Five pages of a search on the 7th&15th June showed that only one British paper covered the joint Jewish-Arab demonstration in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square earlier this month, though it was covered in many other countries. A few days later the FT – no longer British-owned – gave good coverage.
Tens of thousands had been peacefully protesting against Israeli plans to annex whole swathes of the occupied West Bank. The Times of Israel reported that police initially sought to block the rally but gave permission after meeting organizers, who urged participants to wear masks and adhere to social distancing guidelines and appointed officials to ensure adherence to these safety measures
The demonstration was organized by Meretz, a left-wing social-democratic and green political party and Hadash, which supports a socialist economy and workers’ rights. It emphasizes Jewish–Arab cooperation. It was joined by several other left-wing rights groups.
Nitzan Horowitz, the head of Meretz, told the crowd that annexation would be a “war crime” and would cost Israel millions as the economy is already reeling due to the pandemic:
“We cannot replace an occupation of dozens of years with an apartheid that will last forever. Yes to two states for two peoples. No to violence and bloodshed. No to annexation, yes to peace.”
Fellow Meretz MK Tamar Zandberg said the agreement would “officially make Israel an apartheid state… sovereignty without citizenship is apartheid.”
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders addressed the crowds via video link: “It’s up to all of us to stand up to authoritarian leaders and to build a peaceful future for every Palestinian and every Israeli … The only future is a shared future.”
His friend, Ayman Odeh, an Israeli Arab lawyer and leader of the Joint List alliance of Arab-majority parties to which Meretz and Hadash belong, told those gathered:
“We are at a crossroads. One path leads to a joint society with a real democracy, civil and national equality for Arab citizens … The second path leads to hatred, violence, annexation and apartheid. We’re here in Rabin Square to pick the first path.”
In a long and comprehensive Financial Times article* today, Mehul Srivastava, writing from the occupied Jordan Valley, reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu (below) has sent mapmakers across the West Bank to prepare for the Israeli parliament’s vote on a new map described in the ‘peace plan’ presented by the Trump administration in January.
It proposes to annex almost a third of the occupied territories — from the entire fertile Jordan Valley, to the homes, factories and vineyards of some 650,000 Jewish residents in the settlement blocs near Jerusalem.
Several maps are presented in the FT article and a great deal of information about the 1993 Oslo Accords, signed when Mr Netanyahu, new to the Knesset, shouted at then prime minister Yitzak Rabin that the Bible was Israel’s “deed to the land”.
Shrivastava describes the proposed Palestinian state as being “shrivelled to a constellation of disconnected enclaves after Israeli land annexations”:
- major Arab cities like Ramallah and Bethlehem would be connected to each other only by highways and tunnels,
- Palestine would have only a tiny strip of land — perhaps just a highway — connecting it to Jordan,
- And the future of several thousand Palestinians in the Jordan Valley remains unclear. They might live in restricted enclaves or become non-voting residents of Israel.
Mohammed Shtayyeh, prime minister of Palestine, is a UK-trained economist. In an interview in Ramallah, he said: “I am angry. I have invested most of my life in this process, and all I have wanted is for our people to have a moment of happiness, not to live under an occupation forever.”
A group of UN human rights experts warned “What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world”.
A good time to bury bad news
Shrivastava ends by saying that Netanyahu hopes to pass this legislation while he has a favourable administration in power in the US, at a time when regional support for the Palestinians has declined and other countries are focussing on controlling the coronavirus epidemic and restarting economic activity.
The FT editorial says, ”The world should not be silent on Israeli annexation”. Will British media report the news, or assist the Trump/Netanyahu plan by remaining silent ?
*People with a serious interest in this subject who face a paywall may ask for a gift link to this article via its comments section.
A Bardali case-study about alienation of its water supply may be read here.
The following 2004 broadside was fired by Lord Steyn, described in his Times obituary as an “Outspoken law lord whose liberal views became a thorn in the side of the Blair government, especially over Iraq and Guantanamo Bay”, following Lord Hoffmann’s suggestion that the courts should not interfere with certain Government decisions.
“Courts must never abdicate their duty to protect citizens from the abuse of power by governments . . .The United States government has already created a hellhole of utter lawlessness at Guantanamo Bay by committing such abuse.”
Lord Steyn was born and bred in Cape Town and was one of the few native Afrikaaners who fiercely opposed apartheid. He won a Rhodes scholarship to read English at University College, Oxford and after being called to the bar and sitting as senior counsel in South Africa’s supreme court emigrated to Britain in 1973 to start on the bottom rung of the legal ladder.
Though English was not his native language, his Afrikaans accent remained thick and his ‘delivery’ in court was hesitant, he was admired for his clear arguments and his skill in cross-examination. Having served as the presiding judge on the Northern Circuit, Steyn moved to the Court of Appeal in 1992. He was made a life peer in 1995.
A detainee from Afghanistan is carried on a stretcher before being interrogated by military officials at Camp X-Ray at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Telegraph 2016)
In 2003 he accused the home secretary, David Blunkett, of using “weasel words” to justify his policy on asylum seekers. Five months later, Steyn branded the US regime at Guantanamo Bay “a monstrous failure of justice” and declared that the system of trial by military tribunal was no more than a “kangaroo court” that “makes a mockery of justice”.
The unkett then blocked his appointment to a House of Lords judicial committee
The senior law lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, was asked not to include Steyn on the nine-judge panel to decide on the legality of detaining foreign terror suspects without trial – the first time a government had ever sought and obtained an alteration in the composition of the House of Lords’ judicial committee.
His other achievements include:
- being one of the judges who ruled by a 3-2 majority that the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was not entitled to claim sovereign immunity from prosecution;
- reproving Lord Irvine of Lairg, the lord chancellor who sought ‘an unfettered right to impose rule changes on the legal profession; “He is a member of the executive carrying out the party political agenda of the Labour administration. He is a politician. To entrust to a cabinet minister the power to control the legal profession would be an exorbitant inroad on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers”;
- claiming, when Britain introduced executive detention without trial in 2001, that the UK opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights was not justified “in the present circumstances”.
- arguing, as chairman of Justice, the human rights group, that the Iraq War was unlawful and said that, “in its search for a justification in law for war, the government was driven to scrape the bottom of the legal barrel”;
- dismissing Tony Blair’s suggestion, just months after the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, that the war had not made London a more dangerous place as a “fairytale”.
A champion of the Human Rights Act 1998, he retired satisfied that it had already “transformed our country into a rights-based democracy”. Hmm . . .
Anthony Lester, QC, wrote: “He has woven the Human Rights Act into the fabric of our legal system. He has a terrier-like tenacity and the courage of a lion. He’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to replace.” Agreed.
Nelson Mandela’s life included violence and controversy but he “walked the walk” paying the price of twenty seven years in jail for the racial equality he fought for South Africa. For all the country’s complexities, imperfections and astonishing betrayals, the concept of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission surely averted a cycle of vengeance which would have dwarfed the country’s continuing turbulence.
In death, however, he has uniquely highlighted the monumental paucity of integrity, intelligence, introspection and vision of a swathe of Western politicians.
Prime Minister David Cameron led the session reminding all:
“We must never forget the evil of apartheid and its effect on every day life . . .”
He might ponder on his words when he, his Foreign Secretary or party members next jet off on a Conservative Friends of Israel junket to that apartheid state, which behaves as he described, additionally seizing lands, demolishing homes . . .
President Obama’s address was a masterpiece of oiled humbug:
” … while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be better. He speaks to what is best inside us . . . We can choose to live in… a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice … ”
The previous day, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen. Two days later, seventeen people in a convoy heading for a wedding party were killed, ten instantly, seven dying shortly afterwards and in differing reports, between five and twenty two remain seriously injured. The President, it is reported, personally signs off on these obscenities, weekly.
On hearing of the death of Mandela, Bill Clinton tweeted: “I will never forget my friend Madiba.”
An instant response was: “Then why was he on the US Terrorist Watch List during your Presidency?”
George W. Bush said: “President Mandela was one of the great forces for freedom and equality of our time … our world is better off because of his example”
But Nelson Mandela condemned George Bush as: “. . . a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust. … If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care.” (30th January 2003.)
For Tony Blair, the Memorial was, as ever, a business opportunity . . .
(added) before the ceremony he said: “Nelson Mandela was someone who brought out the best in people”
But it is reported that Nelson Mandela felt so betrayed by Tony Blair’s decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq that he launched a tirade against him in a phone call to Peter Hain, who was a government minister. Hain said Mandela was “breathing fire” down the line in protest at the 2003 military action. The trenchant criticisms were made in a formal call to the minister’s office, not in a private capacity, and Blair was informed of what had been said.#
–http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-12-2013/126435-mandela_cameron-0/ http://stopwar.org.uk/news/r-i-p-nelson-mandela-18-july-1918-5-december-2013#.UrNaHiee8fE http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/750-the-media-s-hypocritical-oath-mandela-and-economic-apartheid.html .