This is an article that I wrote for the African edition of ehospice news.
“The African Palliative Care Association (APCA), in collaboration with The Open Society Initiative for Eastern Africa (OSIEA), the Open Society Institute (OSI), the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Uganda and the Palliative Care Association of Uganda (PCAU), has launched a series of publications on legal and human rights issues in palliative care.
Filed under Health, Human rights, Uganda
This is a guest post by Angelique Mulholland. Angelique is a tireless human rights campaigner, articulate social commentator and a very good friend of mine. Please read, comment and share.
As part of my trip around Asia to find out more about women’s human rights at ground level, I have spent a week in New Delhi in the lead up to the big event in every activists’ calendar- International Women’s Day.
Within 72 hours of arriving in New Delhi, I was sexually harassed twice, both times on the Metro. With the “New Delhi gang rape” fresh in my mind, I can honestly tell you, I have felt a number of extreme emotions over this past week. Fear and anger are just two of them.
Both times, I said nothing to these men who presumed they had a right to touch me without my permission. In your head, when you imagine this happening to you, you always think you’ll fight back and give them hell. But in the reality of harassment – it doesn’t always work that way.
I am fortunate though. I am fortunate because all week I have been working for a human rights charity called Breakthrough. They understand better than anyone why it can be hard for the victim to speak up. That’s why they encourage intervention from others; both men and women. Their most successful campaign here in India is called “Bell Bajao” which in Hindi means “Ring the Bell”.
India’s biggest women’s human rights problem is not in public spaces, it’s actually in the home. The objective of the campaign is clear and effective; if you hear a woman being subjected to violence next door, then “Bell Bajao.” Get up, go next door and #RingTheBell. Intervene. Stand up for that woman. Here is one of the powerful videos, created by Breakthrough which shows how the people of India can do just that.
As I have learnt, intervening is an extremely important part of ending violence and harassment against women. Why? Because very often it is too difficult for the victims of violations just to speak out for themselves.
Why is it so hard to speak out? Why did I say nothing to these men?
I said nothing because I was shocked – beyond belief – both times. You may think I would have been prepared after all the reading I had done on the daily harassment that many women face in New Delhi – but no – I assure you, nothing prepares you for a man grabbing your breast when you innocently get off at your stop, or a man pushing himself up against you after he glimpses your shoulder when your top slips down by accident. Nothing prepares you for either of these things and shock is definitely the first emotion.
I said nothing because I was scared of the repercussions. I estimate that there is a ratio of 100 men to 1 women on the streets of Delhi. If I had shouted at either of these guys on the train, would the other men have stood up for me? Would they have laughed? Would they have understood? Would I have put myself in more danger? Would they have given a shit? I don’t know. I really don’t know…
I hope that Breakthough’s new campaign “One million men, One million promises” will galvanize men into standing up and intervening. The campaign aims to get men in India and around the world to make a promise to stand up for women’s human rights. Make a promise to intervene if they see a woman being harassed. Make a promise to tell other men who are behaving inappropriately to start behaving appropriately and with respect. Putting it simply, it’s about getting the good guys, and there are so many of them, to stand up and tell the bad guys where to go…
“One Million Men, One Million Promises” was launched on International Women’s Day at the British High Commission in New Delhi. I was there and tweeting with the digital team. Please do follow both @LeakyM and the Twitter account for the event which is @bell_bajao for updates. The hash tag is #RingTheBell.
For the women of India who are harassed and subjected to violence on a daily basis – I ask you to join the campaign and make your promise to help end this.
Filed under Human rights, Social comment
This is a copy of an interview I did for charity Children of Peace. Children of Peace is a UK based charity that works with both Israeli and Palestinian children to build positive relationships for a future generation, whose communities might live and work in peace, side-by-side.
“Steve is a human rights worker who spent five months in 2012 in the occupied Palestinian territories as part of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Israel and Palestine. He is currently working in Kampala, Uganda.
Sarah Brown (Sarah): Could you tell us what sparked your interest in Israel/Palestine?
Steve Hynd (Steve): A mixture of design and chance is the straight answer.
My sister studied ancient Hebrew at the University of Jerusalem and was living in West Jerusalem in 2001 and experienced first-hand the impact suicide bombers had on the community in which she was living. I was at secondary school when this was happening and it challenged me to think about the conflict. My sister was moved deeply by what she saw, but will openly admit, she only saw one side of the story. This was my very first introduction to the conflict.
Since then I have been actively involved with human rights issues and organisations for a long time. Invariably Israel/Palestine came up – especially during my time at Amnesty International in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead.
At first though, I chose to work on other issues and countries and took an active interest in countries such as Turkmenistan (described by Freedom House as ‘the worst of the worst’) thinking that there were others with more knowledge and better placed to work on the Israel/Palestine conflict. I thought to myself ‘what could I contribute?’
Only after getting involved with EAPPI, almost by chance, I have come to think that I do actually have a role to play and something to contribute.
Sarah: What made you decide to work with EAPPI?
Steve: I became interested in a model of human rights work that combined impartial monitoring with the concept of ‘protective presence’. This was being practiced by organisations like Peace brigade International (PBI) and the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme for Israel and Palestine (EAPPI). PBI worked mainly in South America and EAPPI worked in the West Bank. In the end I chose to apply for EAPPI for a range of reasons including being interested in positive examples of faith based organisations – this led me, in many ways by chance, to Israel and the occupied territories.
I had also come across EAPPI as I had previously worked for the Quakers (who coordinate EAPPI in the UK and Ireland) and had heard very positive feedback from people I respected. Before I applied I contacted Symon Hill (author of the No-Nonsense Guide to Religion) who at the time worked at Friends House in London and he had nothing but praise for the organisation.
Sarah: EAPPI has faced some recent criticism. Would you like to comment on that, or, more generally, on the assertion that Israel, as a comparatively accessible and open society, comes in for a disproportionate amount of scrutiny?
Steve: In the lead up to the Church of England synod vote (to endorse the EAPPI) they did come under a lot of criticism. A small amount of which I felt was valid, but a lot I felt was not valid and indeed was often inaccurate or misleading.
As with all conflicts, EAPPI as a human rights organisation challenges some vested interests and gets attacked because of it.
In terms of Israel more generally…
Israel is paradoxical in its human rights record. In one sense, as the question suggests, it is open and free. It consistently does well in terms of press freedoms and is a beacon of hope, in stark contrast to its neighbours, on issues such LGBT rights.
You cannot however, examine Israel’s human rights policy, without looking at their foreign policy and their on-going occupation of the territories and their continued disregard for International Humanitarian Law.
I have no doubt that some people use these violations as a tool to attack Israel – either because of regional politics or because of anti-Semitic values. Equally however, from my experience, most people working on the conflict are doing so because they care passionately about the victims. I know a number of good people working hard for peace that have been lazily labelled ‘anti-Semites’ – this cheapens a very serious problem.
Equally, sometimes the criticisms of human rights organisations are unfounded. For example, Human Rights Watch is often accused of ‘attacking Israel’ and focusing disproportionately on Israel. In reality, Human Rights Watch works on 17 countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Israel accounts for about 15 percent of published output on the region. The Middle East and North Africa division is one of 16 research programs at Human Rights Watch and receives 5 percent of total budget.
I accept that Israel has more focus on it than most other countries (such as Turkmenistan), but I still maintain that we need more focus on these neglected countries rather than less on Israel. In my opinion it is a disgrace how few people care about, or are willing to work for the people in Turkmenistan.
This why, whenever I speak to people about Israel/Palestine I insist that we can all be doing more and working harder.
Sarah: Could you tell us about some moments which most stick in your mind from your time with EAPPI?
Steve: It is hard to pull out a couple of moments. There was not a day that went by where I didn’t hear about how people’s lives were being affected by the occupation.
Perhaps the best place to start would be the occasion when I felt the most hope. I was in Sderot in Israel on the border with Gaza and we met with representatives from the peace group ‘Other Voice’.
Every house in Sderot has a built in ‘safe room’. I was told residents have just 14 seconds to get to it should they hear the warning siren before rockets from Gaza might hit. This is a physical impossibility for many such as Sderot’s elderly residents. People live in fear. Nearly all of Sderot’s residents have been affected by rocket attacks.
Despite this reality, I found people who were looking to work creatively with Palestinians to find a lasting peace. I passionately believe that change needs to come, at least in part, from within Israel. Groups like Other Voice might provide the seeds from which this change grows.
A second example that sticks in my mind highlights the complicity of the Israeli Defence Force in some of what is happening. I was in the village of Urif and settlers had set fire to a large section of Palestinian farmland. When Palestinians went to put the fire out, the IDF fired teargas at them and the settlement security shot a Palestinian in the spine. When Palestinians went to help the man, the IDF continued to fire tear gas at them. The whole time they watched on as the settlers continued to undertake acts of arson.
This is just one of many examples where the IDF were not fulfilling their responsibilities to protect the occupied population!
Sarah: Is there anything which really surprised you in Israel/Palestine? And anything which you have changed your mind about?
Steve: It surprised me quite how the occupation affects every part of life for so many people. Before I went, I understood that terrible things happened. I didn’t understand that not a day would go by in the West Bank without either a demolition, a midnight raid of a village, some arbitrary arrests, detentions, excessive use of teargas, child detention, etc. The reality of everyday life for an ordinary Palestinian shocked me.
I was lucky, and unusual, in that before I went I didn’t hold many preconceptions about the conflict. In that sense I would say that the experience was a steep learning curve for me.
Sarah: Which commentators (journalists, writers or bloggers) on Israel/Palestine would you recommend to someone wishing to learn more about the region?
Steve: This question has a catch in it. One of my biggest gripes is that too many people approach the conflict from a partisan side-taking perspective. If you follow bloggers, journalists and writers, you have to take 90% of them with the assumption that they are pushing an agenda. In light of that, I feel more comfortable naming a few organisations (with the understanding that I might not agree with everything that they say/do)
I would encourage everyone to explore and read on this issue as widely as possible – trying to empathise with what has been written.
Sarah: Can you tell us something about your hopes/fears for the future?
Steve: The same as most people I think – I hope for lasting peace that enables Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side feeling safe and secure.
My fear? That the detrimental spiral of violence and mistrust will continue and people will continue to suffer.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East, War
This article was written for Left Foot Forward.
MPs have confirmed that the word ‘insulting’ will be removed from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
This is a major victory for an unlikely alliance of free speech campaigners including The Christian Institute, The National Secular Society and Rowan Atkinson.
Last month the home secretary Theresa May announced that the government was ‘not minded‘ to challenge a House of Lords amendment removing the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
In the past Section 5 had been used against street preachers ‘insulting’ homosexuals and LGBT activists ‘insulting’ religious groups.
As Rowan Atkinson commented, “The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult”
This change in law is a victory for freedom of speech in the UK.
There remains, however, an important limiting role for the law to play. That role is to provide protection to those who are victims of threatening or abusive behaviour.
In 2011 I blogged saying that, “We all hold the right to live without fear or intimidation. This has to be legally separated, however, from being ‘insulted”.
The distinction has finally been acknowledged by the government and the change in the law later in the year is now just a formality.
It is worth noting, though, that even with this change in law, the discussion about what constitutes threatening behaviour compared to ‘insulting’ behaviour will remain. There is a considerable grey area around what the law should interpret to be ‘threatening’ and what it should view as merely ‘insulting’.
For example, ‘My Tram Experience’ – a video showing a vile torrent of racist abuse on a south London tram – sparked two very different interpretations.
I thought her behaviour was threatening and therefore called for her arrest, while bloggerSunny Hundal argued that she was simply being insulting.
With the change in law however, the police are some way towards having a clear distinction to follow. We are no longer asking them to be the judge of what behaviour is deemed ‘insulting’, at least.
Filed under Celebrity, Human rights, Media, Politics, Social comment
“When I entered the door of the “family friends,” I was horrified to see several naked girls on the floor who were being cut. When I realized that this was a trap, I cried out and struggled to leave the house, but it was too late. My clothes were torn off, and three women pinned me to the ground while two others used a dirty knife to mutilate me. The pain was excruciating, and I struggled and screamed throughout the procedure. I couldn’t walk normally, and I experienced recurring bleeding for several weeks after the procedure”
Tools used in FGM
This was the reality of one girl who experienced ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ (FGM), but she is one of over 100 million girls who have experienced FGM. FGM is practiced in 28 African countries, Israel, Iraqi Kurdistan, Oman, Yemen, and occurs within migrant communities around the world including in the United Kingdom.
Today marks a globally coordinated effort to help eliminate this practice – the ‘Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM’. A cause that I passionately support.
Is the traditional human rights approach to tackling FGM the most effective?
FGM is undoubtedly, a violation of a girl’s human rights. It amounts to nothing short of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment as prohibited in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Amnesty International goes further saying it can prohibit a girl’s right to:
FGM however is a bit of an anomaly in human rights violations. It is more than possible for the violator to care for the victim. Indeed, it is possible for the perpetrator to honestly believe they are acting in the victim’s best interest.
Very few other human rights violations involve this dynamic.
Many of the women who take part in the practice will defend their actions on grounds of tradition, religion or even health.
Normally these assertions do not hold up to rational analysis. For example, the WHO has condemned the practice saying it has “no health benefits” and can have numerous long term health consequences.
Tackling FGM then is partly about education, to break down lingering myths. It is also more complicated than though as there are still many who see it as a positive act – despite the risks and pain it can involve.
My partner told me about an interesting sexual health survey she helped undertake in Sierra Leone where the women were asked to fill out sexual health time-lines with positive events above the line and negative events below. Each woman put their ‘initiation’ above the line.
Thus the problem is two-fold. It is a human rights violation where potentially neither the violator nor the violated may understand it as a problem.
This is not to undermine the fact that it is torture, and that it can, and often does, have serious long-term consequences. Nor does it undermine the girls who have stood up and campaigned against this practice.
It is simply to point out that there might be a contradiction between the west’s commitment to participatory approaches to development and our more absolutist approach to human rights. How do we reconcile this?
This isn’t the only issue…
When we are looking to stamp out this practice – something which I am passionate to do –how do we avoid the ‘double punishment’ to the victim of having their genitals cut and losing their mother? Is it in the child’s best interest to see their mother sent to prison for X number of years?
Equally, how do tackle FGM in an equal and fair manner. The academic, Marie Dembour puts forward a moral dilemma to draw out inconsistencies in western approaches to FGM.
You have two court cases involving FGM. One where the mother did it because she loved her child and it was part of her cultural upbringing. The other where the mother brutally attacked the daughters genitals and there were no cultural arguments to mitigate the action.
Should the crimes have equal punishment?
If you think they shouldn’t, how do you level the criticism that you are protecting one child more than the other? Is the deterrent less if you come from a group who traditionally practice FGM?
If you think they should have the same punishment, do you just ignore all of the mitigating ‘culturally relative’ evidence?
I have no concrete easy answers to this, or any other question I have put forward so far.
I feel uncomfortable that some of those campaigning against the practice seem uninterested in trying to understand the complexity of the arguments and to empathise with those practicing FGM.
Interestingly, one of the most positive examples of eliminating FGM came through the project ‘Tostan’ in Senegal which the founder said, “didn’t set out to end FGC” but to empower communities.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt.
Filed under Health, Human rights
Israel has become the first ever country to not turn up to its own session under the UN ‘Universal Periodic Review’ (UPR) setting a worrying precedent. By boycotting this human rights mechanism, they have moved further away from their friends and foe in the international community.
In July 2010 I wrote:
“We cannot allow their regime to dictate when it will cooperate; equally we cannot risk casting them off into the diplomatic wilderness where human rights abuses can occur unchecked”
I was writing about Iran and their unhelpful approach to the UN UPR.
On that occasion, the papers were quiet. It wasn’t considered news that Iran had essentially failed to cooperate, in any genuine way, with the new UN human rights process.
Today, in contrast, the papers are filled with Israel’s non-cooperation with the UPR. Israel didn’t attend their own review as part of their ongoing boycott of the UN Human Rights Council. They are boycotting the council after the council launched a fact-finding mission in March 2012 on the (illegal under IHL) Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Israel has long argued that there is bias against it within the UN. Since 2006 more than half the resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council since it started work in 2006 have focused on Israel, specifically over the treatment of Palestinians. For some within the Israel the fact-finding mission was the last straw.
For others it was an essential investigation into Israel’s ongoing violations of IHL.
Regardless, this boycott by Israel has set a dangerous precedent of non-compliance.
Peter Splinter, Amnesty International’s Representative to the United Nations in Geneva argues:
“Israel’s deliberate absence would sabotage the principle of universality. Consequently the Universal Periodic Review stands to lose the compelling legitimacy it derives from being applied even-handedly to all state”.
He continued, “Why should states that would prefer to escape scrutiny of their human rights record, or are severely resource constrained, submit to this process if Israel’s non-compliance demonstrates that it is no longer universal?”
Iran, at least gave lip service to the process. Even Turkmenistan turned up!
There are very good reason why we should be worried about Israel’s no show. Again, in the words of Peter Splinter:
“There is evidence that for many countries throughout the world the Universal Periodic Review has contributed to narrowing the gap between human rights standards and their implementation. It would be a great loss to the global human rights project if the Universal Periodic Review were jeopardized”.
Israel’s closest allies, the United States, urged them to take part in the review. The United States ambassador to the council, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, said,
“We have encouraged the Israelis to come to the council and to tell their story and to present their own narrative of their own human rights situation…The United States is absolutely, fully behind the Universal Periodic Review, and we do not want to see the mechanism in any way harmed”.
It is not just those who care about Israelis and Palestinians who should be worried about this development. This has the potential to set a precedent for worst human rights violators around the world to follow.
Israel has recklessly disregarded another staple of international human rights mechanisms and have moved further away from their friends and foe in the international community.
Now, more than ever, we need Israel to be a functional part of this international consensus – not a rogue state on fringes.
We have to wait and see if they turn up to the rescheduled session later this year.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East, Politics
Today’s papers are filled with Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN-Arab League peace envoy, comments to the UN Security Council that Syria has reached “unprecedented levels of horror”.
His comments come in the aftermath of the UN estimate that 60,000 have now died in the conflict. Although the actual death toll is likely to much higher as the UN excluded any partial or unverifiable reports of killings.
Last summer Amnesty International reported of a “tide of increasingly widespread attacks on civilians by government forces and militias which act with utter impunity”. Significantly, Amnesty International highlighted evidence that war crimes had been committed by both the opposition and government forces.
In November the human rights organisation made a direct plea to William Hague to try and curb the pattern of abuse against civilians being perpetrated by the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
It is hard to imagine the situation getting worse.
Worryingly, some of Mr Brahimi’s comments that went less reported suggest just that. He commented, “The region is being pushed into a situation that is extremely bad”.
This is an understatement.
Firstly there is Iran. A key player in the conflict that is desperate to keep a Shi’a regional ally – not least as a potential arms link export market for terror organisations working in and around Palestine and Lebanon. Many, including the West’s regional partners such as Saudi Arabia, see a functional transition of power from Assad as a way of reducing Iran’s regional influence.
With neither side strong enough to win the war outright, the regional external players are only likely to increase the bloodshed. There is a growing possibility that the fighting will cross borders to draw in more concrete action from regional players.
Secondly, where there is war, there is a killing to be made through arms exports. This opportunity hasn’t passed the UK and US. Currently using routes through Jordan, the UK and the US is ensuring that arms reach their favoured groups – ignoring the above mentioned war crimes. Of course the UK would argue they are acting to ‘protect civilians’ and the arms trade is an inconsequential side note. Whether or not we believe them is a different question.
Either way, the arms industry (which we know to have a small influence on our government) is more than happy to see this war drag out.
Finally, the West’s aim, the overthrow of Assad, also has the chance to further increase the bloodshed. Haytham Manna writing in the Guardian highlights the thorny side of the armed opposition including al-Nusra who Obama has labelled a “foreign terrorist organisation” and who Manna said “indiscriminately targeted non-Sunni people”. Will they and other Islamist groups form part of the new government when they are playing such a pivotal role in the armed resistance?
Even after the overthrow of Assad, will this end the civil war?
Bahimi’s warnings are clear and should act as a warning, not just to the Russians and Chinese who continue to block calls for sanctions against Assad, but also to the West who seem all too eager to jump into bed with those who fulfil their short term goals.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East, War
We all know the story….the divine bump turns out to be the son of God, 2000 years later Coca-Cola has painted him red and we all eat too much to celebrate…it’s Christmas in the UK.
It has once again, come and gone.
Bethlehem though – the place where many think Jesus was born – remains.
It remains under military occupation. The following Christmas story, the story of modern day Bethlehem, is one for Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists alike.
When people sing about the little town of Bethlehem what do you think of? Donkeys? For me, I cannot help but to think of the modern, not so little, town of Bethlehem that I visited earlier this year. The town that is virtually surrounded by the Israeli military separation barrier.
Christmas cards often avoid modern images of the Holy Land. When they dare venture into the present day, you will normally see images of the Church of Nativity in the centre of Bethlehem. For some reason, it is less common to see images of the 8m high separation barrier that surrounds the town…I wonder why?
Bethlehem, however much Clinton Cards would have us believe otherwise, is a city that is still under military occupation. Those of faith and those without are living with the consequences of this – the illegal settlements, the separation barrier and the checkpoints that people are forced through daily.
As the Palestinian president Abbas recently said, “For the first time in 2,000 years of Christianity in our homeland, the Holy Cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem have been completely separated by Israeli settlements, racist walls and checkpoints”.
For me, no number of Christmas card images will take from me the image of Checkpoint 300 – a place that is devoid of any sense of humanity let alone Christmas cheer.
Checkpoint 300
What many don’t realise though, is that Bethlehem is not just the historical home to Christians but also the literal home to many Palestinian Christians. These Christians are suffering – in many of the same ways other Palestinians are.
The EAPPI report, Faith under Occupation highlights this point stating, “Palestinian Christians face daily violence. Their homes are confiscated or demolished. They rarely get permits to build new houses on their own land. Jobs are scarce, medical assistance is sparse and water is routinely cut off. While Christians from all over the world can freely visit the church of the Holy Sepulchre, Palestinian Christians are denied the right to freely worship, as they need special permission to enter Arab east Jerusalem”.
There is nothing here that is unique to Christians though.
There are many Muslims in the West Bank whose only desire is to be able to worship in Jerusalem but they are unable to obtain a permit from the Israeli state.
This Christmas, many who live in the ‘Holy Land’ are facing hardship that we cannot begin to imagine.
Christmas will soon be over, but the human suffering in Bethlehem remains. It doesn’t matter if you are Christian or Muslim in Bethlehem…you live under the same military occupation.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East, Religion
“It is very very scary…you never know where they will send the rockets, where they will attack. Each day I feel as though they will attack my house”. Asmaa Alghoul – Gaza.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the very basic standard used to govern armed conflicts. They are a set of rules which seek to protect those not participating in the conflict. Both Hamas and Israel have violated these basic standards in the recent up-surge in fighting. Everyone concerned needs to be condemning this – not taking sides.
The recent civilian death toll in Gaza has, once again, spiralled. At the time of writing at least 158 have died. The UN estimates, at least 103 were civilians.
Right from the start of the latest bout of violence, human rights groups have started to collect the evidence they need to illustrate that both Hamas and Israel have undertaken ‘indiscriminate’ attacks.
While IHL allows for civilian casualties, it leaves a duty on warring parties to show they have made a distinction between combatants and civilians. Israel has been accused of failing to do this on a number occasions.
By these same standards, Hamas’ rocket attacks are, almost by definition, violations of IHL. If the targets fired at by Hamas are civilian then they are clearly violating the principle of ‘civilian immunity’ – a basic tenant of IHL. Regardless though of the chosen target, the indiscriminate nature of Hamas’ arsenal means that they consistently fail the distinction test inherent within IHL.
This is not to say it is balanced war between two equal parties – it is clearly not in terms of military capability or geo-politics. Gaza’s borders are closed and so Hamas use any arsenal they can get their hands on while Israel has one of the best funded and high tech militaries in the world.
It is however to say that parties from both sides have violated the most basic standards set out to govern armed conflict and that this should be condemned.
Sadly though, this lack of regard for IHL and civilian life is nothing new – for either side. The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has a history of failing to meet the very basic standards laid down in IHL. In 2006, the IDF’s use of cluster bombs in Lebanon or their 2009 use of white phosphorus during operation Cast Lead, failed to meet the basic standard of distinction required by IHL.
In the latest up-surge of violence, Israel has insisted that it is only using ‘targeted’ strikes. Sadly we know now this is not to be the case. These ‘targeted’ strikes include the homes of Hamas officials, which are also the homes of civilians – thus they have failed to distinguish between combatant and civilian. A combatant’s home which is inhabited by civilians is not a ‘military target’ – it’s a civilian’s home!
There have also been examples of Israel targeting civilian targets. On the 19th and 20th November Israel bombed a media centre that killed two journalists (who are considered under IHL to be civilian). Thus, targeting of this media centre was a violation of the civilian immunity principle within IHL. Intentionally targeting journalists can be a war crime.
In addition to all of this there are examples of what Israel refers to as ‘mistakes’. For example the deaths of 10 members of the al-Dalou family when they struck the wrong house due to ‘bad intelligence’.
Of course, Hamas also has a dark history when held up to the scrutinizing light of IHL. The use of suicide bombers for example is a clear violation of IHL not to mention morally repugnant.
In the latest up-surge of violence, the on-going use of rocket attacks, as stated before, is a clear violation of IHL. Hamas shows no willing to acknowledge this. Already we have seen the impact that this can have; three Israelis were killed by a rocket attack on the 15th November.
IHL is not a nice set of laws – by its definition it allows for fighting and killing. It allows for example for Palestinians to resist the military occupation that they under (although this is one of the protocols that Israel has refused to sign).
Instead however of condemning those parties who fail to meet these crass basic standards. Too often people feel they need to take sides as the injustice of these attacks shines through. On one side you have Israel’s supporters who paint the government’s actions as ‘self-defence’ against an on-going terrorist attacks. On the other you have Palestinian supporters who paint Palestinians an oppressed people being forced into a basic form of self-defence.
Any objective mind can see that there is element of truth in both of these statements.
As I said before though, this is not say it is a balanced conflict against two equal sides. Indeed, these violations of IHL can only be analytically understood in the context of 45 years of military occupation and the regional hostilities.
The answer? I have no idea – if I did I wouldn’t be writing this, I would be picking up my Nobel Peace Prize. All that I am arguing here is that IHL provides a much better starting point to approach the conflict than partisan side taking.
For more on how IHL affects the Gaza/Israel conflict see http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/20/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas
Filed under Human rights, Middle East, Politics, War
Google is a gateway to the internet, to a wealth of information that many take for granted (Google handles about 34,000 searches every second – that’s about 2 million every minute).
As our desire for, and access to, information has grown, few have questioned what happens when this information is restricted or controlled. This article asks, what happens when the ‘Google gateway’ to information is shut?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”
In other words, it is a human right to be able to impart and receive information through any media – this includes Google and the video hosting company YouTube (owned by Google).
Google recently found itself in the difficult situation of hosting a video which has provoked wide-spread rioting across the Arab world. It has since decided to block this video in a number of countries, including Egypt and Libya.
They took this action despite Google officially stating that “This video — which is widely available on the Web — is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube…However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.”
So Google made this decision to block the video due to the ‘difficult situation in Libya and Egypt’.
By ‘difficult situation’ one can only assume they mean vested American interests being ruffled. I say this as I cannot see any rationale to blocking the video in these countries and not others. Did they not think it might pose a security threat in Palestine for example?
Of course freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and limitations and some would argue that this is Google living up to those responsibilities. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals”
On the one hand Google has an obligation to not unduly ‘interfere’ and restrict the imparting or receiving of information. On the other hand it has an obligation to judge when something is in the ‘interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety’. In a globalised internet generation, it is an ethical tightrope that they are trying to walk.
Kevin Bankston, director of the free expression project at the Centre for Democracy and Technology expanded saying, “Google is walking a precarious line…[blocking the video] sends the message that if you violently object to speech you disagree with, you can get it censored… [however] It seems they’re trying to balance the concern about censorship with the threat of actual violence in Egypt and Libya”.
From this incident there remain at least two important questions. Firstly, have Google been open, transparent and consistent about why and where they choose to block content? I think not.
Secondly, what mechanisms are in place to provide scrutiny and oversight to these global powerhouses that have become the brokers of freedom of expression in an internet age?
Can a company accurately decide what the impact of words, images or film produced in one part of the world, have in another? Is it their responsibility to act as world police to protect people through censorship of potentially offensive material?
There are no easy answers to these questions that potentially pitch human rights up against ‘common sense’ pragmatic restrictions that might save lives.
Filed under Human rights, Media, Middle East, Politics
In recent years Amnesty International (AI) has made a decision to move ‘closer to the ground’ to develop its campaigning and reporting capacity from in the ‘global south’.
There are some very good reasons for doing this. The Amnesty International ICM (International Council Meeting – the highest decision making body with AI) blog talks about what they are doing in Sierra Leone:
“In Sierra Leone, Amnesty has developed the concept of an ‘Amnesty Village.’ Amnesty International works with villages, in particular the local elders to discuss the concept of human rights. Staff attend village meetings on a regular basis to have conversations and share stories. As a result a shared community human rights conscience has been developed…Although concepts such as ‘Amnesty Village’ remain in their infancy, these early results are exciting”
Exciting indeed, but it comes at a cost. To fund this exciting expansion, national sections has been asked to increase the amount they give to the IS (The International Secretariat). For Amnesty International UK (AIUK) this means increasing their contribution from 30% of assessable income up to 40%. This figure goes along side a goal of increasing total income by 35% between 2011-2016.
At a time of global austerity this is ambitious to say the least. Amnesty International does not take general funding from governments so they rely on the likes of you and me reaching into our pockets. Something that as the recession lingers we are less inclined to do. Their ‘Strategic Direction 2011-2016’ document makes reference to this challenge stating:
“economic times are difficult and our income in 2009 and 2010 has been flat”
This sombre analysis was reiterated by the Chair of the board of AIUK who wrote to members at the beginning of June saying,
“Those who attended our most recent Annual General Meeting will recall that our Treasurer, Brian Landers, provided a sober assessment of our finances. Thanks to our supporters, AIUK’s income has been stable since the onset of the economic crisis. Indeed, it has grown slightly. However, this growth is insufficient to meet our increasing obligations”
It would appear though, that AI’s finances have turned from bad to worse. The UK section has been forced to look for savings to ensure that they can meet their commitments to the international movement. After much hand wringing this has come in the forms of cuts to staff positions.
This didn’t go down too well with the unions. Kate Allen the UK Director wrote to members saying,
“I am writing to let you know that regrettably I have received notification from Unite that union members have voted in support of industrial action at AIUK and that a one day strike will take place on 12th September”
UNITE – the union who represents the workers at AIUK said,
“There has been an on-going dialogue between management and the union since the announcement of proposed redundancies… From the start the union expressed serious concerns about the processes of restructuring the organisation, and the impact this will have on the organisation’s work…The restructuring and redundancy situation at AIUK is not due to financial crisis but it is due to the decision to increase our contributions to the IS”
They continued,
“Management have refused to discuss the time scales or amount of the increased assessment to the IS as part of negotiation, even though this is the cause of the proposed redundancies. The union made every effort to avoid a dispute, but management’s refusal to discuss the increased assessment has made this difficult. After exhausting internal avoidance-of-dispute processes, we were unfortunately left with no option but to ballot union members for strike action. This is the first time in over 20 years that the union has decided to take this step. The ballot took place in August, and 82.5% of union members voted in support of industrial action. No union member at AIUK has taken this decision lightly”
Kate Allen however clearly states that the contribution to the IS is something “we cannot and wouldn’t want to change”. She said,
“We entirely respect the right of our staff to take strike action but regret that they feel the need to do so, particularly as the action is over how much money Amnesty International UK should contribute to increasing human rights work in the global South”
It looks like UNITE and the senior management team (SMT) at AIUK are locked in a dispute. A dispute that the SMT insists is characterised by continued open discussions and UNITE insists is characterised by a refusal to discuss key issues.
As a result on the 12th September AIUK’s staff will strike for the first time in 20 years.
You can donate to Amnesty International – every little helps!
Filed under Economics, Human rights
On the 18th September the committee of International Trade (INTA) of the European Parliament will vote on a protocol attached to the EU-Israel Association Agreement called “the Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products’’ – commonly known as ACAA.
ACAA seeks to facilitate the EU’s internal market through eliminating technical barriers to trade, specifically in industrial products. It will save some time in accessing markets and save some costs. European and Israeli consumers will have access to a broader choice of pharmaceuticals and competition will lower prices. It is being pitched as a win win for both the EU and Israel.
So what’s the problem?
Human rights. Perhaps more specifically, Israel’s continued violations of human rights and international humanitarian law – even when the EU has asked them (repeatedly) to stop it.
The EU has openly, and at times boldly, condemned Israel’s ongoing human rights abuses within the occupied Palestinian territories. It is important that they do this. These statements however are just words unless they are followed up by action.
It is time for the EU to put their money where their mouth is.
Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement states that the “Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement”.
In the EU’s words, “Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights are the values on which the European Union is founded…Countries…must respect human rights, and so must countries which have concluded trade and other agreements with it”. In other words, business and trade deals cannot be separated from the human rights standards that the Union was founded upon.
The European Parliament must suspend its vote on the ACAA protocol. All I am asking here is for the EU to live up to its own standards.
This is not anything new either. In 2008 the European Parliament withheld assent to the Protocol on the participation of Israel in Community Programs for similar reasons.
So what can the European Parliament actually do?
The EP can accept, reject or postpone the vote on the proposal but it cannot amend it.
It would be madness to reject a protocol that holds such clear mutual benefit but, at the same time, the EU cannot accept it for as long as Israel refuses to budge on so many human rights issues. As such, the EP has to suspend its vote on the ACAA protocol until Israel complies with its obligations under international humanitarian law.
As you might expect, the Socialists and Democrats (Labour) and the Greens in the EP are ‘opposed to ACAA’. Equally as you might also expect the ECR (Conservatives) and EFD (UKIP) are voting in favour. The balance of power therefore sits with ALDE (Lib Dems). ACAA needs their 85 votes to get through.
ALDE, like the EU, has a strong position on human rights. In their own words, “Promoting human rights throughout the world regardless of nationality has been and remains one of the top priorities for the Alliance of European Liberals and Democrats for Europe… The European Union has now come to define itself in terms of the promotion of these rights and democratic freedoms.”
Lets hope that ALDE and the EU live up to their own standards. If they don’t, all they will have are words on a website. The world needs the EU, the Lib Dems and human rights to be more than that.
UPDATE – 2 MEPs have responded. The first was Keith Taylor MEP (Green, SE) – you can see his comments below.
The second MEP was Sarah Ludford (Lib Dem) who responded to Keith Taylor’s accusation that we couldn’t rely on the Lib Dems on this occasion. She tweeted:
@steve4319 Trade – or academic – boycotts are not the way to change Israeli govt behaviour. EU should deepen exchanges with all in Mid East.—
Sarah Ludford (@SarahLudfordMEP) September 17, 2012
This is not a boycott, it is a suspension of a vote until basic human rights and IHL standards are met. Sadly, it looks like Keith Taylor was right. Once again let down by the Lib Dems.
Filed under EU politics, Human rights, Middle East, Politics
This is a guest article by my friend and colleague David Heap who is currently based in Tulkarm. It was originally published on the EAPPI website.
For the Abu Ihab family, Friday wasn’t too bad. Admittedly there were Israeli soldiers on their roof firing tear gas, they couldn’t leave the house, the sons had been chased down the stairs by armed soldiers and the stink of tear gas and burning car tyres drifted through the room. But Isra’a, the youngest daughter, said they weren’t really afraid today.
Kafr Qaddum is a pleasant Palestinian hillside village of some four thousand people. It has a mayor, a mosque, an elementary school. It had a road joining it to the next village one and a half kilometres away – but not anymore.
Between the two villages are two Israeli settlements, legal under Israeli law, but illegal according to UN Resolutions, which expressly forbid the civilian settlement of lands occupied as a result of conflict. The road was closed for security reasons by the Israeli authorities in 2003. The only security problems the townspeople were aware of were some damage to their crops and olive trees in the early days of the settlement, but all had been peaceful for a good while. Israeli authorities had reportedly promised to re-open the road at the same time as the main road beyond it to Nablus re-opened. This happened two years ago, but their road remained closed.
Since the first of July 2011 the people of Kafr Qaddum have held a demonstration every Friday against the closure, which means a 20 kilometre detour to get to families and friends and a six-fold increase in bus fares for students. It can get very angry, as it had on the 15th of June this year, because the Israeli army had raided the village in the middle of the night before and detained 20 young men. They can be held in administrative detention inside Israel, many kilometres away from their families for hours, days, weeks, months or years, often without trial. If they admit to the claims against them (often stone-throwing) they can be released upon payment of a fine that is around 10,000 shekels (€2000.) A Palestinian going to work in Israel as a labourer or farmhand earns 120-180 shekels per day.
That Friday, it was a game of kids advancing and throwing stones, soldiers dashing forward threateningly with the guns, kids running back, soldiers withdrawing, kids advancing again went on till the main adult procession came up the hill. Tyres had been set alight and were now billowing smoke. The same pattern of ebb and flow was repeated, only now tear gas was being lobbed regularly. Mostly into a field to the side of the demo, but some skittering along the road into the crowd. Men were regularly brought back choking and temporarily blinded and a Red Crescent ambulance zoomed up and down giving aid to the worst affected. One man was hurt more seriously as it seemed his shirt had caught fire and he was burned.
Things quietened down after an hour or so and the procession came back chanting slogans. A quiet enough day we were told. Unlike the previous week there had been no chemically-created “Skunk” water shot from water cannons and no sound bombs, which disorientate and nauseate as well as deafen.
Back in the Abu Ihab house, which is at the outer limit of the village and always caught up in the midst of things, things were now quite calm. The soldiers had left the roof and for once had not cut the television cable. The mother was preparing a huge and delicious meal of chicken, rice, vegetables, pickles, pitta bread, tea and coffee.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East
“This really is paradise” said Ziv, a twenty four year old Israeli ranger working in the Yehudiya National Park. He flicks back his dreadlocks and smiles at us looking for confirmation. My colleague, good friend and fellow hiker, Helene responds, “It really is”. We were stood overlooking the impressive Zavitan waterfall which cuts into the incredible landscape that’s rich in fauna and wildlife. In the immediate vicinity of the waterfalls it is hard to disagree with either of their assessments.
Helene and I walked for hours through deep gorges, stopping only occasionally to swim in the natural pools. Sporadically however we would hear in the background the unmistakable sound of explosions. A reminder that the Yehudiya National Park is surrounded by Israeli military areas. At one point as we were sat by a pool side a flock of birds flew from the tree in which they were perched at the sound of an especially loud explosion.
With every explosion, I was reminded that we were enjoying ourselves in an Occupied Territory. This mixture of unworldly beauty combined with occupation followed by an illegal annexation is what I spent three days thinking about as I walked in the Occupied Golan Heights.
The Golan Heights were occupied by Israel during the 1967 war and as such they were internationally considered to be “Occupied Territories”. In 1981 Israel formally annexed the territory and argued this changed the territory’s legal status. Despite this annexation and subsequent claim, the law of belligerent occupation continues to apply until the international community acknowledges a political-legal settlement between the parties. This did not happen in 1981 and has not occurred since.
The UN Security Council Resolution 497 of December 17, 1981 summarises the international community’s response to the annexation stating, “(The UN) Strongly condemns Israeli annexationist policies and practices in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, the establishment of settlements, the confiscation of lands, the diversion of water resources, the intensification of repressive measures against the Syrian citizens therein and the forcible imposition of the Israeli citizenship on Syrian nationals, and declares all these measures as null and void as they constitute violations of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”
As such, as an Occupying Power, Israel is obligated to adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law, notably the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and must also adhere to the principles of the international human rights law. This position has been repeatedly upheld by the UN and international human rights organisations.
Despite this clear status the occupied Golan Heights is often ignored by the media covering the “Israel/Palestine conflict”. Journalist and author Mya Guarnieri commented on this saying, “Perhaps it’s easier for journalists to talk about ‘Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories’ or the ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ But to do so is an oversimplification that ignores the broader regional context that includes the Golan Heights”. Living in the West Bank, reporting on what I see, this is a criticism that I am acutely aware of. To understand the current struggle for the realisation of human rights in the oPT you must also have an understanding of the Golan Heights.
After the occupation of 1967 130,000 Syrians were forcibly displaced from the territory leaving only 6,000 behind. A report by The Arab Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan, highlights human rights abuses from expropriation of land and water resources through to settlement expansion. A report well worth reading.
What troubled me during my time in the Golan however was that all of this that I had read about human rights before visiting the Golan seemed a million miles from what I actually saw. Visiting the Golan Heights felt, as a tourist, to be no different from visiting any other part of Israel.
Hitch hiking to start a walk one day an Israeli picked us up, drove us no more than 5 minutes and insisted we take her number in case we were in the area and wanted to spend Shabbat with her family. I was met with a well maintained tourist industry and extreme kindness and hospitality – this was comparable to my experience in the rest of Israel.
My time in the Golan left me confused, it didn’t feel as oppressive as the oPT but I knew, in many ways, that it was comparable. My resolve from the trip is to return, to speak to more Israelis living in the Golan and to search out the small number of Syrians still living there, still resisting the occupation. What I witnessed, mainly from an Israeli perspective, was a complete normalisation of life, including the military presence. I left wondering what I would have experienced if I had spent time with the remaining Syrian communities in the area.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East
Twenty five year old Palestinian footballer, Mahmoud Sarsak is reported to be ‘losing consciousness’ seventy three days into a hunger strike as his health continues to decline.
Sarsak is protesting against his three year detention without trial. He is currently being held under Israel’s ‘Unlawful Combatant Law’. This law allows the Israeli state to hold him for an indefinite period of time without trial. Sarsak reportedly has not been told why he is imprisoned.
On 16th April 2012 Sarsak was transferred to Ramleh prison hospital as a result of his deteriorating health. Today, seventy three days into his hunger strike his lawyer has described him ‘losing consciousness’ regularly.
Please take urgent action on this case.
Filed under Human rights, Middle East
The silence was the most telling part of the whole meeting. The silence was intermittently punctured by the muttering of an occasional word. These words though, when they came, held the weight of a thousand. In this silence I could feel the presence of Waseam Barahem next to me throughout the meeting. Even when others were speaking I was conscious of his silence next to me.
Just over three weeks ago, seventeen year old Waseam was struck in the head by a tear gas canister, nearly died and momentarily lost his ability to speak. Today he is only able to say a few words. His father, Abu Walid remembers the day painfully, “I saw it all, I saw the soldier aim directly at my child”. Accounts vary, but most report the soldiers being fifty to one hundred meters away. All accounts that I have heard agree that the soldiers were firing directly into the crowd. This is something I have seen too many times before and is something that the IDF’s own regulations prohibit.
Waseam was struck directly on his head and suffered large amounts of internal bleeding. He was taken first to Nablus but then to a hospital in Jordan for a life saving operation.
His father described to me the moments after the shooting, “At first I didn’t think it was serious, just some blood on his head. Then the man who works with the ambulance told me it was bad. I wanted to go through the olive trees [to avoid the Israeli flying checkpoint] because I was worried they would try to arrest Waseam [on the way to the hospital]. The man who works with the ambulance though told me we had to go straight through the checkpoint because we didn’t have time to go through the trees. The soldiers also knew it was serious because when we come they open the checkpoint for us. They telephoned ahead to the hospital because they knew every minute counted”.
By any account Waseam is lucky to be alive.
Less than six months ago Mustafa Tamimi died after being struck by a tear gas canister. It is a very real danger that both internationals and Palestinians face when they attend protests.
Regardless of the dangers, the villagers of Kafr Qaddum continue to protest every Friday. I asked Waseam if he was worried about this coming Friday’s demonstration and the possibility of soldiers coming into the village. His answer was short but clear, “next Friday, I will go to the demonstration”. I looked at Waseam trying to read him, to distinguish the macho pride of a seventeen year old boy from what he was really feeling. Did he really not feel any fear after having such a close brush with death?
I turned to his father and asked if he was happy with his son being on the streets during the demonstration. His answer was framed in the context of the impossibility of criticising anyone who is ‘opposing the occupation’. He half shrugged and said “I always knew he would protest”.
I tried once more to frame a question in a way that would allow them to perhaps partly express their feelings. I asked Waseam if he was worried about his friends who go to the front of the demonstration. His silence stretched out for what felt like minutes before he finally replied, “I do worry about my friends”. His gaze fell to the floor and once again we were absorbed into his silence.
The sound of scraping chairs marked the end of our meeting. I left wishing Waseam a full recovery and I asked him to promise to “stay safe”. It felt ridiculous saying these words considering the context. Living in Kafr Qaddum, even if you avoid the weekly demonstration, is anything but “staying safe”.
Filed under Health, Human rights, Middle East
This article was written for the Tattooed Football blog.
As the football season draws to a close most of us are sitting back waiting for a summer of football to begin. With less than a month now until Euro 2012 kicks off, football fans across the globe are gearing up for the tournament, stocking up the fridge and pinning up the fixture list. Here in Israel and Palestine it is no exception. I have already sorted out front row seats for the England/France opener down the local (coffee shop)! There is however one exception, one guy who isn’t joining in this build up. His name is Mahmoud al-Sarsak who is, or at least I should say was, a member of the Palestinian football team.
Mahmoud is currently being held under Israel’s ‘Unlawful Combatant Law’ (a form of administrative detention – held without trial) and has been on hunger strike since the 22nd March 2012 in protest. Mohmoud’s detention is not up for renewal until 22nd August 2012. The insightful amongst you might well notice that this is well after the championships. The even more insightful amongst you might have counted up the days in your head and worked out that this guy might not even be alive come the championships. Amnesty International report that his health is “deteriorating”. The longest ever Palestinian hunger strike is 77 days – this is one record no one wants to see him break but he is coming pretty close. How much longer he can hold on for is debatable but I would count it in days not weeks.
You might well be thinking at this point “Bit of shitter, but there is f*** all I can do about it” (note the compulsory swear words proceeding any badly thought out point on the terraces). Well, I have good news for you. There are a few people over here that have the power to stop all this. One of them is a chap called Ehud Barak – he’s the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel and also the Defence Minister (in other words he holds a bit of sway). What we are asking is pretty simple. We would like him to firstly ensure Mahmoud is given full and specialised medical care in a hospital suitable to provide such care. And secondly to ensure that Mahmoud is either released or charged with internationally recognizable criminal offences and brought to trial in proceedings that meet international fair trial standards (jargon I know but it’s important – trust me). Not big asks. If you have a chance, get the quill out and put these point onto paper and send them to:
Ehud Barak
Ministry of Defence
37 Kaplan Street, Hakirya
Tel Aviv 61909, Israel
I am sure he would love to hear from you.
Mahmoud is not only a footballer, but a relative and a bloody human being. I find it disgusting that someone could be held for three years without charge or trial. All it will cost you is a few minutes (keep it short) and few pence down the post office.
If you are really keen you can find loads more information here. If you are really really keen send this blog onto your mates. It is mad to think, but you have the power to make a difference and maybe save a guys life.
Filed under Football, Health, Human rights, Middle East, Politics, Sport
18:00 I arrived in Hebron repeating the simple instruction over in my head “get out of the bus at Happy Bunny Restaurant”. However many times I said it in my head I just couldn’t quite bring myself to mutter these words out loud. Inevitably the time came when the driver turns and questions, “where”? I respond, “Err…Happy…Bunny…restaurant”. He beams a smile, “of course”. I am whisked to my destination and my nights’ accommodation (a house close to the restaurant, not the restaurant itself).
22:00 Stood in the centre of the closed part of the old city in Hebron I look at some 3,000 year old remains of ‘ancient Hebron’. It looks like rocks to me, but I will concede that they look like slightly more useful rocks than the really old ones by my house in the UK (Stonehenge).
We are stood a few meters from one of the settlements in the middle of Hebron and just down the road from a Israeli family who are due to be evicted in the coming weeks (tensions are high). A soldier approaches us and asks where we are going and before I can answer looks over his shoulder and says, “oh the cave”? (or it could have been “grave”, I wasn’t sure). I, possibly foolishly, replied “yeah the crave” (hedging my bets between a cave and a grave). He then radio’s in to see if it is ok for us to go and look at the cave/grave.
After a few minutes of the soldiers having a ‘boy competition’ (defined universally as making a competition out of something that really shouldn’t be a competition, eg – hitting a balloon to each other becomes “can we hit it to each other 100 times with just our left hand” or in this case “who can shine their lazer on their rifles the furthest”) they decide that it is OK to go look at the cave/grave. We smile and walk to the dead end.
25 meters up the road and we see 6 soldiers waiting outside a military base next to the before mentioned settlement. I tried to casually scan where I was as if I of course know exactly where the cave/grave is. One soldier nods his head towards the far corner. Two options present themselves, the first is the military base and the second is a Palestinian families house. My colleague takes control and walks confidently into the Palestinian house where she knows the family. We stop and say our hellos to the family and ask about this cave/grave…apparently it is where someone from the old testament is buried and it is inside the military base. I leave the house still not sure if it is a cave or a grave but figured I had bigger fish to fry. I didn’t have the nerve or inclination to walk back out onto the street so we slump off down the path at the back of the house.
If nothing else it is nice to see the IDF trust us enough to enter into a military base unaccompanied at ten o’clock at night.
On the way home we see three Palestinians being held up at the checkpoint at the top of Shuhada Street. We stop and monitor the situation. If they are held for over 20 minutes we call the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) for support before calling the ICRC. Inevitably the soldiers releases the men after 18 minutes. As we pass the soldiers there is an awkward acknowledgement that these were the same soldiers who had just given us permission to enter their base to see the cave/grave. I try to keep it nice and ask “is it ok to go into the ‘crave’ anytime”?. The soldier looks at me alarmed, “you want to go into the grave”?
23:00 – I fall asleep under a purple Disney duvet.
08:00 – We are up at the crack of sparrows to meet a German delegation who want to be shown around Hebron. I stay mainly quiet as my colleague waxes lyrical about Hebron in what I felt to be an impressively neutral manner. We show them around the mainly closed and divided parts of Hebron. There is one street divided by concrete bollards less than a meter high where Palestinians walk one side and Israelis the other. I wondered what on earth this form of division had to do with security.
12:30 - After everything that could be said about Hebron has been said we left the German’s to make their way pass a checkpoint into the old souq. I see at least three of them tut at the soldier on the way past. I make a conscious note that I need to work on my middle class indignation.
13:00 - I see a character walking towards me down Shuhada Street. He looks Israeli, but doesn’t look like one of the settlers living in Hebron (he’s smiling to start with). My inner suspicions are aroused though when he asks where we have just been. I pull out the leaflet I picked up by Abrahams grave (although interestingly he was also meant to have been buried in a ‘cave’ – all very confusing) and thrust it into his hands. Triumphant in the fact that I had not only been to a tourist hot spot but I had proof that I had been into the “Jewish half” of the mosque/synagogue/holy site (don’t ask…Jews and Muslims go in separate doors and can see the same grave/cave but from different sides and are separated by bullet proof glass). He looks at it and mutters he hasn’t been there yet. I am a little disappointed but crack on with conversation.
He turns out to be called Michael and lives just to the South of Tel Aviv. Apart from being a bloody nice guy he also enjoyed liberally sprinkling in words like ‘Plato’ and ‘Power Dynamics’ into conversation. In other words, he was my sort of chap. He described himself as “on the left” of Israeli politics before he rubbished the very concept of ‘left and right politics’ in Israel. He was passionately ‘Jewish’ (and trust me when I say we didn’t use this term lightly, about half of our conversation was on how to define ‘being Jewish’) and to say he was well read was an understatement. About three hours of conversation in the heat of the day later we decide to go and grab some food…he chooses the Gutnick Centre (a Jewish cafe and community centre in the centre of Hebron that is known to the International community as being ‘pro-settlers’).
On the way to lunch Michael wants to walk on the ‘Palestinian side’ of the divided street. I am interested to see what happens so don’t stop him. When we get to the soldier at the top, the soldier tells him he is “lucky to escape with his life”. Michael smiles and we go and drink coffee with some ‘dangerous’ Palestinian shop keepers. We take off our EAPPI jackets in the shop and leave them there before going into the Gutnick centre. This was to avoid provocation but we are also not allowed in wearing the vests. Dangerous pacifist peace workers? We sit down on a table opposite some soldiers and have a nice lunch.
Sometimes the word ‘surreal’ just doesn’t quite cover it.
16:30 We walk together after lunch and are about to say our goodbyes to Michael when in the distance we spot two soldiers who were completely covered in white paint. They stride past a ‘normal’ soldier who tries to stop them. The ‘white soldier’ tells him to “check with command, this operation is cleared”. I had no idea what was going on. A soldier stood with the ‘white soldiers’ turns to me and says, “it’s art…it is up to you how you interpret it”. I liked the idea and so walked with a growing crowd of both Palestinians and Israelis. The soldier now turns to me and asks if I have ever been to Jayyus, I say “yes”. He gets his phone out and shows me a picture of myself from one of the day time raids of the village I used to be based in. He smiles and clearly thinks this situation is hilarious. He asks as if reuniting with an old school mate, “how you been keeping dude”? I smile, “yeah good cheers”.
By this point we have walked to the outskirts of one of the settlements. I ask the soldier if it is ok for us to be there and the soldier and Michael respond in unison “of course”. The ‘white soldiers’ are now pretending to search a playground and I watch on in fascination. This was not something I had expected from Hebron but I was enjoying myself.
In a split second however this whole jubilant atmosphere was shattered by the one and only Anat Cohen – a notoriously aggressive settler. She came out of a house and started screaming at me (ignoring the Israelis I was with) and stamping on my ankles. As she screamed at me I felt flecks of her saliva land on my face. I consciously decide not to wipe it off because I don’t want to be accused of ‘raising my hand’. I looked over her tiny angry shoulders to the soldier looking on. He gives me a comic shrug and looks helpless. I say it is OK, and we will go. The four of us (three internationals and Michael) walk off. She (Anat Cohen) follows me pushing me in my back and shouting. The soldier walks on behind and signals to his colleague in the distance to come. The new soldier asks, “did you do anything”? I smiled and said “of course not”. The soldier tuts a knowing tut and we walk for another 200 meters with Anat Cohen following me stamping on my ankles and screaming at me. While the soldier does nothing. When we stop to enter into a ‘Palestinian only’ part of town we finally say goodbye to Michael and Anat Cohen stares at us both and takes our photos.
I feel really sad that someone could feel that much anger and hatred to a stranger that she has never met or spoken to. I feel worse though for anyone that has to put up with her day in day out.
Michael, the soldier, Anat Cohen, the history, the conflict, the division…all just 24 hours in Hebron.
Filed under Middle East, Social comment
Anti-Semitism in pro-Palestinian networks
Anti-Semitism exists within ‘pro-Palestinian’ networks and must be tackled. But labelling everyone who speaks out against Israel’s crimes as ‘anti-Semitic’ is as unhelpful as it is untrue.
In a brave and powerful article in the New Statesman, Mehdi Hassan took on what he referred to as the “the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism” in Britain.
I am sure it wasn’t an easy article for him to write but it was an important article for at least two reasons. Firstly, it tackles a form of prejudice that has been left untouched by many. Secondly, it made me and I suspect many others, reflect on the prejudice that sits within our own social circles.
As I was reading the article I could not help but to draw parallels with the low-level anti-Semitism that exist within the ‘pro-Palestinian’ activist networks that I have dipped in and out of in the last few years.
Please stick with me here. What I am about to write involves me wading through a quagmire of politics, misinformation and high emotion.
From my personal experience, most of the ‘internationals’ (ie not Palestinians or Israelis) that are passionate about the ‘Palestine issue’ are so because they have a deep rooted empathy with other human beings that have been, and still are, suffering terribly.
I have however come across the occasional individuals who self identifies as ‘pro-Palestinian’ who has also held anti-Semitic views and used the conflict as context and cover to express these views.
The problem is that a significant minority of those in the former category – the well intentioned empathetic individuals – have not been vocal enough or clear enough in condemning these views.
In addition to this I have come across lazy and sloppy language often confusing the state of Israel with that of Jews worldwide – not anti-Semitic in itself but a line of thought that when combined with vocal criticism of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories, can too often lead to anti-Semitism.
In addition to all of this in the international activist community, I also came across wide-spread anti-Semitism within parts of the Palestinian population living in the West Bank.
Part of what triggered me to write this article was Mehdi writing about the conspiracy theories he had come across in the British Muslim community. With obvious sarcasm he wrote:
“What about 9/11? Definitely those damn Yehudis. I mean, why else were 4,000 Jews in New York told to stay home from work on the morning of 11 September 2001?”
A conspiracy theory that is as repulsive as it is without truth. A conspiracy theory however that I heard on four separate occasions from Palestinians in the West Bank and once from an international working in the there.
What was also interesting and perhaps equally as depressing was a conversation I had with an ISM volunteer in Nablus. I told her about hearing these conspiracy theories and she responded saying that (and I paraphrase from memory) ‘you can’t blame Palestinians for thinking like that. Wouldn’t you if you had lived under occupation for the last 45 years?’
At the time I didn’t know where to start. I gave my answer, “No” and walked off. In retrospect it clearly highlights to me a deep rooted problem -That too many who self identify as pro-Palestinian become apologists for a form of anti-Semitism.
In short I can see three issues that we as peace activists need to face up to:
1) A tiny minority of those who campaign for Palestinian rights do so holding unacceptable anti-Semitic views.
2) Too many of those who campaign for Palestinian rights, also too often turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism amongst fellow activists and amongst Palestinians.
3) A significant minority of Palestinians express anti-Semitic views and are left unchallenged (it goes without saying that this does not describe the majority of Palestinians).
On the flip side of this of all this is an equally important challenge that anyone serious about tackling anti-Semitism has to face up to.
I have personally been accused of being anti-Semitic, hating Israel and such forth**. All utter codswallop. Equally, I know good friends who have had similar accusations thrown at them. This not only cheapens the accusations but it makes seeing the actual anti-Semite amongst the false accusations much more difficult.
Equally, it is worth noting that it doesn’t just apply to individuals.
EAPPI –the organisation that I travelled to the West Bank with – has also had every criticism you can imagine thrown at it.
Melanie Phillips writing in the Mail quoted the following remarks about EAPPI:
“[EAPPI is] nothing but an insidious front for a pro-Palestinian campaign to propagate the partisan lie that, while Israel is besieged by child killers, infiltrated by suicide bombers, surrounded by Islamist propagandists and endures almost daily missiles launched at civilian areas, she is the aggressor, the terroriser, the occupying force.’
‘… the EAPPI ascribes Palestinian misery to apartheid Israel alone, consistently turning a blind eye to Palestinian aggression, corruption, rejectionism and incitement (not to mention Islamism, homophobia, racism and the oppression of women). The EAPPI is blind to antisemitism and deaf to the numerous overtures to peace which have been offered. They are ignorant of Israel’s need for security, and oblivious to the fact that she alone in the entire region is a vibrant, tolerant, multiracial, multi-faith society.’
This description of EAPPI is so far from what I experienced that it dissolves any sense of credibility that the author might have tried to project.
In short, I and many others cease to take it seriously because it bears no resemblance of the truth.
Our ability to tackle the low level anti-Semitism within the ‘pro-Palestinian community’ (a term I feel uncomfortable using but do so for the sake of ease) is hampered by those who aim to smear all involved as anti-Semitic.
I, like many others, have learnt to ignore such criticisms. The severity, sensitivity and frequency of this anti-Semitism though demands that we start taking this seriously. The roles of those who dedicate themselves to highlighting anti-Semitism has to be to begin to work with the progressive majority within ‘pro-Palestinian’ circles to tackle anti-Semitism– not blindly attacking. It helps nobody when these progressives spend their time having to defend themselves from false accusations.
Like Mehdi this article has not been easy for me to write. Removing prejudice and encouraging a greater degree of human empathy has to be the starting block of any future peace.
I am sure that this article will win me no friends from either side of this polarised debate. So I finish with a plea to the moderates who might quietly agree – speak out. Publically stand up for those falsely accused of anti-Semitism and condemn in the strongest terms any hint of true anti-Semitism you experience. The foundations of any future peace depend on it.
**Update** After receiving feedback I’d like to clarify that when I listed ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘hating Israel’ next to each other I was seeking to illustrate some of the false accusations thrown at me, not to conflate the two as being the same.
Tell others about this article
Like this:
30 Comments
Filed under Human rights, Middle East, Social comment
Tagged as anti-Semitism, Human rights, Israel, networks, Palestine, prejudice, pro-Palestine