Welcome to Apartheid Street - Occupied Palestine

HEBRON (Reuters) -- Palestinians changed the name of Hebron's Shuhada street to Apartheid Street on Wednesday, to protest the prevailing conditions in areas of the West Bank town which are controlled by Israeli troops.

Aide to Hebron's Governor, Rafiq al-Jabari, said the name change would remain in effect until what he described as apartheid-like conditions had been eradicated in Hebron.

"At the entrance of Shuhada Street, we announce the temporary change of the name of the street to Apartheid Street, until the end of the Apartheid segregation that is enforced by the settlers under the protection of occupation soldiers," he said.

The road has often been a focus of friction between Hebron's Palestinian majority and the small group of Jewish settlers living in the town.

The road was first closed in 1994, after a settler killed 29 Palestinians in the mosque marking the burial place of biblical patriarch Abraham, revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

An Israeli checkpoint which was built in the entrance of the street dates back to the September 2000 Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israeli restrictions on movement and access, many of them dating back to the uprising, have turned parts of the old city into a ghost town. Poverty has risen in a city that was traditionally an engine of the Palestinian economy.

One resident of the street, Palestinian Issa Amr, says life among the Israeli soldiers and settlers, who first arrived on his street in 1984, has become almost unbearable.

"We want to change the name Shuhada Street to Apartheid Street, to show that Palestinians suffer in this street. We are suffering from the theft of our rights and attacks against our properties, our children and our elders.

"In a street where we live, we are not allowed to walk in it or drive in it, we are not allowed to walk with animals in it. This is racist segregation," said Amr, an organizer of the Palestinian grassroots group Youth Against Settlements.

Around 800 Jewish settlers live among 30,000 Palestinians in the parts of the ancient city that are under Israeli control.

Reports of physical violence and stone-throwing from both sides signal deep hostility between the settlers and the Palestinians.

Hebron, dotted with Jewish settlements and divided into zones of Israeli and Palestinian control, is a microcosm of the occupied West Bank, where the Palestinians have self-rule over islands of territory surrounded by areas of Israeli control.

Hebron was split into areas of Palestinian and Israeli control by agreement in 1997.

The Israeli-controlled "H2" area includes the settlements and the mosque and synagogue housed at Abraham's burial site, referred to as Tomb of the Patriarchs by Israelis and the Ibrahami Mosque by Palestinians. The Palestinian area of control, where another 170,000 Palestinians live, is called "H1".

Israeli restrictions on movement and access, many of them dating back to the Palestinian uprising at the start of the decade, have turned parts of H2 into a ghost town. Poverty has risen in a city that was traditionally an engine of the Palestinian economy.

Israel has said the Hebron settlements would be among those it would seek to keep in any peace deal, suggesting that more remote enclaves could be evacuated and that it would cede other land to the Palestinians in compensation.
Print

Some Greens MPs show they have principle and guts, while others show they are cowards and have no principles.

Dear friends,
on 15 September, David Clarke, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly moved a motion condemning the Palestinian initiated Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Clarke, well-known for his Christian fundamentalist has been accused of anti-semitism himself in the past, including by the Zionists involved in the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australian Jewish News.

Shamefully, many member of the Greens have decided to throw their principles out the window, more worried about their own electoral backsides than supporting justice and human rights. Other than Greens Senator, Lee Rhiannon and NSW Greens councillor, Fiona Byrnes and former Greens NSW MP, Sylvia Hale, many of the Greens have sought to duck and cover over Palestine and BDS.

Two NSW MP who have had the guts to not do this and are prepared to show they do have principles and that they are not willing to throw the Palestinian people out the window is Dr John Kaye and David Shoebridge. It is unfortunate that their fellow party members and parliamentary colleagues, in both the Federal and NSW state parliament, such as Jeremy Buckingham, Cate Faehrman and Jan Barham (Greens MLC's in the NSW state parliament) did not have the same guts or principles.

Disgustingly, both Faehrman and Barnham revealed their absolutely lack of support for Palestinian human rights and voted in support of the Clarke motion, while Kaye and Shoebridge stood up for human rights and voted against it.

Please find below Kaye's parliamentary response to to Clarke's appalling motion. For a full transcript of the parliamentary discussion, you can read the full transcript of Handsard here. which includes David Shoebridge's comments, as well as the sychophantic support for Clarke's motion expressed by other pro-Zionist members of the NSW parliament and the plethora of ill-informed lies and distortions about BDS.

in solidarity, Kim

***

ANTI-ISRAEL BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:
(a) notes with concern the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against
legitimate businesses operating in Australia which provide jobs to hundreds of Australians,

(b) calls on all members to condemn the targeting of Max Brenner Chocolate Cafes by anti-Israel
protestors,

(c) notes that some of the rhetoric used by proponents of the BDS campaign has descended into
anti-Semitism, and

(d) condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Dr JOHN KAYE: There is direct evidence that the anti-boycott, divestment and sanction side is being supported by those with excellent fascist connections, the Australian Protectionist Party—and not just fascist connections, but connections to holocaust deniers. This motion attempts to exploit the real horror of anti-Semitism and its most appalling manifestation in the holocaust to achieve cheap political points. It cheapens the memory of the six million people who died in the holocaust and the many more who suffered terribly under Nazism. As such, I cannot support the motion and will be voting against it.

Lest it be said that voting against this motion in any way implies any lack of condemnation of anti-Semitism, I put on the record again that The Greens moved a motion this morning to condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I did that in order to ensure that the wedge that was designed into this motion, for those who felt the need to vote against it, would not be used. There is, of course, a legitimate debate about advancing the rights of Palestinians who have been dispossessed by Israel, who have been left stateless, without human rights, and who have been left with a dysfunctional territory. As pointed out by the Hon. Trevor Khan, in October 2011 the New South Wales Greens supported the boycott, divestment and sanction mechanism. It is on our website, despite the Government Whip saying that it is not. It is there and if Trevor Khan could find it surely anybody could find it.
<7>
The Greens recognise it as a mechanism to address the appalling situation of the Palestinian people and the role that the policies of the Israeli Government have played in promoting those conditions. Just as the consumer, trade and sporting boycotts against South Africa brought about change in that country, it is The Greens' belief that these boycotts can bring about change in Israel and Palestine. The Greens recognise that there are those who do not believe that Palestinians face a systemic denial of their rights and there are those who do not support boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a way of achieving an improvement in rights. It is their right to believe so.

The Greens recognise that there were those during the campaign against apartheid in South Africa who thought that the blacks in South Africa got quite a good deal. Some felt that the boycotts would not help the blacks in South Africa—the Liberal Party and The Nationals were full of such people. Who can forget Joh Bjelke-Petersen, a former Premier of Queensland, who fought vigorously against the boycotting of South African sporting events? History shows that those people were dead wrong. History shows that those people supported an unconscionable denial of human rights based on racial background. History shows that the boycotts were an important ingredient in bringing about change in that state and in bringing about a new era, where human rights were no longer determined upon the ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds of people who lived in that state.

I have no doubt that history will show that those who oppose boycotts, divestments and sanctions, those who give Israel unqualified support, are doing no favours to the citizens of Israel and they are ignoring the realities of the systematic denial of human rights to Palestinians. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is controversial and there are a range of opinions on it—as was the case with the boycotts against South Africa. Those who support boycotts, divestment and sanctions are not afraid of criticism and debate. There ought to be criticism and debate about a tactic that is highly controversial, but that criticism and debate should be founded in fact. It should not be founded in a fantasy borne of ideology.

The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than are those who called an end to the attacks on the front-line ethnic groups in Burma are anti-Burman. The boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is no more anti-Semitic than those of us who have criticised the Syrian Government and its policies and called for boycotts against that government—as the mover of the motion and I did at a meeting in this Chamber two nights ago. That does not make the Hon. David Clarke or me anti-Syrian; it makes us concerned for the systematic abuse of human rights in Syria. Those of us who support boycotts, divestments and sanctions are not anti-Israel, are not anti-Semitic and are not anti-Jewish; we are concerned about the systematic abuse of human rights.

I cannot support the motion, just as my Greens colleagues Bob Brown and Christine Milne in the Senate and other senators voted against a similar motion moved by The Nationals member Senator Boswell. The motion before the House today is somewhat of a copy of Senator Boswell's motion. That motion was a nasty wedge and this motion is a nasty wedge. As an Australian Jew I find the exploitation of false accusations of anti-Semitism particularly obnoxious. Others of similar ethnic and religious backgrounds to me might disagree and say there is anti-Semitism; it is their right to do so. But let us be absolutely clear, the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign is not anti-Semitic. One might not like that it targets Israel or that it targets shops that are owned by Israelis, but it does not target shops that are owned by Jews. It has no connection to the appalling tactics implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I am not the only person of Jewish extraction who believes this. Vivienne Porzsolt is a spokesperson for Jews Against the Occupation in Sydney, and she has worked for years for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In April this year she wrote:

I know many Jews feel deeply threatened by the boycott, divestments sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

It feels like a threat to eliminate Israel. For so many Jews, Israel is a guarantee of survival, so BDS is a threat to Jewish survival and ipso facto anti-Semitic.

But principled opposition to the state of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel are not anti-Semitic. BDS is not aimed at Israel or Israelis or Jews as such; it is aimed at the institutions of the state of Israel until it abides by international law.

She goes on to say:

Israel is in breach of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in so many ways: torture, collective punishment, transferring settlers to land under occupation, refusal to allow Palestinians displaced in the wars of 1948 and 1967 to return to the land of their birth, disproportionate response to attacks, illegal destruction of Palestinian homes, crops and olive groves; continuing alienation of land; the illegal blockade of Gaza; the systematic discrimination in access to land, education and resources within Israel and ongoing military occupation.

It is fundamentally dishonest to attack opposition to Israel as anti-Semitic. It is intended to silence legitimate criticism. It also makes it impossible to challenge the real anti-Semitism that is, unfortunately, on the increase.
...

Jews Against the Occupation supports the broad-based call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel until it abides by international law.

...

It is the only non-violent way to put real pressure on Israel. It is in the proud tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

Criticism of Israel in the name of justice and human rights is much more in line with traditional Jewish ethics than the narrow focus of the shortest Zionist movement.

"Never again" must mean "never again" for all people, not just Jews.

I echo Vivienne Porzsolt's words. She is saying that there is a range of opinions amongst Jews with respect to the Middle East. Those who seek to say that the Jewish community is 100 per cent opposed to the boycotts, divestments and sanctions are simply wrong. The mover of the motion seeks to close the attack on the boycott, divestment and sanction campaign under the mantle of anti-Semitism. But the accusation surely does not sit comfortably with him. He is the same David Clarke who twice—once in April 2005 and then in April 2007—attended a commemoration of the rise of the fascist Ustasha Government into power in Croatia in April 1941. He is the same David Clarke who was reprimanded by the chief executive officer of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Mr Vic Alhadeff, who I acknowledge is present in the gallery today. In the Jewish News of 26 April 2007, Mr Alhadeff said of the Hon. David Clarke:

The function—

that is, the function attended by Mr Clarke—

celebrated Hitler's establishment of the Nazi state of Croatia ... This is a state that supported the Jasenovac extermination camp,
where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, including 60,000 Jews ... It is very troubling that such a brutal regime still finds support in democratic Australia.

There is no excuse for the Hon. David Clarke moving this motion when he so shamefully supported the celebration of the Nazi regime in Croatia. Like so many who come from the extreme Right, today he finds himself with the fanatical support of Israel. He joins with groups such as the Australian Protectionist Party and others in opposing the boycotts, divestments and sanctions campaign. Many in the Jewish community will be shocked to see the way the Hon. David Clarke summons up the memory of the Holocaust when his mentor—

The Hon. David Clarke: Point of order: I take exception to some of the comments made by Dr John Kaye. I find the comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr John Kaye is well past the point of merely addressing the motion. He is making serious reflections on the Hon. David Clarke, who has taken exception to them. The Hon. David Clarke, who moved the motion, will have an opportunity to respond to the comments of Dr John Kaye in his reply. However, if Dr John Kaye wishes to continue to explore these matters he should do so by way of substantive motion.

Mr David Shoebridge: To the point of order—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have made my ruling. Mr David Shoebridge will not canvass my ruling by taking a further point of order.
<8>
Dr JOHN KAYE: Use of the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes, as has been done in the Chamber today, is unconscionable. It is unconscionable because it holds to ransom the memory of people who cannot speak for themselves, the many people who were fine supporters of social justice and who stood up for the rights of other oppressed people. I cannot support this motion. Earlier this week Bob Brown, Christine Milne and the other Greens senators voted against the motions put forward by Senator Boswell and Senator Abetz. I will follow their lead and vote against this motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph (a).


The boycott, divestment and sanction movement is a valid expression of democracy. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that the boycotts did not in any way interfere with company profits. It is a legitimate way for individuals to protest. It is a way for individuals to say that they cannot tolerate the treatment of the Palestinian people, just as they cannot tolerate the treatment of other people who are abused around the world. If the Hon. David Clarke and supporters of this motion were serious about supporting the future of the Jewish people they would desist in giving unqualified support to Israel. The future of the Jewish people in the Middle East will be determined by a settlement that respects the human rights of the Palestinian people.

Those who live outside Israel, who give that unqualified support and refuse to tolerate any criticism of Israel, do the Jewish people no favour. All they do is create an environment in which the Jewish people and the state of Israel continue to operate without respect for the human rights of the Palestinian people. As long as that continues there will not be peace or human rights in the Middle East. This motion does nothing to advance the cause of human rights and peace in the Middle East; it works against them. This motion does nothing to respect the systemic denial of the Palestinians in the Middle East, and it does nothing to respect the rights of Australians to legitimately protest when they see injustice internationally. I am opposed to the motion.

Kate Ausburn: Conversations with BDS counter-protesters in Newtown

Dear Friends,
Sydney independent journalist Kate Ausburn has published the following article/interviews on the counter BDS protest which took place in Sydney on Sept 10. As Antony Loewenstein notes in his re-post of Ausburn's article "As the BDS movement grows in Australia – the hysteria in the corporate media and political elites suggest panic stations – it’s important to understand what those opposed to full Palestinian rights are arguing. Sydney journalist Kate Auburn attended a rally last weekend in Sydney and documented the following. Note the paranoia, mis-information, Nazi comparisons and inability to even accept that Palestine exists". In Melbourne, I experience a similar situation while attending the BDS action here on Friday 9th Sept.

A small group of Zionists and extreme right wing nationalists were in attendance (perhaps a half a dozen). As I was filming the rally as it moved off to march through the city, I caught on video one of the woman among the Zionist group. She was handing out leaflets and singing out in a sing song voice "Palestine does not exist Palestine does not exist". Earlier during the demonstration, another woman from the group physically assaulted on of the invited speakers, Aboriginal elder, Robbie Thorpe. BDS activists had to non-violently step in and stop the woman from assaulting him a second and third time (I hope to have video of the action edited up on the web in the next few days which includes image of both the woman denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people and the assault on Robbie Thorpe).

Ausburn's article provides a good insight into not only the politics but also the paranoia of many Zionist and rightwing-extremist nationalists counter protestors. As Jeff Sparrow notes in his article on the ABC's Drum, there is a growing alliance between the two (see his article here) Noticably in the last week or so, a number have claimed that a number of the chants being used at the BDS actions were either supposedly calling for the destruction of Israel/one state solution or are accusing the Jewish people of "blood libel".

According to Zionist and anti-BDS opponents, the chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is a call for the destruction of the Israeli state. However, as one Sydney BDS activist recently pointed out in a discussion I was involved in in a social networking site, this is a very deliberately distorted reading of the chant. The activist pointed out that in relation to this chant "Freedom can mean freedom from discrimination and oppression for the Palestinian citizens of Israel as well as freedom for those under occupation". Personally, I have never viewed the chant as having anything to do with either calling for the destruction of Israel or a one state solution, instead I have always viewed it as simply being a call for freedom of the Palestinian people, nothing more and nothing less. The paranoia of Zionists and their rightwing nationalist supporters, however, has certainly reached new lows with their new claim that the chant "Max Brenner, come off it, there's blood in your hot chocolate" is supposedly a form of blood libel. For those, who are unaware, blood libel refers to the anti-Semitic accusation and superstition that was rife in the Middle Ages which claimed that supposedly Jewish people use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals and for baking matzos for Passover.

The chant "Brenner, come of it, there's blood in your hot chocolate", however, has nothing to do with this appalling anti-Semitic accusation. Not only does BDS not target "Jewish" businesses, it is virulently opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As has been explained time and time again, BDS does not target Jewish businesses and nor does it target business simply because of the nationality of the owner/management. Instead, a business must actively profit from or support the Israeli state's apartheid and occupation policies.

As noted previously, Max Brenner Chocolate has been a focus for BDS action in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because it is owned by the Strauss Group — one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies, which actively supports Israel's military occupation forces. On its website, the Strauss Group emphasizes its support for the Israeli military, providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers. Strauss boasts support for the Golani and Givati Brigades, which were heavily involved in Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in the Winter of 2008-09, which resulted in the killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, the majority civilians, including approximately 350 children. While Strauss has removed information about their support for the Golani and Givati brigades from their English language website, information about the company’s support for both brigades remains on their Hebrew language site.

As a result, the chant has nothing to do with anyone or any business being Jewish. In addition, it is a chant which is in the long tradition of anti-war and human rights chants that have been used for many years in the anti-war movements and human rights campaigns. During the East Timorese struggle for freedom from the brutal Indonesian military occupation which was imposed on them for more than 25 years, one of the common slogans and chants used by Australian activists was "No blood for Oil", referring to the fact that the Australian government had turned a blind eye to the Indonesian state's human rights abuses and the mass murder of East Timorese being carried out by the Indonesian military because the Australian government was more interested in gain control of large areas of the Timor Sea gas and oil fields.

Similarly when the US staged it invasion of Iraq in 1991, a common slogan and chant at anti-war actions in the USA, Australia and around the world was "No blood for Oil" highlighting the fact that the USA was willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to gain control of the middle east oil fields. The slogan and chant was re-used when the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq in 2003.

In relation to the BDS protests focusing on Max Brenner, the chant seeks to highlight that Brenner/Strauss is a company which actively and proudly supports the Israeli military which is actively oppressing the Palestinian people and the fact that Israel's military occupation forces, such as the Givati and Golani brigade, who Strauss (Brenner's parent company) support have repeated been engaged in actions which have resulted in the death of thousands of Palestinians in not only in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but also in Lebanon (the Golani brigade was the Israeli military force which secured the perimeter of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp so that their allies in the Lebanese Phalange could carry out the massacre of 3000 Palestinian refugees in the camp. For more information on the massacre, see Robert Fisk's account of massacre here. Fisk was one of the first western journalist to arrive on the scene. You can also read my 2007 article on the Sabra and Shatila massacres here)

As a result the claims that this chant is supposedly a "blood libel" is a complete and deliberate false assertion. This claim/assertion is being enacted and used by Zionists and their supporters in the same way that the repeated slurs of anti-semitism and Nazism against the BDS movement are being used. Not only are they completely disingenuous but they are a cynical attempt to falsely paint the BDS movement and protestors as anti-Semitic and to try and silence pro-BDS and pro-Palestine voices. As Jewish Australian journalist, Antony Loewenstein noted in articles and on twitter, those using Nazis and anti-Semitic slurs against the BDS movement and BDS activists are not only cheapening the memory of those who died in the Holocaust but are also setting up a situation to make it more difficult to fight real ant-Semitism when it occurs (see Loewenstein's article Enough with the Nazi Slurs here)

****************************

Conversations with BDS counter-protesters in Newtown

.
by Kate Ausburn On September 13th, 2011
Visit Kate Ausburn's blog here

At the BDS protest outside of Max Brenner in Newtown this past weekend I took the opportunity to have a chat to those amongst the counter-protest crowd. I wanted to find out what had made then join the protests against the BDS.

Because there are a range of reasons that people have come out to protest against the BDS Max Brenner campaign, I have noted what people were wearing when I spoke with them. I felt it relevant as it can give an indication of their motivation to rally; for example, those in Australian flag gear were openly Australian Protectionist Party aligned. There were a number of people in “I love Max Brenner” tshirts, I’ve heard these were printed by Newtown anti-Burqa muralist Sergio Redegalli, but I can’t confirm that, though Sergio was amongst the anti-BDS crowd sporting one such tshirt. There were also those in plain clothes who I spoke with too.

The first person I approached was the man I’d spoken with before the rally. He had been pulling down BDS rally posters near the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre and a passerby asked him what he was doing, he was soon yelling at the passerby and BDS rally goers who had gathered. He wasn’t so keen to explain why he was counter-protesting however, simply telling me, “There are a lot of people who could say it more clearly than I would.”

I did have luck elsewhere however.

Person in plain clothes: I’m a Holocaust survivor, I was raised in Poland, I was born in Poland before the war. In Poland my parents were exposed to a lot of anti-Semitism and they were forced out of their village in Poland. Fortunately, we emigrated to Australia. Australia is my home. I love it. And these demonstrators, what they are chanting, for me, is offensive, they are chanting things like there is blood in my chocolate. Blood in my chocolate refers to, it’s um, it’s a blood libel that the Nazis used to justify the massacre of 6 million Jews. Blood in my chocolate refers to Christian children’s blood that the Nazis said the Jews used to make their food, which is really abhorrent to me, and it’s vile. What they want is for Israel not to exist. They are chanting the Hamas mantra. The Hamas mantra is that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state, which means that the Jews that live in Israel would be subject to another genocide. My people have already been subject to a genocide. And Max Brenner has nothing to do with it, they have a very tenuous relationship with the Strauss Group in Israel. It’s so tenuous you can compare it to McDonalds and America. I think they are a bunch of anarchists and trouble-rousers.

Now into the thick of the Australian Protection Party front-line:

Woman in Australian flag bandana: I’m here to support Max Brenner. I’m here with my friend today, I’m not a member of the APP (Australian Protectionist Party). Max Brenner supplies the Israel Defense Army [sic] with chocolate and stuff …
Me: So that would be a good thing?
Woman in Australian flag bandana: Yeah. It is. There’s no such thing as Palestine.
Woman’s APP friend [pointing at BDS rally]: It’s very ignorant. Uneducated. This business is paying Australian taxes. He’s employing Australian people, paying his taxes, doing the right thing.

And over to the “I love Max Brenner” crew stood beside the APP:

Me: Do you want to tell me why you’re here today?
Man in “I love Max Brenner” tshirt: Yeah. Because hate towards Israel is growing right across the Western world, not only the Middle East, ok? And if you let it grow like that, without standing up against that trend you’re going to have a repeat of history. I believe if you talk to these people over the other side of the road here individually you’ll find they are grossly ignorant of the facts. They don’t know Middle Eastern history, they don’t even know the history of the West. They’re over there because somebody has told them things that they haven’t examined themselves and uh, they think maybe they are doing the right thing in what they are doing but it’s going to… all it’s going to produce is what we’ve had in the past.
Me: What should happen to Palestine?
Him: Well. They’re yelling out over there ‘Free Palestine’, well, ok, free it from Hamas. You know, read the Hamas charter, the Hamas charter is a foundational document for the Palestinian people at the moment. They voted Hamas in. Have you read the Hamas charter? I’ve read it. And when I read… within there I see a hatred and something that will feed hatred against a people called the Jews and a state called Israel. And it’s obvious to see if you look in the Middle East, what is the free country in the Middle East? What country has freedom of speech, freedom of association?

[few seconds of indecipherable comments due to loud chanting]

I think this. If someone is firing rockets at me, almost daily, and if someone has a charter that says the Israelis must be obliterated, literally, that’s what it says, it quotes Hasan al-Banna in the Hamas Charter, and it says that Israel must be obliterated, not we want our own separate state -

Me: So is the current situation the best way to resolve that?

Him: I don’t understand your question.

Me: Settlement expansion in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza.

Second man, interjecting: How old are you?

Me: 25.

Second man: I’m a bit older. I’m coming close to 60. That land wasn’t Palestine before. It was Jordan, Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for Jordan, they never claimed to get freedom for them, but when its the Israelis they say ‘yes it’s my land’ [a couple of seconds indecipherable] it’s all bullshit, it’s never been occupied, it’s been occupied by Jordan [indecipherable] it’s all propaganda, I was born there, I’ve been in two wars.

Me: Where were you born?

Second man: I was born in Israel, my dear, I’ve been in two wars. It was occupied by Jordan, they have Jordanians, not Palestinians. It’s been disputed over the last century.

Me: Ok so are you guys going to keep coming back to these protests?

Second man: This is a free country, they can’t come and do this, this is ridiculous. I don’t know why they do this, they’re idiots.

And back to the plain clothed folk. This young woman approached me asking if she could explain why she was there:

Young woman in plain clothes: This situation is a mess, it’s a real mess.

Me: What situation, the rallies, Israel-Palestine?

Young woman: The rallies, the Middle East. We’re not going to solve problems by fighting and screaming at each other across the street. We need to build bridges and stop fighting. I think both sides have a just claim to the land and both sides need to make concessions. I think the Israelis should share Jerusalem, because the Palestinians have a claim to that land. The Palestinians need to let go of the right of return. And I think that can happen. But basically, both sides are being stubborn and they are both digging their heels in and preventing peace. So yeah, we just need to not hate each other so much, and here in Australia there is no reason to hate.

Me: Did you come on purpose today or were you just walking by?

Young woman: No, I came on purpose.

Me: To, which one?

Young woman: Uh. I believe, I, well. Well I’m a Jew. I believe Israel has the right to exist where it is, I believe that there should be a two-state solution. I believe that Israel should withdraw from the settlements that in the two-state solution won’t fall into Israel, because I mean, the place is going to get divided. Some of the settlements will become Palestinian territory and some will become Israeli. I think they should stop building for the moment while they are trying to make peace.

I had other conversations that touched on similar concerns (ie. Hamas is actually the problem, Palestinian doesn’t exist, BDS protesters want to obliterate Israel, BDS protesters ignorant of situations, as well as those who were insistent it was anti-Jew not anti-Israel etc). There were the two young men who had dropped by on their way home from work, they said they just didn’t like “greens”, pointing toward the BDS protesters. I also had one woman speak at me for several minutes about how the Bible had proved the land of Israel was given over to the Jews and so on. Others still simply waved Omo or Lux in my face when they realised I was probably not there to rally along side them (one APP slogan was ‘smelly ferals go away’, so they taunted BDS protesters with cleaning products like laundry detergent and soap).

Film: Some of my best friends are Zionists

Initial Development Trailer: Some of My Best Friends Are Zionists from Open Letter Productions on Vimeo.

Open Letter Productions presents a trailer for their upcoming film "Some of My Best Friends Are Zionists" - documentary-in-progress by Bruce Robbins and Jeff Boyar which is a discussion with a range of Jewish people about why they are no longer Zionists.

Max Brenner and the Strauss Group: yes, Brenner is an Israeli owned company

Dear friends,
some of you may have seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald on the recent BDS action outside of Max Brenner in Newtown in Sydney (you can read the article here)

In the article, the chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, is quoted as criticising the BDS protest saying:

''Why are these extremists targeting a legitimate Australian-owned business?''

I have also had a couple of people ask me for clarification on this, so here is some information that may be useful (as far as I can ascertain, Brenner is not a franchise but is a subsidiary of Strauss - that is it is owned and controlled by Strauss)

Max Brenner Chocolate has been a focus for BDS action in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because it is owned by the Strauss Group — one of Israel’s largest food and beverage companies, which actively supports Israel's military occupation forces. On its website, the Strauss Group emphasizes its support for the Israeli military, providing care packages, sports and recreational equipment, books and games for soldiers.

Strauss boasts support for the Golani and Givati Brigades, which were heavily involved in Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip in the Winter of 2008-09, which resulted in the killing of approximately 1,400 Palestinians, the majority civilians, including approximately 350 children. While Strauss has removed information about their support for the Golani and Givati brigades from their English language website, information about the company’s support for both brigades remains on their Hebrew language site.

In solidarity, Kim

************

According to Bloomberg Business week: "Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a restaurant that focuses on chocolate products. Its menu includes chocolate waffles and crepes, fondues, sweets, desserts, ice creams, hot chocolate drinks, choctails, cocktails, smoothies, coffee and tea, appetizers, entree salads, sandwiches, breakfast, brunch cocktails, chocolate martinis, and wine. The company also offers chocolate products for kids. It offers its products through stores, as well as online. Max Brenner, Ltd. was founded in 1996 and is based in New York, New York. It has locations in the United States, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Israel. Max Brenner International Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Strauss Group Ltd. (Bloomberg Business Week published on Sept 4, 2011, click here for article)

Max Brenner's Australian website on its contact page states: "Please note that all Australian Max Brenner Chocolate Bars are company owned and we do not currently franchise" (see contact page here)

When you go to the Strauss global website - it states on its front page that Strauss is "one company with 5 businesses" and then list the 5 business, one of which being Max Brenner (click here)

Strauss corporate structure is also listed on the Strauss global website and it clearly notes that Brenner is part of their company, including the companies in Australia (click here)

Also other links about Strauss/Max Brenner

http://duns100.dundb.co.il/ts.cgi?tsscript=comp_eng&duns=600008874
and
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/StraussElite-Group-Company-History.html

"You are either with life or against it - Affirm Life" - a poem by Suheir Hammad

Palestinian American spoken word artist, Suheir Hammad on the tragedy of the North American 9/11, terrorism, mourning for those killed in the Towers and the demonisation of Arab and Muslim Americans.

The Other 9/11 - Chile - Coup d'état - September 11, 1973

On September 11, 1973 a military coup was started by General Augusto Pinochet that ousted the democratically elected President Salvador Allende of Chile. Allende's was the first democratically elected Marxist government in the world. This documentary produced by BBC Four is a chronicle of the event from witnesses and archive footage. A chilling and moving account of the day by perpetrators, as well as those at receiving end, who survived to tell this story of a defining moment in Chile's history. It changed Chile forever. It is the only full length (almost 1 hour) documentary in English on it. Also, it is the only documentary that takes into account both sides of the story.

Free speech and the Irvine 11: criminal court case against American Muslim Students who protested against the Israeli Ambassador begins

Dear friends,
as many of you will be aware, the court case against the "Irvine 11" began this week in Orange County in the United States. In February 2010, 11 students interrupt a speech given by Israeli Ambassador, Michael Oren, on the Irvine campus of the University of California. The students, from the Muslims Student Association, sought to protest Israel's brutal assault on Gaza in 2008/2009 which resulted in the death of almost 1400 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians, including 350 children.

For more than a year a witch hunt has been conducted against the young protestors. They have been charged with a misdemeanor conspiracy to commit a crime and misdemeanor disruption of a meeting. A month or two ago charges were dropped against one of the students because the District Attorney had filed charges against the student using privileged information (for more information, click here)

As the students and their supporters have noted, protest similar to theirs take place all the time in the United States, with students and political activitist engagingusing similar tactics to protest a variety of issues, both before and after the February protest by the Irvine 11. However, no other prosecution has been brought against protesters in the same manner they have been against the 11, clearly revealing that the political nature of the prosecution and that freedom of speech does not extend to Muslim students, particularly those who protest against Israel.

Please find below a great video of the press conference in support of the Irvine 11, who are currently being prosecuted in the United States for disrupting the speech of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at the Irvine campus of University of California.

Electronic Intifada has also run a recap of the opening day of the trial, which I have included below.

In solidarity, Kim

----



Recap of first day of Irvine 11 trial: "no unlawful act was committed"
09/08/2011
by Electronic Intifada

(original EI article contains embedded links not included here. To access original EI article, please click link embedded in the EI name above)

Today’s opening statements in the Irvine 11 trial included explicit deconstruction by the defense team of the Orange County District Attorney’s argument that the Muslim students who protested an Israeli official’s speech last year did so in violation of a California penal code for conspiracy.

“You cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed,” stated a defense attorney in the courtroom today.

The trial, now underway in the Orange County courthouse in Santa Ana, California, focuses on the prosecution’s claim that the students violated the penal code that could send the students to jail for up to two years on two misdemeanor counts: conspiracy to disrupt a meeting, and disruption of a meeting.

Kifah Shah, media coordinator and spokesperson for the Irvine 11 solidarity group, Stand With the Eleven, told The Electronic Intifada that approximately 100 supporters packed the courtroom after attending a press conference outside of the courthouse. Several major media organizations also attended the pre-trial debriefing, which was organized by local community leaders from such groups as the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and several interfaith leaders and professors at UC Irvine.

The LA Times’ Orange County-based Daily Pilot reported that Father Wilfredo Benitez of the Saint Anselm of Canterbury Episcopal Church stated at the press conference that “[t}his smells of persecution. In a free country … this should simply not be happening.” The report continued:

Moutaz Herzallah, whose son Taher is among the defendants, said Rackauckas “threw the [U.S.] Constitution in the trash” when he decided to press charges.

Moutaz Herzallah, who is from Gaza, said he immigrated to the United States “to have peace, dignity and honor” and that the D.A. should be prosecuted for his disregard of the Constitution.

Shah said that the opening day of the trial “went really well.”

“There were a lot of people there, and a lot of community members came out to support. There was a sentiment of eagerness in the room awaiting and anticipating justice. There was a hopeful feeling,” she added.

I asked her if she had a sense of whether the selected jurors were given a clear picture of what went on during Ambassador Oren’s speech that has led to the prosecution of the students, following the opening statements by the defense and prosecution teams.

Shah replied:

Yes. They went over what happened and explained it thoroughly to the jury. They went through exactly what happened, and obviously in their own terms. In terms of the opening statements, the prosecution is arguing that this was a “heckler veto” — meaning that individuals don’t like what’s being said, and decide to “veto” a speech. The prosecution lawyer reiterated that the students tried to “shut down” the event, to provide the evidence during his statements that [the protest] was a conspiracy. He also went over the fact that they belong to a group, the Muslim Student Union (MSU), and that these defendants “conspired together as a group to enact a heckler’s veto.”

He said that the MSU “was not happy” that the ambassador, Michael Oren, was coming to campus, and “they didn’t want to debate the ambassador — they decided they wanted to shut down the event within the guise of acting as individuals. They wanted to shut him down.” Like I said, he repeatedly asserted that the Irvine 11 wanted to shut down the event.

The other part is that he also talked about that it’s the act itself that the jury will deliberate upon, and not the content of the speech. He added that in the beginning of [Oren’s event] itself, the chair of the Political Science department had stated that we “expect and relish debate on campus, but will expect nothing but civility and courtesy” [from the audience]. And then he said that even the Chancellor, when the protest began, that “this is outrageous, and this violates the rules.” So the prosecuting attorney chose these statements in particular to tell a story to the jury — that this was a violation of rules, that this was a conspiracy to shut down the event.

The defense attorneys also laid out what the defendants did during the protest, and what that looked like for them. What was really hit it on the head was that [defense attorney] Reem Salahi stated exactly what was written on the index cards [from which the students read during their protest]. This was a concerted, calculated effort — it was not their intention to resist removal, they were not trying to stall or prolong anything — they simply wrote down what they wanted to say on their index cards, said what they had to say, which amounted in total for each of them just a few seconds, which took up a cumulative five minutes including the jeers from the crowd.

In their emails [that were subpoenaed during the investigation], the students were talking about not resisting, being nonviolent, acting with a certain demeanor — the defense was illustrating how it wasn’t their intention in any way to “shut down” the event. At the end of the event, even Michael Oren had said that he wished the students who protested and were removed from the ballroom “had stayed … it was that group that I wanted to address.”

The defense said really well that “you cannot have a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act if there is not an unlawful act that has been committed.” So what the prosecution has is a conspiracy to commit a crime, and then the actual committing of that crime. But in terms of whether or not a crime was committed, we’re looking at CA Penal Code section 403 which states that there is a violation if a meeting has been disturbed or broken up. However, there was not a crime that was committed here — Oren did finish his speech, at the end of which he stated that he wished the students had stayed.

Another argument is that Oren wasn’t able to do a question and answer — but if you look at how the event was advertised, they didn’t even say that there was an intention that there was going to be a question and answer section to Oren’s speech. The penal code was not violated. That means that the prosecution’s argument of a “shut down” didn’t happen.

In closing, I asked Shah to talk about the solidarity efforts of her campaign, Stand With the Eleven.

Well, even from the opening statements, this is a political opportunity for the district attorney’s office — everyone knows he’s running for re-election, and I really think that if this is selective prosecution, it’s really important to remember that now it’s not just about these ten students, but it’s significant for all Americans at this point. The precedent that is set concerns everyone’s rights to free speech.

The district attorney is the one who’s committing egregious acts of intolerance and persecution. It’s not about these ten students in a courtroom anymore, now it’s about every American and everyone’s rights to free speech.

The Electronic Intifada will continue to update our readers on the Irvine 11 trial. The verdict is set for 23 September.

Lives in the Balance by Jackson Browne

Dear friends,
Jackson Browne wrote this song in 1986, the year the Reagan Administration bombed Tripoli. I986 was also the same year that "Contra-gate" became a public scandal in which the CIA was exposed for selling arms to Iran to fund the contra -war in Nicaragua.

In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front over threw the US backed dictator Samoza. Over the next decade, the Carter and Reagan Administrations sought to bring down the popular socialist movement, which introduced reforms which benefit the ordinary peasanst and workers of Nicaragua, including land reforms, health care and education. In 1981, a US State Department insider boasted that the Reagan Administration would "turn Nicaragua into the Albania of Central America" - that is, poor, isolated and politically radical - so that the Sandinista dream of creating a new, more exemplary political mode of social equality for Latin America would be in ruins.

1986 also marked the midpoint of the El Salvador civil war, which was feuled by the US government funding the military junta to the tune of $7billion over 10 years.

Browne's song could equally as well have been written about the Bush or Obama administrations and its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its intervention into the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Browne's song, unfortunately, remains today as current as ever...

In solidarity, Kim

Gisha and Free Gaza Movement respond to the Palmer Report's whitewash of the Israeli attack on the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla

Dear friends,
as you will have probably heard, a leaked copy of the Palmer report has been obtained by the New York Times. The Palmer Commission was appointed by the UN Secretary General to investigage events surround the murderous attack on the Gaza flotilla in 2010.

According to the New York Times, the Palmer report makes the following assertions:

* Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is "both legal and appropriate".
* the report "takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza"
* the report takes a hard line on the flotilla, asserting it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.”
* But the Israeli navy boarded the flotilla was "excessive and unreasonable"
* that there was “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers” and were therefore required to use force for their own protection.
* the loss of life due to the Israeli military's "excessive and unreasonable" force was "unacceptable" and that the Israeli military treatment of passengrs was "abusive"

You can access the full NYT article here.

However, it is important to note that New York Times states the "report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law".

In other words, the Palmer Commission written after assessing from any of the flotilla participants or even from any of the media upon the flotilla. Thus as the NYT notes, it can not be classified as definitive in relation to either FACT or international LAW, instead it relies upon the deeply biased report by the Israeli military and state, with their assertions that the blockade is legal and that they acted appropriately.

Amnesty International pointed out in January this year, that the Israeli Turkel report was deeply flawed. Amnesty International also pointed out that the Turkel Report used "Highly contentious legal arguments were used by the Commission to argue for the applicability of international humanitarian law to the raid, rather than international human rights law or law enforcement standards" (see Amnesty International report here)

Gisha, the Israeli based Legal Centre for Freedom of Movement and the Free Gaza Movement has issued the following statement and briefing papers in relation to the media reportage of the leaked Palmer Report. Gisha's briefing paper in particular address the legal issues relating to Israel's blockade. The FGM address the broader political whitewish of the report.

I have also included two videos, which include raw footage shot by Iara Lee that was taken at the time of the Israeli attack on the Mari Marmara. As Lee, outlines in the first video which includes an interview with Democracy Now, she had to smuggle out her footage, as Israel confiscated nearly all the footage and discs and refused to return it. This footage and photographs stolen the Israeli military were not made available to the UN Palmer Commission.

In solidarity,
Kim


-------------------------
Q&A on the Palmer report
by Gisha