Open Shuhada Street – International Action on Feb. 25

February 25 has been proclaimed Open Shuhada Street Day by international activists who wish to focus attention on the plight of Palestinians in Hebron, and in the Occupied Territories. Initiated by a group of south African activists, there will be activities around the world dramatizing the plight of the Palestinians of Hebron. Please check out their website here for more news.

What is Shuhada Street.? It is – or was – the main market and commercial section of the city of Hebron. In 1994, in response to the Barukh Goldstein massacre, the street was closed, ostensibly for the safety of the Palestinian residents. Over the next few years, the street has been closed, the businesses left to wither, and Palestinians not allowed to walk on the street. (Jews can and do.) Residents of buildings on the street cannot enter their homes from their doors, which are welded shut.

Why is the street closed? In order to create a buffer zone between the Jewish settlers in Hebron and the Palestinians. The closure has been criticized by the Israeli High Court and has destroyed countless lives, but let's face it – the people in charge in Hebron are the settlers and their allies in the military and the government.

An excellent F.A.Q. is available on the Open Shuhada Website here. You still have time to find out about activities close to you.

February 25 also happens to be this year the Fast of Esther, observed by Jews throughout the world in commemoration of the dark days that preceded the Festival of Purim and Queen Esther's fast for the Jews.

In Purim, the mood for the day is nahafokh hu, 'topsy turvy'. Unfortunately, in Hebron, and throughout the Occupied Territories, topsy turvy reigns. The oppressors are not the Persian Haman and his crowd, but the Israeli Jews. And the oppressed are not the Jews of the Persian empire, but the Palestinians of the Israeli empire.

When Queen Esther hesitated to take action on behalf of her fellow-Jews, her uncle Mordecai said, "If you keep silent now, deliverance for the Jews will come from an other place." Traditional Jews have taken the "other place" to refer to God, who is sometimes called, the Place. I believe that God will, ultimately, bring deliverance to the Palestinians from their decades of suffering. But that is not an excuse for inaction. After all, Esther acted.

The Open Shuhada website has videos of Shuhada street. But there is no substitute for seeing it with your own eyes, on a tour offered by the Children of Abraham organization.

I end this post with a statement by a Palestinian resident of Shuhada Street, who can tell you better than I can what it is to live on it.

What it means to re-open Shuhada Street..

Many people might think why do we need to have Shuhada Street open.. it's one of the most important streets in Hebron, as it connects the northern part of the city to the south. Not only this, it also connects people.. many people have lost their social life when the Street was closed, because their relatives and friends do not like to be stopped at the check-points or in the streets when they come to visit. And when they visited in the past, it used to be a walking distance, but now they need to take a detour around the city to get to the house they desire. People now think ten times when they plan a visit to house at Shuhada Street. First, they have to consider the time that they will take for the visit, and the money they will spend. Many people lost their businesses when Shuhada Street was closed and the job opportunities are less available these day than before, so they have to think money wise.

Personally, I live at Shuhada Street but I can't use my front door because I am Palestinian. My neighbours made an opening in their wall to make me a passage so that I don't become a hostage in my house. In fact I live like a prisoner in my house.. I have installed some wire fence on my balconies to be protected from the stones "gifts" that the settlers always throw at the house. Before the fence, I could not open my shutters. If by mistake I left the shutters open, I would immediately receive the "gifts" from these settlers. I still receive these "gifts" but they do not hit me like before. I collected these "gifts" and used them to decorate my garden and wrote the word "peace" in Arabic.

It's really hard to live where I am because everything is closed, I used to go shopping nearby, but now if I go shopping, I need to walk a distance and carry my shopping because I can't bring my shopping home in a car. One time I had a severe kidney pain, I could not have the ambulance in front of my door to go to the hospital. My brother's house is 2 minutes walk from Shuhada, but I need to walk about 20 minutes to get to his house.

The Israeli army and police always tell us that they are in the area for the protection of both Palestinians and Israelis, but in fact, they stormed my house 3 times in one week to check about a complaint from a soldier that some children threw stones at the street from my house, although I live only with my mother and have no children. Many times the settler children and youth threw stones at my house and I filed complaints to the soldiers and police, and they did nothing to stop it.

Opening Shuhada Street is a big need for peace and humanity.

Zleikha Muhtaseb, Principal of the al-Ibrahimiya Kindergarten
Shuhada Street

 

 

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.

And what's particularly odious about the proposed legislation is that if these groups receive such funding, they groups will lose their tax status as public institutions, but will be defined as "political entities" that have to register and report to the Registrar of Political Parties.

Lest you think that I am exaggerating, I publish sections of the government-approved legislation below. And the Iran analogy is apt: the Iran regime requires all NGOs, including the civil society ones that Americans of all stripe support, to inform a government agency of every contribution they receive from foreign sources, except the United Nations. Read about it here Or read about how Egypt controls and harassess its civil society NGOs here (h/t to Dr. Marsha Cohen and Dan Sisken for these links, respectively.)

Of course, in Iran, the groups also have to ask the agency's permission to receive those grants; I expect that this will be the next step in the Israeli's governmental campaign against the human rights NGOs.

But hang on a second: What's wrong with requiring Israeli human rights organizations to report receiving money from foreign governments? In fact, why should they be allowed to receive such money at all? Isn't that gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state? And what's the big deal of simply announcing the truth. Transparency and full disclosure should accompany such organizations, no?

OK, so here are three answers to the stated purpose of the law, which is to balance freedom of speech with the right of the public to know who is behind these organizations.

1. The proposed law is unnecessary.

As I said above, all the voluntary organizations in Israel (amutot) are required by law to report regularly to the government. It so happens that the human rights NGOs often go beyond the requirement and publicize the sources of their funding. This is expected; you don't get money without thanking the organization or individual or government that gave you the money. The human rights organizations are, not surprisingly, proud of their work and grateful for support. Some of them are required by the donors to publicize the funding. When NGO Monitor "broke" the story this summer that the Breaking the Silence booklet of soldiers' testimonies was paid for, in part, by grants from foreign governments, they found that information printed on the first few pages of the booklet! And unlike NGO Monitor, Breaking the Silence publishes its annual financial reports on its website.

2. The proposed law is discriminatory.

The law has been crafted by right-wingers to target the human rights organizations. If your organization receives money from a Jewish gambling mogul, or from an evangelical Christian organization that looks forward to the destruction of the State of Israel when Jesus returns, you are exempt. Governments like Spain, Holland, and Great Britain, don't fund illegal settlements; they fund peace initiatives civil society initiatives, in Israel as in Iran.

3. The proposed law's real purpose is to harass, delegitimize, and dry up funding for progressive NGOs.

If the law only required disclosure on a website, that would be bad enough. But the law requires each organization to go through bureaucratic hoops repeatedly, and to proclaim something like the Surgeon General's warning every time it does anything publicly. Thus, if B'Tselem rolls out a report on settler violence, and hosts a public event to publicize the report – remember, this is the organization that works together with the Israel Defense Forces to locate Palestinian witnesses in IDF investigations -- it must begin the event by announcing that it has sometime, somewhere received money from Holland, say. And if it does not do so? According to the proposed legislation, all members of B'Tselem who were in a position to know where the money came from, and who did not do anything about it are liable to fines and up to a year in prison, "or four times the value of the consideration that was received, whichever is higher."

The analogy with the Surgeon General's warning is significant. The purpose of requiring such disclosure is not merely to satisfy the public's right to know (Who doesn't know by now that cigarette smoking causes cancer?) but to stigmatize and delegitimize cigarette smoking.

Not every government will be willing to have this publicity. Already the foreign ministry and the prime minister have tried to dissuade foreign governments from donating to such groups. And, from the government's perspective, it is understandable why. They are an embarrassment to Israel's image, and they publicize the crimes of the Occupation. These are things that the current rightwing government in Israel doesn't like. Nor does the current rightwing government in Iran.

If there is a need to inform the Israeli public about foreign funding of NGOs, or of transparency in their operations, then have a law that requires transparency of all such organizations, left, right or none of the above. As I said earlier, the human rights NGOs are among the most transparent in the country. Try tracing the funding for some of the settlers' organizations; it isn't easy.

If such a law passes, it will be not only be a black day for what is left of Israeli democracy but there will be other consequences as well. First, foreign governments that sponsor human rights and peace projects will figure out a way how to get the money to the organizations, bypassing the law. So that could make things worse for transparency. Second, I would advise the NGOs to discuss with their legal advisor whether the bill applies to them. After all, they do not view themselves as political entities, and at least some of the NGOs are not there primarily to influence domestic or foreign policy. Breaking the Silence sees its task as informational – letting the Israeli public know what happens to IDF soldiers when they are placed in Occupation situations. The group does not call to end the Occupation or to annex the West Bank and Gaza – it simply wants the Israeli public to know what price Israel is paying for the Occupation. The rightwing considers that political, fine. But will the law and the courts? Third, Israel will be placed by the EU on a list of countries that are unfriendly to human rights organizations. This, too, will have consequences

Here are some passages from the proposed legislation, with my "Perush Rashi" (commentary; my thanks to Didi Remez for providing me with a translation of the bill.) Let's start with the wide expansion of the phrase "political activity"

"political activity" – an activity intended to influence public opinion in Israel or in whatsoever entity in one of the government authorities in Israel concerning any component of internal or external policy of the State of Israel.

Perush Rashi: The expansion is deliberate in order to counter the argument that these groups are not political organization, or lobbying groups. In fact, they are not, and I think that even with the expansion, at least some of the groups could claim that they are not covered by the law.

A person or body shall not receive the financial support of a Foreign Political Entity for the purpose of financing political activity in Israel until after it has registered with the Registrar of Political Parties; for this purpose, any support that is received by anyone who finances or engages in political activity is presumed support for the purpose of financing political activity.

Perush Rashi: Now that we have expanded the meaning of political activity, we expand the meaning of what support for political activity means. So any Euro received by an group will automatically be considered political in purpose.

    The Registrar of Political Parties shall also serve as Registrar of Foreign Political Entity Support (hereinafter – the Registrar).

Perush Rashi: This is my favorite line in the bill. Since there is no government agency that supervises such bodies, the authors decided to "create" one by interpreting the Registrar of Political Parties to include the human rights NGOS. It reminds me of Firesign Theater's famous, "Department of Redundancy Department." Except that here there is no redundancy – there is an expansion to brand the human rights NGOS as political parties.

The supported entity shall file an annual balance sheet and financial statement of its income and expenditures as a supported entity in each fiscal year.  The statement shall include full particulars according to the list appearing in Section 36 of the Amutot Law, and in the Second Addendum thereto.  The supported entity shall file an annual verbatim report which will include details of the matters enumerated in the Third Addendum to the Amutot Law.

Perush Rashi: Here is where we really get to the Department of Redundancy Department. The NGOS already file an annual balance sheet, etc. with the agency governing Amutot. So what is the purpose of this filing? Harassment.

The supported entity or one acting on its behalf will clearly note this status in every document, including electronic one, which relates to political activity. The supported entity or one acting on its behalf, when presenting orally in the framework of a discussion or meeting in which there is political activity, shall note its status at the outset if the subject of the discussion or meeting has an affinity to the aims for which the support was received.

Perush Rashi: Maybe next year the government will require all members of human rights NGOs to walk around with scarlet letters or yellow stars on their t-shirts.

              A supported corporation shall not be considered a Public Institution as defined in Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance.

Perush Rashi: I.e., it will lose its former tax status, another form of harassment.

The recipient of financial support of a Foreign Political Entity in contravention of the provisions of Section 3, shall be sentenced to one year imprisonment or a fine, as stated in Section 61(a)(3) of the Penal Law, 5737-1977 or four times the value of the consideration that was received, whichever is higher. Delivery of an essentially false detail in a declaration according to Section 6 shall be punishable by three years imprisonment.

Perush Rashi: And while you're out, don't forget the pound of flesh.

Who says that Israel's government doesn't try to fit in with the other Middle East governments?

Alan Dershowitz, Richard Goldstone, Naomi Chazan, Jeremy Ben-Ami, Michael Oren, Andrew Sullivan, and Leon Wieseltier – What Does It All Mean?

What a week!

Naomi Chazan and the New Israel Fund are attacked by an Israeli right wing Zionist student group that last summer protested against professors who assigned reading material in English. And the result? Everybody that belongs to the liberal, Zionist wing rallies to the NIF's defense. With any luck, the fund will make some money from the publicity.

Richard Goldstone is called a traitor by Alan Dershowitz and his report "a crime against the Jewish people" by Elie Wiesel, icons of the Old Guard. Goldstone has been, in effect, ostracized by all segments of the Zionist consensus, left, center, and right. And for what? For criticizing the actions of the IDF in Gaza, and for doing it for the United Nations. The Zionist left calls for an independent investigation of the Gaza Op; the Zionist right pushes back.

Jeremy Ben-Ami and J-Street don't condemn Goldstone or his report. But their moderate demurral is enough for Ambassador Michael Oren to climb down the tree and hint that he will stop boycotting them, thus undercutting the Philadelphia Jews who tried to block Ben-Ami's appearance at the Penn Hillel. Ben-Ami's appearance does draw a counter-appearance by hasbara-nik Mitchel Bard, who speaks at a meeting of a bogus organization called "Z-Street." (Free Kosher sushi is offered as a draw; the previous night was the ZOA offered free kosher pizza.)

And, finally, Andrew Sullivan writes some harmless things in his blog about Jews, neocons, and Israel, that do not find favor in the eyes of Leon Wieseltier, who attacks Sullivan in The New Republic. Sullivan writes the sort of things that Gideon Levy would write on one of his more moderate days.

What does it all mean? It means that we are seeing a "paradigm shift" in the American Jewish community's attitude towards Israel. The paradigm of the '67 generation, which lived through the roller-coaster of the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon War, and the Intifada, and which had crystallized into two camps – the Peace Camp and the Nationalist Camp – is breaking down before our eyes, and the Gaza Op is a significant milestone in that breakdown. The Peace Camp has morphed into two uneven groups; those who have embraced the doctrine of human rights, who see Israel as inevitably and essentially morally stained because of the Occupation; and those who cling to the mantra of the 67-generation, that although the Occupation is horrible it cannot be ended until Israel's security is ensured. If you are a post WWII baby boomer, you are in the latter camp. But if you are under thirty-five and liberal, and you still even care about Israel, then chance are you are going to be with the human rights folks. And you will start raising the fundamental questions not about 67 but 47 and even 97 – i.e., 1897 and the founding of the Zionist movement.

I still remember when the only Jewish anti-Zionists were the Reform American Council for Judaism, and the Satmar Hasidim/Neture Karta. They could be tolerated because they were quaint and small in number. Now, it is becoming increasingly "bon ton" in progressive circles not to be associated with the Zionists. Because they are found, increasingly in the younger generation, only among the right and the orthodox.

And that brings us to the Nationalist Camp, which also has a similar breakdown into two uneven groups. Here, the smaller group is made up of the Old Guard of organizations like the ZOA, and even some more moderate groups that view Israel through the prism of Exodus and the Six-Day War. The New Guard is militantly Zionist, right wing, and Islamophobic. Consider student organizations like Im Tirzu in Israel and the Zionist Freedom Alliance in this country. Their militancy is inspired by Jabotinsky, and their tactics are fascist in essence.

In both cases, left and right, the Old Guard has its ties with the New Guard. The New Israel Fund supports (to some extent; let's not exaggerate) the work of the Israeli human rights NGO's. These show relentlessly that in an age where Palestinian terror is virtually dead – a stabbing here, a murderous driver there – Israeli oppression and humiliation of the Palestinians is never-ending, and more sophisticated, with every passing day.

The Old Guard, now on the right, may bemoan the loss of the consensus it once enjoyed, and wax nostalgic about the good old days when young liberal democrats actually supported Israel in the public sphere. But it can at least console itself that it has spawned a cadre of hard-core nationalists – neocon, orthodox, and Republican -- on whom it can rely.

Like the sea eroding the seashore, support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state will continue to erode, as people see the inevitable consequences of the Occupation, and how Israel is incapable of ending it. And while the Occupation can go indefinitely, a decades-long failed peace process cannot. Sooner or later, the peace process will grind to a halt (let's hope that it is sooner rather than later.) And then the peace camp will continue to unravel, or at least to support materially the far left.

In short, things will get uglier, nastier, and more divisive in that part of the Jewish community that cares about Israel, as each iteration of the conflict brings out the worst in us. Most American Jews will have ceased to care about Israel, and the ones who do care will be deeply divided – much more so than the classical division of the Peace and Nationalist camp. And those divisions will grown deeper, with Israel being their cause.

Haaretz Falls for Gold

-- Nu, so Yankel, did you read Haaretz this morning?

-- Who reads Haaretz any morning? It's full of unsubstantiated propaganda

-- Wait a minute, that's the point. Even Haaretz today showed how the Goldstone Report was anti-Semitic.

-- Who needs Haaretz for that?

-- It wasn't Haaretz, really, it was that, nu, that think tank run by Dore Gold.

-- What did it say?

-- Well, you know the guy who was the so-called military expert on the Goldstone mission.

-- The Irish sheigitz?

-- He said that before we entered Gaza, the Hamasniks fired about two rockets on us.

-- You're kidding.

-- No, I am not. "About two rockets!"

-- That's incredible. And this is on the front page of the Haaretz website? I mean, any idiot knows that during the month before the breakdown of the cease-fire on November 4, only one rocket was fired against Israel, on October 15. One, not two.

-- What?

-- Yeah, you heard right. And while you were blabbing I read the interview with Travers, and he was referring to the month before November 4, when the hostilities began again.

-- But Haaretz says that it is referring to the month before the Gaza Operation.

-- That's because Gold misread the interview. Or maybe the guy who wrote it up. The context makes it clear he's talking about the period of the cease-fire. And anyway, any idiot knows that the rocket fire escalated incredibly during the month of November.

-- Any idiot, maybe – but what about Travers?

-- According to Travers, Israeli sources said that 125 rockets were fired during November.

-- Who told you this?

-- It's on p. 79 of the Goldstone Report, which Travers signed off on.

-- So you are telling me that a rightwing think tank misreads an interview, and Haaretz doesn't check its facts?

-- I told you – Haaretz is full of unsubstantiated propaganda.

Gaza and Goldstone Revisited

In this blog I have never given my own personal opinion of the conclusions of the Goldstone Report. So here it is, in brief.

First, I see the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, especially the notorious one about Israel's deliberately targeting the Gazans' lives, as reasonable inferences, given the testimonies that the mission heard, what they themselves saw, and the unwillingness of Israel to cooperate with the mission. I should add that the members of the Goldstone mission possess a professional expertise that all their critics so far have lacked. It is one thing for the intelligent layperson to go through a report and raise questions. It is quite another for those criticisms to be raised by people with the proper credentials, who can compare the situation in Gaza with other places, and with knowledge of the law. We have not yet heard criticisms by non-partisan experts in international humanitarian law.

For some critics, the conclusion of deliberate targeting is especially unreasonable because they accept, as a bedrock axiom, that the deliberate, planned punishing of a population is simply not what the Israel Defense Force would do. This axiom is, I believe, debatable. But the debate certainly cannot be settled simply by recourse to circumstantial evidence. We would have to have greater access to the actual planning of the Gaza Operation, for example, then we have. And it will be decades before we have that, if we ever do.

The mainstream Jewish reaction to the Goldstone Report, especially to that conclusion, has been vicious and vitriolic. I can understand why "talkbackers" and blind partisans react in that way, but I am at a loss to understand how intelligent, reasonable, people use phrases like "traitor" "evil, evil man", "crime against the Jewish people", etc. Much more reasonable is the response of such Israeli NGOs such as B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence (Yehuda Shaul), which have reservations about the deliberate, planned targeting of the civilian population, which do not see the evidence entailing this– but nonetheless are highly respectful towards the Goldstone Report, and endorse many of its other conclusions. Yet the partisans continually misrepresent the viewpoints of these NGOs as rejecting the Goldstone Report. B'Tselem, pace Ron Kampeas, does not view the Goldstone Report as "deeply flawed." The NGOs may or may not express some reservations, but they are, on the whole, supportive of the report. Even the Goldstone report talks about "possible crimes against humanity."

The real line to be drawn is not between supporters and detractors of the Goldstone Report, but between those who call for an independent investigation, thereby accepting the main recommendation of the Goldstone Report, and those who do not think that such an investigation is necessary, now that the IDF has responded to the UN. Even Alan Dershowitz, who has come in for some mighty big criticism on this blog and others, has called for an independent investigation (although I am not sure whether he still does.) If Israel decides on such an investigation, and if the government does not pack the panel with IDF-friendly voices, then it will be only thanks to the Goldstone Report and the reports of the Israeli and international NGOS.

My personal view of what happened in Gaza, on the basis of my own experience of living in Israel, and of following the news, and the reports of the NGO, is what I would call almost-Goldstone. I believe that the IDF prepared for a major operation that would not only stop the rocket fire but send a message to the Gazan population that support for Hamas is costly. This means that there was not sufficient attention paid to the principle of distinction; the rules of engagement were often not observed, and these widespread phenomena suggest, but do not indicate conclusively, a deliberate policy by the higher-ups. At best, there was gross and criminal negligence on the part of the higher ups and the commanders in the field. And, of course, there was a misunderstanding of what Israel's responsibility was towards civilians.

For example, Israel thought that by distributing leaflets, or by roof-knocking, it was discharging its obligation to warn the civilians. If, despite the warning, there were still civilians found there, that would be their responsibility. Does this constitute deliberate targeting of civilians? It doesn't have to, because one achieves the same effect no matter what the intention is – which is to teach the civilian population the lesson that they are entirely powerless, that they have no recourse but to run (to where?) And what moral distinction is there?

This gross, willful negligence, which is well-documented in the Breaking the Silence testimonies, does not amount to a planned strategy of targeting civilians. It is more like a culture of neglect, a realization that "Now we are going to show them, and we aren't going to be so particular about the rules. " I don't know at what level in the chain of command this came in. But there is sufficient and credible evidence for this culture. Of course, this does not mean that accidents didn't happen. But that raises the question whether such accidents could have been foreseen, and if so, why were those risks taken?

This is precisely why the IDF cannot investigate itself; why an independent judicial commission with subpoena powers is necessary.

If Israel could do it after Sabra and Shatila, what possible justification does it have for not doing it now?

Alan Dershowitz’ Brief Against the “Goldberg” Report

No, the headline is not an error.

I promised my readers, when I wrote my "ad hominem screed" against Prof. Alan Dershowitz's defamation of Judge Richard Goldstone (some of which, barukh ha-Shem, he subsequently retracted), that I would read the brief he submitted to the UN against the report. People say all sorts of nasty things in person (and in blogs, mea culpa), but Alan Dershowitz is a Harvard Law professor, and one assumes that he can write a good brief and make a good argument – not an argument that one need agree with, but an argument worth reading just the same.

So I sat down and read through his forty-nine page brief and found it in good part a mixture of website cherry-picking and invective. Nothing new there, we all do that. But the oddest thing about it was that when I got to the meat of the brief – the argument against the evidential methodology used by the Goldstone Panel, I found that, despite many quotations from the report, Prof. Dershowitz had not written about the Goldstone Report at all. Rather he had fashioned in his mind another report – let's call it the "Goldberg" Report – and having shaped this straw man, picked it apart.

Before I show how he fundamentally misread or misunderstood the Goldstone Report, let me give you an example of cherry-picking.

Prof. Dershowitz, like many other critics of Judge Goldstone, point out that Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland, refused to head the commission investigating the Gaza Op because of the mandate's bias. If Mary Robinson, "whose bias against Israel has been deep and longstanding," rejected it, then what can one say about Judge Goldstone, or, for that matter, the report? What Prof. Dershowitz does not say is that a) Judge Goldstone had the mandate changed to make it less one-sided, and b) Mary Robinson, herself, after the Goldstone report was made public, emphasized the integrity of Judge Goldstone and the importance of investigating the allegations contained therein.

I am aware that Judge Goldstone, a dedicated and unimpeachable human rights lawyer and advocate, shared similar concerns [of a biased mandate -JH] when he was initially approached. But he was able to work with the Council's president to secure an agreement he felt confident would permit the mandate to be interpreted in such a way as to allow his team to address the actions taken by both parties to the conflict.

Experts can debate whether this was in conformity with UN rules and procedures. I have no doubt that those involved were seeking a way forward that would allow for a full investigation and help overcome the political divisiveness currently undermining the Human Rights Council within the UN system.

The question now is whether governments will give Judge Goldstone's findings the serious attention they deserve, or instead fall back into an overtly political posture…For the sake of human rights and peace in the region, my hope is that the international community will bear witness to these circumstances, consider Judge Goldstone's report in its entirety and press for accountability for the most serious crimes.

It is the way of the polemicist to quote selectively from sources. No doubt Prof. Dershowitz may argue that the above citation reflects Mary Robinson's "deep and longstanding bias." But not even to tell his readers a) that Judge Goldstone attempted and succeeded to have the mandate changed, or that b) Mary Robinson endorsed a serious reading of the Goldstone Report, which she would not have done, had she considered it biased – well, that borders on deliberately concealing the truth.

Why, "deliberate"? Because we are told at the outset that Prof. Dershowitz had a research assistant, Josh Sharp, whom he thanks for providing "excellent research". It took me a few seconds to find out what Dershowitz/Sharp omitted. One could do the same thing for the human rights NGO's that Dershowitz selectively quotes.

All the above, of course, is not the heart of the brief, just the vorspiel. The heart of the brief is the attempt to refute the Goldstone Report's central conclusion: "that Israel's policy was to maximize the death of civilians" or "that the rocket attacks merely served as an excuse for the Israeli military to achieve its real purpose: namely the killing of Palestinian civilians" (p. 6) "The Goldstone Report accuses Israel of using Hamas rocket attacks against its civilians as an excuse—a cover—for a carefully planned and executed policy of deliberately targeting innocent civilians for mass murder." (p. 6)

The only problem is that nowhere in the Goldstone Report is any of these claims made! In fact, such claims are by implication rejected by one of Goldstone's Conclusions:

1681. In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support.

This conclusion, a grave accusation in its own right, says nothing about "maximizing civilian deaths," of "mass murder", etc., nor is such nonsense anywhere in the Goldstone Report. In fact, if the purpose of Israel was to force a change in support for Hamas, why exactly would it want to perform "genocide" (another Dershowitz term), etc.?

The story that the Goldstone Report describes is an Israel that wanted to show to Hamas and to the Gazans that the price for support for Hamas would be high. Is this so unreasonable a conclusion? Israel has conducted a crippling siege against Gaza, and all sanctions – including the ones Prof. Dershowitz supports against Iran – involve the collective suffering of a population. Nowhere in the Goldstone Report is Israel accused of using the rockets as an "excuse" or "pretext" – the words are Prof. Dershowitz's own.

There is no contradiction between stopping the rocket fire and targeting the civilian population, by bombing infrastructure, loosening the rules of engagement, not providing for safe exit routes for civilians that have been warned to leave house -- if you think that this is the only way to stop the rocket fire.

But once you accept the misrepresentation of the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, it is very easy to show that none of the sources cited by the Report support that conclusion.

Thus, the so-called "Dahiya doctrine" of responding to rocket attacks with disproportionate force intended to destroy infrastructure says nothing about specifically targeting civilians for death.

Agreed. But the Goldstone never claimed that it did. According to Dershowtiz, the so-called "Dahiya doctrine" calls for the "suffering of hundreds of thousands of people" in order to achieve military aims. That is more than enough for the actual conclusions of the Goldstone Report, not the ones that Dershowitz invents.

One-by-one Dershowitz shows that the statements about "disproportionate response" made by several Israeli military and political leaders do not support a conclusion of deliberately killing civilians. One by one he tries to put the best possible construal on some of these statements. Each time when he has to deal with a particularly outrageous one, one that he cannot interpret in accordance with the international humanitarian law and the rules of war, he falls back on his straw man, Judge Goldberg. Each time he triumphantly shows that the evidence fails to support its conclusion that Israel had a deliberate policy of maximizing the deaths of civilians.

Thus, regarding the bombing of the flour factory, Prof. Dershowitz first dutifully notes that Israel has disclaimed responsibility. And then he continues:

Even if it were true that Israel sought to punish the civilian population of Gaza by attacking food and sewage facilities, it would not follow that Israel intended to kill civilians.

Where in the Goldstone Report is it claimed that the Israel deliberately attacked the flour factory in order to kill civilians? Where is it claimed that it follows from the deliberate bombing of the factory that Israeli intended to kill civilians?

More revealing is Prof. Dershowitz's continuation:

Israel acknowledged that it deliberately limits the flow of consumer goods into Gaza as part of an effort to impose sanctions on the Hamas government for its policy of targeting Israeli civilians with anti-personnel weapons. Just as American sanctions against Iran would cause the Iranian "people [to] suffer," so too do Israeli sanctions. But it is a far cry from sanctions to murder, and it is a non-sequitur to argue that the destructions of non-human civilian targets proves an intention to target human beings for death.

Note how he moves seamlessly from the deliberate wartime bombing of a flour factory to peacetime economic sanctions, as if there is no distinction between them, and as if the justification of sanctions is the same as the justification for bombing civilian food production. Statements such as these suggest that Prof. Dershowitz hasn't a clue about the laws of war, that for him, anything short of mass killings isn't so serious – which is why he has to invent the "Goldbergian" accusation of "genocide" against Israel.

I have spent much more time than I should have on this post. I devoted a lot more time and space to Prof. Moshe Halbertal's article because I thought it worthy of discussion.

But why bother to refute Prof. Dershowitz's criticisms of the "conclusions" of a non-existent Goldberg Report? The Goldstone Report speaks of "possible crimes against humanity."

 

Shabbat Shalom from a snowy Washington.

 

 

High-Ranking IDF Officer: Israel Deliberately Altered its Rules of Engagement for the Gaza Op

The Independent has just published a story that was to have been published by Israel's Yediot Aharonot last summer, but was dropped, perhaps for political reasons. (It certainly would not have helped the paper's circulation.) The story is based on the testimony of a high-ranking commander that Israel deliberately altered its rules of engagement for the Gaza Op.

Human rights lawyer Michael Sfard called the commander's acknowledgement a "smoking gun". It does not seem to be a smoking gun for deliberate targeting of civilians, but rather for a hasty trigger finger on the smoking gun.

February 3, 2010

Exclusive: Israeli commander: 'We rewrote the rules of war for Gaza'

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

Civilians 'put at greater risk to save military lives' in winter attack - revelations that will pile pressure on Netanyahu to set up full inquiry

A high-ranking officer has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli army went beyond its previous rules of engagement on the protection of civilian lives in order to minimise military casualties during last year's Gaza war, The Independent can reveal.

The officer, who served as a commander during Operation Cast Lead, made it clear that he did not regard the longstanding principle of military conduct known as "means and intentions" - whereby a targeted suspect must have a weapon and show signs of intending to use it before being fired upon - as being applicable before calling in fire from drones and helicopters in Gaza last winter. A more junior officer who served at a brigade headquarters during the operation described the new policy - devised in part to avoid the heavy military casualties of the 2006 Lebanon war - as one of "literally zero risk to the soldiers".

The officers' revelations will pile more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to set up an independent inquiry into the war, as demanded in the UN-commissioned Goldstone Report, which harshly criticised the conduct of both Israel and Hamas. One of Israel's most prominent human rights lawyers, Michael Sfard, said last night that the senior commander's acknowledgement - if accurate - was "a smoking gun".

Until now, the testimony has been kept out of the public domain. The senior commander told a journalist compiling a lengthy report for Yedhiot Ahronot, Israel's biggest daily newspaper, about the rules of engagement in the three-week military offensive in Gaza. But although the article was completed and ready for publication five months ago, it has still not appeared. The senior commander told Yedhiot: "Means and intentions is a definition that suits an arrest operation in the Judaea and Samaria [West Bank] area... We need to be very careful because the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] was already burnt in the second Lebanon war from the wrong terminology. The concept of means and intentions is taken from different circumstances. Here [in Cast Lead] we were not talking about another regular counter-terrorist operation. There is a clear difference."

His remarks reinforce testimonies from soldiers who served in the Gaza operation, made to the veterans' group Breaking the Silence and reported exclusively by this newspaper last July. They also appear to cut across the military doctrine - enunciated most recently in public by one of the authors of the IDF's own code of ethics - that it is the duty of soldiers to run risks to themselves in order to preserve civilian lives.

Explaining what he saw as the dilemma for forces operating in areas that were supposedly cleared of civilians, the senior commander said: "Whoever is left in the neighbourhood and wants to action an IED [improvised explosive device] against the soldiers doesn't have to walk with a Kalashnikov or a weapon. A person like that can walk around like any other civilian; he sees the IDF forces, calls someone who would operate the terrible death explosive and five of our soldiers explode in the air. We could not wait until this IED is activated against us."

Another soldier who worked in one of the brigade's war-room headquarters told The Independent that conduct in Gaza - particularly by aerial forces and in areas where civilians had been urged to leave by leaflets - had "taken the targeted killing idea and turned it on its head". Instead of using intelligence to identify a terrorist, he said, "here you do the opposite: first you take him down, then you look into it."

The Yediot newspaper also spoke to a series of soldiers who had served in Operation Cast Lead in sensitive positions. While the soldiers rejected the main finding of the Goldstone Report - that the Israeli military had deliberately "targeted" the civilian population - most asserted that the rules were flexible enough to allow a policy under which, in the words of one soldier "any movement must entail gunfire. No one's supposed to be there." He added that at a meeting with his brigade commander and others it was made clear that "if you see any signs of movement at all you shoot. This is essentially the rules of engagement."

The other soldier in the war-room explained: "This doesn't mean that you need to disrespect the lives of Palestinians but our first priority is the lives of our soldiers. That's not something you're going to compromise on. In all my years in the military, I never heard that."

He added that the majority of casualties were caused in his brigade area by aerial firing, including from unmanned drones. "Most of the guys taken down were taken down by order of headquarters. The number of enemy killed by HQ-operated remote ... compared to enemy killed by soldiers on the ground had absolutely inverted," he said.

Rules of engagement issued to soldiers serving in the West Bank as recently as July 2006 make it clear that shooting towards even an armed person will take place only if there is intelligence that he intends to act against Israeli forces or if he poses an immediate threat to soldiers or others.

In a recent article in New Republic, Moshe Halbertal, a philosophy professor at Hebrew and New York Universities, who was involved in drawing up the IDF's ethical code in 2000 and who is critical of the Goldstone Report, said that efforts to spare civilian life "must include the expectation that soldiers assume some risk to their own lives in order to avoid causing the deaths of civilians". While the choices for commanders were often extremely difficult and while he did not think the expectation was demanded by international law, "it is demanded in Israel's military code and this has always been its tradition".

The Israeli military declined to comment on the latest revelations, and directed all enquiries to already-published material, including a July 2009 foreign ministry document The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects.

That document, which repeats that Israel acted in conformity with international law despite the "acute dilemmas" posed by Hamas's operations within civilian areas, sets out the principles of Operation Cast Lead as follows: "Only military targets shall be attacked; Any attack against civilian objectives shall be prohibited. A 'civilian objective' is any objective which is not a military target." It adds: "In case of doubt, the forces are obliged to regard an object as civilian."

Yediot has not commented on why its article has not been published.

Israel in Gaza: The soldier's tale

This experienced soldier, who cannot be named, served in the war room of a brigade during Operation Cast Lead. Here, he recalls an incident he witnessed during last winter's three-week offensive:

"Two [Palestinian] guys are walking down the street. They pass a mosque and you see a gathering of women and children.

"You saw them exiting the house and [they] are not walking together but one behind the other. So you begin to fantasise they are actually ducking close to the wall.

"One [man] began to run at some point, must have heard the chopper. The GSS [secret service] argued that the mere fact that he heard it implicated him, because a normal civilian would not have realised that he was now being hunted.

"Finally he was shot. He was not shot next to the mosque. It's obvious that shots are not taken at a gathering."

We Didn’t. We Did. We Didn’t. We Did. We Didn’t.

The Gaza Operation last year is a war of conflicting narratives. No, I don't mean the Palestinian narrative vs. the Israeli narrative. Or the Goldstone Report narrative vs. the Israeli government narrative.

I mean the IDF narrative vs. the Israel government narrative.

It seems now that the IDF denies, to quote Anshel Pfeffer "that Gaza Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka, were the subject of disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant after headquarters staff found that the men exceeded their authority in approving the use of phosphorus shells that endangered human life"

With the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi ordered the convening of five special investigative committees each headed by an officer with the rank of colonel to examine some of the serious allegations leveled against the army. One of the committees examined the use of phosphorus shells.

After three months, at the end of April of last year, then deputy chief of staff Maj. Gen. Dan Harel presented the committees' findings and with respect to phosphorus munitions said that they had found no instances in which shells were fired in violation of orders and in any event, they were fired in open areas.

Nonetheless, the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa "exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others."

The report to the UN also says that Ashkenazi recently ordered the convening of a sixth committee to examine additional allegations made against the IDF as well as an incident which one of the previous panels had been unable to thoroughly probe

So, with this contradiction in the reports so glaring, who is right? As Tevye would say, they're both right. It is hard to believe that the two senior officers were officially disciplined for firing white phosphorus weapons. That would have opened them up to war crime proceedings in the Hague, or to the possibility of criminal charges throughout Europe. More likely Ashkenazi decided to slap them on the wrist for the lesser infraction of exceeding their authority (something unheard of in the history of the IDF).

I wanted to call this post, "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot (White Phosphorus) Straight," but If you have seen the pictures of Gazan civilians' burns (remember when we were being told that those burns may have been self-inflicted?), you'll know why this is no laughing matter.

It’s Official – IDF Finally Admits to Illegal Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza Campaign

Last summer I published a post in which I charted the different stages of Israel's cover-up of the illegal use of white phosphorus in the Gaza Op. You can read about it here. First, there was total denial of use; then the IDF admitted use but claimed that it was legal. When Breaking the Silence published clear testimonies of its illegal use, together with the physical evidence and testimonies of the Gazans, the response was to shoot the messenger.

Well, now, ribono shel olam, Israel has finally admitted to illegal use of white phosphorus in the Gaza Campaign in its reply to the Goldstone Report. We are even told what officers gave the commands, and that they were "reprimanded."

How many chances does the IDF get to change its story before people stop taking it seriously? And at each stage the Hasbara moonies parrot whatever happens to be the current version!

Will somebody explain to me why anybody should give any credence to what the IDF spokesperson says – even if it happens to be true?

By the way, there is evidence that there were other cases of use of white phosphorus besides the one referred to here

Read this mind-blowing article from Haaretz here.

 

Israel suspects two IDF officers guilty of Gaza war crimes

By Anshel Pfeffer

 

Internal IDF probe into Gaza UNRWA facility shelling finds the two jeopardized civilian lives.

An Israel Defense Forces brigadier general and another officer with the rank of colonel endangered human life during last year's military campaign in the Gaza Strip by firing white phosphorous munitions in the direction of a compound run by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the Israeli government says.

The finding acknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations. It was contained in a report that the government provided to the United Nations over the weekend in response to last September's Goldstone Commission report.

Gaza Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka, were the subject of disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant after headquarters staff found that the men exceeded their authority in approving the use of phosphorus shells that endangered human life, the Israeli government report said.

The incident in question occurred on January 15 of last year, two days before the end of Operation Cast Lead, in the southern Gaza City neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa, at a time when the Givati brigade and other Israeli forces were in the area.

In the course of engagement with a Hamas squad, which according to IDF intelligence possessed advanced anti-tank missiles, it was decided to use phosphorus smoke munitions to create cover that would make it harder for the Hamas fighters to see the IDF soldiers.

According to Israeli intelligence, the Hamas forces were stationed in a commanding location from which they could easily see the soldiers and the UNRWA compound that was located between the Israeli forces and the Hamas position.

The munitions disperse hundreds of pieces of felt impregnated with phosphorus and at least some of the pieces fell into the UNRWA compound, causing injury to an UNRWA employee there as well as to two Palestinian civilians who took cover at the location.

Many human rights organizations said that the IDF had illegally used the phosphorus munitions, which are shot from 155 mm. cannon, and that the material caused many burn injuries among the Palestinian population. The IDF responded that the munitions were permitted under international conventions and that similar shells are in use by other Western armies. The army also contended that the munitions were used in locations remote from heavily -populated areas.

With the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi ordered the convening of five special investigative committees each headed by an officer with the rank of colonel to examine some of the serious allegations leveled against the army. One of the committees examined the use of phosphorus shells.

After three months, at the end of April of last year, then deputy chief of staff Maj. Gen. Dan Harel presented the committees' findings and with respect to phosphorus munitions said that they had found no instances in which shells were fired in violation of orders and in any event, they were fired in open areas.

Nonetheless, the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa "exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others."

Israel’s Hired Gun

Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz, if memory serves me correctly, once said that the purpose of an attorney is to win a case, or if you wish, to present the best possible case for his client. His purpose is not to seek the truth, or even to render a judgment according to the law; let the historian take care of the first, and the judge the second. The American system requires that the defendant gets the best possible representation.

So when Dershowitz the lawyer lies, distorts, omits, and assassinates somebody's character, we should first assume, for his benefit, that he is doing what a defense lawyer should do – win the case.

I am also prepared to believe that Prof. Dershowitz is not just out to sell his books – even though he has written one on Gaza -- make headlines, or to spend his time on books outside of his area of specialization, you know, the sorts of books and articles for which one is judged in the academy. I am prepared to believe that his motives are pure, and that he thinks that he is arguing vigorously on behalf of his client, the beleagured, tiny State of Israel.

And so, in addition to preparing a "lawyerly" brief against the Goldstone Report, and submitting to the UN, he is now trying to "play the media," as defense lawyers often do, i.e., by performing a character assassination on his opponent, Judge Goldstone. The Goldstone report is not just wrong, we are told. It is akin to the protocols of the Elders of Zion written by a Jew. Richard Goldstone is an "evil, evil man", motivated by personal ambition to rise high in the UN Human Rights world (?), a traitor to the Jewish people, yada, yada, yada.

You can read about it in Haaretz. But you should listen to the radio interview here

 

In a sense, I am happy that Alan Dershowitz is leading the charge, not just because on these issues he has little standing or credibility, having been dismissed long ago as a Jewish zealot who is entirely clueless about what is happening in Israel, a tinhorn patriot, and a defender of torture – but also because his metamorphosis from lawyer to consiglieri further delegitimizes the legal case of Israel. I mean, who else is stepping up to the plate on Israel's behalf except the usual suspects? Would Dershowitz's Serbian counterpart do any less?

Contrast Dershowitz's behavior with that of a respected jurist, former Chief Justice Aharon Barak. When the Goldstone report came out, Defense Minister Ehud Barak contacted both Aharon Barak and Dershowitz to help in the hasbarah fight against Goldstone. Dershowitz readily agreed; Aharon Barak pointedly refused. According to Haaretz, Aharon Barak told Meni Mazuz two weeks ago that Israel had to appoint either a state commission of inquiry or a governmental commission of inquiry. I am sure that he does not agree with parts of the Goldstone Report, but he has not vilified Goldstone, nor has he rushed to publish op-eds assasinating his character. Besides, Aharon Barak accepts a fundamental conclusion of the report; that Israel's military is not capable of investigating itself on these matters. Of course, Ehud Barak has ruled out any board of investigation, much less one with subpoena powers. Now Dershowitz – over a year after the Gaza Operation – calls for an Israeli board of inquiry headed by Aharon Barak – knowing full well that such a board will not come into being.

Here is why these intemperate outposts are the source of some comfort: It is important that Israel is supported by – and only by – the Zionists on the right. Dershowitz's voice is occasionally that of a liberal hawk, but his hands are those of the Front Page zealots with whom he associates. And that's fine, it's a free country; it is even very Jewish. There is an important tradition of Jewish zealotry against Jews from the Biblical Times (Simeon and Levy), the Second Temple Period (the Sicarii and other Zealots who caused the destruction of the Temple, including the Masada terrorists), Jews who assassinated other Jews throughout history, and most recently, Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin, whose spiritual leaders used the same phrase that Dershowitz uses against Judge Goldstone, malshin and moser

What is sad, though, is that I remember when liberals throughout the world used to defend Israel. Even Moshe Halbertal, whose criticism of the Goldstone Report, I and others have criticized, did not sink to the character assassination of Goldstone, or to impugn his motives.

This is not to say that Prof. Dershowitz's arguments shouldn't be answered by more than ad hominem screeds. I plan to do that when he actually posts his brief on his website. (I just followed a link to it and he has taken it down. If any of my readers have a copy, please point me in the right direction.)

It is time that the liberal critics of the Goldstone report, as well as the center left folks in Israel and the US, stand up and condemn Dershowitz's outrageous rhetoric and slander in no uncertain terms. I don't expect the reaction to come just from the left or the progressive side, the usual suspects this time.

Ah, but how convenient it is to shoot the messenger.

English Translation of the YNET article on Female IDF Soldiers Breaking the Silence

For the original site, click here

 

Female soldiers break their silence

Six years after first collection of Breaking the Silence testimonies, organization releases booklet of testimonies from female soldiers who served in territories. Stories include systematic humiliation of Palestinians, reckless and cruel violence, theft, killing of innocent people and cover-up. Here are only some of testimonies
Amir Shilo

"A female combat soldier needs to prove more…a female soldier who beats up others is a serious fighter…when I arrived there was another female there with me, she was there before me…everyone spoke of how impressive she is because she humiliates Arabs without any problem. That was the indicator. You have to see her, the way she humiliates, the way she slaps them, wow, she really slapped that guy."

   

The Breaking the Silence organization on Friday released a booklet of testimonies by female soldiers recounting various abuse cases involving Palestinians in the West Bank.

   

In recent years, females have been increasingly involved in combat and field operations in the IDF and Border Guard. Among other things, these female soldiers engage in daily contact with the Palestinian population – at roadblocks and in Palestinian communities.

   

According to the latest testimonies, many of these young women have trouble coping with the violent reality they are exposed to and find themselves facing situations that contradict their values. Some of them end up engaging in acts, or turning a blind eye to acts, that will burden them years later. Like their male counterparts, some of these females have a need to speak about what they saw.

   

"The girls have greater difficulties in telling the story, because they're the minority to begin with" the organization's director Dana Golan says.

   

'Each soldier would give them a pet'

In the framework of the latest project, Breaking the Silence gathered the testimonies of more than 50 female soldiers who served in various posts in the territories. Ynet presents some of the highlights in this report.

   

Golan noted that female soldiers were not more sensitive to the Palestinians than their male comrades.

   

"We discovered that the girls try to be even more violent and brutal than the boys, just to become one of the guys," she said.

 

Reporter took a picture, 'special patrol' sent to get them (Photo: Reuters)

   

A female Seam Line Border Guard spoke of the chase after illegal aliens: "In half an hour you can catch 30 people without any effort." Then comes the question of what should be done with those who were caught – including women, children, and elderly. "They would have them stand, and there's the well-known Border Guard song (in Arabic): 'One hummus, one bean, I love the Border Guard' – they would make them sing this. Sing, and jump. Just like they do with recruits… The same thing only much worse. And if one of them would laugh, or if they would decide someone was laughing, they would punch him. Why did you laugh? Smack… It could go on for hours, depending on how bored they are. A shift is eight hours long, the times must be passed somehow."

   

Most of the female soldiers say that they sensed there was a problem during their service, but did nothing.

   

Another female soldier's testimony, who served at the Erez checkpoint, indicates how violence was deeply rooted in the daily routine: "There was a procedure in which before you release a Palestinian back into the Strip – you take him inside the tent and beat him."

   

That was a procedure?

   

"Yes, together with the commanders."

   

How long did it last?

   

"Not very long; within 20 minutes they would be back in the base, but the soldiers would stop at the post to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes while the guys from the command post would beat them up."

   

This happened with every illegal alien?

   

"There weren't that many...it's not something you do everyday, but sort of a procedure. I don't know if they strictly enforced it each and every time...it took me a while to realize that if I release an illegal alien on my end, by the time he gets back to Gaza he will go through hell... two or three hours can pass by the time he gets into the Strip. In the case of the kid, it was a whole night. That's insane, since it's a ten minute walk. They would stop them on their way; each soldier would give them a 'pet', including the commanders."

   

'Child's hand broken on the chair'

A female soldier in Sachlav Military Police unit, stationed in Hebron, recalled a Palestinian child that would systematically provoke the soldiers by hurling stones at them and other such actions. One time he even managed to scare a soldier who fell from his post and broke his leg.

   

Retaliation came soon after: "I don't know who or how, but I know that two of our soldiers put him in a jeep, and that two weeks later the kid was walking around with casts on both arms and legs…they talked about it in the unit quite a lot – about how they sat him down and put his hand on the chair and simply broke it right there on the chair."

   

Even small children did not escape arbitrary acts of violence, said a Border Guard female officer serving near the separation fence: "We caught a five-year-old…can't remember what he did…we were taking him back to the territories or something, and the officers just picked him up, slapped him around and put him in the jeep. The kid was crying and the officer next to me said 'don't cry' and started laughing at him. Finally the kid cracked a smile – and suddenly the officer gave him a punch in the stomach. Why? 'Don't laugh in my face' he said."

 

'Palestinian beaten before being released to Strip' (Photo: AFP)

   

Was there also abuse of women?

   

"Yes" the same soldier replied. "Slaps, that kind of thing. Mainly slaps."

   

From men?

   

"Also. From whoever. It was mainly the female combat soldiers who beat people. There were two who really liked to beat people up. But also men, they had no problem slapping a woman around. If she screamed, they'd say, 'Shut it,' with another slap. A routine of violence. There were also those who didn't take part, but everyone knew it happened."

   

Sometimes an entire "production" was necessary to satisfy the violent urges. "There's a sense of violence," a border policewoman in the Jenin area said. "And yes, it's boring, so we'd create some action. We'd get on the radio, and say they threw stones at us, then someone would be arrested, they'd start investigating him… There was a policewoman, she was bored, so okay, she said they threw stones at her. They asked her who threw them. 'I don't know, two in grey shirts, I didn't manage to see them.' They catch two guys with grey shirts… beat them. Is it them? 'No, I don't think so.' Okay, a whole incident, people get beaten up. Nothing happened that day."

   

An education noncommissioned officer from the Border Guard took her officers for a Sunday of culture – a show in Tel Aviv. When they got back to their base in the Gaza Strip, they were appalled by the dissonance – one moment they're clapping in a theater, the next moment they're acting like beasts.

   

"Crossing the checkpoint, it's like another world… Palestinians walk with trolleys on the side of the road, with wagons, donkeys… so the Border Guards take a truck with the remains of food and start throwing it at them… cottage cheese, rotten vegetables… it was the most appalling thing I experienced in the territories."

   

The soldier said she tried to protest, but was silenced by the commanding officers. When she tried to go around them to higher authorities, she found a solution. "Almost immediately I got into an officers' course."

   

'You don't know which side you're on'

Some of the testimonies document incidents of vandalism of Palestinian property, and even theft. The same female soldier who recounted her time at the Erez checkpoint said, "Many times the soldiers would open the Palestinians' food."

   

And would they take it as well?

   

"Yes. They take things all the time at checkpoints in the territories. You'll never see a soldier without musabaha (chickpea past similar to hummus). And that is something they give many times… They are so desperate to pass that they even sort of bribe the soldiers a little…"

   

A female Border Guard officer spoke of how Palestinian children would arrive at checkpoints with bags of toys for sale – and how the Border Guard would deal with them: "'Okay, throw the bag away. Oh, I need some batteries,', and they would take, they would take whatever they wanted."

   

What would they take?

   

"Toys, batteries, anything… cigarettes. I'm sure they took money as well, but I don't remember that specifically." She also spoke of one incident in which the looting was caught by a television camera, and the affair blew up. "Then, the company commander gathered us and reprimanded us: 'How did you not think they might see you?'" No one was punished: "Really, it was an atmosphere in which we were allowed to hit and humiliate."

   

Some of the gravest stories come from Hebron. A Sachlav female soldier spoke of one of the company's hobbies: Toy guns. "Those plastic pellets really hurt… we had a bunch of those… you're sitting on guard and 'tak' you fire at a kid, 'tak' – you fire at another kid."

   

She recounted an incident in which a Palestinian reporter took a picture of one of the soldiers aiming a gun at a boy's head. She said a "special patrol" went into Hebron, and came back with the pictures. The soldier said they either paid the reporter, or threatened her.

   

And the pictures were circulated in the company?

   

"No, they were destroyed the same day."

   

What did the company commander say about it?

   

"He said it's a good thing they didn't reach the IDF Spokesperson's Unit."

   

Company commander reprimands, but no one punished

   

Some of the testimonies from Hebron deal with the difficult position the soldiers find themselves in, between Palestinians and settlers – who they say are even harder to handle. Some of the female soldiers were shocked with the level of violence the settlers' children used against the Palestinians. "They would throw stones at them, the Jewish kids," a Nahal female soldier said, "and the parents would say anything… you see this every day in Tel Rumeida."

   

Doesn't it seem strange to you that one child throws a stone at another child?

   

"Because the one child is Jewish and the other is Palestinians, it's somehow okay… and it was obvious that there would be a mess afterwards. And you also don't really know which side you are on…I have to make a switch in my head and keep hating the Arabs and justify the Jews."

   

In her frustration, the same female soldier told of how she once spit on a Palestinian in the street: "I don't think he even did anything. But again, it was cool and it was the only thing I could do to… you know, I couldn't take brag that I caught a terrorists… But I could spit on them and degrade them and laugh at them."

   

Another female Sachlav soldier told the story of the time an eight-year-old settler girl in Hebron decided to bash a stone into the head of a Palestinian adult crossing her passing by her in the street. "Boom! She jumped on him, and gave it to him right here in the head… then she started screaming 'Yuck, yuck, his blood is on me'".

   

The soldier said the Palestinian then turned in the girl's direction – a move that was interpreted as a threat by one of the soldiers in the area, who added a punch of his own: "And I stood there horrified… an innocent little girl in her Shabbat dress… the Arab covered the wound with his hand and ran." She recalled another incident with the same child: "I remember she had her brother in the stroller, a baby. She was giving him stones and telling him: 'Throw them at the Arab'."

   

9-year-old shot to death

Other testimonies raise concerns as to the procedures of opening fire in the territories, particularly crowd control weapons. A female Border Guard detailed to protocol she called "dismantling rubber" – the dismantling of rubber bullets from clusters of three to single bullets, and peeling the rubber off of them. She also said that, despite the clear orders to fire in the air or at the demonstrators' feet, it was common procedure to fire at the abdomen.

   

A female Border Guard officer in Jenin spoke of an incident in which a nine-year-old Palestinian, who tried to climb the fence, failed, and fled – was shot to death: "They fired… when he was already in the territories and posed no danger. The hit was in the abdomen area, they claimed he was on a bicycle and so they were unable to hit him in the legs."

   

But the soldier was most bewildered by what happened next between the four soldiers present: "They immediately got their stories straight… An investigation was carried out, at first they said it was an unjustified killing… In the end they claimed that he was checking out escape routes for terrorists or something… and they closed the case."

   

A female intelligence soldier who served near Etzion recounted an incident in which snipers killed a boy suspected of throwing a Molotov cocktail. The soldiers coordinated their stories, and the female soldier was shocked, mainly by the happy atmosphere that surrounding the incident: "It was written in the situation evaluation after the incident that from now on there will be quiet… This is the best kind of deterrence."

   

'They don't know how to accept the women'

The female soldiers repeatedly mention the particular difficulties they had as women, who had to prove that to were "fighters" in the midst of the goading male soldiers on the one hand, and the Palestinians, who have a hard time handling women in uniform on the other hand. The following story of a female Border Guard officer sums the matter up.

   

When the interviewer asked her if the Palestinians "suffer even more from the women in the Border Guard", she said: "Yes. Yes. Because they don't know how to accept the women. The moment a girl slaps a man, he is so humiliated, he is so humiliated he doesn't know what to do with himself… I am a strong and well-built girl, and this is even harder for them to handle. So one of their ways of coping is to laugh. They really just started to laugh at me. The commander looks at me and tells me, 'What? Are you going to let that slide? Look how he's laughing at you'.

   

"And you, as someone who has to salvage your self-respect… I told them to sit down and I told him to come…I told him to come close, I really approached him, as if I was about to kiss him. I told him, 'Come, come, what are you afraid of? Come to me!' And I hit him in the balls. I told him, 'Why aren't you laughing?' He was in shock, and then he realized that… not to laugh. It shouldn't reach such a situation."

   

You hit him with your knee?

   

"I hit him in the balls. I took my foot, with my military show, and hit him in the balls. I don't know if you've ever been hit in the balls, but it looks like it hurts. He stopped laughing in my face because it hurt him. We then took him to a police station and I said to myself, 'Wow, I'm really going to get in trouble now.' He could complain about me and I could receive a complaint at the Military police's criminal investigation division.

   

"He didn't say a word. I was afraid and I said. I was afraid about myself, not about him. But he didn't say a word. 'What should I say, that a girl hit me?' And he could have said, but thank God, three years later I didn't get anything and no one knows about it."

What did it feel like that moment?

   

"Power, strength that I should not have achieved this way. But I didn't brag about it. That's why I did it that way, one on one. I told them to sit on the side, I saw that he wasn't looking. I said to myself that it doesn't make sense that as a girl who gives above and beyond and is worth more than some boys – they should laugh at me like that because I am a girl. Because you think I can't do it…"

   

Today, when you look at it three years later, would you have done things differently?

   

"I would change the system. It's seriously defective."

   

What does that mean?

 

"The system is deeply flawed. The entire administration, the way things are run, it's not right. I don't know how I would… I don't think I did the right thing in this incident but it was what I had to do. It's inevitable under these circumstances."

   

You're saying the small soldiers on the ground are not the problem, but the whole situation surrounding them?

   

"Yes, this entire situation is problematic."

 

YNET: Breaking the Silence Publishes Female Soldiers Testimonies of Abuse of Palestinians in Territories

YNET just published an exclusive report here: For the first time, the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence, composed of ex-IDF veterans, is publishing a booklet of women soldiers' testimonies of systematic humiliation, arbitrary violence, theft, and cover-up of soldiers serving in the West Bank.

If you understand Hebrew, you should go to the website and hear the testimonies – the voices have been distorted to protect the anonymity of the soldiers.

With the world focusing on Israel's response to the Goldstone Report and its Gaza operations, Breaking the Silence reminds us that the violation of Palestinian rights in the Occupied Territories is a 24/7 affair.

But what is interesting about the soldiers' testimonies is that they shed a light on the unique feature of the female humiliation of Palestinians. One soldier testifies:

Female combatants [lohamot -- JH] need to prove more, also out in the field. A female combatant who is a "hitter" is a serious combatant. When I arrived somebody with me, who had arrived earlier, she was, wallah – everybody spoke about how she was a "cannon", wallah, since she humiliated Arabs without a problem. That was the measure. "You have to see here, how she humiliates them, she slaps them around, wyy, what slaps she gives them." They spoke freely about that.

YNET reports that the booklet contains more than 50 testimonies, and in addition YNET received some unpublished testimonies. Once again we read about how Palestinian men , women and children who are rounded up in areas that they are forbidden to enter without a permit are forced to sing the Border Police ditty that made news a few months ago. "The humiliation is like the hazing of IDF recruits, only much worse. If anybody laughs or decides to laugh, then that person is punched…This can go on for hours; it depends on how bored the soldiers are. .."

There is another testimony about a Palestinian kid who would harass soldiers, throwing rocks, and he managed to cause soldier once to fall out of his position and break his leg. "I don't know who or how, but two of our soldiers forced him into a jeep, and two weeks later, the kid was walking around with casts on both hands and feet. They talked about it a lot in the company, how they sat him down and broke his hand on the chair, just broke his hand on the chair.

Another Border Control Policewoman about arbitrary violence against little children:

"We seized a five year old kid..don't remember what about…we drove him back to the [Palestinian controlled] territories. They picked him up, "bent him" here and there, and put him on the jeep. The kid was crying, and the border policeman next to me said, "What are you crying for?" and started to laugh at him. At last the kid smiled, and then, wow, the policeman punched him hard in the stomach, wallah, that was an explosion that I wouldn't have given to a strong man….and why? "You won't laugh in my face!'

There is testimony of Palestinian women being slapped around, both my male and female soldiers. And testimony of bored soldiers reporting that stones were being thrown so they could go out and beat up people.

There are stories of vandalism and looting, much of it petty, humiliating stuff, like soldiers eating from Palestinians food at checkpoint. And then there are stories of a "light finger on a the trigger" among the border police.

Most interesting is the awareness of the soldiers that their being women in uniform was itself difficult for the Palestinians to digest. One border policewoman tells,

"I told him, "Come to me, what are you afraid of me?...And when he got close I kicked him the testicles…Later we took him to the police station and I said to myself, "Wyyy, I am really in for it, now". He could have filed a complaint against me. He didn't say a word. "What will I say? That a girl beat me up?" He could have said something but Barukh ha-Shem, three years later I didn't get anything about it, and nobody knows anything about it.

    Interviewer: What was the feeling you felt at that moment?

Soldier: Power, strength, that I couldn't have gotten any other way….I told them to sit down, and I saw that this guy didn't look at me. I said to myself, it doesn't make sense that a girl who gives her all, and is worth more than a couple of guys, should be laughed at in this way, that you think that I am not able…

    Interviewer: Today, three years later, would you do things differently.

Soldier: I would change the system, which is fundamentally fucked up. The whole way things are run. That's not right, I don't know how I would have…I don't think I acted the right way at that point. But that's what I had to do, the reality forced me to do it.

Interviewer: You are saying that the soldiers in the field aren't problematic, but the surrounding situation.

    Soldier: Yeah, the whole situation is problematic.

More on the story in the coming days.

 

=

On the Heels of the Messiah

Some of you folks subscribe to this blog, and so you miss the comments section. If you have a chance, you may want to look at the comments to my post on the Sheikh Jarrah protests and the Zionist left here. Some felt that it was too early to talk about the resurrection of the Zionist left. Some activists present at the demonstration provided corrections. I wrote that post from the library at the University of Pennsylvania, based on press reports and websites. The call went out to participate in last Friday's demonstration from Peace Now, and buses were provided in Tel-Aviv. and Meretz. So while I was wrong to say that the demonstration was mainly composed of the Zionist left (I have changed that already), the Zionist left was there and will continue to be there, I hope.

But the guiding force will be folks like the Anarchists, God bless them. (You can't be at Sheikh Jarrah this week? Why not consider making a monthly donation to that group here)

What is happening at Sheikh Jarrah? Could it be the start of a serious coalition between the human rights activists and the shearit ha-pletah, the remaining few, of the Zionist left? Will the Jerusalem winter dampen the spirits and the enthusiasm, not of the activists – they will always be there – but of the academics, professionals, upper middle class Ashkenazim (in short, my crowd), who are thinking of joining the protests? Is the main story simply one of police brutality against protesters -- or the state's evicting Palestinians from their homes and turning them over to settlers? And will the protests grow?

There are encouraging signs. J-Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami released a strong statement not only against the police harassment and denial of basic civil liberties, but against several recent governmental actions that infringe on civil liberties. He writes on Sheikh Jarrah:

As J Street has stated before, this is hardly the time to open up the question of pre-1948 property ownership on either side of the Green Line, or to bring strident settler groups, such as Ateret Cohanim, to an East Jerusalem neighborhood that previous negotiations designated as part of a future Palestinian capital. J Street stands together with the protesters in opposition to unilateral actions in East Jerusalem that only set back the chances for peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are an affront to traditional Jewish conceptions of justice and fairness. (emphasis added)

There you have it: pragmatism and principle, peace and justice, clearly stated by an organization that views itself as Zionist. The Torah can certainly go forth from Washington, DC. (You may think of encouraging their position through a donation here.)

Will the discourse continue to change? What will happen if and when the police get smart and allow demonstrations under certain (limiting) conditions? Is Sheikh Jarrah the next Bil'in, only with a broader base?

For years, the Zionist left was associated with Tel-Aviv. Jerusalem represented the three groups that the Tel-Avivim tried to avoid: religious Jews, mizrahim, and Arabs.

Now, Jerusalem is the center of human rights activism in Israel. From Jerusalem one can travel North to Bil'in and Ni'ilin, south to Maasara and the Hebron Hills, and be back by the onset of Shabbat (at least during the summer). Heck, you can even walk to Sheikh Jarrah. From Jerusalem you can tour Hebron with Bnei Avraham.

The conditions are ripe for the protest: an ultra-right wing government, an ultra-right wing mayor (whom I did not support, contrary to some of my liberal yuppie neighbors), a hyper-active rightwing settler movement devoted to make Jerusalem "Araberrein," a clear case of injustice in Sheikh Jarrah, in Silwan, in…oh, just about everywhere. Let's not forget that Jerusalem is home to young Jews who are studying in Israel for a year at universities and non-orthodox seminaries, folks with plenty of time on their hands, who don't have to prepare that much for Friday night meals.

There is good potential for the protests to grow. A little divine help (siyata di-shmaya) wouldn't hurt.

“There Will be anti-Semites No Matter What the Jews Do”

Yeah, but when the Jewish State acts outrageously, there certainly will be a lot more of them

That, apparently, is the conclusion of Coordination Forum for the Countering Anti-Semitism in Israel. The report was conducted by the Jewish Agency and the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. According to the JTA here:

The report, conducted by the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, found that more anti-Semitic incidents were recorded during the first three months of 2009 than during the entire previous year. Israel's Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip was cited as the cause for the dramatic rise.  

From this we may conclude that – according to the Israeli government itself – when Israel goes to war against a civilian population, killing over 1400, and destroying vital civilian infrastructure, the result is more anti-Semitism around the world, including harm and death to Jews.

That's what's really new about the "new anti-Semitism". It is affected by the behavior of the Jewish state.

I suppose that some will say, "So what -- this is the necessary price for a Jewish state. And as bad as anti-Semitism in Europe may be, it is really small potatoes when weighed against other factors." Nobody can use the growth of anti-Semitism as a decisive argument against there being a Jewish state.

True. But also true that anti-Semitism hasn't declined because of the existence of Israel, the way that many Zionists argued that it would. On the contrary, Israel's behavior has become a lightning rod for attitudes towards Jews everywhere, for good or for ill. When Israel behaves better than usual – as it more or less did during the period from 1993-5 -- anti-Semitic incidents in Europe almost entirely vanish. That's the good news. Even in 2008, with the siege, the Occupation, and everything else, anti-Semitism wasn't that prevalent.

Had Hamas and Israel resumed the cease-fire amidst a prisoner-exchange, precious lives, Palestinian and Jewish, could have been spared.

"Better to be a live Jew than a dead mentsh," we are told by the "tough Jews". Survival first, then morality. "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral," as Brecht wrote.

Even, apparently, if other innocent Jews suffer and die as a result.

That's part of the price we need to pay. Or so we are told.