ANALYSIS / Obama will decide how good Netanyahu speech is

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

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

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

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

Ministerial committee: Ban Nakba Day

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

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

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.