Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine

Dear Members,

Mahmoud Sarsak, the Gazan footballer who was released from an Israeli jail after 6 months on hunger strike, finally made it to the UK last week. On Friday he joined activists and comedian Alexei Sayle in the pouring rain outside the Grosvenor Hotel, Park Lane, where the UEFA Congress was taking place, there to protest at UEFA’S decision to hold its Under 21 finals in Israel. Reporting from Press TV:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/27/uefa-insensitivity-to-palestinians-plight

Further to the Veolia case, a Dutch company has been investigated for 3 years, accused of complicity in Israel’s occupation and war crimes. There has not been a conviction but one can reasonably hope this sends a warning to those who would sign a contract with Israel.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/dutch-probe-sends-warning-firms-abetting-israels-crimes/12462ß

I met last week with Lauren, who works for the UN in Gaza and has just written a report on ‘Accountability’ which shows how Israel makes it virtually impossible for Palestinian victims to receive justice in the Israeli courts. One example: if you wish to file for a civil case in an Israeli court, it costs the equivalent of USD 8,000 per case. And this has to be paid by each individual claimant. Thus the cost for the Al – Samouni family, who lost 21 members in Cast Lead, with 41 injured, in a single incident, totalled approximately USD 330,000. Where cases are dismissed, claimants are charged with the State’s defence costs, which are taken from the court guarantee.

Another obstacle is the requirement that powers of attorney from Gazan clients to Israeli lawyers must be authenticated in a face to face meeting in Israel or at least in the presence of an Israeli representative. The access restrictions on Gazans entering Israel also make this impossibly difficult.

Thirdly, the State of Israel is exempted from any civil liability for ‘’an act done in the course of a military operation by the IDF’’. Various amendments and rulings have expanded the definition of a military operation.

‘Accountability’ is also a lead topic for Betselem, the Israeli Human Rights organisation.

http://www.btselem.org/accountability

Meanwhile the Daily Mail reports that John Kerry is proposing a 3 billion package to ‘revitalise’ the Palestinian economy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331592/Tony-Blair-charge-3billion-plan-revitalise-Palestines-economy-U-S-secretary-state-John-Kerry-reveals.html

There is a letter to be written here, pointing out that the Palestinians might prefer justice and the rule of law to money. Without the Occupation they could generate their own economy and tourism. And perhaps some of this cash could be used to help the Samounis and those like them to access the Israeli courts.

The Israeli investigation begun 13 years ago into the shooting of 12 year old Muhammad Al -Durra at the start of the second intifada has concluded that there is no evidence he was killed by Israeli gunfire, indeed he may still be alive and well…..

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/report-on-idf-shooting-of-palestinian-boy-during-intifada-may-cause-israel-more-damage-than-good.premium-1.524839

But in the Lords the government minister at least had to acknowledge that 43 children were killed in Gaza last year:

Apologies, apologies, my last letter was inaccurate as to the date of the LDFP Palestinian supper at the Maramia cafe: it is Tuesday 25 June. Any more takers?

Sally FitzHarris

Secretary, Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine

share using:

My Lords, before I speak about recent developments in Palestine, I want to put on record two personal statements. The first is that I am not anti-Semitic but I am anti-injustice, and the treatment of the Palestinians over the last six decades, by Israel and the international community, has been a gross injustice which has eaten away at peace in the Middle East and served to fuel extreme Islamism and terrorism. The second statement is that I believe that Israel has a right to exist within the 1967 borders; of course I do. Hamas leaders, who I have met in Damascus and Gaza, also accept the existence of Israel within the 1967 borders laid down by the United Nations. Sadly, of course, this has not happened and the actions of the state of Israel are becoming more and more dangerous for Israel itself, the Middle East and the wider world.

The Arab citizens of Israel are marginalised and discriminated against in every way. New laws are being passed all the time to make life more and more difficult for them-on marriage and property rights, for example. Money spent on Arab-Israeli schools, water supplies and infrastructure is a fraction of that spent on Jewish citizens and, as we know, the state of Israel has now been declared the Jewish state of Israel, which has wider implications even for us in how we relate to that country.

It is difficult to see how what is left of the West Bank, for example, will ever form the basis of a secure and prosperous state of Palestine. The security barrier and the settlements, linked by settler-only roads, have gobbled up huge amounts of Palestinian land and the land left to the Palestinians is being made unusable. The whole settler enterprise was referred to as “vandalism” by my party leader, but it is not mindless. It is the deliberate humiliation of the Palestinians since the Oslo agreement-a carefully thought-out strategy, designed to make life for Palestinians impossible.

In Gaza, as many noble Lords who have visited have pointed out in this House, conditions are much worse and no one has dared to say that the real purpose of the blockade is to deliberately ruin the fishing, agricultural and manufacturing industries of Gaza in order to reduce those very talented, hard-working and extremely cheerful people to unemployment and grinding poverty. Our Government deal with these violations of international law by “urging restraint” and “expressing concern”. Those are worthy sentiments, but they do not stop the relentless ethnic cleansing, land grab and what many people would describe as terrorism by the Israeli Air Force, with its targeted assassinations. Because of the pro-Israel lobby’s bullying tactics against anyone who speaks the truth, Israel is allowed to act with impunity.

The Arab spring will not favour Israel. Israel is losing its friends rapidly. Egypt and Turkey are already alienated and others will follow. Even the US Defense Secretary, Mr Panetta, has recently warned Israel to,

“get to the damned table”,

and,

“reach out and mend fences”.

In America, the tide is beginning to turn against Israel. In the nearly 700 letters I have received since my comments at Middlesex University two weeks ago, only 5 per cent were critical. Among the huge support I received for my comments and for the Palestinians, there were many letters from citizens of the United States of America. That has never happened to me before. Therefore, Israel may not be able to rely on the USA for ever. Then what will happen? Israel may indeed have to change in form, a concept discussed by Gideon Levi in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 4 March.

The warning was clear in Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible, and repeated by St Paul in our own New Testament. It has been the philosophy for many of us throughout our lives that,

“whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”.

This must be one of the reasons why Israel is trying now to divert attention towards Iran, with talk of nuclear weapons, which is a scenario eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the attacks on Iraq in 2003. An attack on Iran, if it is allowed to happen, will set the Middle East on fire. That is a fire that could spread to the rest of the world. I beg the Minister, in his reply, to recognise the danger of Israel’s behaviour and give us some reassurance that the Government understand and will start taking action to control that country and give justice to the Palestinians before it is too late.

share using:

I must be allowed to correct the allegation made about me by Andy McSmith (“0ops, the Baroness did it again“, 29 February). When I was asked 18 months ago by the Jewish Chronicle to comment on YouTube postings that the IDF were stealing body parts from victims of the earthquake in Haiti, I congratulated the IDF for their swift and generous response to that disaster and said that to stop any such rumours spreading, they should have a swift inquiry into the allegations. Nothing more.

This was interpreted by the Israel Lobby as an accusation of “blood libel” which, in turn, was believed by Nick Clegg. He then sacked me from the Party’s front bench without waiting to speak to me or hear the truth.

My remarks last week were at a meeting at Middlesex University which was constantly disrupted by abuse, mouthed obscenities and heckling from Zionists against all the speakers.

The Israeli government breaks International Law and the Geneva Convention and abuses the human rights of Palestinians in a brutal and humiliating way. The US supports them and despite words of condemnation our government and my party does nothing.

In this context, I noted that Israel was losing allies all over the Middle East following the Arab Spring and it is therefore appropriate to warn that country that its actions against the Palestinians threaten its survival in the long-term, especially when the influence of the US dwindles and the American people begin to get fed up with funding Israel’s activities.

Many people agree with me and have said so publicly. It is sad that Israel and its supporters do not listen.

Jenny Tonge
Independent Liberal Democrat
House of Lords

share using:

Open Letter to Netanyahu from German Jewish Forum posted at JfJfP: http://jfjfp.com/?p=26579
Press Release
09.11.11

To the Prime Minister of the State of Israel,
Mr. Benyamin Netanyahu

Shalom, dear Prime Minister,

In your address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, on 23 September 2011, you expressed your sincere wishes to extend your hand in peace. Since you stated that you were doing so “on behalf of the Jewish people” which well includes us, we feel invited to comment on your speech. Some of us were involved in sending a Jewish signal of peace to the people in Gaza in 2010 by means of the Irene (which means ‘shalom’), the Jewish boat to Gaza. This boat is still being retained in Israel. Thus, before commenting on your talk given at the General Assembly, we would like to ask you to release the “Irene” that is still being expected in Gaza, thereby giving a small signal of good will.

Here are some concerns we would like to discuss with you:

You stated that Israel has “extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago”. Unfortunately, in our view, this does not conform to historical truth. Rather, instead of following the advice of eminent intellectuals like Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt, Yeshayahu Leibowitz and others who argued for reconciliation with the (then called) “Arab population”, and against the political will of leading Zionists like Moshe Sharet, Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Goldman, Israeli statesmen decided to pursue a belligerent solution with the intentional and unintentional destruction of Palestinian society.

You stated that Israel has been “unjustly singled out for condemnation” by the General Assembly. Maybe Israel has indeed been singled out. Yet this was not “unjust”, but rather a logical consequence of the fact that Israel has shown constant disregard of international law and of resolutions of both the General Assembly (which you called “the theater of the absurd “) and of the Security Council, even though Israel owes its very existence to these institutions, at least on the formal level.

You stated that “peace must be anchored in security”. While sharing Israel’s justified concerns for security, we at the same time know that peace can never be secured when our opponents’ feelings, their sufferings and longings, are neglected. Peace must be anchored in empathy and respect.

You stated that “so far Palestinians have refused to negotiate”. This is true for the last months. However, the Palestinian side has negotiated with Israeli delegations for more than twenty years and is still ready to do so. They have been negotiating although the respective area has already now diminished to 22% of original Palestine (as defined 1921 by the League of Nations). Moreover, the Palestinians are confronted with the fact that the remaining isolated territories are surrounded by Israeli settlements which are not only illegal in terms of international law, but will also preclude the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. Thus, the Palestinians’ insisting on an immediate stop of settlement construction is more than understandable because otherwise any negotiations are senseless.

You stated that, in 2000, Israel did “make a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of Palestinian demands”. Let us suppose for a moment that this indeed applies. (As you probably know, serious doubts have been raised against this interpretation.) Then, it may be asked: If Prime Minister Barak’s offer expressed the aspirations of the Israeli people, why wasn’t the offer repeated by the following governments?

You stated that the Israeli side withdrew “from every inch of Gaza in 2005”.This is true. Indeed, the Israeli settlements were removed, although without even trying to coordinate the removal with the Palestinian authorities. Importantly, however, you implied by your remark that Israel is not Gaza’s occupying power any more. This implication diverges from the obvious evidence that, by closing Gaza off and keeping the “prison keys”, Israel still occupies essential parts of Gaza, such as the sovereignty over the airspace, its seashore and thereby its trade possibilities. Israel prohibits any economic development, impoverishes people by banning fishing, by impeding agricultural and industrial work in wide areas, by preventing infrastructure from being reconstructed, and thus impedes any healthy development towards peace in general. Thus, the withdrawal from Gaza cannot be called a “bold act of peace”.

You stated that “instead of peace we got war”. It is true that thousands of missiles have been shot from Gaza to Israeli territories. But there had been chances for an extension of the armistice. These prospects were not pursued. Rather, the Israeli army attacked Gaza, leaving more than thousand people dead and a multitude wounded, physically and psychologically – and has bred new hate and longings for revenge.

In spite of this, a chance for peace still remains.  We believe that peace should, and indeed can, be pursued both by small steps and by big steps. Releasing the Irene that we mentioned above might appear as a small step. But it would immediately turn out as a big step if being accompanied for instance by the Israeli prime minister’s sincere plea to the Palestinian side for forgiving all the injustice and suffering imposed by the Jewish side on the Arab side, starting with the expulsion of the Palestinian population in 1947/48 and continuing until the present day. Such a “unilateral” advance step might stimulate the other side to make a similar step with regard, e.g., to suicide attacks. One side has to start – the stronger one.

We hope to hear about both the small step and the big step by next month.

Yours sincerely,

p.p.
Ruben Frankenstein,  Margalith Pozniak,  Jochi Weil-Goldstein

share using:

The Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products Protocol (the “ACAA”) sounds extremely tedious – but please bear with us for a second because it is important.

It is official Lib Dem party policy that the EU Israel Association Agreement – which gives Israel many trade privileges for its products in the EU – should be suspended until Israel ends its blockade of Gaza. Following the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla in May 2010, MEPs froze consideration of the ACAA with Israel but now it is returning for debate in the European Parliament, whose approval is needed if the agreement is to be implemented.

It looks as though the Parliament’s vote whether to approve it will be a cliff-hanger, and the votes of our Lib Dem MEPs will be crucial.

We will be suggesting a pro forma letter for you to send to your MEP on this, but in the meantime if you are in contact with him or her, please note some arguments which are being raised by those within the party who support the approval of the ACAA:

(a) This is a technical agreement which is an implementation of the association agreement and does not represent any political upgrade of the EU-Israel relationship.

Response:

Whether technical or not, party policy is clear: the conference resolution which sets out party policy does not make a distinction between “technical” and “political” upgrades. The ACAA was part of the upgrading “package” under discussion between the EU and Israel at the time MEPs froze upgrading after the attack on the Gaza flotilla. Please point this out to your MEP.

(b) The practical benefits for Europe are significant, with blockage denying European consumers access to cheaper drugs as well as depriving EU pharmacy manufacturers of easier market access in Israel (since the streamlining of approvals for pharmaceuticals is a mutual exercise).

Response

The ACAA will represent enormous financial benefits for Israel. Support of human rights and international law should take priority over the supply of cheap drugs.

(c) The Middle East situation and its various rights and wrongs is too complex for generalised boycotts and sanctions to be appropriate. Should we also block the recently agreed EU-Palestinian agriculture and fisheries agreement because, variously, of torture in PA prisons in the West Bank or Hamas approved rockets in Gaza?

Response

“Too complex” is an argument used by politicians to vindicate a “do nothing” policy. This does not lead to security, peace, or justice for all or any involved. Israel has not admitted that the people of the Occupied Palestinian Territory have the right to proclaim their own sovereign state in the way that Israel did in 1948, and that the Palestinian state covers the whole of the OPT until such time as any territorial swaps are agreed by the parties through negotiations at arms’ length.

Israel has never negotiated with the Palestinians in good faith, but has relied on “might is right” to pillage their land rather than seeking to reach an agreement based on the rights of the parties in international law. In any case, a decision not to upgrade Israel’s trade privileges with the EU is not a decision to boycott or sanction.

(4) The EU has rightly committed to expand trade with all countries and partners in the region. Greater prosperity and more jobs will help the transition to democracy and peace. The ACAA agreement with Israel is a blueprint for future similar ones. It would be very unhelpful for partners making tough efforts to meet EU standards if MEPs signalled they were prepared to make capricious political decisions at any time which would throw all those efforts on the scrapheap.

Response

Accountability and the rule of law will help the transition to democracy and peace. “Capricious political decisions?” The moral courage to insist that collective punishment of civilians, disproportionate military aggression, forced transfer of ethnic minorities, house demolitions by an occupying power – should such behaviour be rewarded by a beneficial trade agreement? How can the Lib Dems stand up for human rights, the rule of law and internationalism if a decision not to indulge bad behaviour by a rogue state is deemed to be “capricious”?

share using: