Support Physicians for Human Rights - Israel

Rights group fears sweeping deportations from West Bank

2010-04-09T23:04:00.000+01:00

New military orders due to come into effect on 13 April could open the door to imprisonment and deportation of any person living in the Occupied West Bank.

By Miri Weingarten

Friday, 9 April, 2010 - 22:04

London, UK

Source:

HaMoked - Centre for the Defense of the Individual

New amendments to the current Israel Defence Force (IDF) Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration and the Order regarding Security Provisions, seek to expand the definition of the term ‘infiltrator.’

The term would then include any person currently present in the occupied West Bank, who does not hold a permit issued by the Israeli authorities.

Under the new orders any person in the West Bank – whether born in the West Bank or not; whether Palestinian or not – will be required to hold a permit in order to be there.

People without a permit will be rendered criminals by the orders and will face penalties of three to seven years’ imprisonment, or swift deportation/expulsion from the West Bank 72 hours after serving a deportation order.

The sweeping order applies to Palestinians who were born in the West Bank or who moved there lawfully, to foreigners and even to Israeli settlers and soldiers.

According to Israeli rights group HaMoked, if the orders are fully enforced, the West Bank could potentially be emptied of all its inhabitants in a fast track three-day procedure, with little possibility of judicial review.

The group, a legal centre based in Jerusalem, is leading urgent action for suspension of the orders.

According to the group, the orders will first of all legalise the expulsion of all Gaza-registered Palestinians living in the West Bank, who could be deported to the Gaza Strip.

Residents of Gaza have been increasingly restricted from living in the West Bank in recent years, and are now effectively prohibited from moving there.

However, according to HaMoked, the greatest danger lies in the potentially limitless enforcement of the law against anyone in the West Bank at any future time.

This article may be reproduced on condition that JNews is cited as its source

Further reading:
Hamoked’s letter to IDF Central Command
Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Amendment 2)
Order regarding Security Provisions (Amendment 112)
Order regarding Prevention of Infiltration (1969)

First animated palestinian movie - Fatenah

2010-03-31T13:12:00.000+01:00

Part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rElPylQV15E

Part two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGrm4R52_sE&feature=related

Part three:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfao7G1UdHo&feature=related

New jewish media agency in London

2010-03-17T20:09:00.001Z

JNews is an independent source of analysis, opinion, information and news on Israel and Palestine

JNews provides the British media and the public at large with up-to-date, accurate news, as well as features, commentary and analysis by leading experts, some of which is specially commissioned by JNews.

JNews draws its material from a wide variety of sources and lays special emphasis on Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental outlets/agencies.

JNews offers a unique database of prominent experts from the UK, Israel and Palestine who can participate in media and public discussion.

Our aims and values

JNews promotes understanding and stimulates critical debate about Israel and Palestine among British Jews and the broader public as a contribution to promoting peace with justice for all in the region.

JNews believes that disseminating a range of viewpoints broader than that offered by most Jewish and Israeli organizations will benefit Palestinians and Israelis.

JNews supports the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians and believes the two are intertwined.

JNews believes in the application of the universal principles of social justice and human rights as the path to a just and comprehensive solution to the conflict.

List of Patrons

Prof Zygmunt Bauman
Sir Geoffrey Bindman
Prof Emeritus Leslie Baruch Brent
Prof Stan Cohen
Moris Farhi MBE
June Jacobs CBE
Prof Mary Kaldor
Helena Kennedy QC
Prof Francesca Klug OBE
Ursula Owen OBE
Rabbi Danny Rich
Prof Avi Shlaim
Marina Warner
Rabbi Alexandra Wright
Prof Emeritus John S Yudkin FRCP

List of Trustees

Lady Ellen Dahrendorf
Richard Kuper
Antony Lerman
Maurice Naftalin
Prof Lynne Segal

Israel's NGOs must operate freely

2010-02-26T22:52:00.000Z

Following attacks on the New Israel Fund, a Knesset bill restricting rights organisations risks eroding democratic culture

Anthony Lerman, The Guardian, 26 Feb 2010

The vicious, McCarthyite attack on the New Israel Fund (Nif), which uses philanthropic funds to foster and support Israeli non-profit, civil society organisations, did not come out of the blue. The ultra-nationalist group, Im Tirzu, which blamed Nif for the Goldstone report, falsely claiming, as Jonathan Freedland showed, that more than 90% of the report's information came from groups funded by the Nif, was exploiting a climate of vilification of such groups created by the Netanyahu government since it came to power a year ago.

Following the assault on the Nif, and the personal attack on its president, the civil rights champion Professor Naomi Chazan, the Knesset decided to set up a committee to investigate foreign funding of Israeli civil society organisations. Emerging from the committee was a bill that is supposed "to increase transparency and repair loopholes in legislation in relation to the financing of political activity in Israel by foreign political entities". Supported by members of the Knesset from both the coalition and the opposition, there is every likelihood that this bill will become law within a month.

By using a very broad definition of "political activity", in reality, the measure will severely restrict a wide range of civil society organisations from carrying out their work. First, their tax-exempt status would be removed, which means that they would have to pay tax on donations. Even more damaging, government and private donors are generally legally restricted from paying taxes to a foreign government, so losing tax-exempt status would threaten these groups' ability to receive donations entirely. Second, any representative of one of these groups appearing in public – even for a mere 30 seconds – will be legally bound to state, at the outset, that their organisation receives foreign funding. This would restrict freedom of speech. Third, members of such organisations will face the same legal constraints as the officials, a provision that would almost certainly produce a decline in support.

In fact, the law is unnecessary as not-for-profit organisations already have to be completely transparent about their funding, mission and work. It will affect groups concerned with human rights, women's rights, the environment, migrants, peace and social change. They will be publicly delegitimised and suffer increased state monitoring. Their employees and members will face arrest, prosecution, fines and up to one year in jail.

The law will legitimise a process that is already under way: a wave of assaults on Palestinian and Israeli activists and organisations opposing the occupation has already taken place. Non-violent Palestinian resistance has been quashed by Israeli security forces and Palestinian organisers and activists have faced night-time raids and arrests.

A recent survey seems to suggest that there is the potential for a high degree of tolerance and approval of these actions, especially where human rights groups are concerned. The War and Peace Index of Tel Aviv University last week published results of a poll of Israel's Jewish residents, which showed that 57% agreed that, in the case of an external conflict, human rights are less important than the national security crisis. In such a climate, the incitement against human rights groups by rightwing columnists must surely find a receptive audience. Not to mention the reports and op-eds by rightwing NGOs and thinktanks.

For example, Seth T Frantzman brands human rights activists as fifth columnists, by claiming they are taking EU money, constitute a European lobby and pursue the EU's alleged anti-Israel agenda. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor bizarrely states that the way they operate is a "grotesque distortion of democracy". The influential Reut Institute recently issued a report arguing that Israel is in existential danger of delegitimisation by radical groups abroad. The Netanyahu government already seems to have taken this message to heart and will no doubt see foreign-funded civil society groups as contributing to this process.

Israel's democracy has never been perfect. Nor, for that matter, has the democracy of any other country. But over time, with the liberalisation of politics and the economy, a lively democratic culture began to develop. Nevertheless, the country's claim to be a beacon of western democratic norms has been fatally undermined by the state continuing to treat its Arab population as second-class citizens and by the absence of democratic rights for the Palestinians under its control in the occupied territories. The development of Israel's civil society institutions over the last few decades has come about partly as a response to this democratic deficit.

It's hard to credit that a country that wants to be seen as on a par with EU members doesn't understand that it's a sign of democracy in practice to allow civil society organisations to operate freely. Restricting them in the way the new law proposes will thus undermine Israel's democracy. The political landscape, especially as reflected in the Knesset, is already unreceptive to alternative civil society views. The coalition ranges from pragmatic right to ultra-right; the opposition includes a large pragmatic right; and there are almost no defenders of civil liberties. Laws have been proposed that target minorities, outlaw commemoration of the Naqba and abandon Israel's commitment to the UN convention on refugees.

The further erosion of democracy in Israel will only make it harder than ever to reach comprehensive peace and guarantee the country's future security.

Proposed new legislation in Israel - another step in dedemocratisation

2010-02-18T22:25:00.004Z

Please see below a letter summarising the possible impact of new legislation proposed in Knesset targeting Israeli dissident organisations.

Dear Colleagues and friends

We write with concern and to share with you a translation and brief analysis of the recent legislation proposed by Members of Knesset Elkin, Michaeli, Rotem, Schneller, Levin, Ben Ari, and Hotovely. The proposed legislation, steps away from being approved as law, would restrict the activities of a host of organizations working on a broad spectrum of issues in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory – from environmental groups to peace organizations to organizations that promote human rights.

While the legislation purports to increase transparency concerning foreign funding of NGOs, in reality it will infringe on the ability of a wide variety of social change organizations to conduct their work. Find attached an unofficial translation of the proposed bill as it was circulated on Sunday, February 14, 2010.

The proposed legislation would impact our work in the following ways:

1. By removing our tax-exempt status: The legislation defines political activity so broadly that any organization "seeking to influence public opinion in Israel" would be labeled as political and would lose its tax-exempt status. That means that a social change organization would actually have to pay tax on donations or other income – even though as organizations serving the public good, we have no profits that could properly be taxed. This would have tremendous financial consequences. In addition, as many donors, government and private, have contractual limitations on their ability to pay taxes to a foreign government, removing our tax-exempt status would threaten our ability to receive donations entirely.

2. By restricting our speech with legal consequences for non-compliance: The unrealistic and unnecessary requirements of the law would force any spokesperson for an organization to announce its foreign government donors in any written material, electronic communication, meeting, interview or public appearance related to advocacy. If the spokesperson fails to do so, she may face fines or up to one year in jail.

To give an example: an executive director of an organization is invited to be interviewed on the radio to share her views on a new measure which negatively impacts a sector of society. In the 30 seconds allotted for her comments, she would also need to announce that foreign government donors support the work of her organization. If she doesn't, she could be arrested and sentenced to jail for up to one year.

Many organizations will face the difficult dilemma of declining badly-needed donations from foreign development funds – or subjecting themselves to the proposed law's draconian provisions.

Members' organisations (e.g., "Physicians for Human Rights-Israel", which includes medical professionals who are members or volunteers) will suffer further damage from the law, as members and volunteers will be deterred from joining or even cancel their membership. this is because the law applies to "principle activists of the recipient of support” - a definition that includes members in members' organisations.

Why is the law unnecessary? Because each non-profit organization in Israel is already required to list its donors and other financial information on its website and to report annually to the government, specifying whether foreign governments have donated money. This information is readily available. There already is complete transparency about organizations' funding, our mission, and our work.

We are very concerned about the motivations behind this proposed law and its ramifications for Israeli democracy and the robust civil society that is its strength. Burdening the activities of social change organizations, mischaracterizing them as "political" groups, subjecting them to criminal penalties, and taxing their donations are inappropriate measures for a democracy that respects freedom of expression and association.

We are concerned that the bill is slated to pass within a month. Three Knesset ministers, Dan Meridor (Likud), Isaac Herzog (Labor), and Shalom Simhon (Labor) opposed the legislation in Sunday's Ministerial Committee, and we believe there is room for members of the international community to express their concern regarding this proposed law. We note that this bill is one more step in a targeted campaign by the Israeli government to restrict the space in which human rights organizations may operate.

We will continue to update you as more developments occur.

Why bomb Iran when you can become Iran?

2010-02-17T20:55:00.000Z

That seems to be the thinking behind the Israeli government's endorsement of legislation that will require human rights NGOs in Israel (e.g., B'Tselem, Machsomwatch, Breaking the Silence, Adalah, etc.) to publicize contributions from foreign governments, not only in an annual report (they all do that anyway), but every single time they host an event, have a meeting, publish a report, issue a news release, whether they have received outside funding for that particular occasion or not.

Read on...
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-bomb-iran-when-you-can-become-iran.html

Fencing ourselves in: On building a fence on the Egypt-Israel border

2010-01-16T21:01:00.002Z

By Hadas Ziv, Executive Director, Physicians for Human Rights Israel

Edited version originally published as a comment in Hebrew on Israeli website Ynet, 11.1.10. Translation into English by JNews

"It is a strategic decision, that will ensure the Jewish and democratic nature of the State of Israel," said PM Netanyahu, when he decided to adopt the IDF's plan to erect a fence on parts of the Israeli-Egyptian border. The PM's honesty stems from the general loss of shame among our leaders: No more security excuses, but clear and unapologetic racism. But this honesty does include some untruths too, the first of these being that fencing in the border has nothing to do with democratic values, and this is not the only misleading comment in the words of the Prime Minister.

First untruth: "Israel will remain open to refugees of war". The fence will be an obstacle to all those who flee via Egypt into Israel. It will not distinguish between those who are refugees and will eventually be recognized by Israel for asylum and residency and those who are infiltrators. Who can ensure that, for a refugee fleeing from an Egyptian soldier ordered to open fire, the fence will not be the difference – of a few seconds – between life and death? Why not make a safe space inside Israeli territory, for refugees to escape to?

Second untruth: "[Israel] will not allow the exploitation of its borders for a flood of illegal foreign workers". Most migrant workers arrive in Israel with a work visa and lose it because they are employed in ways that violate human rights. Netanyahu and [Minister of Interior] Yishai will do nothing against this, because the state, the contractors, and other interest groups make a good profit from importing and deporting these immigrants, in what is well-known here as the 'revolving door' policy.

Third untruth: "We are talking about a social ticking time-bomb". The refugees escaping Sudan and Eritrea reach us after going through horrible trauma. They have seen family members murdered before their eyes; some have been raped and abused either in their home country or on their way to Israel. They need emotional rehabilitation before they can work and adapt to life in Israel. Without rehabilitation they will continued to be pushed to the margins of society through no fault of their own. Defining them as guilty, as ticking bombs - itself an unacceptable image that has been used by those who justify torture - is a disgrace in a state that should have the plight of refugees at heart.

Fourth untruth: "The Prime Minister seeks to address the problem in a multiple systemic way". If the Israeli government sought to meet the challenge of absorbing the refugees in a systemic way, it would examine the moral considerations of the matter and the nature of the state of Israel, before reaching a decision. It is predictable, if unfortunate, that the army and the police, whose task is security, should demand complete closure, fences, electronic devices and personnel. But politicians might be expected to use foresight and to establish neighbourly relations that would eliminate the need for fences. They might be expected to remember that the State of Israel was one of the initiators of the international convention for the protection of the rights of refugees, and that when we say "never again," we mean the moral imperative to protect all refugees, irrespective of their religion or country of origin.

"Before I built a wall," said Robert Frost, "I'd ask to know what I was walling in or walling out, and to whom I was like to give offence." But here we build first and think later. Perhaps there is no reason to be surprised that Israel is shutting itself exclusively into its Jewish definition and abandoning universal messages and morals. This ambivalence has guided us from the start; we cannot look honestly at the refugee issue on the international level because we fear to look honestly at the Palestinian refugee issue. And so we will continue to speak contradictory sentences and hide behind fences that will separate 'us' from 'the other'. This is the systemic approach that characterizes the Israeli vision today, and it dominates us through cement and concrete, from the separation wall in the occupied territories to the walls of the villas on the Jaffa beach, or the separation wall between the impoverished town of Or Akiva and rich Caesarea. Yes, we feel safe behind walls and we invest in them more than we invest in our children (education) or our lives (health; and while building them we never noticed that it is ourselves we are fencing in, and our own horizons that we are blocking.

Medical Supply Shipment to Gaza 27.12.09

2010-01-03T23:03:00.001Z

Medical Supply Shipment to Gaza 27.12.09

On Sunday December 27th 2009, the one-year anniversary of the Israeli offensive Operation Cast Lead, PHR-Israel sent it’s 7th emergency medical dispatch containing medical supplies and medications to the main medical storehouse at Shifa’ Hospital in the Gaza Strip. Like dispatches sent during the offensive, this shipment contained medications and supplies noted on a list sent to us by Gaza physicians.

PHR-Israel has delivered medical supplies on an ongoing basis since the beginning of the Gaza closure, nearly 3.5 years ago, and organized six individual dispatches during the attacks as well. The Palestinian Minister of Health in Gaza welcomed our efforts and praised PHR-Israel for its solidarity with the Palestinian people of Gaza.

See fotostream:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/phrisrael/4240955798/in/set-72157623003929703/

Palestine Film Festival in London 2010

2009-12-03T16:05:00.002Z

From 30 April 2010 to 14 May 2010 at the Barbican!!

The PFF is now accepting submissions for the 2010 London Palestine Film Festival, which will open in April.

Submissions must reach us by December 20th 2009 and be accompanied by a completed submission form (below). Please download and read the regulations before submitting, and NEVER submit irreplaceable material!! Thank you for submitting!

Go to:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Palestine-Film-Foundation/179329779096#/event.php?eid=161420397332&ref=mf

for submitting a film.

See you there?

Information on the Health Rights of Migrant Workers

2009-11-12T21:38:00.001Z

General information regarding migrant workers in Israel; actions of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel on the matter of the health rights of migrant workers, asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking

Beginning in the end of the 1980s and through the 1990s, tens of thousands of migrant workers arrived in Israel. This was as a result of the closure policy in the occupied territories introduced by the state which made it very difficult for Palestinian workers to enter Israel. The government responded to the demands of employers by allowing the greater entry of migrant workers, particularly in the sectors of agriculture and building.

Because the permit is issued for employers and not for the workers, laborers who left their employers for whatever reasons (death of the employer, exploitation of the worker, salary disagreements, etc.) these persons automatically lost their permits to be in the country.

In addition to workers with permits, a large number of migrant workers entered the country's borders with no permit whatever, mostly from countries where it is not possible to obtain a permit to work in Israel. i.e. East Africa, West Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), in the year 2000, there were 240,000 migrant workers in Israel; some with, others without legal permits; the correct figures are probably much higher. In 2003, the CBS estimated that of 190,000 migrant workers, some 85,000 entered with working permits.

The number of victims of human trafficking is also not verified, but assumed to be several thousand women, mostly from former eastern bloc countries (recently, there has been an increasing number of women from the Caucasus). Between 2000 and 2002, more than 1,200 women were deported following arrest for prostitution. A few dozen women are in the witness protection program against human trafficking and they are eligible for a special shelter that offers protection and a number of services. The health care rights of these women are protected by a court order that resulted from a case brought by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel together with the Hotline for Migrant Workers.

In 2003, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel initiated an experimental project whose purpose was outreach to the victims of human trafficking with the goal of improving their freedom of access to health services while they were still at the brothels. Russian speaking volunteers attempt to enter the brothels and relay information regarding the available health care.

In the last few years, more women have sought shelter. UN refugee workers examine the requests of these women, together with the advisory committee of the Interior Ministry.
The number of persons seeking asylum in recent years is, apparently, more than 1000 and includes those who received temporary special status pending resolution of the conflicts in their homelands. Reliable information regarding the numbers of persons involved is not available from UN representatives or from the Interior Ministry. Asylum Seekers are entitled to protection from the state of Israel under international law. In Israel, these refugees have recently received the right to work permits but they do not receive medical treatment or health care services. Even the terminally ill and victims of torture are not entitled to the most basic health services.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel works on many fronts for the rights of migrant workers, seekers of political asylum and victims of sexual trafficking. On the most basic level, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel opened, in 1998, a clinic operated by volunteers to provide primary care to migrant workers.

At the same time, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel offers treatment to migrants, and endeavors to assist with any request for medical aid, whether directly with the treatment or by assisting with payment for care, to prevent deportation of the chronically ill to home countries where they cannot receive care or are at risk of inhuman treatment or at risk of death, by representing them in claims against private insurance companies, by supporting seekers of political asylum, and a variety of other kinds of assistance. This advocacy action typifies our contacts with insurance companies, health funds, hospitals, government ministries and press communications in the legal aid sector. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel relies upon assistance from the Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Tel Aviv Faculty of Law, especially in representing documented workers against the private insurance companies and on issue of refugees’ rights. Dozens of legal migrant workers struggling for their legal rights are represented each year, along with hundreds of requests for information regarding rights and health services.

The types of complaints handled in 2003 included - complaints of legal migrant workers that insurance companies don't pay for essential services, legal representation for AIDS patients, illegal Ethiopian immigrants who are contesting their deportation on the grounds of serious threats to their lives in Ethiopia, legal assistance in obtaining aid for chronically ill children and seeking permission to stay in Israel, etc. Most of the legal activities are carried out in cooperation with the free clinic for legal assistance at Tel Aviv University. The project has no budget for legal activities and this sometimes causes us to refrain from involvement.
The first two areas, individual and legal assistance clinic, is a platform for the third: the essential care, whose goal is long term social change in the manner in which the state public health care services relate to migrant workers.

In principle, the success of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel until now to increase awareness regarding health rights of these groups has been relatively marginal in terms of increasing public dialogue. The activities have succeeded in improving access of three groups to better health service: children of migrant workers, legal migrant workers and the witness program for victims of sexual exploitation.

Conservatives Anti-Semitic Friend Declares his Undying Sympathy for Israel!

2009-11-01T19:54:00.001Z

I May Not like Jews but I Just Love Israel

Michal Kaminski - friend of British Conservatism

The row over the Tory Party’s choice of allies in the European Parliament rumbles on. In particular over Michal Kaminiski, member of the far-right Law and Justice Party in Poland’s Sejm and leader of the Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament. Leaving aside Robert Zile’s Freedom and Fatherland Party in Latvia, which has a soft spot for all those Latvian SS men who helped round up the Jews.

What is interesting in this debate is how, BNP style, Kaminiski’s retort to the allegation of anti-Semitism is: ‘What me? But I support Israel.’ And that is precisely the problem. It reminds me of a quotation in Francis Nicosia’s new book, ‘anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.’ [2008].

Nicosia is an American Professor of Political Science and an ardent Zionist who continually finds himself at odds with the evidence he uncovers. But despite his Zionism he notes that although today criticism of Zionism

‘is often dismissed as motivated by a deeper anti-Semitism, in Herzl’s day an opposite non-Jewish reaction, one of support for the Zionist idea, might have resulted in a similar reaction.’ [p.7]

His conclusion is that ‘Before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, active anti-Zionism… was largely a Jewish phenomenon…’ [13]

And that is precisely the point. If someone says that they believe Jews don’t belong in this country and should depart, then they are either an anti-semite or a Zionist or both. So it’s no surprise that Israel’s Ambassador to Britain, the intellectually challenged Ron Prossor, should be up there giving Kaminiski his full support. Likewise the Conservative Friends of Israel stand shoulder to shoulder with a man who has opposed any form of Polish apology for the massacre at Jedwabne (because Jews should apologise for the behaviour of the Soviet Union – understandable if you hold that Jews collectively were responsible for Stalin's atrocities or for Communism more generally, which is something Hitler certainly believed in.

Kaminski also paid homage to see General Pinochet when he was under house arrest in Britain, presenting him with some Catholic curiosity. Leaving aside of course his anti-gay credentials.

Now it may be, as some have argued, that Kaminski is more an opportunist than a fascist supporter. But regardless he makes a good bedfellow for both Israeli apologists and David Cameron. Interestingly, senior members of the Jewish Leadership Council have been spitting blood at the letter Vivian Wineman, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews sent David Cameron asking, ever so politely, about his new far-right friends.

We are told that ‘One JLC member described colleagues as “livid” at the timing of the letter. Another said he was “incandescent”. A senior Jewish Conservative said: “The Board has done itself a lot of damage. It is acting naively, it has been manipulated by left-wing interests into a completely inappropriate position. The irony is that the new Tory European group will be the most pro-Israel lobby group.”

Of course this is no irony at all. I can once remember watching a programme featuring one Ian Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. He littered his conversation with anti-Semitic epithets, but this man was as pro-Zionist as you could get.

What of course the unnamed senior Jewish conservative meant is that ‘anti-Semitism’ is only a stick to beat the left and those horrible Muslims around the head with. It’s not actually mean to be taken seriously, as in anti-Semitism, hatred of Jews. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is merely a form of defamation and libel to be used against anti-racists in the name of Israel’s war against the Palestinians. It is effectively the conscious and deliberate misuse of the memory of those who died in the Final Solution to bolster Israel and US imperialism.

Kaminski admits wearing 'fascist' symbol
By Martin Bright and Jessica Elgot, October 10, 2009

Michal KaminskI, the Polish MEP at the centre of the controversy over David Cameron’s European alliances has admitted he wore the symbol of a totalitarion group, claims he had previously denied.

In an interview with the JC, Mr Kaminski was asked if he had ever said he was proud to wear the Chrobry Sword, the symbol of the National Radical Camp (ONR).

Formed in 1934, the extreme rightwing, nationalist ONR- Falanga was largely a student movement, but practised violent anti-Semitism including attacks on Jewish students, buildings and businesses, organised boycotts of Jewish businesses and attacks on left wing groups.
The group used the medieval symbol of the Mieczyk Chrobrego – the Chrobry sword,

Mr KaminskI categorically denied knowledge of wearing the Chrobry sword symbol.
He told the JC: “No, I never wear it. I don’t even know which symbol you are referring to.”
But Mr Kaminski later issued a clarification, where he admitted he had worn the badge.
He said:

"I did wear the sword, which was used around a millennia ago to crown Polish Kings, on my lapel on occasions. After 1989 it was used as one of the symbols of the Christian National Union and many Conservative politicians would wear it, including politicians now in the Civic Platform.

“In recent years it has been taken as a symbol by the Far Right. Although it is not the same, there are similarities with how the BNP in Britain has taken the Union Jack as their symbol.
“When I felt the symbol started having this meaning I stopped wearing it and I asked the rest of my party to stop too.”

He added: “I acknowledge that it is possible that my pronunciation was unclear, so I am happy to clarify his position on this controversial symbol."

EXCLUSIVE Michal Kaminski: 'I'm no antisemite'

When I finally interview Michal Kaminski he is looking extremely flustered, not to say hounded, by the attention he has received during his flying visit to Conservative Party conference. The controversial leader of David Cameron’s new allies in the European Parliament has been chased into a fringe meeting by a woman from Channel 4 and to the doors of a lunch hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel. Allegations about his far-right past have quite literally pursued him to a suite at Manchester’s Midland Hotel.

Here it is that the 37-year-old head of the new European Conservatives and Reformists grouping has chosen to explain his controversial past statements, which range from the Holocaust and the role of Jewish partisans in the Soviet occupation, to General Pinochet and homosexuality.

In his only interview with a British newspaper, he says he welcomes the opportunity to reassure readers of the JC that he is no antisemite.“If you grew up in Poland, if you saw the traces of the Holocaust in my country, the accusation of being an antisemite is, I think, really hard,” he says. “Being an antisemite is something which is contradictory to all my beliefs, starting with my religious beliefs as a Christian and ending with my political conservative views.”

He adds that he considers that western civilisation is essentially Judeo-Christian and therefore “created to a big extent by Jews”.

Mr Kaminski says that he understands the concerns raised by some of the allegations against him. His colourful CV has already caused acute embarrassment to the Conservative Party and provided ammunition to those who say Cameron has rejected the mainstream centre-right in Europe in favour of a rag-tag bunch of apologists for fascism. At the same time, his robust support for Israel provides Anglo-Jews with a dilemma. His status as guest of honour at the CFI lunch demonstrates the level of trust he commands among leading Jewish Tories. His visit to Israel last month saw him welcomed by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

But how does this square with Mr Kaminski’s political beginnings with the far-right National Revival of Poland party (NOP)? The party he joined as a teenager is said to have pledged that “Jews will be removed from Poland and their possessions confiscated”. His response is that he was just 15 when he joined the NOP in 1987 when it was still an underground movement. Two years later it merged into the mainstream Conservative Christian National Union. “It was for me the first available option to join the anti-Communist movement and when I was 17 I left this group,” he says, adding that there was no evidence of a neo-fascist tendency at the time. “When I was a member of them, I don’t remember. Maybe you will find that someone will… but as far as I know it was a party which was Catholic and nationalist-orientated.”

Mr Kaminski himself raises the issue of Jedwabne, a town in the north-east of Poland which was the site of a massacre of hundreds of its Jewish inhabitants in July 1941 by a mob of Poles. Sixty years later, the then Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski issued an apology for the atrocity, but the issue was hugely divisive. As the deputy in the Polish parliament responsible for the area, Mr Kaminski expressed his opposition to a generalised apology, a decision he stands by.

From the very beginning I was saying as a human being, as a Pole, that Jedwabne was a terrible crime, unfortunately committed by the Polish people. My point was from the very start: we are ashamed of these people, we have to condemn them, we have to judge them if they are still alive. But I don’t want to take the whole responsibility for this crime for the whole Polish nation.

He adds that he doesn’t believe the Jedwabne massacre should be classified on the same level as the Holocaust. “I think that it’s unfair comparing it with Nazi crimes and putting it with the same level as the Nazi policy.”

More difficult for Mr Kaminski (and potentially Mr Cameron) is the suggestion that the Polish politician claimed no apology should be made until Jews apologised for alleged Jewish crimes of collaboration with the Soviet Union. His answer is ingenious. He says that asking the Poles as a whole to apologise for Jedwabne would make as much sense as asking the Jews to apologise for alleged Jewish involvement in Communist crimes.It is a theme to which he returns later in the interview:

My position is that there were acts of collaboration of the Jewish people with the Soviet army when the Soviet army came to Poland. It’s a fact. It’s a historical fact… If you are asking the Polish nation to apologise for the crime made in Jedwabne, you would require from the whole Jewish nation to apologise for what some Jewish Communists did in Eastern Poland.

I ask him about an interview he gave to the ultra-nationalist Polish newspaper Nacza Polska at the time of the apology, when he is alleged to have said he would only apologise for Jedwabne when “someone from the Jewish side will apologise for what the Jews did during the Soviet occupation between 1939 and 1941, for the mass collaboration of the Jewish people with the Soviet occupier.” He claims he does not remember giving the interview. Does he recognise the words as his? “I absolutely do not recognise them. It was nine years ago.” He adds that official statements at the time made his position on the matter clear. I ask him about his use of the slogan “Poland is for the Poles”, which is said to have associations with pre-war Polish ultra-nationalism. He says he had been referring to Poland’s corruption scandals of 2000 when the new democracy was seriously under threat. “We have to give Poland to Poles but….not in a racial or nationalistic sense but in terms of democracy. We want to give back Polish democracy to the Poles, to the citizens.”

I ask him to clarify claims that he expressed pride in wearing the Chrobry sword, the symbol of the National Radical Camp Falanga, a Catholic totalitarian group formed in 1935. He issues a categorical denial: “No, I never wear it. I don’t even know which symbol you are referring to." [Mr Kaminski later clarified his position, claiming he had in fact worn the symbol]

There is no doubt there has been a concerted attempt by David Cameron’s political enemies to discredit Mr Kaminski. But there are areas of his own political biography where he admits he made serious errors of judgment. In 1999, he visited the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London, an event he described as “the most important moment of my whole life”. He later made a statement to the Polish parliament saying he regretted his actions. He says: “I think I made a mistake visiting Pinochet. A decent politician should have the courage to admit the mistake”.

I wonder if he thinks it was also a mistake to have described homosexuals as “pedaly”, a derogatory term akin to “shirt-lifters”. Again he admits an error of judgement. “I said I would never use these words again. But please remember it was a word used commonly by Polish politicians about homosexuals. “Since I discovered that this word was offensive in the eyes of homosexuals, I never used it again.” As we end the interview he talks of his pride at heading up the new conservative grouping in the European parliament and his great respect for British Conservatism. But Mr Kaminski cannot have imagined that he would end up as such a controversial figure for the party that has inspired his politics for so long.

The creation of the ECR has been a huge risk for David Cameron, brought about because he needed to provide some “red meat” to the Eurosceptics in his party. In the final irony, though, it turns out that Mr Kaminski is himself an enthusiastic Europhile who has embraced the Lisbon Treaty so hated by the right-wing of the British Conservative Party. “I was on the side of those who were in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. It is well known in Poland. It is not a secret,” he says. I apologise that so much of the interview has been taken up by allegations from Mr Kaminski’s political enemies. To his credit he says that it has been important to answer his critics.

UPDATE: Mr Kaminski made the following statement to the JC on Friday:

I did wear the sword, which was used around a millennia ago to crown Polish Kings, on my lapel on occasions. After 1989 it was used as one of the symbols of the Christian National Union and many Conservative politicians would wear it, including politicians now in the Civic Platform. In recent years it has been taken as a symbol by the Far Right. Although it is not the same, there are similarities with how the BNP in Britainhas taken the Union Jack as their symbol. When I felt the symbol started having this meaning I stopped wearing it and I asked the rest of my party to stop too.

Analysis by Political Editor Martin Bright Editor Stephen Pollard

Goldstone report on Israels attack on Gaza now published

2009-09-15T23:04:00.002+01:00

Israel has opened an international campaign to protest a United Nations report which ruled it committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity during its offensive on the Gaza Strip earlier this year. The Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that Israel was "appalled and disappointed" by the damning report. "The UN body has dealt a huge blow to governments seeking to defend their citizens from terror," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. Palmor said the report's conclusions were "so disconnected with realities on ground that one cannot but wonder on which planet was the Gaza Strip they visited."
It raises the question on which planet the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry is living, most likely not in Gaza.
The report states that both Israel and Palestinian militant groups committed war crimes and acts that were likely crimes against humanity during the fighting in the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

In a 547-page report, the mission said both Israeli and Palestinian authorities must engage in "good faith, independent
roceedings" to investigate their own sides within six months, or the UN Security Council should refer the case to the International Criminal Court's prosecutor in The Hague.
You can read the report yourself by clicking on the title.
(citations from Haaretz newspaper)

Time to boycott Israel For the sake of our children, I am convinced that an international boycott is the only way to save Israel from itself

2009-08-23T18:57:00.003+01:00

Neve Gordon (also published in the LA Times)
guardian, Friday 21 August 2009 09.00 BST

Israeli newspapers this summer are filled with angry articles about the push for an international boycott of Israel. Films have been withdrawn from Israeli film festivals, Leonard Cohen is under fire around the world for his decision to perform in Tel Aviv and Oxfam has severed ties with a celebrity spokeswoman, an actress who also endorses cosmetics produced in the occupied territories. Clearly, the campaign to use the kind of tactics that helped put an end to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is gaining many followers around the world.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis – even peaceniks – aren't signing on. A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of antisemitism. It also brings up questions of a double standard (why not boycott China for its egregious violations of human rights?) and the seemingly contradictory position of approving a boycott of one's own nation.

It is indeed not a simple matter for me as an Israeli citizen to call on foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organisations, unions and citizens to suspend co-operation with Israel. But today, as I watch my two boys playing in the yard, I am convinced that it is the only way that Israel can be saved from itself.

I say this because Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.

The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews – whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel – are citizens of the state of Israel.

The question that keeps me up at night, both as a parent and as a citizen, is how to ensure that my two children as well as the children of my Palestinian neighbours do not grow up in an apartheid regime.

There are only two moral ways of achieving this goal.

The first is the one-state solution: offering citizenship to all Palestinians and thus establishing a binational democracy within the entire area controlled by Israel. Given the demographics, this would amount to the demise of Israel as a Jewish state; for most Israeli Jews, it is anathema.

The second means of ending our apartheid is through the two-state solution, which entails Israel's withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (with possible one-for-one land swaps), the division of Jerusalem and a recognition of the Palestinian right of return with the stipulation that only a limited number of the 4.5 million Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to Israel, while the rest could return to the new Palestinian state.

Geographically, the one-state solution appears much more feasible because Jews and Palestinians are already totally enmeshed; indeed, "on the ground," the one-state solution (in an apartheid manifestation) is a reality. Ideologically, the two-state solution is more realistic because fewer than 1% of Jews and only a minority of Palestinians support binationalism.

For now, despite the concrete difficulties, it makes more sense to alter the geographic realities than the ideological ones. If at some future date the two peoples decide to share a state, they can do so, but currently this is not something they want.

So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal?

I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics is moving more and more to the extreme right.

It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.

I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005 and has since garnered widespread support around the globe. The objective is to ensure that Israel respects its obligations under international law and that Palestinians are granted the right to self-determination.

In Bilbao, Spain, in 2008, a coalition of organisations from all over the world formulated the 10-point campaign meant to pressure Israel in a "gradual, sustainable manner that is sensitive to context and capacity". For example, the effort begins with sanctions on and divestment from Israeli firms operating in the occupied territories, followed by actions against those that help sustain and reinforce the occupation in a visible manner. Along similar lines, artists who come to Israel to draw attention to the occupation are welcome, while those who just want to perform are not.

Nothing else has worked. Putting massive international pressure on Israel is the only way to guarantee that the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians – my two boys included – does not grow up in an apartheid regime.

Fatah's Gauntlet

2009-08-20T16:48:00.000+01:00

by Amira Hass
Ha'aretz 19/08/2009
The decision by Fatah's Sixth Congress that the movement is sticking to negotiations as a means of achieving independence, statehood and peace is an admission that the use of arms during the second intifada was disastrous. That is a difficult admission for a movement founded on the sanctification of the armed struggle. And despite being tacit, it is a brave admission for Fatah at a time when most Palestinians are convinced that Israel does not want peace. Nevertheless, the decision has sparked a few questions from the side of the occupied. The first question is whether Fatah's courage will hold firm if another uprising against the occupation erupts. Or, in other words, whether Fatah is capable of leading an uprising without falling into the trap of the fantasy known as "armed struggle." The second question relates to the negotiations. The conditions that the congress said must be met before talks can resume reflect criticism of the complacent way in which Palestinian representatives have conducted negotiations. Indeed, the authors of the congress' platform beat their breasts over the negligence that caused the first negotiators to omit from the Oslo accords the demand that settlement construction be stopped, the goal of statehood and any mention of the state's borders. But even if Fatah's veteran negotiators wise up and change their negotiating tactics, is it not too late? No new negotiations will be enough on their own to remove the facts on the ground that Israel has created. It is only natural that people subject to foreign domination seek other means of achieving independence in the spectrum between armed struggle and peace talks. Therefore, it is logical that Fatah declared at its congress that it is not giving up other legitimate forms of struggle (boycotts, acts of popular resistance against the settlements) alongside the negotiations. The question this begs is whether this can become more than mere words. After all, this is the same Fatah that entrenched itself so deeply in its status as the ruling party, and the attendant minor perks, that even during the most frustrating of the Oslo years, it refrained from developing the option of mass civil disobedience. This is the same Fatah that still sees the establishment of the Palestinian Authority - i.e. the establishment of governmental institutions that are, by nature, crippled - as a huge achievement. Neither the Palestinian Authority, which is an institution concerned with maintaining its existence, nor Fatah, which is concerned with maintaining its huge achievement, have dared to expand the popular protests against the separation fence, of which they boast, into a real popular revolt. The PA is more concerned with recruiting masses of young men into its police forces, whose goal is to suppress "disturbances" (and impose order on Palestinian cities, where the chief disturbers of the peace were Fatah's own frustrated and quarrelsome armed men). Their foreign trainers are not preparing them to confront armed Israeli soldiers with bare chests. Masses of Palestinians tried this during the first intifada, and the early days of the second as well. And the Israel Defense Forces showed them that in its view, like that of many Israelis, a popular uprising by Palestinians is a no less legitimate target for suppression than the use of live fire - as is proven by its lethal dispersal of demonstrations against the fence and its nighttime raids and arrests of demonstrators and organizers. The popular revolt at the beginning of the second intifada was killed off by the decision to use weapons, which senior Fatah officials either encouraged or were dragged into when the number of Palestinian casualties mounted. But those who opted for weapons misinterpreted both Israel's intentions and its might. Granted, even without suicide bombings, Israel did and is still doing everything in its power to annex West Bank lands. But the indiscriminate use of weapons, against soldiers and civilians alike, gave Israel a pretext for erecting the fence, making disproportionate use of lethal weaponry and dictating to the PA. If the results have been so disastrous, why are they not discussed openly? It is hard to hold a debate on the weapons fantasy when thousands of families have lost loved ones because of it. It is hard to hold such a debate when thousands of Palestinians have paid with their freedom, including many who never held a gun. It is hard to hold such a debate when people who participated in this fantasy have been elected to Fatah's central committee. Moreover, such a debate might have addressed the way senior Fatah members used the "armed struggle" to divert public criticism of the PA and its failures, and salvage Fatah's prestige as a liberation movement. The schizophrenia of being both a government and a liberation movement (as it defines itself) is one of Fatah's most salient characteristics. Can Fatah, which sees the PA as a huge achievement, manage to pick up the gauntlet of popular resistance that it itself threw down?

response to 'First, Do No Harm' - A matter of medical ethics alone

2009-07-30T22:48:00.000+01:00

To the Editor

Defenders of the Israeli Medical Association and Dr Yoram Blachar may be quick to claim that “cynical manipulation characterizes the broader campaign against Blachar” but there is no evidence that it the case. I signed the petition because I believe there is a simple question to be answered - Is the professional leadership of a global medical body an appropriate position for Dr Blachar? I believe not, and I outline the reasons below. There is no sinister agenda, no anti-semitism at play, no hatred for Jews and no cyncism – only medical ethics at stake. It is important that readers of Forward realise that, and not be led astray by unfounded and often inflammatory allegations to the contrary.

Dr Blachar has been in a leadership position in the IMA since 1995, during which period the IMA has failed to act against reports of medical complicity in torture. Instead of initiating their own inquiries, the IMA and Dr Blachar have repeatedly asked for others to present ‘evidence.’ And, even when presented with such evidence by various human rights groups, the IMA and Dr Blachar have not taken proactive steps to investigate or remediate the situation. Ironically, it is human rights NGO’s in Israel, such as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel that have had to take on this responsibility, with far less power and access to resources than the IMA. PHR-Israel, I am informed, in its recent efforts to investigate cases, is typically given partial files with no registrations from the period of investigation by the authorities.

The IMA has not used its standing in Israel and relative power to gain access to the information that is critical for investigating and preventing cases of torture and medical complicity. Yet, this is exactly what many human rights groups and professional bodies expect of national professional associations and it is exactly the standard that was applied in criticising medical bodies in South Africa who refused to investigate allegations of torture and human rights violations under apartheid. Having lived through a period in South Africa where black peoples’ lives were dispensable because medical professional organizations did not have enough ‘evidence’ to act, I am convinced it is not enough to stand back and wait. It is this leadership upon which Dr Blachar should be judged, since he is now assuming global leadership of the medical profession.

A lot is made about Dr Blachar and the IMA writing letters to Israeli military authorities to restate what are existing international ethical guidelines, which have been cited as evidence of the IMA’s compliance with international norms. This is the most passive form of action and it is easy to understand why such actions are ignored by the security forces and have had little effect. In South Africa under apartheid, the then Medical Association of South African (MASA) established medical panels for detainees in response to allegations of torture by security forces and made much of these panels in national and international counterpropaganda to combat criticisms of apartheid. But, as confirmed at the Truth and Reconciliation hearings in 1997, these were token structures set up to deflect criticism of the MASA when human rights bodies in South Africa were begging them to take more proactive steps. By its own admission, such steps were designed to protect the Association from criticism rather than the victims of human rights violations of security forces.

Why do I say that it is not enough to simply pronounce yourself opposed to torture? In the late 1980s, I was working as a doctor in a rural part of South Africa and attended to a black activist who had been most horribly tortured under interrogation during his detention some months previously. He told me how, in a semi-conscious state, he overhead a medical doctor advising the police how to cover up evidence of his torture if he died. However, he lived to tell his story about his torture and the collusion of the doctor a decade later to a Truth and Reconciliation hearing in 1997. The doctor involved was interviewed the next day by the media, denied the claim and stated that (translated from Afrikaans) “…such behaviour is absolutely contrary to my ethical beliefs as a doctor. But most of all it is directly against my deepest values as a person.” I tell this story because I know that the detainee’s story was entirely consistent with the evidence presented to me. Although Dr Blachar can claim that his “position as well as the position of the leadership of the IMA is firmly and unequivocally against torture of any kind,” it is easy to say you are against torture. What matters, particularly when you are in a position to give leadership to other doctors vulnerable to state pressure, is what you actually do to prevent it and to hold accountable those who allow torture to take place.

A lot has been said about Dr Blachar’s comments published in the Lancet on ‘moderate physical pressure’ being legal. On the one hand, it is claimed he never indicated his support for ‘moderate physical pressure.’ On the other hand, critics cite it as evidence that he tolerated torture. This argument is to miss the point. When, in 1998, the IMA was approached by PHR-Israel, together with prison and police doctors, to clarify its stance on this question of moderate physical pressure, so as to give guidance to prison doctors, it avoided taking any position, and only did so after the Israeli High Court made a legal pronouncement that moderate physical pressure did, indeed, constitute a form of torture. Rather than adopt an independent and critical analysis of the situation, the IMA, under Dr Blachar’s leadership, deferred an ethical judgment to a legal one.

This is exactly what the MASA and the then-South African Medical and Dental Council did in South Africa in the late 1980’s, in trying to avoid disciplining the doctors who were complicit in the notorious and tragic torture and death of Mr Steve Biko. Mr Biko was a political detainee who suffered a head injury whilst being assaulted during interrogation and whose medical care was subjugated to the interests of the security forces, resulting in his death. The medical authorities constantly resorted to a legal fiction to avoid taking action against the doctors concerned, a case which medical students worldwide continue to hear about in their ethics teaching. This approach of hiding behind the law is not the leadership I want at the head of the global organization of doctors today. I want a leader who is able to separate the law from ethics, who is able to stand up for what is the right principle and who will not hide behind legal niceties. It is not a matter of casting “guilt by association” to hold the head of the IMA responsible for not displaying firm leadership. It is his actions and lack of action, when they were most needed, which matter.

So, to call for Dr Yoram Blachar to step down has nothing to do with his ethnicity or my ethnicity, which is also Jewish, or one’s views about the political resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is simply a matter of medical ethics. To say that it is not appropriate for Dr Blachar to preside over the World Medical Association is to say that international standards of medical ethics deserve better.

Professor Leslie London, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Professor Leslie London

Health and Human Rights programme

School of Public Health and Family Medicine

Health Sciences Faculty

University of Cape Town

Anzio Road

Observatory

7925

South Africa

Response letter to IMA letter from Prof Yudkin

2009-07-30T22:33:00.000+01:00

An Open Letter to Israeli Doctors who are Members of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

Dear Colleagues

I have seen, and had translated for me, the letter of 21st July 2009 from Dr Yoram Blachar, President of the Israeli Medical Association addressed to doctors who are members of PHR-I. He explains that he feels that the actions of PHR-I in publicising internationally their concerns about medical complicity in torture is responsible for feeding ‘anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist anti-Semitism.’ He describes the petition of 725 doctors calling for his expulsion from the post of President of the World Medical Association, and the questioning to which he was subjected at the British Medical Association annual conference, implying that the attacks are coming from ‘Moslem and anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli doctors.’ I would like to challenge some of these assertions, suggesting not only that Dr Blachar and the IMA still have issues which require answers, but also that the challenges are coming from a position of human rights, and not anti-semitism.

I do not regard myself as anti-semitic: I am Jewish, have many relatives who live in Israel, and had a Jewish National Fund collection box by our telephone throughout my childhood. Yet I have raised with Dr Blachar a series of questions, about torture, about access to medical care for patients from Gaza, and about attacks on health care facilities during Operation Cast Lead, in the form of an article in the Lancet in April (attached). I contrasted the powerful position statement on torture on the IMA website with the failure of that body to respond adequately to the PCATI report, published in May 2007, in which detailed testimonies of 9 torture victims included names of medical personnel involved in their management, 6 of these being IMA members. The reasons for medical involvement varied, but included a 29-year-old man with a sacral ulcer and consequent permanent foot drop following interrogation. During this time, over a 4 day period he was intermittently tied by 4 limbs arched back over a chair with a sharp edge to the seat. In response to concerted pressure, the Chairman of the IMA Ethics Committee reported having contacted and spoken to ‘most of those listed,’ all of whom denied either any connection with the prison services or, for the 3 who were so employed, any involvement in interrogations, torture, or medical approval for this. What is missing is any evidence that the inquiry went further than these conversations, as might be expected in such circumstances. For example, was there contact with the hospitals where the prisoners were treated, or were the medical records examined?

The question which needs considering by the IMA President, its Ethics Committee, and its members, is whether the security risks facing Israel can be allowed to override human rights. Are members of PHR-I, or of the IMA, willing to accept that one in three patients being referred from Gaza for medical care is being denied entry to Israel on ‘security grounds,’ this seemingly comprising in several instances the names and telephone numbers of relatives or friends who may be Hamas sympathizers? In particular, I would contend that as the President of the WMA, Dr Blachar needs to re-examine the role of the medical profession in defending human rights. Failure to investigate to the level of accepted international norms could imply an anxiety that there is veracity in the claims. To imply that such calls are no more than a concerted anti-Israeli, or even anti-semitic, campaign is to attempt to silence critics.

The events of the last 9 months have seen a marked shift in world opinion regarding Israel. While the causes of these changes may relate, in part, to changes in policy with new governments in Israel and the US, and in part to the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead, there is undoubtedly a rising tide of anti-Israeli sentiment in many countries. But to dismiss all criticisms as the consequence of anti-semitism is naïve, particularly if this is used as an excuse for inaction, or even for failing to listen to the criticism.

Like Dr Blachar, I hope you will act in accordance with your conscience. But I have nothing but praise for an organization, like PHR-I, which is acting as a powerful tool for the national conscience, despite all the brickbats thrown in its way.

Yours sincerely
Professor John S Yudkin MD FRCP
Emeritus Professor of Medicine,
University College London

Open letter from IMA to PHR-I doctors

2009-07-30T22:27:00.000+01:00

Translation from the Hebrew by PHR-Israel. All emphases are in the original.

IMA website (Hebrew): About IMA > IMA activities > International relations > to doctors who are members of PHR-Israel

To doctors who are members of PHR-Israel

21 July 2009: IMA Chair, Dr. Yoram Blachar, publishes a letter in which he explains to doctors who are members of PHR-Israel, why IMA has decided to sever all contacts with the association.

To doctors who are members of the PHR-Israel association

I appeal to you first of all as Israeli doctors who are members of IMA and additionally as members of PHR-Israel. I want to share with you my hard feelings following recent developments.

For some 14 years IMA, and myself at its head, have served as a defensive barrier between international anti-Israeli bodies and the doctors of the State of Israel, against baseless attacks, according to which, inter alia, the doctors of the State of Israel are allegedly actively involved in the torture of Palestinian prisoners, and/or are accused of allegedly ignoring such phenomena.

These are baseless accusations that are expressed, for instance, in medical journals such as the Lancet, the BMJ and the Journal of the Royal College of Medicine.

Unfortunately, various organizations, and particularly PHR-Israel are contributing to the international offensive against us. For years we have appealed to PHR-Israel to give us the personal details of those who were allegedly involved in torture so that we could relate to each case individually – but we received no such details from PHR-Israel.

On one single occasion, about 13 names were transferred to us, of doctors who were allegedly involved in torture or degradation of Palestinian detainees, by the organization PCATI (Public Committee Against Torture in Israel) and not by PHR-Israel. An investigation into the subject, held by Prof. Reches, the head of IMA's Ethics Board, showed that among the doctors accused, some had never worked in those facilities, and three who had worked there, categorically denied any connection to the accusations. Of course the accusations are "based" on one-sided testimonies with no supporting evidence. By the way, since participation in torture is a criminal offence, the accusers are free to submit a complaint to the police or to the Attorney General.

I would like to state that we are open to criticism and in several meetings that the leadership of IMA held with the Board of PHR-Israel we clarified our position. Nonetheless, we objected strongly to criticism when it was expressed in international fora. Time and again, we begged PHR's Board to avoid using the international arena, blackening names and slinging mud at the doctors of Israel and at IMA, but in vain. The infuriating reality is that the activities of PHR-Israel constitute fertile ground for anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist anti-Semitism.

It would seem that this issue reached a new climax when about one month ago a petition signed by 725 doctors was published, calling for my expulsion from my position as the president of the World Medical Association (WMA). Dr. Ruchama Marton, President of PHR-Israel, also signed this petition!!!

It is important for me to emphasize that in any case I am about to end my role at WMA in October, so that the personal issue is marginal. The issue is much more problematic, and it involves the harnessing of the world medical community to a struggle against us, the doctors in Israel, and against the Israeli medical system, supposedly as part of the regional political system, and by blackening our names and slinging mud at us doctors.

Matters have gone so far, that in one of the discussions held this week in the annual conference of the British Medical Association (BMA) (to which I was invited as president of the WMA), a stormy discussion was held in which very hard and baseless accusations were directed at IMA and the State of Israel. The discussion was polarized and reached a point where the situation in the State of Israel was compared in the same breath to the situation in Darfur and Sri Lanka, states in which, as is known, genocide and blood baths are taking place!

The speakers at the conference stated several times that they had drawn the information that they were basing their claims on from PHR-Israel and that if an organization of Israeli doctors makes such a claim, who are we, the Moslem and anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli doctors, to doubt the credibility of information from PHR-Israel?!!.

What was absurd was that it was our friends at the BMA who prevented the members of the conference from adopting hard resolutions at the end of the discussion, and they were the ones who assisted us in withstanding the rising wave of Israel-haters.

The damage caused by this activity of PHR-Israel against IMA is great and it hurts each of us – it is an expression of a clear position against the medical community in the State of Israel and against the organization that you are members of!

I do not thing that there are differences in our worldview with regard to torture and involvement of doctors [in torture]. In order that there should be no doubt about it, although I feel that in the light of the position we have voiced repeatedly, it is superfluous to emphasize that IMA and myself as its leader are strictly opposed to torture and to degrading treatment of Palestinian or other prisoners and detainees. We demand that a doctor who was witness to torture or to its consequences report it – all according to the international conventions of the WMA of which we are signatories.

The leadership of PHR-Israel directs accusations against us in the international arena in a manner that is very difficult to erase, in the face of growing tendencies of waves of anti-Semitism. I wish to stress that IMA is not a political body and any attempt of PHR-Israel to tie the policies of the government to the policies of IMA is irrelevant.

I deliberated for a long time about whether I should appeal to you, since IMA has always been open to criticism, but from the feelings I get on the ground, I think not all of you are aware of this activity of PHR-Israel and of the damage it is causing to the doctors of the State of Israel and to IMA.

In the light of the above, IMA has decided to sever all ties with PHR-Israel and I hope that you will act in this regard in accordance with your conscience.

Regards,

Dr. Yoram Blachar

Chair, IMA

Report from Breaking the silence

2009-07-16T11:00:00.002+01:00

From the content:
(...) Several months have passed since the end of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and many Israelis are still not aware of what really happened there. For lack of basic facts, we are forced to accept unconditionally the positions of the official bodies, whichassure us that in spite of any doubts, the IDF’s conduct was faultless and publicaccountability is uncalled for. This publication includes the testimonies of aroundthirty combatants who took part in the operation in early 2009. The testimonies that appear here were gathered over the past few months from soldiers who served in all sectors of the operation. The majority of the soldiers who spoke with us are still serving in their regular military units and turned to us in deep distress at the moral deterioration of the IDF. Although this publication does not claim to provide a broad, comprehensive review of all the soldiers and the units who carried out the operation, these narratives are enough to bring into question the credibility of the official IDF versions. (...)

Is everyone who critses Israel antisemitic? - One story with some moral conclusions

2009-07-05T09:30:00.003+01:00

A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field. While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was. The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy. A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, promptly dug him out and ate him.

Moral of the story:

(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.

(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend.

(3) And when you're in deep shit, it's smart to keep your mouth shut!

LIFT THE CLOSURE - GIVE LIFE A CHANCE

2009-06-22T00:02:00.002+01:00

New online film marking two years of Gaza closure: It’s not a reality show - It’s reality

In the 60-second online film released today, the organizations claim that two years of tight closure have not provided security but rather created a situation in which both sides lose, Palestinians and Israelis. The film is posted online and is being disseminated through social networking sites and blogs in Israel and around the world.

Since June 2007, Israel has tightened the closure of the Gaza Strip, almost completely preventing passage of goods and people to and from the Strip. “The policy of the closure has harsh consequences for 1.5 million people who are prevented from realizing basic rights,” say the organizations. “Israel must lift the closure of the Gaza Strip for the betterment of both sides”.

Participating organizations:
Gisha -Legal Center for Freedom of Movement * Adalah * The Association for Civil Rights in Israel * B'Tselem * HaMoked * Physicians for Human Rights - Israel * The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel * Yesh Din

ANALYSIS / Obama will decide how good Netanyahu speech is

2009-06-14T14:22:00.004+01:00

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The U.S. president was furious over Israel's stubborn negotiating stance and wrote a harsh letter to the prime minister. Israel is endangering peace, the president warned, and if it continued to reject friendly counsel, the U.S. government would have to reassess its position on Israel.

The president was Harry Truman, the prime minister - David Ben-Gurion. The dispute was over Israel's refusal to take back Palestinian refugees after the War of Independence. At the heart of the American-led reconciliation conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, was the Arab demand for the refugees' return.

Israel did not want the refugees back, but neither did it want a crisis with the United States. The foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, persuaded Ben-Gurion to throw the Americans a bone: Israel would announce its willingness to take back 100,000 refugees in return for full peace. If the Arabs refused, as expected, they would be blamed for the talks' failure. Israel had made clear this was a final offer, but Sharett was worried that the United States would not be satisfied.
Seeking to show how difficult this offer would be politically in Israel, Ben-Gurion and Sharett brought it to the Knesset for debate, making it public after conveying it to the Americans. Sharett instructed lawmakers from the ruling party to oppose the offer. The show was flawless: Speakers from both the coalition and opposition attacked the government, no vote was taken and no real price paid.

Bibi, are you listening?

This affair has long been forgotten, but the dynamics have not changed. Today, too, a prime minister is facing off against an American president with a burning desire for achievements in the peace process; one who sees Israel as obdurate. Benjamin Netanyahu wants to find a way to assuage Barack Obama's anger without paying any real price. His solution, like Ben-Gurion's 60 years ago, is to voice solutions that change nothing on the ground and highlight his political risk.

Netanyahu needs "rebels" in the Likud Knesset faction and coalition to show Obama how hard even a concession on paper would be, such as agreeing to a Palestinian state. If Benny Begin, Tzipi Hotovely and Danny Danon did not exist, they would have to be invented. Like Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu wants opposition, but is taking no real risk.

When he finishes his address Sunday night at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, there will be no vote. Likud rebels in the past who opposed Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon were against change created by the withdrawals from Sinai and Gaza, and voted against the government. That's not the case now.

If there are no surprises in the speech, Netanyahu will retreat from positions he has held for many years, but there will be no real change on the ground. Netanyahu's success will be measured by the White House's response. If Obama is satisfied, Netanyahu will have succeeded. If not, Netanyahu will have to write another speech.

2008 Annual Report

2009-06-11T22:13:00.001+01:00

We are honored to present you with PHR-Israel’s 2008 Annual Report.

This year, we received 2,935 new appeals, and treated 13,505 patients at our clinics. PHR-Israel’s volunteer medical staff dedicated 7,480 work hours, providing medical assistance, diagnosis and consultation on individual cases and principle issues. PHR Israel’s administrative volunteers dedicated 527.5 work hours to assisting staff in their ongoing work. This year, 156 new volunteers joined PHR-Israel, 82 of them medical personnel and 61 as members. We would like to thank the following for their support over the years: medical teams, translators, administrative volunteers, photographers and artists – your unique contributions make our work possible, a piece of which we present to you today.

We would like to especially thank all the foundations and donors for their generous support which makes our work possible.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

UN Committee Against Torture Found ´Numerous, Ongoing and Consistent Allegations´ of Torture and Ill-treatment

2009-06-07T14:57:00.002+01:00

UN Committee Against Torture Found ´Numerous, Ongoing and Consistent Allegations´ of Torture and Ill-treatment by Israeli Interrogators, in particular, against Palestinians and Calls for Independent Investigation 21 May 2009

On 5 and 6 May 2009, the UN Committee Against Torture (the Committee) held hearings in Geneva to review Israel's compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which it ratified in 1991. During the dialogue with Israel's state representatives, members of the Committee stressed that “there is no balancing act when it comes to torture.” Committee members further asserted that “one’s security should not be built on the insecurity of others.”

On 14 May 2009, the Committee issued its Concluding Observations, which raised many of the issues contained in the oral and written interventions submitted by Adalah, Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, Defence for Children International – Palestine Section, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) on behalf of the United Against Torture Coalition (UAT Coalition) and by PCATI together with the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT). UAT Coalition member Al-Mezan was unable to send representatives to hearings in Geneva due to Israel's total closure of Gaza. In the Concluding Observations, the Committee raised serious questions involving what it categorised as “numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations” of torture and ill-treatment by Israeli interrogators, in particular, against Palestinians.

Among the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations were the following:

Applicability of CAT to the OPT
 “[…] the obligation to prevent acts of torture or ill-treatment in any territory under its jurisdiction must be interpreted and applied to protect any person, citizen or non-citizen, without discrimination subject to the de jure or de facto control of a State party. […] the Committee further notes (i) that the State party and its personnel have repeatedly entered and established control over the West Bank and Gaza.”

Lack of Accountability
 “[…] the Committee is concerned that ISA interrogators who use physical pressure in “ticking bomb” cases may not be criminally responsible if they resort to the necessity defense argument.”
 “[…] the Committee is concerned that none of the over 600 complaints of ill-treatment by ISA interrogators received by the Inspector of Complaints between 2001 and 2008 has resulted in a criminal investigation.”
 “The State party should also ensure that allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly and effectively investigated and perpetrators prosecuted […]”

Safeguards against torture and ill-treatment
 “The Committee calls upon Israel to examine its legislation and policies in order to ensure that all detainees, without exception, are promptly brought before a judge and have prompt access to a lawyer.”
 “The Committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the State party extend the legal requirement of video recording of interviews of detainees accused of security offences as a further means to prevent torture and ill-treatment.”
 “The State party should prohibit by law that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture cannot be invoked as evidence […]”

Administrative detention and solitary confinement
 “While the State party explains that this practice [of administrative detention] is used only exceptionally […] the Committee regrets that the number of persons held in administrative detention has risen significantly since its last periodic report.”
 “The State party should amend current legislation in order to ensure that solitary confinement remains an exceptional measure of limited duration.”

Israel’s secret detention ‘facility 1391’
 “The State party should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility under its control in the future, as a secret detention center is per se a breach of the Convention.”

Juvenile Detainees
 “[Israeli] Military Order 132 [applicable to West Bank child detainees] should be amended to ensure that the definition of minor is set at the age of 18, in line with international standards.”
 “[The Committee] expresses deep concern at reports […] that Palestinian minors are detained and interrogated in the absence of a lawyer or family member and allegedly subjected to acts in breach of the convention in order to obtain confessions.”
 “The State party should ensure that juvenile detainees are afforded basic safeguards […] from the outset of their detention.”

Israeli Military Operation “Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip
 “The State party should conduct an independent inquiry to ensure a prompt, independent and full investigation into the responsibility of state and non-state authorities for the harmful impact on civilians, and make the results public.”

The Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organisations strongly regret that certain issues raised by the Committee in the dialogue with representative of the State of Israel were not treated in the Concluding Observations. The following issues, in particular, were not included:

 impunity for police officers responsible for the October 2000 killing of 13 Palestinian citizens of Israel;
 the limitations in Israeli law on compensation for acts amounting to torture or ill-treatment for certain categories of persons;
 the coercion and extortion of Gaza medical patients at the Erez crossing;

Further, the human rights organisations regret that with regard to some issues the Committee’s recommendations are unduly weak. For instance, it only called upon Israel to permit humanitarian access to the Gaza Strip and thus failed to declare that a blockade imposed on the entire population of the Gaza Strip might constitute a violation of the Convention.

All NGO, State party and Committee documents including the submissions by the UAT Coalition and PCATI/OMCT and the Concluding Observations related to the review of Israel are available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/cats42.htm .

Video about PHR-I protest during the attack on GAZA

2009-06-05T21:55:00.001+01:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHr7itzKNXU

Ministerial committee: Ban Nakba Day

2009-05-26T23:38:00.002+01:00

Government's Legislation Committee okays motion by Yisrael Beiteinu's Alex Miller to have marking of 'catastrophe of Israel's formation' banned by law, punishable by up to three years in jail. Arab MKs infuriated; call move 'insane'

Aviad Glickman

Latest Update:

05.24.09, 18:40 / Israel News

The Ministerial Committee for Legislative Affairs on Sunday approved a motion barring the marking of Nakba Day.

"Nakba", or "catastrophe", is the term used to refer to the refugee flight of Palestinian Arabs that followed Israel's inception in 1948.

According to the motion, brought before the committee by Knesset Member Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu), all public events which refer to the establishment of the State of Israel as a calamity will be prohibited by law.

Any infringement on the law would be punishable by up to three years in jail.

Miller's motion followed the violent events which took place during Nakba Day in 2008. It was initially brought before the committee during the last Knesset, but was put aside when the Knesset dispersed and new general elections were called.

"This is the first step in stopping the organized incitement by the Islamist Movement. Every democratic county has the right to defend itself and this is exactly what the State of Israel has chosen to do," Miller said.

Minister Michael Eitan (Likud), who voted against the motion, said that the motion "plays into the hands of our enemies… it will not be able to bar anything. The State of Israel has to be certain of its ability to fight against those who wish to ruin it, not by means of reducing freedom of speech, but by holding on to our beliefs. One has to remembers that the law already makes provision against incitement."

Balad Chairman Jamal Zahalka called the motion "crazy": "This is a crazy law by a crazy government. Passing a law that bans grief and mourning is an international precedent and an Israeli invention which indicates (moral) bankruptcy. We will find way to mark Nakba Day in spite of Netanyahu and Lieberman's insane government."

MK Afu Aghbaria (Hadash) slammed the motion as well: This suggesting is reminiscent of a Third Reich law. The Israeli government has declared a jihad on the Arab community and is slowly turning Israel to an apartheid state. I will not be surprised if the Netanyahu-Lieberman government will impose other restrictions on its Arab citizens, like barring the use of the Arabic language."

The motion will be put before the Knesset for a first reading next week. Should the Knesset decide to mature it into a bill, it would be referred back to the legislation committee for further drafting.

Save a place for human rights

2009-05-15T22:33:00.002+01:00

Save a place for human rights

Hadas Ziv – Haaretz (English) – May 15

It's said that while the Oslo Accords were being negotiated, the two sides devoted more time to whether the Palestinian Authority would be allowed to issue its own stamps than to questions of human rights. Herein lies the failure of the agreements and the process itself - a failure that occurred even though the promise of a different future had won broad public support on both sides. But Israeli and Palestinian leaders were motivated by layers of goals other than that of improving the lives of their people. Israel was almost single-minded about getting out of the West Bank's major cities - focusing entirely on the creation of Areas A, B and C, which still exist today. And Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had his own standing in Palestinian politics to worry about.

Perhaps these concerns were valid, even urgent, but without making human rights a top priority and taking immediate steps in the process to improve people's lives by safeguarding rights, a peace plan will fall apart as soon as it begins. In the end, people and their leaders determine whether peace is sustainable. If people on either side don't see a tangible improvement in their lives, something that can only happen by addressing human rights, they have the power to unravel even the best diplomatic foray.

For a moment, in the 1990s, both Israelis and Palestinians believed in the possibility of a different future. Oslo's failure should reverberate in the minds of both U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they prepare to meet next week, so they remember that any solution must clearly change people's everyday lives -- among both Palestinians and Israelis. The only way to accomplish this is by reserving a place for human rights at the negotiating table from the start of the process. The sides must be ready to address the always-changing situation on the ground as they tackle the details of a better future. It is incumbent on them to deal with the worst violations first, not last.

Human rights aren't merely a sideshow or afterthought -- the principles and practices of respecting human rights on both sides are prerequisites to a just and secure peace agreement. People see the conflict as a defining reality in their lives. In the same way, they must experience the solution in the most tangible ways. Imagine how that would look: Palestinians would get proper treatment at medical facilities without being humiliated and extorted at checkpoints, farmers would have access to their land, students would get to their studies, and the Palestinian economy would not face unemployment of around 60 percent.

Most important, Palestinians would be able to define their own future. Israelis would finally live without an existential crisis informing their every deed. We would have the right to freedom of thought, to imagine an alternative to "the situation," something other than an existence controlled by fears and threats. And of course, we would be more secure physically. This image of lasting peace is at least as important as a framed photo of our leaders shaking hands.

Perhaps it is the comfortably sterile separation between human rights and diplomacy that allows for the construction of Israeli settlements and other irreversible and counterproductive projects. This divide places all the emphasis on what is said - in Washington, Jerusalem and Ramallah. But when we dream about peace, aren't we dreaming about something concrete - about actions, not just words? These actions - which one by one can improve the lives of Palestinians and Israelis - must begin with the signing of the first documents.

If we Israelis seek a chance for peace with our Palestinian neighbors, we must acknowledge the central role of human rights in such an agreement. When the U.S. president asks Netanyahu whether he favors two states for two peoples, he should also ask what he considers the first steps in reaching that dream. No less important, he should ask whether people's lives will improve, whether human rights will be upheld more consistently, and if so, when and how. We all know that peace will not be reached by waving a magic wand or signing a magic document. It will be reached when all our shared interests - livelihoods, equality and mutual respect - are there in front of us and not a forgotten hope lost beyond another horizon.

Hadas Ziv is the director of Physicians for Human Rights - Israel.

Israel begins revoking citizenship of four Arabs

2009-05-13T00:30:00.000+01:00

Interior Minister Eli Yishai has begun the process of revoking the citizenship of four Israeli Arabs who left Israel to live in states defined by Israel as "enemies" in the 1970s, his ministry announced Tuesday.

An Interior Ministry statement said the head of the Population Directorate, Yaakov Ganot, had requested that Yishai consider taking the rare step against the four, who were involved in activities that endangered Israel's security.

Ganot told Lieberman that while the four were abroad they were involved, directly and indirectly, in a large number of activities hostile to the State of Israel। After decades of residing outside of the country, they have recently requested to return to Israel.
Yishai said he intends to study the documents presented to him and start the process of revoking the Israeli Arabs' citizenship.

The minister also announced that he will order their immediate arrest should they come to Israel.

MK Tibi: Why not revoke Yigal Amir's citizenship?
MK Ahmed Tibi on Tuesday issued a harsh criticism of Yishai's ruling, and questioned why Israel hadn't taken steps to revoke the citizenship of Yigal Amir ? the assassin of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.

The Israeli-Arab MK and deputy speaker of the Knesset said that the incident shows Israel has "an itchy trigger finger when it comes to revoking Israeli Arabs' citizenship", adding that when Arabs break the law "they are punished twice."

Legal Counsel for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel Dan Yakir called the revocation of citizenship "extreme and inappropriate", even when the person in question has been convicted of a serious crime. Yakir added that it is a measure not undertaken by democratic countries.

In Badash’s Battle to Displace the Tarabin – all Means are Fair!

2009-05-02T22:18:00.001+01:00

Yeela Raanan, RCUV. April 30, 2009

The police have been hassling the residents of Amra Tarabin village for the last week and a half, in order to “convince” them to leave their village to a new location. the measures they have been using are astounding.

Pini Badash, the head of the municipal council of the affluent Jewish town of Omer, a suburb of Beer Sheva, wants to enlarge the town, and build a new neighborhood. The government approved the new municipal boundaries, the plans are completed, there is only one problem: there is a Bedouin village in that spot, the unrecognized village of Amra Tarabin, one of the 45 unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Israeli Negev.

So far Badash has succeeded in convincing 60% of the village residents to relocate. The methods he used are sufficiently questionable, that the process is being deliberated in the Israeli courts. But Badash is not waiting for the court verdicts, he is using all means of “legal” measures to convince the remaining residents to leave. Such as using the police for the last couple of weeks.

Following are some of the persuasion tactics. In order to understand the atrociousness of these tactics, imagine the village: 60 families, each with many young children, a very traditional society, in which the tradition demands that the women stay protected. The village space is their space, and most if not all, do not even speak Hebrew. The village is unrecognized, meaning there is no infrastructure, no roads. Entering the village is like entering someone’s home. And yet:

· Every day during the last week and a half, the policemen enter the village for the duration of hours. They stop people in the village, photograph them, record their dress, even the color of their shoes. They demand the names and other identifying information. When the police are in the village, the women hide in their homes. All this for no given reason.

· The police managed to secure search warrants to two homes. They turned the house upside down. The police explained: we have complaints about someone phoning and harassing people. We are searching for the phones. And indeed, during the search the police took the (broken) phone of a 3-year-old boy as evidence. The man of the house was in the hospital at the time, as his brother was undergoing an operation. So after the police finished “searching” his home, scaring the wife and children, he was requested to come to the police station for investigation. At the station the police showed him a list of phone numbers and asked, “Do you recognized these phone numbers?” Shocked he answered “No”, so they fingerprinted him, photographed him (again…), and sent him home.

· One evening the police entered a home and arrested an eight-year-old. They said he is suspected of stealing. They took him to the police station for investigation, not allowing his parents or anyone else to be there with him. Two hours later he was released to the anxiously waiting parents.

· Late one night, when everyone was asleep, a police car drove around the village, with the sirens blaring. It was a desperate attempt to provoke the residents.

· On Saturday a slightly retarded 16-year-old village boy walked around, and the police came to catch him. Scared he started running and the police chased him with their car, almost running him over. He was taken to the police station and left overnight in custody. The next day the judge released him to house arrest. The allegation: he was walking towards the tractors (that are there to build the infrastructure of the new neighborhood of Omer, and are protected around the clock by police.)

· His father was at the trial. At the completion of the trial the police asked the father to come to the station. There for two hours they tried to convince him that it would be good for him if he left the village…

· Najib Tarabin is a paramedic that works in the city of Rahat. On his way home the police stopped him and searched his car, as part of the harassment treatment. They found medicines in his car. “Aha!” they thought, this must be illegal, good! However, after 30 minutes of inquiry, it turns out everything was legal, these were emergency supplies intended for the people of Trabin. So the police then asked Najib “Why don’t you leave the village?” …

· The police placed a checkpoint at the entrance to the village. Any vehicle entering or exiting the village must go through a thorough check of the car and all its paperwork, a check that takes up to 20 minutes. There are about 20 vehicles in the village. Each one has gone through this check at least 10 times in the past 10 days…

· But not everyone needs to go through these checks – only Arabs. I came to visit Monday morning. I passed the police-border patrol car, and stopped just passed it to look at the barbed wire surrounding the Omer construction in the village of Tarabin. Then I continued to visit Anwar Tarabin in the village. the village people were surprised that I had not been stopped. So we experimented, and I sent an Arab in my car. Not surprisingly, this time my car was stopped… as was every other car entering or exiting the village with an Arab driver. Even member of Knesset Taleb a-Sana was stopped… he is Arab too!

· When the police finish checking the car, they ask the driver: “Why don’t you leave the village?” …

· The last few days the surveyors measured the village (or rather the location of the infrastructure for the planned Omer neighborhood.) When asked “What are you doing?” Their answer was “We are only measuring.” Do they not understand that “only measuring” while there are still people around indicates these people are insignificant?

There are many more anecdotes from the past 10 days. It is unbelievable.

The ability of Pini Badash to bring the police in order to harass the villagers and make their lives unbearable so that they will leave and allow Badash to build his new neighborhood, while the villagers are powerless, is very annoying. How far has this country degenerated?

Please do all you can to stop this abuse. Please find your friends that have as much power and Badash and ask them for their help. If you are in the vicinity, come and sit by the police in the entrance to the village, take pictures, ask questions. Maybe your presence will force the commanding officers to come. Maybe enough harassment of the officers will bring about a lessening of the harassment of the people of Tarabin.

For more information: Dr. Yeela Raanan, RCUV. +972 45 7487005. yallylivnat@gmail.com

Update: End of Gaza Patients Referral Crisis

2009-04-30T23:17:00.000+01:00

30 Apr 2009

• 122 Requests were submitted to the army authorities by PHR-Israel
• 42 patients were granted exit permits to receive medical treatment
• The army refuses to process the remaining 78 requests thus hindering medical treatment for dozens of patients: 31 in need of surgery, 17 cancer patients, and 15 cardiac patients.

Background: On April 27 Hamas and Fatah reached an agreement to establish a committee, whose members are accepted by both, and whose role will be to refer patients from Gaza for treatment abroad. This committee will be under external Palestinian supervision. This brought to an end the crisis that had begun almost 5 weeks ago, after the Hamas took over the referral and coordination mechanism for patients that needed medical treatment abroad.

As reported by PHR-Israel, the former mechanism was not operating, and the new one, run by Hamas, was not recognized by the Israeli authorities. The absence of an acceptable coordination mechanism meant that patients were left with no address to accept their appeals. This led, in some cases, to deterioration in their medical conditions, and in other –at least 10 cases - to premature death.
It was in these circumstances that civil society organizations in Gaza and PHR-Israel stepped in and took upon themselves to send requests on behalf of patients.

PHR-Israel's role during the crisis: PHR-Israel, with its two case workers, became the only body to bear the burden of mediating between the patients in Gaza and the Israeli authorities throughout the crisis period. PHR-Israel received more than 150 requests of which it submitted 122 written appeals on behalf of patients for medical referrals. The work was carried out in close coordination with Palestinian civil society organizations: The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and Almezan.

The army's conduct: The army tried throughout the crisis, by way of the Gaza DCO, to renounce its responsibility. Time and again it tried to avoid dealing with requests submitted to it by PHR-Israel, using different excuses that were easily refuted, sometimes by the army itself. For a week it claimed that the Civil Committee was working as usual, and then had to admit this was not so; it argued that the Palestinian representatives in Ramallah were accepting patients' requests, and then admitted this too was not so; it agreed to accept requests on behalf of patients from PHR-Israel, and then refused to do so; it informed PHR-Israel a number of times it will not process its requests but eventually it did.

The army's changes of policies were a result of the pressure exerted on it by PHR-Israel and the intervention of local and international bodies on behalf of the patients, from the Israeli MPs Dov Hanin and Hayim Oron to diplomats of the EU embassies. Thanks to these interventions 40 patients were granted exit permits. Their requests would have probably not been processed otherwise.

On April 28 the DCO informed PHR-Israel that it will not continue and process the remaining 78 requests he had been holding for more than a week, and that these patients need to submit them to the reinstated Palestinian Civil Committee. Some of these 78 patients have initially submitted their requests at the beginning of the crisis, approximately 4 weeks ago. They will now have to begin the whole process anew. Among these are 17 cancer patients, 15 cardiac patients, and 7 patients suffering from life threatening diseases or are at risk of loosing an organ.

PHR-Israel's position:The inconsistencies in the army's conduct have severe repercussions for patients that have been waiting throughout the period for medical treatment, some of them extremely urgent. Transferring the requests from one organization to another has cost these patients dearly and might have influenced their chance for recovery.

The functioning of the coordination mechanism for referring patients abroad depends on Israel's consent. It can sometimes decide whether a patient will live or die. In the absence of any alternative, PHR-Israel took upon itself the task of coordination, though it is well beyond its usual practices and roles. From the moment these requests reached the offices of the DCO, it is the responsibility of the army to process them, a responsibility it cannot denounce. PHR-Israel demands the army complete the processing of the applications it holds and prevent further bureaucratic delays and obstacles on the patients' path to medical treatment.

For further information please call or write Reut at: reut@phr.org.il 0547320029

Collapse of Israeli-Palestinian Coordination Mechanism for Referrals of Patients for Medical Treatment outside Gaza

2009-04-30T13:40:00.001+01:00

23 Apr 2009
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel: The army must accept patients' referral applications and facilitate their exit from Gaza to receive medical treatment- 10 patients from the Gaza Strip have died since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian coordination mechanism- Israel refuses to deal with dozens of referrals of Gaza patients it has received from organizations that form a temporary alternative arrangement to the collapsed coordination mechanism.
The Israeli army, by way of the Gaza DCO, refuses to deal with dozens of referrals to medical treatment outside of Gaza that Physicians for Human Rights-Israel had submitted even though the Palestinian coordination mechanism has stopped functioning. In so doing, the DCO prevents many patients from receiving adequate, at times, life-saving, medical treatment. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza has documented ten cases in which the circumstances that brought about a patient's death were directly related to the collapse of the coordinating mechanism. The World Health Organization, (WHO) confirmed eight of the ten cases.
The coordination mechanism that worked to refer patients to external medical treatment from Gaza, and worked in coordination with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, effectively stopped operating on March 22 when the Hamas Government dissolved the referral office, and replaced its workers, among them the Palestinian coordinator Mr. Rif'at Muhesen with new officials. As a result, Israel immediately stopped its cooperation with the new coordination office.
International organizations like the World Health Organization and the PCRS announced they would not serve as an alternative to either committee – the previous or the new one - and will not submit individual requests on behalf of patients to the Israeli authorities. They therefore do not offer a temporary alternative address to the patients of Gaza.

PHR-Israel that usually operates as an appeal instance in cases of prevention of medical treatment is obliged, under these circumstances, to function as the only body that receives applications for referrals from patients. In the last four weeks more than 120 written requests were delivered by PHR-Israel to the Israeli DCO on behalf of patients in need of medical treatment outside of Gaza. These patients already held all the required documents and the only obstacle preventing them from reaching the medical treatment they needed was an exit permit from the Israeli authorities. The army refuses to deal with most of the appeals submitted by PHR-Israel.
The army is actively preventing medical treatment from patients:- By refusing to acknowledge the existence of a new coordinating mechanism in Gaza, and by refusing to deal with it. - By refusing to process the dozens of applications referred to it by PHR-Israel, arguing the former coordination committee will soon be reinstated, though it is evident this is not happening.- By referring patients to Mr Husein al-Sheikh the person appointed by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah to chair the former Civil Committee. The army claims this committee is referring patients from Gaza while in practice, the representatives of this very committee, in Gaza and Ramallah have repeatedly stated they were not referring patients' applications.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel addressed the army in a letter on April 8 demanding it to process the applications on behalf of patients that are referred to it by PHR- Israel and other organizations. To date, we did not receive any reply and the army's policies persist.
In its conduct, Israel is making the patients of Gaza into hostages in political power struggles that have no relevance to their medical situation. Israel is using these patients and their vulnerable condition to advance political interests.
Until the inter-Palestinian political struggles are resolved, and until the reinstatement of a functioning Civil Committee accepted by all parties, PHR-Israel calls on the State of Israel to establish an alternative mechanism for referrals of patients until the inter-Palestinian dispute is resolved and to accept and process patients' referral applications already submitted to it and enable these patients to exit Gaza for medical treatment.
For further information please contact Ran Yaron, Director of OPT Department Tel: 0547577696 email: ranyaron@phr.org.il

UNIFEM: Voicing the needs of Men and Women in Gaza

2009-04-25T20:24:00.000+01:00

The United Nations Gender Task Force has launched the results of a household survey on the impacts, needs and perceptions of men and women in the Gaza Strip following the Israeli military offensive in 27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009. The survey conducted in March 2009 through face-to-face interviews screens more than 1,100 adult men and women across the Gaza Strip.

Respondents, regardless of gender, region, or social sector consistently rate psychological trauma and stress as a main concern – and express a critical need for psycho-social services including food and water. The overwhelming obstacles to getting access to psycho-social support are material and informational than social reservations or taboos. With increased trauma and stress and limited access to professional psycho-social services, there is a rising problem of self-medication with unsupervised pharmaceutical therapies among the Gaza population. Respondents express the same high level of concern over domestic violence as they do towards Israeli military violence. 37% of women cite domestic violence as the primary safety problem facing women and girls in their communities, while more than 50% of men cite public and political violence as the main safety and security problem facing men and boys. The highest perceived rise in domestic violence against women is among households displaced by the war and in the southern Gaza Strip where there is also the strongest perception ( 57%) of an increase in domestic violence against children.

During the time of crisis, women are usually less able to cope than men because they have less access to and control over resources , limited decision making authority and extensive demands on their time and income.

The survey also revealed that women have limited access and control over access to health services, mainly because of distance.

Approximately 20% of households said that boys’ needs are considered as a priority when there is a food shortage. The most vulnerable household members, at risk of not getting adequate food quantities in a situation of food shortage and forced prioritizing, are elderly men and women. While 60% of respondents claim to have received food aid since the end of the war, about half of the recipients express dissatisfaction with the assistance (50% regarding quantity and 15% regarding the appropriateness of the aid received

Independent fact-finding mission of medical experts

2009-04-06T20:25:00.002+01:00

Independent fact-finding mission of medical experts commissioned by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) published today its special report on the Israel

6 Apr 2009

In their report, the experts detail 44 testimonies by civilians who came under attack and by medical staff who were prevented from evacuating the wounded. The report provides first-hand evidence regarding the broader effects of the attacks on a civilian population that was already vulnerable on the eve of the offensive.

The experts collected samples of human tissue earth, water, grass and mud suspected to be contaminated by unidentified chemicals. These were sent by the team to laboratories in the UK and South Africa for analysis.

During the military operation in January, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel called for an external independent investigation into the events, for the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip and for the opening of the Crossings.

Five independent experts in the fields of forensic medicine, burns, medical response to crises and public health, from Germany, Denmark, South Africa and Spain, immediately answered the call and traveled to Gaza between 29 January and 5 February 2009 for their first fact-finding investigation, and then to hospitals in Egypt, where some of the most seriously wounded were being treated.

The medical experts are: Professor Jorgen Thomsen from Denmark, expert in Forensic pathology; Dr. Ralf Syring from Germany, an expert in Public Health in crisis regions; Professor Shabbir Ahmed Wadee from South Africa, an expert in Forensic pathology; Professor Sebastian Van As from South Africa, an expert in Trauma surgery and Ms. Alicia Vacas Moro from Spain, an expert in International health.

From the conclusion of the report:

"...Besides the large-scale, largely impersonal destruction that the team witnessed and heard of, it was especially distressing to hear of individual cases in which soldiers had been within seeing, hearing and speaking distance of their victims for significant stretches of time, but despite the opportunity for 'humanisation', had denied wounded people access to lifesaving medical care, or even shot at civilians at short range..."

One of the testimonies in the report describes the aftermath of an attack. Muhammad Saad Abu Halima had lost two brothers and a young sister; his wife and daughter were wounded. He told the delegation his experience of evacuation:

"…We were going down the street Kamal Adwan, and we had almost reached the school when the soldiers halted us. A tank appeared on the street and stopped close to the school. The soldiers were occupying the second floor of a building which was only 20 meters away from the street. They could see that we were all wounded and dirty from the explosions, because the tractor was open at the back. They shot at us, killing my cousins Matar Saad Abu Halima and Muhammad Hikma Abu Halima, who were driving us to the hospital. The soldiers ordered us to get out of the tractor, and they asked me to take off my clothes. I did it and they checked all my body. I think they were looking for explosives, but we were all injured and in pitiful conditions. How could we think of carrying explosives when my younger siblings and my own children were dying? Then, when I was almost expecting death, they shouted at me: “you can get dressed and go”. They did not allow us to use the tractor.
I held my sister Shahed in my arms … but the soldiers said that the baby was already dead, so they forced me to leave her in the car. I tried to help my wife Ghada, who was completely burned, and they forced us to walk to the hospital. For about 300 meters the soldiers were shooting at our feet as we walked, raising so much dust that the wounds of my wife became full of dirt. After a while we saw a lorry on the road. It was overcrowded with people going to the hospital after the heavy attacks, but they made us room and we arrived at Shifa’ Hospital….“

Another testimony in the report tells the story of the Abed Rabbo family. Souad Abed Rabbo, 54, told the team that the soldiers called to the family to exit their house. She, her daughter-in-law and her three granddaughters exited the house holding white flags:

“Outside the house there was an Israeli tank. It had come from the west towards the house that was facing north. It was 11.30 – 12.00. The tank was in the garden about ten meters from her, when she stopped to receive permission to leave unharmed. On her right side were the three girls; behind her was the daughter in law close to the door of the house. The soldier on the tank never replied. They were looking into each others´ eyes for 7-10 minutes, when suddenly a soldier opened fire and shot the granddaughter of the witness, Souad, in the neck and chest. She died immediately. They also shot Amal. She was hit in the chest and abdomen, and the interviewee saw her intestines come out. Amal died a little later. The daughter in law ran immediately into the house and was not hurt. The witness Souad Abed Rabbo was hit twice, as she turned around in a clockwise movement. She was hit in the left arm and in the left buttock. She did not see who shot. She assumed that the shots were fired from gun(s) not from the tank, but she was not certain. She saw three soldiers on top of the tanks holding weapons…Samar was hit in the chest with the bullet coming out of the back…at the time of the interview she was in a hospital in Belgium suffering paralysis."

In their concluding remarks, the experts say:

“The underlying meaning of the attack on the Gaza Strip, or at least its final consequence, appears to be one of creating terror without mercy to anyone. Nearly all the people we spoke to slept cuddled together with the other members of their family in a central room of the house during the three weeks of attack. No one knew where or when the next bomb or explosion would occur. It appears that the wide range of attacks with sophisticated weaponry was predominantly focussed on terrorising the population. ...”

Hadas Ziv, Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel:

The military was well aware that such an attack on a densely populated area would exert a terrible toll on the civilian population. It was the Israeli Army’s responsibility to secure a way for the civilian population to flee the zone of combat.
At the moment, three things need to be done:
- A rigorous, transparent, and independent investigation should be conducted, one in which the victims' voices will be heard. The newly appointed investigative committee of the Human Rights Council is an important step in this direction. We hope Israel will fully cooperate with it.
- There is also an urgent need to open the Crossings and to allow the rehabilitation of Gaza.
- Israeli society needs to understand and assert its responsibility to end the culture of impunity so that such severe violations of international law and medical ethics will not occur in the future.

For further information please contact:
Tami Sarfatti 0546995199 email: tami@phr.or.il

Launch of the fact finding mission report in Brussels and Jerusalem on 6th April

2009-04-01T22:47:00.003+01:00

Media Advisory: Press Briefing

simulatenous in Jerusalem and Brussels

Independent medical fact-finding mission commissioned by Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR) and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) confirms violations of health-related human rights and severe violations of International Humanitarian Law during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, 27.12.2008 – 18.01.2009

What Release and briefing on a report which follows the only independent medical fact-finding mission, conducted by five independent experts in the fields of forensic medicine, burns, medical response to crises and public health, from Germany, Denmark, South Africa and Spain. The experts conducted the investigation in Gaza between 29 January and 5 February 2009, along with a second mission to hospitals in Egypt, where some of the most seriously wounded were being treated, between 2 March and 7 March 2009.

The report:

· details 44 deeply distressing testimonies by civilians and medical personnel who came under attack;

· provides first-hand evidence regarding the broader effects of the attacks on a civilian population;

· confirms suspicions with regard to serious violations; and

· underlines the need for an impartial international investigation into violations of human rights committed in during the offensive.

Click to read report summary under strict embargo until Monday, April 6 at 11:00

Who Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-Israel) and the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) launch the report in Jerusalem, as its authors simultaneously launch the report in Brussels.

Where Mishkenot She’ananim, Jerusalem (Djanogly Hall)

When Monday, April 6, 10:30 am

Media Press conference given in English

RSVP -- Libby Friedlander, 054-245-7682 (sms welcome) | libby@benor.co.il

THE 10TH LONDON PALESTINE FILM FESTIVAL April 24th - May 8th, Barbican Cinema & SOAS

2009-03-26T11:15:00.001Z

RECOGNIZED

Directed by | Ori Kleiner

Genre documentary | Length: 61mins | Year of production: 2007

Directors statement: Bedouin usually appear in the Israeli collective consciousness as either "ethnographic" or "demographic" issues. Their representation by means of various objects: coffee, camels, tents, carpets keeps most Israelis from seeing them as people with hopes and dreams, frustrations and fears, as possessing not only a past but a future as well. Recognized focuses on the fragmented experiences of Nuri al Ukbi, Salman Abu Jlidan, Eid Al Athamin, Ibrahim Abu Afash, and Samaher Abu Jlidan whom history has cast in the roles of protagonists antagonized by a state that has established itself upon their ancestral lands. Recognized is not a film about Bedouin, but about people forced into a role of Bedouin as the only identity the State of Israel allows them, and at the same time the very identity it systematically denies them. Substandard citizenship, coupled with daily existential obstacles posed by the State, are what this film is concerned with.

Medical panel: Anthrax experiments on IDF soldiers were unjustified By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

2009-03-25T19:16:00.005Z

Anthrax vaccine experiments conducted on Israel Defense Force soldiers in the early 1990s were unjustifiable, states a report, compiled by an official medical committee, and authorized for publication on Wednesday.

The experiments, carried out by the IDF's Medical Corps and the Nes Tziona Biological Institute, meant to determine the efficacy of an Anthrax vaccine.
The experiments were carried out in light of what was then defined as the "strategic threat of a surprise biological attack facing Israel." However, "the committee was unconvinced," the report said, "that the need for a vaccine was duly considered by decision makers. Also, it is not clear who the decision makers were who determined the vaccine's necessity."
The experiment, nicknamed "Omer 2," was held during the first part of the 1990s and included 716 IDF soldiers picked out of a pool of 4,000.

Following a three-month legal battle in Israel's High Court of Justice, the report was finally approved for publication Wednesday.

The report on the experiment was drafted by a special committee of doctors, a legal advisor, and a scientist from the Weizmann Institute of Science

The committee was assembled following a request made by the IDF Medical Crops, and with the court's go-ahead. The High Court also accepted the request of Defense Ministry's security chief and ordered a few central paragraphs of the report be stricken as a result of national security concerns.

The Chairman of the medical committee, Dr. Reuven Porat, told Haarestz that the panel was not presented with any official evidence indicating that either the government, the defense minister of the IDF chief of staff had authorized the development, testing, or production of the vaccine.

However, the committee did hear oral testimony claiming that then Prime Minster Yitzhak Rabin ordered the production of the vaccine and that his successor, Shimon Peres, upheld that decision.

The only official document viewed by the committee that "dealt with the experiment" was written by the deputy Defense Minister.

The report insinuates that drive to hold the experiments was motivated by foreign incentives. However, the report states that the committee "could not make out the true motivations."

The report reveals that even while the experiment was taking place Israel already had a stock of vaccines, a fact which further raised the concern that the experiment wasn't necessary that it was carried out as a result of external pressure.

"An accelerated effort to produce large quantities of the vaccine was underway a year prior to the experiment, and by the time the experiments were launched, Israel had enough vaccines to cover the civilian concerns," the report said.

It was the committee members impression, even though it was not expressed in the final report, that the person who was the driving force behind the experiment was Dr. Avigdor Shafferman, the director of the Nes Tziona Biological Institute and an anthrax specialist.

The committee raised doubts as to Dr. Shafferman's motivations for advancing the experiment. "The committee attempted to determine," the report says, "whether decision makers in the defense and political establishments were pressurized by interested anthrax researchers or research establishments so to bring about the development of the vaccine, regardless of existing strategic threats."
The report sees Dr. Shafferman's refusal to appear before it as the reason for its inability to definitively answer those questions.

The Medical Corps and the IDF were cooperative and sent representatives to appear before the committee.

(note from blogger):
PHR-Israel played a crucial role in uncovering this experiments on IDF soldiers.

Guardian investigation uncovers evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza

2009-03-24T13:47:00.002Z

The Guardian has compiled detailed evidence of alleged war crimes committed by Israel during the 23-day offensive in the Gaza Strip earlier this year, involving the use of Palestinian children as human shields and the targeting of medics and hospitals.

A month-long investigation also obtained evidence of civilians being hit by fire from unmanned drone aircraft said to be so accurate that their operators can tell the colour of the clothes worn by a target.

The testimonies form the basis of three Guardian films which add weight to calls this week for a full inquiry into the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead, which was aimed at Hamas but left about 1,400 Palestinians dead, including more than 300 children.

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) refused to respond directly to the allegations made against its troops, but issued statements denying the charges and insisted international law had been observed.

The latest disclosures follow soldiers' evidence published in the Israeli press about the killing of Palestinian civilians and complaints by soldiers involved in the military operation that the rules of engagement were too lax.

Amnesty International has said Hamas should be investigated for executing at least two dozen Palestinian men in an apparent bout of score-settling with rivals and alleged collaborators while Operation Cast Lead was under way.

Human rights groups say the vast majority of offences were committed by Israel, and that the Gaza offensive was a disproportionate response to Hamas rocket attacks. Since 2002, there have been 21 Israeli deaths by Hamas rockets fired from Gaza, and during Operation Cast Lead there were three Israeli civilian deaths, six Israeli soldiers killed by Palestinian fire and four killed by friendly fire.

"Only an investigation mandated by the UN security council can ensure Israel's co-operation, and it's the only body that can secure some kind of prosecution," said Amnesty's Donatella Rovera, who spent two weeks in Gaza investigating war crime allegations. "Without a proper investigation there is no deterrent. The message remains the same: 'It's OK to do these things, there won't be any real consequences'."

Some of the most dramatic testimony gathered by the Guardian came from three teenage brothers in the al-Attar family. They describe how they were taken from home at gunpoint, made to kneel in front of Israeli tanks to deter Hamas fighters from firing, and sent by Israeli soldiers into Palestinian houses to clear them. "They would make us go first so if any fighters shot at them the bullets would hit us, not them," 14-year-old Al'a al-Attar said.

Medics and ambulance drivers said they were targeted when they tried to tend to the wounded; sixteen were killed. According to the World Health Organisation, more than half of Gaza's 27 hospitals and 44 clinics were damaged by Israeli bombs.

In a report released today, a medical human rights group said there was "certainty" that Israel violated international humanitarian law during the war, with attacks on medics, damage to medical buildings, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and delays in medical treatment for the injured.

"We have noticed a stark decline in IDF morals concerning the Palestinian population of Gaza, which in reality amounts to a contempt for Palestinian lives," said Dani Filc, chairman of Physicians for Human Rights Israel. The Guardian gathered tesimony on missle attacks by Israeli drones against clearly distinguishable civilian targets. In one case a family of six was killed when a missile hit the courtyard of their house. Israel has not admitted using drones but experts say their optical equipment is good enough to identify individual items of clothing worn by targets. The Geneva convention makes it clear medical staff and hospitals are not legitimate targets and forbids involuntary human shields.

The army responded to the claims. "The IDF operated in accordance with rules of war and did the utmost to minimise harm to civilians uninvolved in combat. The IDF's use of weapons conforms to international law," it said. The IDF said an investigation was under way into allegations hospitals were targeted. It said Israeli soldiers were under orders to avoid harming medics, but: "However, in light of the difficult reality of warfare in the Gaza Strip carried out in urban and densely populated areas, medics who operate in the area take the risk upon themselves."

Use of human shields was outlawed by Israel's supreme court in 2005 after a string of incidents. The IDF said only Hamas used human shields by launching attacks from civilian areas. An Israeli embassy spokesman said any claims were suspect because of Hamas pressure on witnesses. "Anyone who understands the realities of Gaza will know these people are not free to speak the truth. Those that wish to speak out cannot for fear of beatings, torture or execution at the hands of Hamas," the spokesman said in a written statement.

However, the accounts gathered by the Guardian are supported by the findings of human rights organisations and soldiers' testimony published in the Israeli press.

An IDF squad leader is quoted in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz as saying his soldiers interpreted the rules to mean "we should kill everyone there [in the centre of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."

• This article was updated on Tuesday March 24 2009 to reflect changes made for the first edition of the Guardian newspaper.

'Shooting and crying' By Amos Harel

2009-03-19T23:45:00.002Z

Less than a month after the end of Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, dozens of graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory program convened at Oranim Academic College in Kiryat Tivon. Since 1998 the program has prepared participants for what is considered meaningful military service. Many assume command positions in combat and other elite units of the Israel Defense Forces. The program's founder, Danny Zamir, still heads it today and also serves as deputy battalion commander in a reserve unit.

The previous Friday, February 13, Zamir had invited combat soldiers and officers who graduated the program for a lengthy discussion of their experiences in Gaza. They spoke openly, but also with considerable frustration.

Following are extensive excerpts from the transcript of the meeting, as it appears in the program's bulletin, Briza, which was published on Wednesday. The names of the soldiers have been changed to preserve their anonymity. The editors have also left out some of the details concerning the identity of the units that operated in a problematic way in Gaza.

Danny Zamir: "I don't intend for us to evaluate the achievements and the diplomatic-political significance of Operation Cast Lead this evening, nor need we deal with the systemic military aspect [of it]. However, discussion is necessary because this was, all told, an exceptional war action in terms of the history of the IDF, which has set new limits for the army's ethical code and that of the State of Israel as a whole.

"This is an action that sowed massive destruction among civilians. It is not certain that it was possible do have done it differently, but ultimately we have emerged from this operation and are not facing real paralysis from the Qassams. It is very possible that we will repeat such an operation on a larger scale in the years to come, because the problem in the Gaza Strip is not simple and it is not at all certain that it has been solved. What we want this evening is to hear from the fighters."

Aviv: "I am squad commander of a company that is still in training, from the Givati Brigade. We went into the area of the Zeitun neighborhood in the southern part of Gaza City. Altogether, this is a special experience. In the course of the training, you wait for the day you will go into Gaza, and in the end it isn't really like they say it is. It's more like, you come, you take over a house, you kick the tenants out and you move in. We stayed in a house for something like a week.

"Toward the end of the operation there was a plan to go into a very densely populated area inside Gaza City itself. In the briefings they started to talk to us about orders for opening fire inside the city, because as you know they used a huge amount of firepower and killed a huge number of people along the way, so that we wouldn't get hurt and they wouldn't fire on us.

"At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?

"From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault ... This also scared me a bit. I tried to exert some influence, insofar as is possible from within my subordinate position, to change this. In the end the specification involved going into a house, operating megaphones and telling [the tenants]: 'Come on, everyone get out, you have five minutes, leave the house, anyone who doesn't get out gets killed.'

"I went to our soldiers and said, 'The order has changed. We go into the house, they have five minutes to escape, we check each person who goes out individually to see that he has no weapons, and then we start going into the house floor by floor to clean it out ... This means going into the house, opening fire at everything that moves , throwing a grenade, all those things. And then there was a very annoying moment. One of my soldiers came to me and asked, 'Why?' I said, 'What isn't clear? We don't want to kill innocent civilians.' He goes, 'Yeah? Anyone who's in there is a terrorist, that's a known fact.' I said, 'Do you think the people there will really run away? No one will run away.' He says, 'That's clear,' and then his buddies join in: 'We need to murder any person who's in there. Yeah, any person who's in Gaza is a terrorist,' and all the other things that they stuff our heads with, in the media.

"And then I try to explain to the guy that not everyone who is in there is a terrorist, and that after he kills, say, three children and four mothers, we'll go upstairs and kill another 20 or so people. And in the end it turns out that [there are] eight floors times five apartments on a floor - something like a minimum of 40 or 50 families that you murder. I tried to explain why we had to let them leave, and only then go into the houses. It didn't really help. This is really frustrating, to see that they understand that inside Gaza you are allowed to do anything you want, to break down doors of houses for no reason other than it's cool.

"You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing in understanding how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."

"One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious - I don't know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood."

Zamir: "I don't understand. Why did he shoot her?"

Aviv: "That's what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn't have to be with a weapon, you don't have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him. With us it was an old woman, on whom I didn't see any weapon. The order was to take the person out, that woman, the moment you see her."

Zvi: "Aviv's descriptions are accurate, but it's possible to understand where this is coming from. And that woman, you don't know whether she's ... She wasn't supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn't be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn't right. It's known that they have lookouts and that sort of thing."

Gilad: "Even before we went in, the battalion commander made it clear to everyone that a very important lesson from the Second Lebanon War was the way the IDF goes in - with a lot of fire. The intention was to protect soldiers' lives by means of firepower. In the operation the IDF's losses really were light and the price was that a lot of Palestinians got killed."

Ram: "I serve in an operations company in the Givati Brigade. After we'd gone into the first houses, there was a house with a family inside. Entry was relatively calm. We didn't open fire, we just yelled at everyone to come down. We put them in a room and then left the house and entered it from a different lot. A few days after we went in, there was an order to release the family. They had set up positions upstairs. There was a sharpshooters' position on the roof. The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn't understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go, and it was was okay and he should hold his fire and he ... he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders."

Question from the audience: "At what range was this?"

Ram: "Between 100 and 200 meters, something like that. They had also came out of the house that he was on the roof of, they had advanced a bit and suddenly he saw then, people moving around in an area where they were forbidden to move around. I don't think he felt too bad about it, because after all, as far as he was concerned, he did his job according to the orders he was given. And the atmosphere in general, from what I understood from most of my men who I talked to ... I don't know how to describe it .... The lives of Palestinians, let's say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way."

Yuval Friedman (chief instructor at the Rabin program): "Wasn't there a standing order to request permission to open fire?"

Ram: "No. It exists, beyond a certain line. The idea is that you are afraid that they are going to escape from you. If a terrorist is approaching and he is too close, he could blow up the house or something like that."

Zamir: "After a killing like that, by mistake, do they do some sort of investigation in the IDF? Do they look into how they could have corrected it?"

Ram: "They haven't come from the Military Police's investigative unit yet. There hasn't been any ... For all incidents, there are individual investigations and general examinations, of all of the conduct of the war. But they haven't focused on this specifically."

Moshe: "The attitude is very simple: It isn't pleasant to say so, but no one cares at all. We aren't investigating this. This is what happens during fighting and this is what happens during routine security."

Ram: "What I do remember in particular at the beginning is the feeling of almost a religious mission. My sergeant is a student at a hesder yeshiva [a program that combines religious study and military service]. Before we went in, he assembled the whole platoon and led the prayer for those going into battle. A brigade rabbi was there, who afterward came into Gaza and went around patting us on the shoulder and encouraging us, and praying with people. And also when we were inside they sent in those booklets, full of Psalms, a ton of Psalms. I think that at least in the house I was in for a week, we could have filled a room with the Psalms they sent us, and other booklets like that.

"There was a huge gap between what the Education Corps sent out and what the IDF rabbinate sent out. The Education Corps published a pamphlet for commanders - something about the history of Israel's fighting in Gaza from 1948 to the present. The rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles, and ... their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war. From my position as a commander and 'explainer,' I attempted to talk about the politics - the streams in Palestinian society, about how not everyone who is in Gaza is Hamas, and not every inhabitant wants to vanquish us. I wanted to explain to the soldiers that this war is not a war for the sanctification of the holy name, but rather one to stop the Qassams."

Zamir: "I would like to ask the pilots who are here, Gideon and Yonatan, to tell us a little about their perspective. As an infantryman, this has always interested me. How does it feel when you bomb a city like that?"

Gideon: "First of all, about what you have said concerning the crazy amounts of firepower: Right in the first foray in the fighting, the quantities were very impressive, very large, and this is mainly what sent all the Hamasniks into hiding in the deepest shelters and kept them from showing their faces until some two weeks after the fighting.

"In general the way that it works for us, just so you will understand the differences a bit, is that at night I would come to the squadron, do one foray in Gaza and go home to sleep. I go home to sleep in Tel Aviv, in my warm bed. I'm not stuck in a bed in the home of a Palestinian family, so life is a little better.

"When I'm with the squadron, I don't see a terrorist who is launching a Qassam and then decide to fly out to get him. There is a whole system that supports us, that serves as eyes, ears and intelligence for every plane that takes off, and creates more and more targets in real-time, of one level of legitimacy or another. In any case, I try to believe that these are targets [determined according to] the highest possible level of legitimacy.

"They dropped leaflets over Gaza and would sometimes fire a missile from a helicopter into the corner of some house, just to shake up the house a bit so everyone inside would flee. These things worked. The families came out, and really people [i.e., soldiers] did enter houses that were pretty empty, at least of innocent civilians. From this perspective it works.

"In any case, I arrive at the squadron, I get a target with a description and coordinates, and basically just make sure it isn't within the line of our forces. I look at the picture of the house I am suppose to attack, I see that it matches reality, I take off, I push the button and the bomb takes itself exactly to within one meter of the target itself."

Zamir: "Among the pilots, is there also talk or thoughts of remorse? For example, I was terribly surprised by the enthusiasm surrounding the killing of the Gaza traffic police on the first day of the operation: They took out 180 traffic cops. As a pilot, I would have questioned that."

Gideon: "There are two parts to this. Tactically speaking, you call them 'police.' In any case, they are armed and belong to Hamas ... During better times, they take Fatah people and throw them off the roofs and see what happens.

"With regard to the thoughts, you sit with the squadron and there are lots of discussions about the value-related significance of the fighting, about what we are doing; there is a lot to talk about. From the moment you start the plane's engine until the moment you turn it off, all of your thoughts, all of your concentration and all of your attention are on the mission you have to carry out. If you have an unjustified doubt, you're liable to cause a far greater screw-up and knock down a school with 40 children. If the building I hit isn't the one I am supposed to hit, but rather a house with our guys inside - the price of the mistake is very, very high."

Question from the audience: "Was there anyone in the squadron who didn't push the button, who thought twice?"

Gideon: "That question should be addressed to those involved in the helicopter operation, or to the guys who see what they do. With the weapons I used, my ability to make a decision that contradicts what they told me up to that point is zero. I dispatch the bomb from a range within which I can see the entire Gaza Strip. I also see Haifa, I also see Sinai, but it's more or less the same. It's from really far away."

Yossi: "I am a platoon sergeant in an operations company of the Paratroops Brigade. We were in Jabalya. We were in a house and discovered a family inside that wasn't supposed to be there. We assembled them all in the basement, posted two guards at all times and made sure they didn't make any trouble. Gradually, the emotional distance between us broke down - we had cigarettes with them, we drank coffee with them, we talked about the meaning of life and the fighting in Gaza. After very many conversations the owner of the house, a man of 70-plus, was saying it's good we are in Gaza and it's good that the IDF is doing what it is doing.

"The next day we sent the owner of the house and his son, a man of 40 or 50, for questioning. The day after that, we received an answer: We found out that both are political activists in Hamas. That was a little annoying - that they tell you how fine it is that you're here and good for you and blah-blah-blah, and then you find out that they were lying to your face the whole time.

"What annoyed me was that in the end, after we understood that the members of this family weren't exactly our good friends and they pretty much deserved to be forcibly ejected from there, my platoon commander suggested that when we left the house, we should clean up all the stuff, pick up and collect all the garbage in bags, sweep and wash the floor, fold up the blankets we used, make a pile of the mattresses and put them back on the beds."

Zamir: "What do you mean? Didn't every IDF unit that left a house do that?"

Yossi: "No. Not at all. On the contrary: In most of the houses graffiti was left behind and things like that."

Zamir: "That's simply behaving like animals."

Yossi: "You aren't supposed to be concentrating on folding blankets when you're being shot at."

Zamir: "I haven't heard all that much about you being shot at. It's not that I'm complaining, but if you've spent a week in a home, clean up your filth."

Aviv: "We got an order one day: All of the equipment, all of the furniture - just clean out the whole house. We threw everything, everything, out of the windows to make room. The entire contents of the house went flying out the windows."

Yossi: "There was one day when a Katyusha, a Grad, landed in Be'er Sheva and a mother and her baby were moderately to seriously injured. They were neighbors of one of my soldiers. We heard the whole story on the radio, and he didn't take it lightly - that his neighbors were seriously hurt. So the guy was a bit antsy, and you can understand him. To tell a person like that, 'Come on, let's wash the floor of the house of a political activist in Hamas, who has just fired a Katyusha at your neighbors that has amputated one of their legs' - this isn't easy to do, especially if you don't agree with it at all. When my platoon commander said, 'Okay, tell everyone to fold up blankets and pile up mattresses,' it wasn't easy for me to take. There was lot of shouting. In the end I was convinced and realized it really was the right thing to do. Today I appreciate and even admire him, the platoon commander, for what happened there. In the end I don't think that any army, the Syrian army, the Afghani army, would wash the floor of its enemy's houses, and it certainly wouldn't fold blankets and put them back in the closets."

Zamir: "I think it would be important for parents to sit here and hear this discussion. I think it would be an instructive discussion, and also very dismaying and depressing. You are describing an army with very low value norms, that's the truth ... I am not judging you and I am not complaining about you. I'm just reflecting what I'm feeling after hearing your stories. I wasn't in Gaza, and I assume that among reserve soldiers the level of restraint and control is higher, but I think that all in all, you are reflecting and describing the kind of situation we were in.

"After the Six-Day War, when people came back from the fighting, they sat in circles and described what they had been through. For many years the people who did this were said to be 'shooting and crying.' In 1983, when we came back from the Lebanon War, the same things were said about us. We need to think about the events we have been through. We need to grapple with them also, in terms of establishing a standard or different norms.

"It is quite possible that Hamas and the Syrian army would behave differently from me. The point is that we aren't Hamas and we aren't the Syrian army or the Egyptian army, and if clerics are anointing us with oil and sticking holy books in our hands, and if the soldiers in these units aren't representative of the whole spectrum in the Jewish people, but rather of certain segments of the population - what are we expecting? To whom are we complaining?

"As reservists we don't take relate seriously to the orders of the regional brigades. We let the old people go through and we let families go through. Why kill people when it's clear to you that they are civilians? Which aspect of Israel's security will be harmed, who will be harmed? Exercise judgment, be human."

Haaretz expose: Soldiers' testimonies paint grim picture of Gaza war

2009-03-18T23:44:00.002Z

Initial testimonies given by Israel Defense Forces soldiers and officers who fought in Israel's offensive on the Gaza Strip earlier this year paints a grim picture of civilian deaths, deliberate destruction of Palestinian property and lenient orders to open fire.

Dozens of combat soldiers, graduates of the Oranim pre-military institute, gathered at their alma mater last month to relate their experiences during Operation Cast Lead.

Their on-the-ground testimonies are different from the army's official statements, in which the IDF insisted its forces paid heed to high moral standards in every sector.
In one testimony, a soldier describes an incident in which an IDF sniper killed a Palestinian woman and her two children.

"There was one house with a family in it... we put them into some room. Afterward, we left the house and another company went in, and a few days after we went in there was an order to release the family. We took our positions upstairs."

"There was a sniper position on the roof and the company commander released the family and told them to take a right," said the soldier. "One mother and her two children didn't understand, and they took a left. Someone forgot to notify the sniper on the roof that the family had been released, and that it was okay, it was fine, to hold fire, and he... you can say he acted as necessary, as he was ordered to."

More soldier testimonies will be published in Haaretz over the coming days.

International Film Festival on Human rights - London 18 -27 March 2009

2009-03-16T11:15:00.003Z

Laila's Birthday
A moving and humorous tale of a Palestinian taxi driver just trying to get home in time for his daughter’s birthday.

Firaaq

Nandita Das’s layered and diverse look at the impact of communal violence on the lives of those who must continue in the aftermath of the 2002 riots in Gujarat.

And more interesting films, see: http://www.hrw.org/iff/london

American Protester Critically Injured by Soldiers in Ni'ilin

2009-03-14T17:55:00.004Z

13/03/2009

Tristan Anderson, 38, an American citizen, was critically injured on Friday by Israeli troops during protests against Israel's Wall in the West Bank village of Ni’lin. He was hit in his forehead by a new type of high velocity, extended range teargas projectile, and has been transferred to Tel Hashomer hospital, near Tel Aviv. Tristan is unconscious, anesthetized and artificially respirated, after sustaining life-threatening injuries to his brain (as well as to his right eye), and is expected to undergo several operations in the coming days, in addition to the one he underwent today.

The impact of the projectile caused numerous condensed fractures to Anderson's forehead and right eye socket. During the operation, part of his right frontal lobe had to be removed, as it was penetrated by bone fragments. A brain fluid leakage was sealed using a tendon from his thigh, and both his right eye and skin suffered extensive damage. The long term scope of all of Tristan's injuries is yet unknown. It should also be noted that soldiers at the Ni'ilin checkpoint prevented the Red Crescent ambulance from taking Tristan directly to the hospital, forcing it to wait for approximately 15 minutes until an Israeli ICU ambulance (called by Israeli activists) arrived at scene, after which he was carried from one side of the checkpoint to the other. This, of course, is standard procedure - in the extremely rare cases where the army allows patients from the occupied territories to be tranferred into Israel.

Tristan was hit while standing inside the village, several hours after the army initially attacked a protest march of Ni'ilin's residents, joined by Israel and international activists, who attempted to march onto their own lands in the direction of the wall. As opposed to previous demonstrations, this week protesters managed to actually reach the road on which the wall is currently being constructed, and even caused damage to parts of the razor-wire protecting the site, as well as the newly erected fence segments of the barrier. Israeli troops dispersed demonstrators by using large amounts of teargas and rubber coated steel bullets, driving everyone back into the village. Soldiers then followed the crowd and proceeded to shoot concussion grenades, teargas canisters, rubber coated steel bullets and even live ammunition into the village, to which many of Ni'ilin's youth responded by using slingshots to try and drive the army further away from the outskirts of the village.

Anderson's injury is part of a recent escalation in the army's violent attempts to suppress Palestinian unarmed popular resistance to the occupation. Israeli troops have been using the aforementioned new teargas canister since December 2008, when Israel launched its ruthless assault on Gaza. The black canister, labeled in Hebrew as “40mm bullet, special/long range,” has a range of over 400 meters, emits a very faint sound when fired and leaves hardly any smoke tail at all – making it extremely difficult to avoid. Furthermore, and against the army's own regulations, soldiers routinely shoot it directly towards demonstrators, as opposed to an arched trajectory. The combination of all these factors has led to numerous injuries from these projectiles, including a fractured skull and a broken leg suffered by Palestinians earlier this year.

In addition, Israel resumed using sniper-fire, shot from a suppressed Ruger 10/22 rifle, as a means of crowed dispersal. This conduct was forbidden by the army itself already late in 2001, after the JAG at the time reclassified the Ruger as "live ammunition" for all intents and purposes, following numerous deaths of demonstrators as well as tests carried out in military shooting ranges.

During the Friday clashes in Ni'ilin, two other Palestinians and one international were lightly injured after being hit by teargas canisters, while a third Palstinian was shot in his leg with live ammunition by a sniper, and was evacuated to a hospital in Ramallah.

Symposium on Conflict and Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

2009-03-09T23:39:00.003Z

Host:

LSHTM Students and Staff Group in Solidarity with Gaza

Date:	19 March 2009
Time:	17:30 - 20:00
Location:	University of London Union (ULU) - Upper Hall
Street:	Malet Street, London WC1E 7HY

Description

SPEAKERS:

• Dr. Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet: Keynote address

• Rajaie Batniji, University of Oxford: Health and Human Security in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

• Dr. Swee Chai Ang, Founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians: Wounds of war- An eye witness account

• Dr Miri Weingarten, Physicians for Human Rights, Israel: Medical and Humanitarian Violations- Accountability in Gaza

Advance tickets available Mar 12 - 19 from 12.30-1.30 outside refectory/in MSc common room, LSHTM Keppel Building - or email lshtm.ssgswg@gmail.com.

£2-£5 suggested entry donation. All proceeds to Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) (http://www.map-uk.org/).

Organized by:
LSHTM Students and Staff Group in Solidarity with Gaza (SSGSWG)

Russel Tribunal on Palestine

2009-03-09T23:26:00.003Z

Press Release
Wednesday 4th March 2009

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine is launched today at a press conference chaired by Stéphane Hessel, Ambassador of France. The initiators, Ken Coates, Chairman of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, Leila Shahid, General Delegate of Palestine to the European Union, Belgium and Luxembourg and Nurit Peled, Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, discussed the history and reasons why they called for the creation of this Tribunal. Speaking for the Organising Committee, the former Belgian Senator Pierre Galand explained how it will work. Amongst more than a hundred international personalities who have given their support to this Tribunal, Ken Loach, Paul Laverty, Raji Surani, Jean Ziegler, François Rigaux, Jean Salmon and François Maspero were present to give encouragement.

In the tradition of the Russell Tribunal on War Crimes in Vietnam, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine is a citizens’ initiative that aims to reaffirm the primacy of international law as the basis for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and at raising awareness of the responsibility of the international community in the continuing denial of the rights of the Palestinian people.

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine will base its work on Experts’ and Witnesses’ Committees that will establish the facts and build up the legal arguments that will be presented to the Tribunal. National Support Committees will contribute to the preparation of experts’ reports, promote popular mobilisation and media coverage and participate in fundraising. We can already count on strong support from the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, Lebanon, Algeria, Australia, Italy, South Africa, Egypt and, of course, from Israel and Palestine. Further contacts are under way for the reation of such Committees in other countries and continents.

Once the accusation has been fully prepared and the witnesses summoned, the sessions of the Tribunal will be organised at the beginning of 2010 in several major capitals. A jury made up of well-known personalities who are respected for their high moral standing will consider the reports and hear the witnesses for and against.

The jury will announce its conclusions which, we are persuaded, will attract widespread international public and political support, thereby contributing to a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Contact
Tel / fax: 00 32 (0)2 2310174
Cell Phone: 00 32 (0) 479 12 95 32
e-mail: trp_int@yahoo.com
web site: www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com

PHR-IL and Human Rights organizations in a joint position paper on the Decision to stop covering Palestinian´s medical Care in Israel

2009-03-09T09:44:00.001Z

8 Mar 2009

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR - IL), The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), Gisha – Legal Center For Freedom of Movement and B'Tselem Protest Violations of the Rights of Palestinian Patients

Following the decision of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah to stop all financial coverage for the medical treatments of Palestinian patients in Israeli hospitals, and given the policy of the Government of Israel (GOI) to insist on conditioning access to healthcare for Palestinians in Israel in financial coverage from the Palestinian Authority (PA), PHR-IL, PCHR, Gisha and B'Tselem protest the use of Palestinian patients as political tools by both the PA and the GOI.

In January 2009, after the end of the Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip, the PA cancelled financial coverage for all medical care for Palestinians in Israeli hospitals, including coverage for chronically ill Palestinian patients, and those in need of complex care that is not available in other tertiary medical centers in the region.

The result has been that an estimation of hundreds of Palestinian patients who were in the middle of long-term treatment regimes in Israel, including cancer patients in need of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, found their treatments interrupted with no alternatives.

We, human rights organizations in Israel and Palestine, regard Israel as an Occupying Power who bears overall responsibility for the protection of the right to health of the Palestinian, including free access to health services in the territories it occupies.

In agreeing to act as provider of healthcare services to the Palestinian population, the PA (Ramallah) took upon itself responsibility for that population. However, the ability of the PA in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) to supply appropriate health care services is fundamentally restricted by Israel as an Occupying Power.

The exploitation of the healthcare system in general and of seriously ill patients in particular, for political and financial aims, is a grave violation of the principles of medical ethics and of human rights.

PHR-IL, PCHR, Gisha and B'Tselem call:

The Government of Israel:
To recognize its ultimate responsibility as an Occupying Power for the healthcare of the population under its control, and to ensure that all residents of the OPT have access to appropriate healthcare regardless of financial coverage.

The Palestinian Authority:
To renew its financial coverage for all Palestinian patients who need to complete their medical treatment in Israel, at least until an appropriate and accessible new health care provider can be found. The PA has the right to decide where it will refer its patients; however, the rights of all these patients to continuity of heath care must not be violated.

For further information, please contact Ran Yaron, Director of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, PHR-IL, Tel +972-54-7577696, e-mail address ranyaron@phr.org.il.

Einladung zur Diskussionsveranstaltung des AK Nahost Berlin

2009-03-07T18:50:00.003Z

Mittwoch, 18. März 2009
19.30 Uhr (Bitte geänderte Anfangszeit beachten!)
Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte, Saal Robert Havemann
Greifswalder Straße 4, 10405 Berlin
(Tram M4, Bus 200, 240, Haltestelle Am Friedrichshain)

Einladung zur Diskussionsveranstaltung des AK Nahost Berlin

Referent:Dr. Brian Klug, Oxford
Brian Klug ist Senior Research Fellow in Philosphy at St. Bent´s Hall, Oxford
und Mitglied der philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Oxford (UK).
Von seinen zahlreichen Publikationen zu den Themen Rassismus,
Antisemitismus, Zionismus und Jüdische Identität sind einige auf
deutsch erschienen, u. a. im Sammelband "Antisemitismus,
Antizionismus, Israelkritik", Göttingen 2005.
Brian Klug ist Mitbegründer des Jewish Forum for Justice und Human
Rights (JFJHR)* *und der Independent Jewish Voice (IJV).

Thema:

Nach der Gaza-Offensive: Bekommt der Antisemitismus
neuen Auftrieb?

Nach der israelischen Militäroffensive im Gazastreifen wurde den Kritikern am
israelischen Vorgehen häufig und von verschiedenen Seiten vorgeworfen, sie
würden antisemitische Einstellungen vertreten oder antijüdische Vorurteile verstärken.
Die so Kritisierten nehmen ihrerseits für sich in Anspruch, daß Kritik an Israel möglich
sei, ohne daß dies oder die Kritiker antisemitisch seien.

Damit sind eine Reihe von Fragen unmittelbar verbunden: Wann ist Kritik an Israel
(oder Opposition gegen zionistische Einstellungen) antisemitisch? Ist Antizionismus
nur eine Maske für Antisemitismus? Oder sind die Antisemitismusvorwürfe nur eine
Spielart der pro-zionistischen Propaganda?

Auf diese Fragen wird der Referent eingehen. Schon 2003 hatte er geschrieben:
"Je länger Israel auf seiner Politik gegenüber den Palästinensern besteht, desto
heftiger wird es angegriffen werden, und das nicht nur von Antisemiten, sondern auch
von Leuten, die guten Willens sind. Fast niemand mehr wird für Israel Partei ergreifen
mit Ausnahme des jüdischen Mainstream, für den es dann wieder das altbekannte
"hier 'die Welt' und dort 'die Juden'" sein wird. (...) Schließlich werden die Leute nicht
mehr wissen, wie sie vermeiden können, antisemitisch zu erscheinen, und die Juden
werden nicht wissen, wie sie aufhören können, Opfer zu sein."

Und heute – hat die Gaza-Offensive dazu geführt, daß es unmöglich ist, die
Antisemitismus-Frage von der Palästina-Frage zu trennen? Wie, wenn überhaupt,
können diese beiden Probleme getrennt werden?

Wir freuen uns auf einen interessanten Vortrag und eine angeregte Diskussion.

AKNahost Berlin

Lancet series about health in the oPT

2009-03-06T16:25:00.005Z

Anyone intersted in the Lancet series about the health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territories. You have to register to get the full text.
The single studies are excellent and very well researched dispite all the difficulties. As Rita Giacaman pointed out: "It´s not the end of a process, but the start."

Video about Gaza

2009-03-06T12:25:00.002Z

http://www.closedzone.com/

Done by one of the animators of "Waltz with Bashir", Yoni Goodman

ICRC report on GAZA

2009-03-06T12:13:00.005Z

One of the very, very rare reports from the ICRC. The policy of this organization is basically to keep the facts about a conflict to themselves. There is a full scale fact finding mission on the way in Gaza, but the results will be presented only towards the perpetrator, Israeli government, not to the public and not towards the UN.
End of March there will be the launch of PHR's fact finding mission results in Brussels, watch out for further announcements.

Gaza: ICRC demands urgent access to wounded as Israeli army fails to assist wounded Palestinians
Communique, ICRC, January 8

Geneva/Jerusalem/Tel Aviv -- On the afternoon of 7 January, four Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) ambulances and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) managed to obtain access for the first time to several houses in the Zaytun neighbourhood of Gaza City that had been affected by Israeli shelling.

The ICRC had requested safe passage for ambulances to access this neighbourhood since 3 January but it only received permission to do so from the Israel Defense Forces during the afternoon of 7 January.

The ICRC/PRCS team found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses.

In another house, the ICRC/PRCS rescue team found 15 other survivors of this attack including several wounded. In yet another house, they found an additional three corpses. Israeli soldiers posted at a military position some 80 meters away from this house ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do. There were several other positions of the Israel Defense Forces nearby as well as two tanks.

"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, the ICRC's head of delegation for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. "The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestine Red Crescent to assist the wounded."

Large earth walls erected by the Israeli army had made it impossible to bring ambulances into the neighbourhood. Therefore, the children and the wounded had to be taken to the ambulances on a donkey cart. In total, the ICRC/PRCS rescue team evacuated 18 wounded and 12 others who were extremely exhausted. Two corpses were also evacuated. The ICRC/PRCS will recover the remaining corpses on Thursday.

The ICRC was informed that there are more wounded sheltering in other destroyed houses in this neighbourhood. It demands that the Israeli military grant it and PRCS ambulances safe passage and access immediately to search for any other wounded. Until now, the ICRC has still not received confirmation from the Israeli authorities that this will be allowed.

The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable.

For further information, please contact:

Florian Westphal, ICRC Geneva, tel.: +41 22 730 22 82 or +41 79 217 32 80

Anne-Sophie Bonefeld, ICRC Jerusalem, tel +972 2 582 88 45 or +972 52 601 91 50

EVENT! 8th March 2009, London Independent Jewish Book Day

2009-03-05T19:16:00.002Z

INDEPENDENT JEWISH BOOK DAY

Organised by Independent Jewish Voices

March 8th, 2009

PROGRAMME

2.00 Opening remarks

2.10 -3.30 A Time To Speak Out: Independent Jewish Voices on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Identity: Howard Cooper, Gabriel Josipovici, Antony Lerman, Eyal Weizman, Jacqueline Rose, Chair: Lynne Segal

3.30 -4.30 Miri Weingarten, key activist, Physicians for Human Rights, Director of Occupied Palestinian Territory Department, Chair: Tony Klug

4.30 - 5.00 break
5.00-6.30 Uri Avnery, Israel's leading dissident and veteran peace campaigner: The Anger, the Longing, the Hope: Searching for Peace in Israel/Palestine. Chair and discussant: Ian Black

Venue: Jeffrey Hall, Institute of Education, Bedford Way, London WC1

Cost: £15 (£10 for students and unemployed)

Booking essential

Please see IJV website for details: http://jewishvoices.squarespace.com/

Information and history

2009-03-05T00:14:00.000Z

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel was founded in 1988 with the goal of struggling for human rights, in particular the right to health, in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Human dignity, wellness of mind and body and the right to health are at the core of the world view of the organization and direct and instruct its activities and efforts on both the individual and general level. PHR-Israel's activities integrate advocacy and action toward changing harmful policies and direct action providing healthcare. Today Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has more than 1150 members, over half of whom are healthcare providers.

"The Association of Israeli and Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights", as the association was then called, was established during the first months of the Palestinian uprising in the Occupied Territories. Daily, people were wounded and killed. One of the association’s first activities was a visit to the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, and protest against the use of medical care as a means of controlling the local population. In addition, the organization protested against doctor participation in the torture of Palestinian detainees. The foundation's actions were based on the principles of medical ethics and on international conventions relevant to medical staff.

Since the founding of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel the association has expanded its activities and today focuses on a wider range of topics centering on health in the broadest sense, while calling for social solidarity both within and outside the borders of Israel. Today PHR-Israel runs five projects: the Occupied Territories Project, the Prisoners and Detainees Project, the Migrant Workers and Refugees Project, the Project for the Unrecognized Villages of the Negev, and the Residents of Israel Project. In addition, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel runs a mobile clinic in the Occupied Territories, and an open clinic in Tel Aviv that provides services for all within Israel who have no legal status and therefore no health insurance. The association believes that the combination of medical ethics and human rights serves as a moral touchstone for doctors who find themselves caught in conflicts between the system in which they work and the demands of their conscience. The foundation also acts in situations where medical ethics and human rights are challenged, as in the case of doctor participation in torture.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel works in co-operation and in solidarity with other organizations, Israeli, Palestinian and foreign.

At the legislative level, Israel employs the rhetoric of "justice, equality and mutual assistance." Physicians for Human Rights-Israel works to implement these values on a practical level struggling not only to aid the individual, but also to change the policies that are at the base of human rights abuses.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel is a member of the IFHHRO (the International Federation of Health and Human Rights Organizations). The foundation has won numerous prizes throughout the years, including the Prime Minister's "Defense of the Child" award and the Emil Greenzweig prize of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. The President of the association and the Field Work Director have won the Jonathan Mann award.

MAP-UK Event in London

2009-03-05T00:10:00.000Z

MAP-UK Event in London

9AM - 1PM - THURSDAY 05 MARCH 2009

Westminster Central Hall, London

It is our pleasure to invite you to attend our conference 'Health Under Occupation, Health Under Fire', a meeting to be held between 9am - 1pm, on Thursday 05 March 2009, at the Westminster Central Hall in London.

9am

Registration and Coffee

9:30am

Official Welcome

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC

Dr.Graham Watt

9:40
Panel One: Health in the occupied Palestinian territory

Sir Iain Chalmers, chair

Rita Giacaman

Health Status and Services in the occupied Palestinian territory

Hanan Abdul Rahim

Maternal and Child Health

Abdullatif Husseini

Chronic Disease in the occupied Palestinian territory

Rajaie Batniji

Health as Human Security

Awad Mataria

Health Care System: Assessment and Reform Agenda

- Coffee and Tea -
11:40 -Panel Two: Gaza Crisis and the Politics of Health

Dr. Graham Watt, chair

Tony Laurance - World Health Organisation, West Bank and Gaza Strip

Initial Health Needs Assessment

Swee Chai Ang

Gaza's Hospitals: Wounds of War

Miri Weingarten - Physicians for Human Rights Israel

Medical and Humanitarian Violations, and Accountability in Gaza

Kathy al Jubeh - Medical Aid for Palestinians

The Politics of Health: Claiming Humanitarian Space

Building on the forthcoming launch of The Lancet Palestine Health series on health in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) by the Birzeit University Institute of Community and Public Health, this meeting will highlight the key findings of the series, the culmination of over two years of work and research. We will be joined by the authors of the series, a spectrum of the best researchers and epidemiologists from the occupied Palestinian territory, and their international counterparts.

Critically, this meeting will also highlight the health-related aspects and impact of the Israeli assault on Gaza between December 2008- January 2009, as well as the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Please confirm your attendance by emailing march.conference@map-uk.org or by contacting Sophie Charman-Blower at Medical Aid for Palestinians on +44 (0) 207 226 4114.