Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israel’s new strategy: “sabotage” and “attack” the global justice movement

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 16 February 2010

An extraordinary series of articles, reports and presentations by Israel’s influential Reut Institute has identified the global movement for justice, equality and peace as an “existential threat” to Israel and called on the Israeli government to direct substantial resources to “attack” and possibly engage in criminal “sabotage” of this movement in what Reut believes are its various international “hubs” in London, Madrid, Toronto, the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond.

The Reut Institute’s analyses hold that Israel’s traditional strategic doctrine — which views threats to the state’s existence in primarily military terms, to be met with a military response — is badly out of date. Rather, what Israel faces today is a combined threat from a “Resistance Network” and a “Delegitimization Network.”

The Resistance Network is comprised of political and armed groups such as Hamas and Hizballah who “rel[y] on military means to sabotage every move directed at affecting separation between Israel and the Palestinians or securing a two-state solution” (The Delegitimization Challenge: Creating a Political Firewall, Reut Institute, 14 February 2010).

Furthermore, the “Resistance Network” allegedly aims to cause Israel’s political “implosion” — a la South Africa, East Germany or the Soviet Union — rather than bring about military defeat through direct confrontation on the battlefield.

The “Delegitimization Network” — which Reut Institute president and former Israeli government advisor Gidi Grinstein provocatively claims is in an “unholy alliance” with the Resistance Network — is made up of the broad, decentralized and informal movement of peace and justice, human rights, and BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) activists all over the world. Its manifestations include protests against Israeli officials visiting universities, Israeli Apartheid Week, faith-based and trade union-based activism, and “lawfare” — the use of universal jurisdiction to bring legal accountability for alleged Israeli war criminals. The Reut Institute even cited my speech to the student conference on BDS held at Hampshire College last November as a guide to how the “delegitimization” strategy supposedly works (“Eroding Israel’s Legitimacy in the International Arena,” Reut Institute, 28 January 2010).

The combined “attack” from “resisters” and “delegitimizers,” Reut says, “possesses strategic significance, and may develop into a comprehensive existential threat within a few years.” It further warns that a “harbinger of such a threat would be the collapse of the two-state solution as an agreed framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the coalescence behind a ‘one-state solution’ as a new alternative framework.”

At a basic level, Reut’s analysis represents an advance over the most primitive and hitherto dominant layers of Israeli strategic thinking; it reflects an understanding, as I put it in my speech at Hampshire, that “Zionism simply cannot bomb, kidnap, assassinate, expel, demolish, settle and lie its way to legitimacy and acceptance.”

But underlying the Reut Institute’s analysis is a complete inability to disentangle cause and effect. It seems to assume that the dramatic erosion in Israel’s international standing since its wars on Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2009 is a result of the prowess of the “delegitimization network” to which it imputes wholly nefarious, devious and unwholesome goals — effectively the “destruction of Israel.”

It blames “delegitimizers” and “resisters” for frustrating the two-state solution but ignores Israel’s relentless and ongoing settlement-building drive — supported by virtually every state organ — calculated and intended to make Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank impossible.

It never considers for a moment that the mounting criticism of Israel’s actions might be justified, or that the growing ranks of people ready to commit their time and efforts to opposing Israel’s actions are motivated by genuine outrage and a desire to see justice, equality and an end to bloodshed. In other words, Israel is delegitimizing itself.

Reut does not recommend to the Israeli cabinet — which recently held a special session to hear a presentation of the think tank’s findings — that Israel should actually change its behavior toward Palestinians and Lebanese. It misses the point that apartheid South Africa also once faced a global “delegitimization network” but that this has now completely disappeared. South Africa, however, still exists. Once the cause motivating the movement disappeared — the rank injustice of formal apartheid — people packed up their signs and their BDS campaigns and went home.

Instead, Reut recommends to the Israeli government an aggressive and possibly criminal counter-offensive. A powerpoint presentation Grinstein made to the recent Herzliya Conference on Israeli national security actually calls on Israel’s “intelligence agencies to focus” on the named and unnamed “hubs” of the “delegitimization network” and to engage in “attacking catalysts” of this network. In its “The Delegitimization Challenge: Creating a Political Firewall” document, Reut recommends that “Israel should sabotage network catalysts.”

The use of the word “sabotage” is particularly striking and should draw the attention of governments, law enforcement agencies and university officials concerned about the safety and welfare of their students and citizens. The only definition of “sabotage” in United States law deems it to be an act of war on a par with treason, when carried out against the United States. In addition, in common usage, the American Heritage Dictionary defines sabotage as “Treacherous action to defeat or hinder a cause or an endeavor; deliberate subversion.” It is difficult to think of a legitimate use of this term in a political or advocacy context.

At the very least, Reut seems to be calling for Israel’s spy agencies to engage in covert activity to interfere with the exercise of legal free speech, association and advocacy rights in the United States, Canada and European Union countries, and possibly to cause harm to individuals and organizations. These warnings of Israel’s possible intent — especially in light of its long history of criminal activity on foreign soil — should not be taken lightly.

The Reut Institute, based in Tel Aviv, raises a significant amount of tax-exempt funds in the United States through a nonprofit arm called American Friends of the Reut Institute (AFRI). According to its public filings, AFRI sent almost $2 million to the Reut Institute in 2006 and 2007.

In addition to a state-sponsored international “sabotage” campaign, Reut also recommends a “soft” policy. This specifically involves better hasbara or state propaganda to greenwash Israel as a high-tech haven for environmental technologies and high culture — what it terms “Brand Israel.”

Other elements include “maintain[ing] thousands of personal relationships with political, cultural, media and security-related elites and influentials” around the world, and “harnessing Jewish and Israeli diaspora communities” even more tightly to its cause. It even emphasizes that Israel should use “international aid” to boost its image (its perfunctory foray into earthquake-devastated Haiti was an example of this tactic).

What ties together all these strategies is that they are aimed at frustrating, delaying and distracting attention from the fundamental issue: that Israel — despite its claims to be a liberal and democratic state — is an ultranationalist ethnocracy that relies on the violent suppression of the most fundamental rights of millions of Palestinians, soon to be a demographic majority, to maintain the status quo. There is no “game changer” in Reut’s new strategy.

Reut is apparently unaware even of the irony of trying to reform “Brand Israel” as something cuddly, while at the same time publicly recommending that Israel’s notorious spies “sabotage” peace groups on foreign soil.

But there are two lessons we must heed: Reut’s analysis vindicates the effectiveness of the BDS strategy, and as Israeli elites increasingly fear for the long-term prospects of the Zionist project they are likely to be more ruthless, unscrupulous and desperate than ever.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

Source

February 16, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

Non-Violent Resistance

“Non-Violence is a powerful weapon that can and will weaken the iron fist of the Occupation”

By Sami Awad, Director of the Holy Land Trust | 15 Feb 2010

What is Non-Violent Resistance?

Non-Violence is an alternative to either armed resistance or passive acceptance of the status quo. It is both a strategy and a philosophy which rejects violence as a means to promote change, and instead aims to change power relations through assertive acts of omission (refusal to do something) or commission (actively challenging the status quo). It is a method by which to change the minds of both the oppressor and oppressed so that a new reality can be built upon different perceptions of the ‘other’.

The many tactics of non-violence can be broken down into three broad categories:

1) Civil Disobedience: when individuals or a group refuse to obey rules and laws, therefore undermining the power of the oppressor. For example refusing to respect laws prohibiting the gathering of people, or the waving of a flag as has been the case in Palestine.

2) Reverse Strike: Involves community building and the creation of alternatives, in order to make a people less dependent on the facilities of their oppressor. This can involve boycotts of the oppressor’s goods and services and the development of alternatives.

3) Direct Action: These are symbolic actions which are specifically directed to gain broad sympathy or express personal grief, opinions and commitment to a just cause. Direct action can take many forms along the spectrum between assertiveness and aggressiveness. For example a peaceful protest versus a group of individuals actively removing a roadblock or earth mound.

Successful non-violent campaigns are able to effectively utilize all three of these methods simultaneously.

non violent

Non-Violence in Palestine – Past and Present

Despite the common mischaracterization of Palestinian resistance as wholly violent or radical, there is a long and rich history non-violent actions and campaigns, as well as a large number of contemporary ones. For instance:

In 1902, the inhabitants of three Palestinian villages – al-Shajara, Misha and Melhamiyya – held a collective peaceful protest against the takeover of 70,000 dunums (7,000 hectares) of agricultural land by the first European Zionist settlers.

In 1936 Palestinians held a six-month non-violent industrial strike against the British Mandate’s refusal to grant self determination to Palestine. The ultimate aim of the strike was to make Palestine ungovernable by anyone but the Palestinians themselves.

Fifty years later, in 1986, Hannah Siniora, then editor of the East Jerusalem Arabic Daily, called for Pales-tinian civic disobedience by boycotting Israel-made cigarettes. This led to a full-scale Palestinian boycott of Israeli soap, food, water, clothes and other consumer goods.

The 1987-1993 First Intifada was largely conducted non-violently. Palestinians held mass public demonstra-tions, refused to pay taxes, and sought out local alternatives to Israeli facilities. Community leader Mubarak Awad initiated olive tree planting on Palestinian land about to be confiscated by Israeli settlers. Israeli law prohibited any construction on land dedicated to growing fruit. Awad used non-violent resistance, and Israel’s own laws, to challenge the encroaching settlements.

Currently, and especially since construction of the separation Wall began on June 16th 2002, Palestinian villages across the West Bank have cooperated in non-violent resistance. The communities of Jayyous, Budrus, Bil’in, Ni’lin and Umm Salamonah have all non-violently resisted the Wall being built around them. Weekly non-violent demonstrations against the Wall are held in the cities of Bil’in and Nihlin (north of Ramallah) which bring together Palestinians and Israelis, as well international activists.

The Logic of Non-Violent Resistance

The logic of a non-violent strategy to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple. Turning this knowledge into a practical campaign effective in achieveing Palestinian goals is much more difficult. Practically, a non-violent strategy allows for a broader and therefore larger participation among the citizenry than armed conflict does. This was true in the First Intifada – largely credited with empowering civil society, women, as well as the young and old. The players in the Second Intifada, on the other hand, were restricted to their ability and willingness to fight violently.

Secondly, by unilaterally removing violence from one side of the equation, there is the possibility of transforming the perception of victimhood within Israel and the international community, which could in turn affect policy. Looking back through this book, it is clear that Palestinians and Israelis live in a rather assymmetric world, and that this conflict disproportionately affects Palestinians. Yet in the minds of Western Europeans and Americans especially, the perception of Palestinians has been shaped more by the sporadic acts of terror, rather than by the accumulation of suffering wrought by occupation.

Israel’s Response to Non-Violence

Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations routinely catalogue, and often film, Israel’s response to non-violent actions. The response usually consists of using overwhelming force to disburse crowds.

Most typically, Israel employs tear gas, concussion grenades and rubber bullets to do so, but on many documented occasions they have employed live ammunition, and most recently have begun showering protesters with a mixture of sewage water and chemicals from nearby settlements. The saddest part of this response is the effect that it has upon the non-violence movement in general. The fact that protesters have been literally showered in sewage, beaten and sometimes killed in the daily or weekly events, reaffirms the notion amongst those most skeptical of a peaceful strategy that ‘Israel only responds to violence’.

This perception is further strengthened by the lack of accountability laid upon those soldiers and their commanders who routinely sidestep the law in their use of force. Rarely, if ever, has anyone been punished; and never have these punishments made their way up the ranks or into the realm of those who design policies. This lack of accountability has endowed soldiers with a sense of immunity from their actions; a perception which no doubt adds to their willingness to utilize force – even when unneccessary.

This last summer the small village of Ni’lin north of Ramallah began to organize weekly, and sometimes daily demonstations against the encroaching wall. On July 29th, the ten year old unarmed Ahmed Hassan Yusef Musa was struck in the head by a rubber bullet and killed at one such demonstration. The following day, at Ahmed’s funeral – turned demonstration, 19 year old Yusuf Ahmad Amira was shot dead by the IDF. Neither case has resulted in punishment.

This is the same village where a 17 year old girl Salaam Kanan was able to capture video footage of a bound and blindfolded Palestinian man being shot at point blank range by a soldier a few feet from his commanding officer. This particular case received alot of attention; however, Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations insist that many more incidents like this take place when no cameras are present.

Source

February 16, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

Preserving the Golden Rule as a Piece of Anti-Nuclear History

By Lawrence S. Wittner | February 8, 2010

The Golden Rule is in danger.  No, not the famed ethical code — though proponents of selfishness certainly have ignored it — but a thirty-foot sailing ship of the same name that rose to prominence about half a century ago.

The remarkable story of the Golden Rule began in the late 1950s, as the world public grew increasingly concerned about preparations for nuclear war.  In the United States, the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) was launched in November 1957, and polls showed rising uneasiness about the nuclear arms race — especially giant atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that spewed radioactive fallout around the globe.

Although SANE quickly became the largest peace organization in the United States, smaller groups, committed to civil disobedience, sprang up as well.  One of them, Non-Violent Action Against Nuclear Weapons, drew the participation of Albert Bigelow, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy during World War II.  With the bombing of Hiroshima, Bigelow had concluded that “morally, war is impossible,” and a month before he became eligible for his pension, he resigned from the U.S. Navy Reserve.  Joining the Society of Friends, he plunged into the growing campaign of resistance to nuclear weapons.

In January 1958, Bigelow and three other pacifists wrote to President Dwight Eisenhower of their plan to sail the Golden Rule into the U.S. nuclear testing zone in the Pacific.  “For years we have spoken and written of the suicidal military preparations of the Great Powers,” they declared, “but our voices have been lost in the massive effort of those responsible for preparing this country for war.  We mean to speak now with the weight of our whole lives.”  They hoped their act would “say to others:  Speak Now.”

Of course, this was just what the U.S. government most feared.  Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) officials, and the U.S. Navy brass began frantic conversations on how to counter the pacifist menace.  The U.S. commander-in-chief in the Pacific warned that this group of “Communists or misguided humanitarians” hoped to either “stop tests by preventing us from firing . . . or if we did fire and killed a few people” to “create additional anti-atomic test support.”  Eventually, the administration decided to have the AEC issue a regulation blocking entry by U.S. citizens into the test zone, while U.S. intelligence agencies swapped data on Bigelow, including information on his private telephone conversations and legal plans.

Meanwhile, captained across a stormy Pacific by Bigelow, the Golden Rule arrived in Honolulu, where a U.S. federal court issued an injunction barring the rest of its voyage.  Nevertheless, the four pacifists decided:  “We would sail — come what may.”  And they did.  Overtaken by the U.S. Coast Guard on their journey to Eniwetok, they were arrested, tried, convicted, and placed on probation.  Undaunted, they set sail once more on the Golden Rule for the very heart of darkness, that section of the Pacific unilaterally cordoned off by the U.S. government for its hydrogen bomb tests.  Once again, their voyage was halted by U.S. authorities, and they were arrested, tried, convicted and — this time — given sixty-day sentences and imprisoned.

But their example proved contagious.  An American anthropologist, Earle Reynolds, his wife Barbara, and their two children attended the final trial in Honolulu, and concluded not only that the U.S. government was lying about the dangers of radioactive fallout, but lacked the constitutional authority to explode nuclear weapons in the Pacific.  As a result, determined to complete the voyage of the Golden Rule, they set sail for Eniwetok aboard their own ship, the Phoenix.  On July 1, Reynolds went on the radio to announce that they had entered the U.S. nuclear testing zone.  Soon thereafter he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a two-year prison term.

These events, which received considerable publicity, triggered a surge of activism.  Picket lines sprang up around federal buildings and AEC offices all across the United States.  In San Francisco, 432 residents — proclaiming that they were guilty of “conspiring” with crew members — petitioned the U.S. attorney to take legal action against them.  Reynolds, out on bail before a higher court ruled in his favor (and, implicitly, in favor of the crew of the Golden Rule), gave a large number of talks on radio and television, as well as to college, high school, and church audiences, on the dangers of nuclear testing.

Not surprisingly, U.S. government officials were horrified.  Appearing on CBS television, AEC chair Lewis Strauss, implied — as he often did when discussing critics of nuclear weapons — that the whole thing was part of a Communist conspiracy.  “At the bottom of the disturbance there is a kernel of very intelligent, deliberate propaganda,” he insisted.

Subsequent events went badly from Strauss’s standpoint.  Within a short time, he was ousted from office, and the Eisenhower administration — barraged by public protests against nuclear testing — felt obliged to halt it and begin negotiations on a test ban treaty.  In 1963, these negotiations culminated in the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which ended atmospheric nuclear tests by the great powers.  SANE and other peace groups were delighted with this first nuclear arms control treaty, as was Bigelow, who only two years before had challenged authority once more, this time as a Freedom Rider.

As for the aging Golden Rule, it has now drifted into obscurity, and is currently housed in a small shipyard in Eureka California, whose owner, Leroy Zerlang, would like to save it from destruction.  If the Smithsonian or another museum decided to preserve the ship, it would provide a fine symbol to future generations of the courageous men who sailed it, of government efforts to halt their activities, and of a nation that ultimately turned against nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

Source

February 14, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The Case of Dr Aafia and the Need for Change

By shazia Akhtar | February 14, 2010

Dr Aafia Siddiqui was convicted on February 3rd for the attempted murder of US officers during interrogation whilst being detained in Ghazni, Afghanistan and now faces a minimum sentence of 30 years in prison

This conviction has lead to outcry from around the world from those who are familiar with the background of the case and the catalogue of abuses and violations of which Dr Aafia Siddiqui has been victim.

The ordeal for the young neuroscientist began in 2003 when Dr Aafia Siddiqui disappeared with her 3 young children. It is widely suspected that she was abducted by Pakistani Intelligence and handed over to the FBI who believed her to be an “Al-Qaeda operative”. In the 5 years that followed, there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that she was being held at the Bagram, the US base in Afghanistan. Her lawyers and human rights organisations believe that while being held at Bagram, she was physically tortured and repeatedly raped by prison officers, to such an extent that it has affected her mental health.

After being extradited to the US in August 2008, she faced charges of attempted murder and assault of a US officer. What followed in the way of judicial process served as a bleak reminder of how the leaders of Western Democracy so readily discard their own principles of ‘human rights’, ‘the rule of law’ and ‘justice’ in order to pursue their colonialist designs and secure their political gains. As the saga of the US led ‘War on Terror’ has unfolded, we have all witnessed the crime that is ‘American justice’ ; Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, routine use of torture, extraordinary rendition, extradition without due process, and detention without charge.

The proceedings conducted in the courtrooms of New York, demonstrated clearly how the entire case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui is tainted by lies and un-answered questions. It was reported that the prosecution did not provide any forensic evidence to prove their case and their witnesses gave contradictory evidences. An obvious question which continues to baffle observers is why there has been such a focus on Dr Aafia’s alleged terrorism involvement, which was used by Prosecution lawyers to create fear amongst the jury, while she was solely on trial for attempted murder. Regarding the verdict, her lawyer, Elaine Sharp, commented, “This verdict is based on fear, not on fact.”

Though it may be an unfortunate fact to state; sadly one could not have expected much other than a shambolic trial, staged in a ’Kangaroo court’ aimed at delivering the US government from international embarrassment rather than delivering any form of justice for our sister Aafia.

The horrific ordeal suffered by this young mother of three is simply the latest human tragedy in the ongoing brutality against Muslims and their countries by Western governments in this “War on Terror”. The current Pakistani leadership has continued the Musharraf legacy of providing “unstinting” support to America’s ill-conceived ‘War on Terror’, which has in return for a price, earned Pakistan a position of complete subordination with regards to the US.

What must continue to concern us at this time is the role of the Pakistani Government; in the initial capture and detention of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and the ongoing apathy with which they have treated the matter and responded to the unlawful verdict.

The fact that Pakistan has surrendered itself militarily and politically to the whims of American policy in the region has meant that FBI officers, together with American armed military personnel are allowed a free reign inside the country and can arrest and detain Paksitani citizens with little (if any) objection from the government, as was the case with Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

The government of Pakistan has shown that it is not concerned by its own citizens being dishonoured, maimed or killed at the hands of a foreign power, this being evident by the fact that it has given a free hand to the US to conduct drone-launched missile attacks on its own soil, which have killed over ?people to date. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the Pakistani authorities have been complicit not only in the case of Dr Siddiqui but also, of  the hundreds of other Muslims who have disappeared from Pakistan, believed to have been handed over to the Americans by their dutiful allies. When President Asif Ali Zardari, was forced to respond to the verdict, he struggled to express any criticism of his paymasters in Washington DC, and barely managed a feeble statement which read “We are dismayed over the unexpected verdict of the jury in Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s case”.

The case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui has brought to attention many harsh realities, one of which cannot be ignored; the Political situation in Pakistan can no longer be accepted and it is time for real change.

I ask you to consider at this point in time, with the ever tightening US grip of Pakistan, together with the wholesale betrayal of the leadership, can Pakistan be allowed to continue descending further towards destruction? Can it be acceptable that the honour, dignity and blood of the Muslims of Pakistan be so easily sold by its own government in order to line the pockets of the feudal lords- turned- politicians?

At such a time we must talk openly about change. Pakistan requires a new system, a system whose sincere leadership will guard the honour and lives of its citizens; women and men alike. What is needed for real and successful change in Pakistan is a system with a representative and accountable government, a stable economy, an independent judiciary, independence from foreign control, a system which prioritises people’s basic needs over the gains of a few or of private enterprise…

It is most definitely time for change.

Source

February 13, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

US: Costco stores discontinue Ahava dead sea products after boycott call

By Saed Bannoura – IMEMC News – February 12, 2010

The ‘Stolen Beauty’ campaign has declared a small victory, after Costco stores agreed to stop carrying Dead Sea Salt from the Ahava corporation.

AHAVA Dead Sea Laboratories is an Israeli cosmetics company whose manufacturing plant is in an illegal settlement on Palestinian land.
The settlement, Mitzpe Shalem, was built near the shores of the Dead Sea in 1970.

Activists with the Stolen Beauty campaign argue that Ahava’s use of Palestinian natural resources from the Dead Sea is patently illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They have called for a boycott of Ahava Dead Sea products.

After a letter-writing campaign beginning in December led by Costco members, the store now says that it no longer carries Ahave products. The management of Costco did not comment on whether the decision to stop carrying Ahava products was due to the boycott campaign.

Source

February 12, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

US Arrests 12 People who Disrupted Israeli Ambassador’s Speech

09/02/2010 Al-Manar – California Police reportedly made 12 arrests on Monday after a speech by Israel’s U.S. Ambassador Michael Oren descended into chaos.

Hecklers interrupted Oren’s lecture at Irvine University in Los Angeles over 10 times, shouting “killers” and “how many Palestinians did you kill?”

Oren took a 20 minute break after the fourth protest, only to be interrupted again by young men yelling at him every few minutes, local press reported.

The arrested students were apparently members of the university’s Muslim Student Union, which had publicly condemned Oren’s visit earlier in the day.

In a statement printed by the Orange County Register, a newspaper, the union said: “We condemn and oppose the presence of Michael Oren, the ambassador of Israel to the United States, on our campus today. We resent that the Law School and the Political Science Department on our campus have agreed to cosponsor a public figure who represents a state that continues to break international and humanitarian law and is condemned by more UN Human Rights Council resolutions than all other countries in the world combined?”

Oren eventually completed his speech, some time later than scheduled, but did not take questions from the audience as planned.

University Chancellor Michael Drake was booed by some and applauded by others when told the audience that he was embarrassed by the outburst.

February 9, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

Israeli forces detain wife of mayor in Ramallah

08/02/2010

Jerusalem – Ma’an – Israeli forces detained Muntaha Tawil, wife of Al-Bireh Mayor Jamal Tawil, on Monday, after searching their home in Ramallah.

“Heavily armed soldiers and large numbers of military vehicles raided the mayor’s home on Monday early morning breaking the doors and damaging the house’ interior before they detained Muntaha Tawil, the mayor’s wife,” an Al-Birreh Municipal Council statement said.

Mayor Tawil said his wife’s detention would not hinder his ability to provide his constituents with the services they need, adding that Israel often attempts to exert pressure on mayors of Palestinian villages through detentions, forced home searches and summons orders.

Tawil is the mother of four and her husband has been detained several time by Israeli forces. Mayor Tawil previously served 13 years in an Israeli prison.

An Israeli military spokesman said that Muntaha Tawil was detained overnight by Israeli forces operating in Ramallah because of her involvement in activities “in the Hamas terrorist organization.”

###

Editor’s note:

Muntaha Tawil is one of the most active women working in the prisoners’ solidarity movement.

February 8, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | Leave a comment

‘Ransom sought for UK ship carrying arms to S Arabia’

Press TV – February 6, 2010

Somali pirates have demanded $15 million, the largest amount of ransom so far, from UK ship Asian Glory reportedly carrying hundreds of modern cars and weapons.

The ship, headed to Saudi Arabia, was coming from Singapore when the Somali pirates hijacked it, a Press TV correspondent reported.

The UK ship was reportedly carrying expensive cars and modern weapons for Saudi Arabia to launch additional attacks on Yemen’s Houthi fighters.

The largest amount of money given so far for the release of a ship in the Gulf of Aden was $7 million, which was given to a Greek tanker last week.

February 6, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

Israel to adjust wall’s route in Bil’in

February 6, 2010

Ramallah – Ma’an – Attorney of Bil’in local council, Michael Sfard, said on Saturday that Israeli authorities informed him of the new route of the separation wall, adjusted according to a decision by the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice in 2007.

“We were not convinced that it was vital for security reasons to maintain the existing route that passes through a topographically low area of Bil’in land and that there was no fitting security substitute to the construction of the barrier in order to protect the residents of Modi’in Illit,” Justice Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote in her decision.

Once the adjusted route is implemented, residents of Bil’in are expected to restore almost half of their 2,300 donums confiscated during the construction of the wall’s original route.

However, as the portion of the wall already built will be removed, farmers will expect significant damage to their olive groves located in the area.

The local Popular Committee Against the Separation Wall in Bil’in said the decision to alter the wall’s route came too late, and would not change the fact that the wall in unacceptable, wherever it is, members said.

Member of the committee Muhammad Al-Khateib, who was recently released from Israeli custody on bail, said Israel had not respected the Supreme Court decision, nor did Israel respect international resolutions condemning the wall.

He added that hundreds of people have been injured or detained during peace protests against the wall, which have been brutally suppressed, he said. Last year, Basim Abu Raham was killed at one of the rallies.

Nonetheless, Al-Khateib said, the adjustment to the wall’s route is an accomplishment achieved by the village, pointing out that Israeli authorities had failed to stop international and Israeli solidarity groups from supporting Palestinians, adding that the popular campaign against the wall succeeded in retrieving part of the village’s land confiscated by Israel through the wall’s construction.

February 6, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

Taliban to execute US soldier if Aafia not released

By Mushtaq Yusufzai | The International News | February 05, 2010

PESHAWAR: The Afghan Taliban on Thursday demanded the release of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist who has been convicted by the US court on charges of her alleged attempt to murder US soldiers in Afghanistan, and threatened to execute an American soldier they were holding currently. They claimed Aafia Siddiqui’s family had approached the Taliban network through a Jirga of notables, seeking their assistance to put pressure on the US to provide her justice.

“Being Muslims, it becomes our religious and moral obligation to help the distressed Pakistani woman convicted by the US court on false charges,” said a senior Afghan Taliban commander. The commander, whose militant network is holding the US soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, called The News from an undisclosed location in Afghanistan and threatened to execute the American trooper if their demand was not met. He claimed AafiaSiddiqui’s family had approached the Taliban network through a Jirga of notables, seeking their assistance to put pressure on the US to provide her justice.

“We tried our best to make the family understand that our role may create more troubles for the hapless woman, who was already in trouble. On their persistent requests, we have now decided to include Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s name in the list of our prisoners in US custody that we delivered to Americans in Afghanistan for swap of their soldier in our custody,” explained the militant commander.

He claimed family members of Dr Aafia told the Taliban leadership that they had lost all hopes in the Pakistan government and now Allah Almighty and the Taliban were their only hope. Later, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid also called The News from somewhere in Afghanistan and owned a statement given by the Taliban commander.

The militant commander alleged that the US soldier, whom his fighters kidnapped from Afghanistan’s Paktika province near the border with Pakistan’s troubled South Waziristan in June 2009, had admitted his involvement in several raids in Afghanistan. “Since he has confessed to all charges against him, our Islamic court had announced death sentence for him,” the Taliban leader claimed.

The same Taliban faction released a video of the captive US soldier on Christmas Day. Taliban said they had been shifting the soldier all the time due to the search operations by the US and Afghan forces. He said the only way Americans could save life of their soldier was to release 21 Afghan prisoners and the ‘innocent’ Pakistani lady.

Most of their prisoners, he claimed, were being held at the Guantanamo prison. “We believe that like the Israelis, the Americans would be ready soon to do any deal for taking possession of the remains of their soldier, but it would be late by then,” he stressed. Dr Aafia’s family could not be approached for comments on the Taliban claim.

February 5, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

American detained for `interfering` with Israeli military

03/02/2010

Ramallah – Ma’an – A 27-year-old American woman was detained along with two Palestinians by Israeli forces during a night raid in the village of Bil’in on Wednesday.

All three were taken to the border police station, an organizer said. An Israeli military spokesman confirmed the detentions.

Forces broke into the home of Abed Al-Fattah Burnat, 27, then surrounded the home of Ashraf Abu Rahma. International and Palestinian activists were alerted of the raid and went to the location to film the event.

Witnesses said the home was declared a closed military zone by army officials, who demanded reporters and activists stay 50 meters away from the door. Organizers said the group moved 50 meters back, but soldiers continued to harass photojournalist and B’Tselem volunteer Hamdi Abu Rahameh, 22.

The Israeli military said Rahameh is a Palestinian citizen of Israel, and said he was detained for failing to move back from the home after soldiers declared it a closed area.

As soldiers detained the young man, an American activist known locally as “Stormy” attempted to intervene.

The military said the American woman “interfered” in the work of the Israeli army and attempted to “prevent Israeli soldiers from carrying out their duty.” They also said the actions of the woman caused rioting in the area. They confirmed her arrest and transfer to the Israeli police.

US Consulate officials said they were looking into the incident.

Another Palestinian resident of Bil’in, Ashraf Abu Ramhe, was later detained near the village mosque. Upon his detention, Israeli soldiers handcuffed and blindfolded him, ushering him into a car with a gun pointed at his head, Popular Committee organizers said.

The army also confirmed the arrest of Ramhe.

International peace activists have been staying overnight in the village of Bil’in since the Israeli army began night raids into the village, initially following each Friday’s demonstration against the separation wall being constructed on village lands.

Night raids became more regular during the fall of 2009, and now occur almost nightly, villagers say. Activists and photojournalists work to document the raids and treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israeli forces.

In January, a Czech woman working on solidarity projects with Palestinians via the International Solidarity Movement was detained from her home in Ramallah during a night raid and deported the following day.

Night raid in Nablus

In addition to the raids of Bil’in and Ni’lin, sources reported Israeli forces operating in Nablus, where they detained one man, identified as 22-year-old Shurahbil Awwad.

The young man was taken from his home in the Al-Makhfiyeh area in the west of Nablus before sunrise.

February 3, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | Leave a comment

Bethlehemite lives in cave to save land from confiscation

31/01/2010

Bethlehem – Ma’an – Abdul-Fattah Abed Rabbo has lived in a cave adjacent to his agricultural land for the last ten years, in the village of Walaja, west of Bethlehem, to protect his land from being annexed by nearby Israeli settlements.

The Popular Committee for Resisting Settlements and the Separation Wall visited Abed Rabbo in his cave to offer their support to him and all Palestinians faced with land confiscation.

Coordinator for the committee, Awad Abu Swayy, described Abed Rabbo as an example to be followed, pointing out that he refused significant financial offers made by Israeli settlement agencies wanting to buy his land.

Abu Swayy said that the popular committee would try to erect a sit-in tent near the cave to host international solidarity activists and a tin roofed gallery which will be connected to the nearest water network.

The committee will also organize regular visits by international activists and Palestinian Authority officials, Abu Swayy said.

In December, coordinator of the popular committee in Nablus, Arafat Abu Ras, visited Abed Rabbo along with international human rights activists and journalists.

January 31, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment