has been undermined by reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Dugard Committee and the Goldstone Report which have found no evidence to support this claim.

The Goldstone Report stated that the siege was a "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".

Prof. Finkelstein notes that we can only assume that Goldstone, a self-confessed Zionist and a supporter of Israel, would have no interest in unfairly criticising Israel.

The world must assume therefore that what Goldstone has reported is an accurate reflection of abuse and apportionment of responsibility for what happened in Gaza, he added.

Prof. Finkelstein noted that Goldstone Report has, for the first time, put the assessment of human rights abuses first in this conflict, rather than the attention being persistently focussed on the "peace process".

The truth about the ongoing human rights abuses committed by Israel against Palestinians must be at the forefront of campaigning, stressed Prof. Finkelstein.

Related posts:

• Norman Finkelstein – The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza
• Racists press DePaul University to deny tenure to Dr. Finkelstein
• Israel accused of Gaza war crimes

By Bishop Donald Corder* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Merciless will be the Israeli army's onslaught in devouring any and all forms of opposition in the war for the minds and hearts of the global body politic and supporters of the Palestinian Battle Cry: "No Credible Goldstone Investigation No International Holocaust Remembrance Day!" Echoing the demand for justice in response to the UN General Assembly's endorsement of the 'Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' (document A/HRC/12/48), informally referred to as the "Goldstone report", after Richard Goldstone, the South African Justice who headed the mission. Hence, Israeli military targets Facebook, Twitter, Israel's new battle ground and employs Leyden Communications to Help Israel on UN Goldstone Report. Concluding, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." --Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994.

IF EVER THERE WAS A TIME TO HEAR THE WARNING CRY OF, "WOLF!" now is that time for Palestinian and Middle Eastern leadership, in this dark and somber hour. Israel considers Iran its top enemy after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state was doomed to be "wiped off the map" and questioning the scale of the Holocaust. Israel subsequently cried out and demanded an unholy 'Twitter war' on Iran. "A new Middle East war of the general type and implications indicated will occur if certain specified incidents materialize. It will occur only if the combination of the Israeli government and certain Anglo-American circles wish to have it occur. If they should wish it to occur, the incidents to "explain" that occurrence; will be arranged. Lyndon Larouche. "Lyndon Larouche Executive Intelligence Review" January 2001.

"In history of wartime propaganda all political regimes of whatever stripe, do all employ the coarsest of lies. Whether to launch a country into a war, maintain warlike fervour or justify a military crusade after the fact, only a good old-fashioned big lie will speak to the crowd. An ingenious lie or a newly invented one will not do the trick. There exist formulas for moving a mass of people to indignation, anger, the desire to fight, formulas for arousing, at least temporarily, the will to commit oneself heart and soul to the war effort. The first weapon of the ordinary confidence man is not some genius for swindling but an ability to gain sympathy when approaching the victim and to proceed with the very simplest talk." Robert Faurisson The Revisionist Method Applied to the History of the Third World War. May 11, 2003.

Truth has nothing to do with propaganda nor does it have anything to do with Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nor the reasons published for putting them at the top of the 'Whack'em List!" From purely a personal, and my own very Christian view, President Ahmadinejad is not their boogey man. Rather the Zionist problem stems back to the Jewish belief system and the applicability of the scriptures which declared they would be scattered throughout the nations, fearful and have no certain footing because of their sin. It seems reasonable that if that same God is indeed a God then if anyone would wipe them off of the face of the earth, it very well might be Him; starting in 70 AD with the fall and destruction of Jerusalem. Which land, I can believe now properly belongs in the family of Abraham as historically entrusted into the hands of Ishmael the elder son; who was not scattered across the face of the earth.

Secondly, President Ahmadinejad's questioning the scale of the holocaust in and of itself should not provide a foundation to declare war against him nor Iran. There was no budget. There was no plan. There was no extermination order from Hitler. Material evidence is astonishingly absent. The alleged gassing procedure has serious, unanswered questions. And the famous six million number has an amazing history. Revisionists claim that the public has been seriously misled by traditional historians. Are they right? Debating the Holocaust a New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton, Ph.D
 
For the past few decades there has been raging a kind of subterranean debate, one of monumental importance. It is a debate about the Holocaust -- not whether or not it "happened" (this is a meaningless claim), but rather, HOW it happened, through what MEANS, and to what EXTENT. Worldwide the Holocaust has grown into a temporal religion says noted Israeli journalist Israel Shamir, "...the Holocaust is not a Jewish religion; it is a religion par excellence for goyim" – a disrespectful Hebrew word for non-Jews.
 
Subsequently, why can't the UN General Assembly move according to their constitution as they fully explore and address the legal force and unintended consequence of the elements constituting Resolution 60/7 as touching the holocaust in its pursuit of justice and world peace. America's most successful revisionist activist, Bradley Smith, writes simply but strongly on how the Holocaust taboo blinds professors, journalists, politicians, and the human rights community to their responsibilities to encourage a free flow of ideas. "Revisionism means nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record."...Harry Elmer Barnes. Thus, affirming and providing legitimacy to the Palestinian Battle Cry: "No Credible Goldstone Investigation No International Holocaust Remembrance Day!"

Zionist are mobilizing the entire might of Israel and every pro-Israeli lobbyist under the sun to smite down the idea of a Free Palestine and impede the dreams of our babies from ever being echoed through cyberspace. In the wake of Sun Tzu's wisdom we must respect the necessary discipline and learning required: "when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

Middle Eastern governments, persons of wealth and influence and those who are morally offended by the Palestinian genocide must elevate the level of their engagement. Begin recruiting computer experts and target the Internet's social networking sites to create a direct link with international audiences rather than continuing the unrelenting frustration of attempting to access the regular media. Take the initiative to represent the Nation of Palestine and the Arab nations independently on the Internet and other domains.

Establish groups between 8 to 10 young people who might be willing to become experts in Web 2.0 - YouTube, Facebook and Twitter - and identify them for training, development of cyber club websites and computer giveaways. Post videos of attacks on targets in the Gaza Strip on YouTube and contact bloggers who are known as opinion-makers and directly send them information and pictures. Raise the level of your strategic aims from the grassroots of cyberspace and provide the resources to get this initiative off of park and establish a super secure global distributed network, a Wide Area Network (WAN). Raise the Palestinian Battle Cry to the next level of engagement: "No Credible Goldstone Investigation No International Holocaust Remembrance Day!"

What is at stake and what must be articulated is the idea of a free Palestine and vision for actualized Arab Nations in a productive global community. Breaking the bands holding us in captivity falls upon the shoulders of 'they' who are men, who would protect their own families, ways of life along with insuring the dreams of our children's future might be fully realized. What hope is there for an American savior when the Zionist unashamedly declare publicly, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." -- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

For us to do nothing in this defining hour of what perhaps is of eternal historical significance; well, the alternative future for us all might be echoed in these historic words: "Our race is the Master Race, we are divine gods on this planet, as different from the inferior races as they are from insects, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races, our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." -Menachem Begin (Israeli Prime Minister, 1977-1983)

American Maxim: Don't Get Mad, Get Even...: "No Credible Goldstone Investigation No International Holocaust Remembrance Day!"

* Don Corder is presiding bishop for Spirit of Life International Believers Fellowship and Senior Pastor of the Pillar of Truth Ministries. Mr. Corder is a published author, grassroots organizer and community activist, in addition to his work in urban and international development as a business consultant and entrepreneur. Email: DonCorder@gmail.com

Related posts:

• Palestinian Cyber Warfare for a Post Imperial America
• Palestinian Battle Cry in Cyber Warfare
• Israeli army kills one Palestinian child