Rights group fears sweeping deportations from West Bank

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.