Medical Aid for Palestinians has sent out an alert that many crucial drugs in beseiged Gaza have run out.  Their appeal follows a World Health Organization report from June 2011 that of the 480 medications on the essential drug list, 178 (37%) were reported at "zero stock levels" in the Gaza Ministry of Health's Central Drug Store. Stock levels continue to decline.

Essential drugs at zero stock levels 2007: 14%, 2008: 16%, 2009: 18%; 2010: 24%, 2011: 37%.

According to the UN's Protection of Civilians Weekly Report for 7-13 December 2011 the lives of 450 patients on kidney dialysis machines in Gaza were at risk due to no stocks of essential drugs.

Gaza is occupied Israeli land, and under international law the occupier is obliged to address the humanitarian needs of those it has under military control. Israel has a world-class medical system and is obliged to extend this to Palestinians under its control. Instead, it has placed Gaza under an unconscionable seige, and the human toll rises week by week.

Medical Aid for Palestinians comments:


To donate to MAP's appeal for funds for medicines click here. Funds are needed in the short term just to keep Palestinians alive. But if they are ever to live in freedom, dignity and equality, it will take more than funds alone. Only the international boycott of Israel seems to have any chance of bringing this 'lunatic state' back into line with international moral standards.

The French government, along with several agencies highly supportive of the government of Israel, had brought legal proceedings against French activists for calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. The charges had been brought under French anti-racism laws. The tribunal of the 17th magistrate’s court of the Paris law courts, which specialises in matters regarding freedom of expression, has now ruled, and found in strongly favour of the activists and the boycott.

In brief: the tribunal rejected the accusation of racism and underscored the legitimacy of calls for boycott. It insisted on the distinction between the members of a nation and the government of a state, and said that the right to criticize a state and its practices is based in fundamental rights of freedom of expression. It added that calling for a boycott of Israel clearly could not be racist, since many Israelis themselves call for it. [Not that anyone was confused about this in the first place; but it's useful to see it established in law - ed.]

The tribunal judges stressed that:

“Since the call for a boycott of Israeli products is formulated by a citizen for political motives and it is part of a political debate relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a debate concerned with a matter of general interest with international significance, the offence of provocation to discrimination, based on the fact of belonging to a nation, is not constituted.”

The judge explained that the article of law cited by the plaintiffs aganst the boycott (article 24, paragraph 8, Law of 1881) is designed to “fight any form of racism” and cannot be cited in order to forbid a call for boycott “suggesting a certain form of conscientious objection, which each of us is free to express or not to express” and “launched by non-governmental organisations without prerogative powers”.

Relying on the decisions of the Court of Cassation and of the European Court of Human Rights, the tribunal pointed out that:

“Criticism of a State or its policies cannot be regarded, in principle, as infringing the rights or dignity of its nationals, without seriously affecting freedom of expression in a world now globalized, whose civil society has become a major actor, and since no ‘criminal offence against a Foreign State’ has ever been established under substantive law or international common law, because this would be contrary to the commonly accepted standards of freedom to express opinions”.

The tribunal added that “the other calls from certain sectors of civil society for the boycott of such and such products coming from a country or a company are numerous, without having ever been incriminated as misuses of freedom of expression”.

Here the judge lists a great many previous and recent calls for the boycott of products, tourism in certain countries, Olympic games in others, among which the boycott of the Year of Mexico in France in 2011 and the boycott of Burmese products by Carrefour.

The judge also insists on the fact [those calling for boycott] can never be accused of “provocation to discrimination, violence or hatred against a group of people because they belong to the Israeli nation, since certain sectors of Israeli opinion support the BDS call”. (He explicitly refers to the declaration of the Israeli Women’s Coalition for Peace, Israelis who ask international artists not to come and perform I Israel, and to the support given by many personalities from Desmond Tutu to French ministers, parliamentarians or intellectuals, whom we cannot suspect of any form of racism.)

Examining the opposite views presented by the plaintiffs [opposing the boycott], the tribunal points out that: “The confrontation of points of views is very likely to convince us that the peaceful and unrestrained call for the boycott of Israeli products is an integral part of the opinion debate generated everywhere in the world by the preoccupations linked with the settlement of a conflict which has raged for more than 60 years.”

BDS ACTION BEYOND REPROACH
Regarding the publication of [a] BDS video by Olivia Zémor on the website www.europalestine.com and its content, the tribunal concluded that:

“The publication of a video lasting a few minutes, during which activists called for the consumers of a supermarket not to buy products from Israel and to support such a boycott for political reasons, on a matter of general interest with international implications, which has mobilised the international community for years, until now in vain, with the aim for a peaceful settlement: does not constitute in any of its elements an offence of provocation to discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons on the grounds of belonging to a nation, in this case Israel”.

Likewise, “The language of the presentation, unquestionably militant, is indissociable from the call for a boycott, which the defendant is free to support in order to express her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

[Adapted from a posting by Europalestine]

Resisting from within

A public meeting organised by York Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Clementhorpe Room, Priory Street Centre, York
Thursday 8th September, 7.30 pm

Anarchists Against the Wall is a group of Israeli activists who originally came together to work with Palestinians to oppose the land-grab represented by the Apartheid wall. They soon came to realise that the very presence of Israeli protesters significantly lowered the level of violence from the Israeli army, and offered a degree of protection to the Palestinians.
Although the Palestinians have paid the highest toll, the young Israeli anarchists have put themselves at considerable risk of injury, imprisonment and even death at the hands of the Israeli Defence Force.
A member of AAW is dropping by York PSC to will tell us of their part in the continuing struggle of Palestinians, Israelis and Internationals working together to end the occupation and injustice.

Israel has also seen major revolutionary stirrings in the past month: there has been a huge tent city movement which, although overtly aimed only at economic matters, and steering itself away from the occupation, is nonetheless having a powerful impact on Israeli attitudes; our guest may be able to tell us more about this, which has so far been little reported in UK press (though see this film from the Guardian).

Admission free, of course.

Rev Dr Stephen Sizer is giving an illustrated talk in York entitled 'What is Christian Zionism'. This draws on his books Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? and Zion’s Christian Soldiers? The Bible, Israel and the Church.

Friends' Meeting House, Friargate, York YO1 9RL

Wednesday 20th July, 7.30pm

“I am glad to commend Stephen Sizer’s ground-breaking critique of Christian Zionism. His comprehensive overview of its roots, its theological basis and its political consequences is very timely. I myself believe that Zionism, both political and Christian, is incompatible with biblical faith. Stephen’s book has helped to reinforce this conviction.” Revd John Stott, CBE Rector Emeritus, All Souls, Langham Place, London, the principal framer of the Lausanne Covenant (1974) and founder of the Langham Partnership International.

Yesterday, Obama called for the creation of an independent Palestine based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps resulting in a 'contiguous' state of Palestine.

There is nothing new in the idea that a US President should espouse this view. It is a restatement of international law (as expressed in particular by UN Resolution 242) and global consensus; Bush and Clinton both called for a two-state solution. The question is what he will do to achieve it, and what the state itself would look like.

Obama called for Palestine to take over its own security arrangements as Israel withdraws its troops: the US has been engaged in extensive training and support for the Palestinian police force. The impression is that the US would be happy to have a Palestinian state which operated like Bahrain or the Yemen: a little police state with a rich elite gated off from the heavily controlled and impoverished masses. Fatah sees the future of Palestine in much the same terms, it seems.

It's possible to have a Palestinian state which is just as bad as the occupation. It's conceivable that the Palestinian state envisaged would exist in the gaps left between the network of settlements and military posts which Israel has constructed. This would be an independent state in the sense that the cells and corridors of a prison constitute an village independent of the prison guards. The crucial question is whether Israel will withdraw its settlements. At the moment the settlements exist because the Israeli Defence Force protects them. This insistence on Palestinian security sounds a lot like the plan is to hand control for protecting the settlements over to the Palestinians. Not a word has been breathed about withdrawing them.

There is intense debate over whether a two-state solution is even desirable. The proponents of a one-state solution point out the danger that a fake state should come into existence which freezes the refugees out of the picture, but which also draws off enough outrage that the situation drops off the agenda: they call for a one-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal political and economic rights, and which provides for a just outcome for refugees. On the other hand, in the public mind, the idea of a two-state solution is often taken to be the end of the matter -- once the Palestinans have a state, how could they complain? Who wouldn't want a state? (Obama did make passing reference to the refugees - "Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees": 'wrenching and emotional', note: not "matters of universal political and moral agreement".)

For others the two-state solution is seen as the only possible next step on the way to a one-state solution. Chomsky, for example, argues that in the long run we can imagine the borders between two states would come down, and there would be unification of territories and legal systems (like in Germany) which would create a peaceful single state; but that the only options open at present are continued occupation or a flawed two state solution. Those who disagree, like Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada, hope that international campaigning, and especially the Boycott campaign, can persuade Israel to agree to a just one-state solution without moving via a one-state solution, since the dangers of the two-state solution are too grave,

===

Full text from the Guardian

Extract on Israel and Palestine


For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

My administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel – how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I'm convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, "I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict." And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. "I have the right to feel angry," he said. "So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate … Let us hope," he said, "for tomorrow"

That is the choice that must be made – not simply in this conflict, but across the entire region – a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It's a choice that must be made by leaders and by people, and it's a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

This is a charity event to raise urgently needed funds for Medical Aid for Palestinians.
 
The continuing humanitarian crisis in the occupied Palestinian territories - Gaza and the West Bank - has led to a high incidence of burns injuries, one of the most painful and serious ordeals a person can experience, and for which local hospitals are inadequately equipped.
 
All the proceeds of this special showing of Lawrence of Arabia will help fund urgently needed medical facilities for the treatment of burns. Visit www.map.org.uk/burns for details of this vital work.
 
Tickets for the event are £7 and there will be a Raffle with lots of exciting
prizes.

To book by telephone call 01509 221155 and use site number 13.

Shir Hever is an Israeli author and economist with the Palestinian-Israeli organisation The Alternative Information Centre; he recently published "The Political Economy of Israel's Occupation" (Pluto, 2010). He'll be speking at:

Friends Meeting House
Friargate (off Castlegate)
York YO1 9RL
Friday 25th Feb
7.30pm

His latest book will also be availble on special offer.
Event brought to you by York Palestine Solidarity Campaign | www.yorkpsc.org.uk; and Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (UK) | uk.icahd.org.

Al Jazeera reveals that for the past few months it has had access to a massive cache of secret diplomatic documents to do with the so-called peace process.

Al Jazeera is refusing to say how they came to have the documents; but they say they have spent months working to check their authenticity. The documents are being released from the 23rd-26th Jan 2011.

The first batch of documents reveal how Palestinian negotiators offered Israel almost all of East Jerusalem - an historic concession for which Israel gave nothing in return. A crucial document is provided here: this is a transcript of a meeting between Ahmad Qurei, Condoleeza Rice, and Tzipi Livni, in which Ahmad Qurei proposes that 'that Israel annexes all settlements in Jerusalem except Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa).' He adds: 'This is the first time in history that we make such a proposition; we refused to do so in Camp David.'

Follow the release of the Palestine Papers on Al Jazeera, here.

On 8 January, Chile became the latest country to recognize the state of Palestine, joining
Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Venezuela. Meanwhile, Mexico, Peru and Nicaragua are said to be considering recognition, and a forthcoming summit of the Americas in Argentina may see more follow (image from BBC/AFP).

According to commentators, the Government of Israel (GoI) has 'declared war' on this diplomacy, spinning that it is counterproductive to the (so-called) peace process. This is 'breaching the whole framework that has allowed us to negotiate so far', said an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman; 'By rewarding the Palestinians as it were, when they refuse to negotiate, this will certainly not encourage them to return to the negotiating table.'

The fact that the GoI is hysterical about the diplomatic initiative does not necessarily mean that it poses any problems for Israel and the US; after all, it's normal for GoI supporters to get hysterical about even relatively benign developments (it's all part of being a lunatic state). However, some commentators are seeing this upgrading of diplomatic relations as a step in a long-term strategy which might really mean something.

Arieh Cohen, writing for Asia News, thinks that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a Abu Mazen) is pursuing a three-stage diplomatic strategy. The first stage was to build up credible national institutions under the cover of the Palestinian Authority; the second, now underway, is to gain international recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state; and the third would be United Nations recognition of Palestine. If the strategy succeeds, he suggests, the legal framing of the Occupation would change radically:


Work, says Cohen, is also proceeding on stage three (recognition by the UN), with the preparation of a carefully worded UN Security Council Resolution reaffirming the illegality of Israel’s colonization of the occupied territories. The Jewish Chronicle reports that the Palestinian strategy is to base the wording of the UN Resolution on actual statements by Obama and Clinton about settlement building. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat is quoted as saying: 'It's a very moderate resolution by design because we don't want the US to veto it'.

Given that the Palestinian Authority, run by Fatah, is actually responsible for much of the day-to-day implementation of the Occupation; given that it is legendarily corrupt, and that Fatah worked with Israel to overthrow the government which Palestinians elected in 2006 (i.e. Hamas), etc., etc., one might view the international recognition of the state of Palestine under Mahmoud Abbas -- with muscle presumably supplied by Israel and the US -- as an unpleasant prospect. Perhaps the US would indeed countenance an independent Palestinian state -- provided it was on the model of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

But the shifts of power that might accompany this diplomatic strategy might also give a little space for a more hopeful outcome, and we should watch the outcome of the summit of the Americans carefully.