Friday, 9 April 2010

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.

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)


Wednesday, 31 March 2010

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

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

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

Friday, 26 February 2010

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.


Thursday, 18 February 2010

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.

Wednesday, 17 February 2010

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

Saturday, 16 January 2010

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.

Sunday, 3 January 2010

Medical Supply Shipment to Gaza 27.12.09

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/


Thursday, 3 December 2009

Palestine Film Festival in London 2010

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?

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Information on the Health Rights of Migrant Workers


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.

Sunday, 1 November 2009

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


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

Tuesday, 15 September 2009

Goldstone report on Israels attack on Gaza now published

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 b
oth 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)

Sunday, 23 August 2009

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

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.

Thursday, 20 August 2009

Fatah's Gauntlet

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?

Thursday, 30 July 2009

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

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

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

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

Thursday, 16 July 2009

Report from Breaking the silence

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. (...)

Sunday, 5 July 2009

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



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!