Greenstein on histadrut

Tony Greenstein has a great and useful indictment of the Histadrut, the Israeli "trade union" federation, on Electronic Intifada.

Histadrut was formed in 1920 as the General Confederation of Hebrew Labor by the two main labor Zionist parties, Hapoel Hatzair (Young Workers) and Achdut Ha'Avodah (Union of Labor). From its inception it excluded Arab labor and thus rejected worker solidarity in favor of national exclusivism.

Histadrut's primary role was not the defense of its members' wages and conditions but the colonization of Palestine. In the absence of a Jewish bourgeoisie, it had to become that bourgeoisie. As the late William Frankel, editor of The Jewish Chronicle (London), described it, Histadrut was a capitalist union. [12]

Its enterprises included Tnuva (dairy products), Solel Boneh (building and construction), Koor (manufacturing), Hamashbir (food co-operative) and Bank Hapoalim. It established a holding company, Hevrat Ovdim, to manage these enterprises and even after 1966, it remained 100 percent Jewish-controlled.

s unemployment grew in the Zionist economy in Palestine in the 1920s, Histadrut launched a campaign to promote Jewish labor (Avodat Ivrit) and Jewish produce (Totzeret Haaretz), which was essentially a boycott of Arab labor and produce. David HaCohen, former managing director of Solel Boneh, described what this meant:

"I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they should not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there ... to pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash Arab eggs they had bought ... to buy dozens of dunums [of land] from an Arab is permitted but to sell God forbid one Jewish dunum to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild the incarnation of capitalism as a socialist and to name him the 'benefactor' -- to do all that was not easy." [13]

...
Class struggle was always anathema to Histadrut, before and after Israel was formed. In the seamen's strike of 1951, strikers were drafted into the army with Histadrut support. Like their predecessors in the Gdud Avodah workers brigades in the 1920s, some of the most militant workers did break from Zionism. Gdud Avodah were starved into submission by Ben-Gurion in the 1920s. [33] But this was the exception, not the rule. The seamens' strike was the most violent strike of its kind in Israel, with ships being commandeered and used against the forces of the state.

In the 1969 Ashdod port workers' strike, the Histadrut accused the Jewish strikers of being equivalent to agents of Fatah, the main faction in the PLO, i.e. "terrorists" and "saboteurs." But the trial of the militants in a Histadrut tribunal backfired and it was terminated without reaching a verdict.

In February 1976, thousands of Arab citizens of the Galilee demonstrated for their rights to the land and against confiscations. In March 1976, the Arab leadership called for a general strike. In response, Histadrut's Labor Council in Haifa actively opposed the strike. Six Palestinians were shot and killed by the police and army, an event marked each 30 March by Palestinians as Land Day. (EI, March 10, 2009)

Read the whole thing, and send to your unionized friends.

Durban II - this time it's practical

This Durban II took place in Durban itself and it involved more than just denunciations of the zionist regime, project and ideology. Dockworkers in the South African port refused to handle Israeli goods. Here's Mike Marqusee in The Hindu:

Photo: Reuters

Learning from the past: South Africans protesting Israel’s blockade of
Gaza.

Immediately and concretely, the dockworkers were responding to Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza, which left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, including 431 children, as well as 5,300 injured, including 1,870 children and 1,600 permanently disabled. Israel’s losses were of a different order: three civilians and 10 soldiers killed, 113 soldiers and 84 civilians injured. Gaza’s infrastructure was battered. 120,000 houses were damaged and 4,000 demolished. In the course of the operation, the Israelis are said to have dropped 1.5 million tons of explosives on Gaza — one ton for each inhabitant.

The dockworkers were also responding to — and respecting — the call and lesson of their own history. They remembered the importance of international support in the battle against apartheid. Initially, the international campaign had been little more than a small-scale irritant, reliant on the patient, sometimes lonely labours of grass-roots activists. An early success came when dock workers in various countries refused to unload South African goods. In time, the boycott grew and took a material toll on the apartheid regime.

South African trade unionists know this history well. That was seen last year when they turned away a Chinese ship carrying arms to the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.

Lovely stuff. I remember zionists complaining about Ronnie Kasrils condemning Israel and not saying anything about Zimbabwe. They don't have that singling out complaint in this case, not that it was or is ever valid. Another thing, back in the day, when goods from apartheid South Africa were being boycotted, South African businesses used to get their not so pariah chum, Israel, to re-label the goods and sell them on. Israel must have been very disappointed when that nice little earner closed down. But where do you re-route and re-label your goods when the people are sanctioning Israel, historically the worst of the sanction busters?

Mike Marqusee's own website is here.

Hamas tops Gaza opinion poll

More on Israel's rip-roaringly successful war on Gaza. This a Ha'aretz report on a Reuters poll:

Hamas's popularity among Palestinians has risen sharply since Israel's three-week offensive against the Islamist group in Gaza last month, an opinion poll released on Monday showed.

If an election were held today, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh would beat Mahmoud Abbas, the Western-backed Palestinian president and leader of Fatah, who advocates a peace deal with Israel.

The face-to-face poll of 1,270 people by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research was conducted on March 5-7 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as the rival factions tried to reach agreement on a unity government with Egyptian mediation.

Hamas, which Western powers shun as a terrorist organization, won a Palestinian parliamentary election in 2006 and seized control of the Gaza Strip the next year in a bloody coup.

Israel responded by tightening its blockade of the coastal enclave, increasing hardships for its 1.5 million residents.

It's all so confusing, isn't it? They won elections in Gaza and the West Bank and yet the seized control in Gaza. Why do that if you have won elections? And then Israel tightened its blockade. So there was already a blockade that got tightened. But it's not clear from the article if it was because of the election or the "coup".

Engage rounds on Lerman again

I checked Engage a few times today to see how they would inevitably misrepresent Anthony Lerman's article in yesterday's Independent. They got round to linking to it but the original post, by "professional sociologist", Dr Hirsh contained only a childish personal attack on Lerman (apparently he's a new conservative - not a neo-conservative) without mentioning what he had actually written. I'm guessing it's because the last time that I'm aware that Hirsh crossed swords with Lerman, Lerman wiped him out.

But anyway, all Hirsh did this time was hang a pointer to the article and insult the man to let the faithful know that "we" don't like this Lerman character. But what's all this? The Doctor has delegated the task of misrepresenting what Lerman said to someone who doesn't even have a whole name, just a first name, unless his surname's Saul. So what does this Saul say?

Where Arendt, Katz and Baron differ from Lerman, of course, is that whilst they offer a critique of “eternal antisemitism”, they do so in the recognition of the real existence of the antisemitism of their day. None of them, as Lerman does, denies its existence or blames the Jews for its existence. On the contrary, their critique of “eternal antisemitism” is made so as to bring into relief the specific contours of the antisemitism of their day so as to understand it all the more clearly and, as a consequence, to oppose it all the more effectively.

So Lerman has said that there is no such thing as antisemitism, that is he "denies its existence" and he "blames the Jews for its existence", er, in spite of the fact he denies its existence. How does he deny something exists whilst blaming people for its existence? Saul doesn't even note, still less does he explain the paradox.

Here's a little chunk of what Lerman actually wrote since Saul didn't actually quote anything that he wrote:

It's perfectly possible to acknowledge the pain caused by increased anti-Semitism but reject wild scenarios and counterproductive ways of dealing with the problem – such as demonising strong criticism of Israel. We should be able to have a dialogue about alternative ways of interpreting what's happening and what needs to be done. Sadly, the Jewish establishment here and other self-appointed gatekeepers of Jewish dignity see this as traitorous and a denial of anti-Semitism.

He seems to have read Saul's critique before Saul wrote it. I tell you, those Jews, they've got such uncanny powers.

Welcome to Najd!

I just got notified of a new Facebook group being established to whinge about the sufferings of the people of Sderot and it occurred to me that there's not much info to be had about the Palestinian village that was ethnically cleansed to make way for the Jewish town of Sderot.

So here's Palestine Remembered on Najd, the Palestinian village razed so that zionists could make the desert green again.

See it? Not much really. It was occupied by the zionist forces on May 13, 1948. That was a day before official histories of Israel begin. According to history books that school students in the UK, I think up to age 18 and 19, are given, nothing happened in Palestine on that day. Nothing happened until the next day or the day after. It had a population of over 700 before they were ethnically cleansed.

So, spare a little thought for Najd and its people and one thousand times that many people that were ethnically cleansed round about the same time.

End of zionist project as EU spots Israel expanding

Wow, this is so exciting!!! The European Union has officially noticed Israel's expansionist tendency. Look at this headline in the Guardian:

Israel annexing East Jerusalem, says EU

But it's not just the headline. The article shows remarkable insight:

A confidential EU report accuses the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies and the West Bank barrier as a way of "actively pursuing the illegal annexation" of East Jerusalem.

The document says Israel has accelerated its plans for East Jerusalem, and is undermining the Palestinian Authority's credibility and weakening support for peace talks. "Israel's actions in and around Jerusalem constitute one of the most acute challenges to Israeli-Palestinian peace-making," says the document, EU Heads of Mission Report on East Jerusalem.

The report, obtained by the Guardian, is dated 15 December 2008. It acknowledges Israel's legitimate security concerns in Jerusalem, but adds: "Many of its current illegal actions in and around the city have limited security justifications."

Zionist beware. It took European states a mere 60 years to notice the expansionist tendency of the project, whilst sycophantically noting Israel's "security concerns" - ie taking on board that the victims of ethnic cleansing sometimes resist. Can boycott, divestment and sanctions be far behind? Er yes, probably another 60 years.

Oh, hold on. I've noticed another issue here. The EU report is confidential. So the EU has finally noticed the zionist expansionist tendency but it wants to spare Israel's blushes by keeping it secret. Which is strange because Israel makes no secret of it.

Zionist ideology of victimhood

Here's Anthony Lerman in today's Independent about the wild exaggeration of antisemitism:

A team led by Professor Daniel Bar Tal of Tel Aviv University, one of the world's leading political psychologists, questioned Israeli Jews about their memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, and found that their "consciousness is characterised by a sense of victimisation, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanisation of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering". The researchers found a close connection between that collective memory and the memory of "past persecutions of Jews" and the Holocaust, the feeling that "the whole world is against us". If such a study were to be conducted among Jews in Britain, I suspect the results would be very similar.

No doubt Mr Lerman will be getting the Engage treatment when Dr Hirsh is up and about and has read his emails.

Israel Science Day - the last word.....let's hope

Now if the "flurry" of correspondence in the Independent that I mentioned earlier follows the usual pattern then on Monday there'll be some ludicrous apologetic from the Zionist Federation in the paper on Monday but hopefully today's letters will be the last word on the zionist propaganda exercise known as Israel Science Day:

Science day for the benefit of Israel

There's a whiff of hypocrisy about the letter in defence of the Zionist Federation's Israel Science Day, in its claim that science "crosses borders and builds bridges" (5 March). Israeli science and scientists have been recruited to do the reverse: to help close the borders and bomb the bridges, destroying the hopes and prospects of Palestinian education and science.

The leading signatories to the Susan Greenfield letter know full well the extent to which science is intimately locked into British political decision-making, and to assume in the face of all the evidence that Israeli science has no such connections suggests an unaccustomed naivety on their part, a naivety not likely to be shared by the many London school students sickened by the images of the Israeli massacres in Gaza.

The Zionist Federation saw the event as a public relations exercise for Israeli science. Sadly, the more likely outcome is to link science and massacre more firmly in the students' minds. Finally, contrary to the claims of the signatories, the movement of boycott of and divestment from Israel is strong and growing both here and abroad.

Professor Steven Rose

London WC1

The Zionist Federation, sponsor of Israel Science Day, declares on its website that: "The Zionist Federation aims to encourage the participation of Jews in Zionist activities including education, culture, Hebrew language and Israel information, underpinned by our belief that the main goal of Zionism is Aliyah." Aliyah is a campaign to encourage Jews, wherever resident, to migrate to Israel. The Federation further states that: "Today we promote Israel's case and defend our common future."

The Zionist Federation is a lawful organisation, operating quite openly in the UK. Given its declared aims, however, it is unrealistic to pretend that the Israel Science Day is an altruistic promotion of science, rather than a pro-Israel propaganda exercise.

The attempted academic boycott against individual Israeli scientists was a discriminatory exercise, which made no allowance for the principled stance taken by many Israelis against the excesses of their own government; as such it deserved to fail. It is inappropriate to yoke this together with the present protest against a political entity using a scientific conference as a front to promote the interests of the Israeli state. For whose benefit is this being done, that of the young scientists or that of Israel?

Ken Campbell

Kettering, Northamptonshire

Hmm, that's a tough question. For whose benefit is Israel Science Day being done, that of the young scientists or that of Israel? I'm guessing the Zionist Federation is more interested in Israel than it is about young scientists in general.

Science sans frontieres?

There's been a little flurry of articles and letters in the Independent this week over an event or series of events called "Israel Science Day". The day was yesterday but it's still worth a look at the way the Independent and various zionists handled the whole thing.

Tuesday's front page was quite promising with the headline, Science Museum accused over links to Israel and the sub-title, Protesters claim it is promoting universities that aided recent military assault on Gaza.

More than 400 academics, a Nobel laureate and the former chair of the Science Select Committee called on the museum to cancel workshops due to be held this week that promote Israeli scientific achievements to schoolchildren.

The critics plan to picket the event and accused the museum of promoting scientists and universities who are "complicit in the Israeli occupation and in the policies and weaponry recently deployed to such disastrous effect in Gaza".

Many of the critics were behind a campaign in 2002 to impose an academic boycott on Israel. That campaign failed but it provoked debate worldwide over whether Israeli academics should be penalised for the actions of their government.

Remember this was the front page.

A couple of pages in, science editor, Steve Conway, pops in on the zionist side but he hasn't quite mastered the art of hasbara. His piece is headed, Science makes a difference to a small nation. Here's the concluding paragraph:

One British scientist who has close links with Israel said that many of his Israeli friends and colleagues strongly disapprove of the recent actions in Gaza. But his view is that it is counter-productive to call for a boycott of Israeli science and scientists: isolating the most liberal-minded Israelis would only make matters worse.

Oh dear, is that the best he could do? But look what preceded it:

For a desert land surrounded by hostile nations, [like Egypt and Jordan?] Israel has traditionally viewed science as a vital intellectual activity that holds the key to its future prosperity and security. Apart from defence, Israel has spent much of its scientific effort in understanding water management, and was one of the few countries to understand the practical importance of climate change.

So defence and security are the main aspects of Israel's scientific endeavours? Yes? Yes.

But what about these liberal minded Israelis?

there have been attempts to forge more direct links between Israeli scientists and their Palestinian colleagues. An umbrella organisation called the Israeli- Palestinian Scientific Organisation was established in 2002 to distribute grants worth about £50,000 for joint research projects.

2002? Sound familiar? Wasn't that the first year of the academic intifada? I think it may have been. But having a gauche science editor on their side might not be enough for Israel and its apologists.

So next day, a couple of letters. First, a rather predictable one from WeizmannUK chair, Lord Mitchell. Oh no, I won't post the whole after having said it was predictable. You can guess what precedes:

I am chair of Weizmann UK, part of the Weizmann Institute in Israel, which is one of the world's leading centres of basic science. I would be happy to promote such a cross-Israeli-Arab scientific initiative.

Lord Mitchell

I'm sure Weizmann would have approved.

And the second?

Your report (3 March) on the proposed Israel Day of Science programme sponsored by the Zionist Federation quotes the chair as saying that his organisation – and the programme itself – is "non- political". This is not correct. The Federation's declared aim is to "advance the case of Israel". What could be more political than that?

The sixth-form seminars are essentially a propaganda exercise designed to showcase the publicly acceptable face of Israeli science and technology at a time when its military applications have been all too evident in the destruction of Gaza. It is disingenuous of the Science Museum to claim that by merely renting out the space, it is somehow absolved of all responsibility for staging the event .

That does not necessarily mean the programme should be cancelled, only that the young people attending should be made fully aware of the wider context of debate in which it is taking place. Ideally their teachers will have already encouraged them to follow the controversy as reported in the press during the past few days. Surely it is important that those who may be intending to pursue a scientific career should be given this opportunity to explore, in a concrete case, some of the key issues raised by Professor Rosenhead and his colleagues concerning the ethics and politics of research?

Professor Phil Cohen

University of East London

Oops, there's three in this couple but the third equates the boycotting of Israeli propaganda exercises with Israel's slaughtering of the Palestinians so I won't post it here.

But panic has really set in with many great and good zionists:

Dear Sir,

We were saddened by attempts to cancel the "Israel Science Day" lectures and workshops for schoolchildren. Whatever our opinions on the actions of the Israeli Government, scientists and academics should not be punished simply for their nationality.

Science crosses borders, builds bridges and transcends national and political divides. It can unite people, but the protesters seek only to divide and exclude. At a time of high community tensions, these boycott calls are especially pernicious.

The group of protesters peddled a discredited academic boycott inside the University and College Union, which was widely condemned as discriminatory and was abandoned. After failing in their union, they have continued the boycott campaign in wider society, trying to prevent British schoolchildren from being inspired by scientific discovery and innovation.

We welcome the Science Museum's principled position in refusing to cancel this event, and hope that the "Israel Science Day" events inspire British pupils to pursue a future of their own scientific innovations and successes.

Signed: [you don't wanna know]

But let's have this again:

Science crosses borders, builds bridges and transcends national and political divides. It can unite people, but the protesters seek only to divide and exclude.

So it's all about crossing borders, building bridges and uniting people? Then why is it Israel Science Day and why is it being promoted by the Zionist Federation.

Foot of Israeli singer Noa stuck in her mouth

Ahinoam Nini, a.k.a. Noa, famous for her enchanting voice and now also for her sickening open letter to the Palestinians she wrote while her lovely state was slaughtering them in Gaza, had to cancel her performances in Basque Country after her show was disrupted by enraged protesters. Her concerts in Barcelona and Seville were also boycotted.

A month and change ago she was also forced to cancel her participation in an event in Israel. here's the story from Ynet.

Singers Achinoam Nini (Noa) and Mira Awad, who were meant to take part in a fundraiser concert for Gazans injured in Operation Cast Lead
on Friday, have cancelled their performance due massive pressure placed on the event's organizers.

..The reason behind the pressure is the open letter to the Palestinians written by Noa on the last week of the operation.

Part of Noa's letter read: "Today, I know that deep in your hearts you wish for the demise of this beast called Hamas who has terrorized and murdered you, who has turned Gaza into a trash heap of poverty, disease and misery. Who in the name of "Allah” has sacrificed you on the bloody alter of pride and greed.

"I can only wish for you that Israel will do the job we all know needs to be done, and finally rid you of this cancer, this virus, this monster called fanaticism, today, called Hamas. And that these killers will find what little compassion may still exist in their hearts and STOP using you and your children as human shields for their cowardice and crimes."

The letter enraged many, and in a petition signed by actor Mohammad Bakri, producer Osnat Trabilsi, actor Makram Khoury, actor Saleh Bakri, director and producer Anat Even, publicist Yael Lerer, actor, director Juliano Mer-Khamis, and more, Noa was urged to take her words back.

"Achinoam Nini's participation (in the fundraiser) without her showing deep remorse for her position, blocks the message of protest against Israel's systematic, intentional brutality, and its murder and injury of thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children," the petition read.

The signatories stressed that without this message, the concert for Gaza's children, that aims to be more than just an act of compassion and pity, will be tainted...

Noa ultimately cancelled her participation in the event.

In response to Noa's decision to cancel her performance, Juliano Mer-Khamis said told Ynet, "The cancellation shows us that Achinoam Nini is not willing to take back the humiliating, degrading letter that she wrote. (Ynet, 23 January 2009)

Is Nini the first Israeli ever made to pay for her dehumanizing colonial arrogance or what?

Israel, look in the Mirror!

More evidence that Israel's recent assault on Gaza may have had more costs than benefits is that the UK traditional Labourite, that is Labour-right tabloid the Daily Mirror, has this little gem of an article by columnist Brian Reade, headed, Douglas Alexander's Gaza aid pledge typifies Britain's cowardly subservience to US pro-Israel lobby:

I want to thank International Development minister Douglas Alexander for visiting the Gaza Strip, and pledging aid. Because it typifies our cowardly subservience to the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby in America.

We looked away as Israel bombed the crap out of Gaza. When the 1,314 dead Palestinians temporarily sated Tel Aviv's bloodlust, we sent a third-rate politician to pledge millions to replace all the buildings flattened by Israel's military machine.

Thus putting up more targets for them to destroy the next time they feel the need to convince their people they are hard-liners who won't be threatened by Arab infidels. At which point we'll look away again. How proud our foreign policy makes me.

I haven't seen the print edition but I am guessing it appeared there so I reckon this was read by more people today than if something similar had appeared in the Guardian or the Independent or even the Guardian and the Independent.

Why Israel assaulted Gaza

No matter how many we prove that the escalation that led to Israel's invasion of Gaza was chiefly the result of Israeli decisions, the canard that Israel "had to respond to Qassams" is not going away. It is too convenient and therefore almost immune from rational refutation. Nevertheless, here we try again. (we tried already here, here and here, at least). Encore un effort!

Nahum Barnea is an Israeli journalist with very good sources. He is close to Olmert. Barnea wrote in mid November:

In recent days, the lull agreement has been repeatedly violated. Ashkelon was hit by Grad rockets. Sderot was hit by Qassams. It was a miracle that no injuries were reported. As always, the question being asked is who started it, and why? And as always, the answer is complex.

When facing the microphones, all Israeli officials placed the full responsibility on Hamas. Yet behind closed doors, some of them spoke differently. They spoke about over-zealous IDF commanders and about too-deep incursions by our forces into Gaza, which violated the rules of the game. According to this estimate, Hamas did not initiate the fire: It responded to Israel’s operations. (Ynet, 17 November 2008 my emphasis)

Is that clear enough? Probably not for the hasbarachics and their mainstream media stenographers. O.K. Let's try again. Anthony Cordesman produced a very bias report about the assault on Gaza, relying almost exclusively on Israeli military sources and accepting them at face value. Norman Finkelstein tears apart Cordesman's ridiculous conclusion that "Israel did not violate the laws of war." (Finkelstein, 19 February 2009) But let's leave that issue aside.

In this report, Cordesman offers a narrative of the path to war. It can be paraphrased in the following steps.

1. The Second Intifada empowered Hamas and discredited Fatah and the peace efforts.
2. Hamas won the elections in 2006.
3. Hamas took over Gaza, breaking with Fatah.
4. Israel responded with a "state of siege."
   
5. Hamas responded with smuggling and firing rockets.
6. A cease fire was negotiated and observed by both sides for almost six months.
   
7. Israel broke the cease fire.
   
8. Hamas responded with refusing to renew the cease fire and with rocket fire.
   
9. Israel launched a massive assault on Gaza.
   

Cordesman diplomatically fails to mention the U.S. attempt to overthrow the elected Palestinian government that led to Hamas taking over (Rose, 2008, Vanity Fair) . He also ignores that whole history of potential negotiations with Hamas (Finkelstein, Counterpunch, 28 January 2008 ). But otherwise he generally sticks to the facts. Thus, according to Cordesman, Israel twice (step 4 and 7) acted belligerently towards Gaza, not in response to any aggression. About step 4, Cordesman writes:

Israel had too many enemies and potential threats for its leaders and most of its public to accept a presence on its borders that formally claims all of its territory, and whose more extreme public statements show little restraint. Israel responded to the Hamas takeover by imposing an economic blockade on Hamas and Gaza. (Cordesman 2009, CSIS, p. 7)

That is, According to Cordesman, Israel responded with agression to a purely political demand. Furthermore, Cordesman concedes that "some Hamas leaders in Gaza have expressed a willingness to deal with Israel." He explicitly defines the issue as Hamas's "formal" position, not its actual position. The idea that Hamas's formal position would be enough to justify aggression is too outlandish even for Cordesman; as one can see above, he avoids the issue by psycholigizing it.

As for the aggression that ended the ceasefire, Cordesman doesn't even give an explanation except noting beforehand that both sides prepared for the eventual resumption of hostilities.

The immediate trigger of the war was an Israeli raid that killed six Hamas gunmen inside the Gaza Strip on November 4, 2008. Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israeli sources report that some 190 rockets were fired into Israel in November. The ceasefire was due to expire on December 19th, and Hamas issued a statement that it would end the ceasefire on December 18, 2008. The statement claimed Israel had not honored the terms of the ceasefire or allowed humanitarian aid into Gaza. Hamas then continued its rocket and mortar attacks, firing some 200 rockets during November 4, 2009-December 21, 2009. On December 21st, it launched some 70 rockets, but issued a statement that it might renew the ceasefire, —"if Israel stopped its aggression" in Gaza and opened up its border crossings.

So there you have it. Israel is the aggressor, even according to the CSIS.

---

Addendum:

Finkelstein writes that "in fairness to camp follower Cordesman it must be said that he plainly did his best to please and the American Jewish Committee plainly got its money's worth from him." This is a shot in the wrong direction. CSIS and Cordesman are not beholden to the AJC, and in fact harbor some of the leading establishment voices for tightening Israel's leash (including Cordesman, Scowcroft and Brzezinski). Codesman's conclusions include some of the unfrendliest words uttered by an establisment writer about Israel in a long time. He describes Israeli politicians as "donkeys," accuses Israel of having no strategic vision and predicts a worsening security situation for Israel. His closing words effectively suggest that Israel is moving towards doom:

This may be the Middle East that Israel and its Arab neighbors have to live with.....One wonders, however, how long it can really go on without exploding into far more violent conflicts or empowering non-state actors hostile to Israel and moderate Arab regimes. One wonders how much it will affect the medium and long-term stability of key states like Egypt and Jordan? One wonders how much it will sustain Iranian radicalism and aid the opportunism of a nuclear Iran? Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin once saw these risks as unsustainable. Regrettably, they may still be proved right. (Cordesman, CSIS, 2009)

Codersman work hards to absolve Israel from war crimes because he is concerned about the effects vigorous prosecution of such crimes would have on the deployment of U.S. forces. Cordesman makes this link explicitly in his "analysis" of international ius in bello:

This does not excuse any use of force where there clearly are ways to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage and achieve the same military objective...But, the problems Israel encountered in the "Gaza War" present the same dilemmas and uncertainties that the US and its allies have faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, and affect every power that becomes involved in asymmetric warfare. There is no clear way to judge that ―"X" numbers of rockets justify retaliation with "Y" numbers of sorties. There are no rules that say "X" numbers of suicide bombings justify retaliation with "Y" numbers of ground troops. There are no rules that say one should accept the deaths of "X" numbers of one‘s own troops to save "Y" numbers of civilians on an opponent‘s territory. These points are not academic. The fighting in Gaza is a case study in the fact that asymmetric warfare confronts any solider actually in combat with a constant stream of hard choices and exercises in situation ethics obscured by what Clausewitz called the "fog of war". In many cases, instant choices have to be made where all of the advances in intelligence and command and control do not allow those actually fighting to know the nature of the threat forces or the number of civilians at risk. At the same time, the very nature of asymmetric warfare often forces the weaker size to maximize this uncertainty by not wearing uniforms, mixing in civilian areas, and using collocated civilians – often women and children – to provide support. This is no more an act of cowardice than using the protection of a tank or aircraft, but it does mean that war is evolving in ways that often increase the risk of civilian casualties and put more and more strain on the capability of armed forces to limit those casualties. (ibid. p.7, my emphasis)

Cordesman's concern is to defend the right of the U.S. and it's allies, whoever they may be, to fight "assymetric wars" that inherently depend on harm to civilians. International law in its present form is not congruent with the way U.S. strategic interests are evolving. (and U.S. hostility to the ICJ and other treaties that put limits on warfare is well known.) CSIS, and the corporate elite it serves, got its money's worth.

Why Israel is an apartheid state

We are in Apartheid Week, and a good time to revisit the question. How similar is the regime in Israel to the defunct Apartheid regime? We can answer that question by pointing the many similarities, as many have done extensively. Stop The Wall has an excellent summary of all the aspects that justify the use of the term. Leila Farsakh has another excellent analysis of the similarities and differences. See also Global Exchange, and the two parts Guardian's report by Chris McGreal, part I, and part II. Here's is Stop The Wall, on the very core of the analogy:

Apartheid was known as “colonialism of a special type” because of the fact that it was a colonial project in which the colonizer sought to permanently settle in the colonized land and replace the indigenous population, and where the “ruler” was not somewhere in Europe but occupying the same territory. The Zionist project is a European construct, born out of European nationalism expressed in nation-statehood during the era of colonialism. The Palestinian struggle for liberation is in essence an anti-colonial struggle. Inherent within any colonial project is a racist, Euro-centric worldview; but the racism is magnified in this “special” kind of colonialism, or Apartheid. Denying the very human existence of Palestinians with the Zionist adage of “a land without a people for a people without a land”, Zionist racial separation intends to use intolerant xenophobic policies and practice as a means to expel Palestinian Arabs from their homeland, defining them as a “demographic threat.” Racism under the Jewish State is both by law and by practice. Envisaged as a state for Jews, that is, a state of which every Jewish individual throughout the world would be a potential citizen, it became imperative for its legislative body, the Knesset to immediately define in law those persons who would qualify as actual or potential citizens, and those who would be excluded - that is, non-Jews in general, and Palestinian Arabs in particular. In 1950 the Israeli Knesset passed two laws: the Law of Return, defining the boundaries of inclusion ('every Jew has the right to immigrate into the country') and the Absentee Property Law, defining the boundaries of exclusion ('absentee'), i.e. Palestinians. Under these laws, every Jew throughout the world is legally entitled to become a citizen of the “state of Israel” upon immigration into the country. In 1952, the Knesset passed the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law, which gave exclusive rights to Israelis of "Jewish nationality," including the right to purchase land. Jewish institutions such as the Jewish National Fund were prohibited by law to sell the land they “owned” in “Israel”-some 97 percent-to non-Jews and were enjoined to hold all land "for the whole Jewish people." Today the Jewish National Fund, a member of the World Zionist Organisation, administers 93% of the “land of Israel” the vast majority of which was Palestinian-owned property that was gradually confiscated in the years since 1948. Such laws parallel to the Apartheid South Africa Natives Land Act, No 27 of 1913 and The Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923, making it illegal for blacks to purchase or lease land from whites except in reserves and restricting black occupancy to less than eight per cent of South Africa's land. The Jewish State issuance of identity cards based on race—their defining and indicating race in the ID and basing the ID policy on racial classification, is similar to the Apartheid South African Population Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950 where a national register was created in which every person's race was recorded. A Race Classification Board took the final decision on what a person's race was in disputed cases. Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, Act No 67 of 1952, commonly known as the Pass Laws, forced black people to carry identification with them at all times. A pass included a photograph, details of place of origin, employment record, tax payments, and encounters with the police. It was a criminal offence to be unable to produce a pass when required to do so by the police. No black person could leave a rural area for an urban one without a permit from the local authorities. The idea of “two races” or “two people” is one of the basic components of the racist colonial project, as the establishment of a “Jewish People” is a construct and tool of the Zionist project to legitimize it and to define the very real target of its racism.

Israel's willing apologists usually respond by nitpicking on the differences. There are of course many differences, beginning with the fact that 'Israel' has only 6 letters and 'South Africa' has 11, and ending with the fact that skin color is not mentioned in Israeli laws. In countries where the public is not brainwashed (i.e., everywhere but the United States), the apartheid analogy is today common currency. It is clear to every sentient being that racialized laws governing land ownership and the existence of separate roads are more important features than the absence of, say, laws against miscegenation. It is clear that the fact that Palestinians can urinate at the same toilet as Jews on the Tel-Aviv beach is less important that the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not allowed to get to that beach.

More important that enumerating similarities is to abstract from the concrete and historically specific regimes the elements of a general crime. Just as not every murder need be carried out in the same manner as Cain's original crime, not every apartheid must be exactly like South Africa. There would be no point of having a 'crime of apartheid' if the only intention was to outlaw the one Apartheid regime in South Africa. Let's refresh our memory. The U.N. defines the crime of apartheid this way:

for the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid",which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation an discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:

(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

(f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.

( UNCHR )

Now, there is can be no shred of a doubt that Israel commits all of these crimes, except perhaps e, against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt that a., c. , d. and f. are also committed against Palestinians in 1948 Palestine. Lemma c. also apply to the refugees, who are prevented from returning to their homes, as is their human right, for the very same purpose of maintaining domination. And certainly, Israel's actions meeting these definitions are

committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them

Israel's apologists have generally argued three defenses, all unsubstantial.

1.

Israel's apologists argue first that the occupation is temporary. The Occupied Palestinian Territories do not form part of Israel, and therefore the definition doesn't apply. This is of course no defense against the committing of apartheid inside 48 and in the officially annexed East Jerusalem. nor does it apply to the refugees. It also ignores the fact that the definition of the crime does not relate to borders. There is no mention of borders in the definition and no reason why one would not be able to commit apartheid outside one's official borders. One could argue that Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories can be better prosecuted under the laws governing belligerent occupation. But that is a technicality. These laws that protect people under occupation are supposed to prevent many of the same practices that constitute apartheid. By committing the crimes enumerated in the aforementioned convention, Israel is both guilty of apartheid and of war crimes. More important is that the occupation does not qualify as temporary by any factual measure. It is over forty years long. There is a heavy civilian Israeli infrastructure, including highways, industrial zones and full fledged cities, that Israel built in the OPT. Israel has never acted in a way suggesting an intention to give up control of the OPT. The OPT are therefore under both belligerent occupation and apartheid. Indeed, that the belligerent occupation was the process that led to the creation of apartheid. Belligerent occupation is to apartheid here as kidnapping is to rape. One can be guilty of both against the same victim.

Even assuming that Israel accepts to evacuate small enclaves in the West Bank, what would be the status of these enclaves? The clearest signpost is Gaza. Gaza is an enclave. Although Israel "withdrew" its civilians and soldiers from Gaza, it does not recognize Gaza as independent or as outside Israel. Israel maintains the right to decide who rules Gaza, what and who goes in and out of Gaza, how is Gaza's economy to function, what is Gaza's currency, etc. We can see this a blueprint of what Israel means by "ending the occupation." And the only sensible meaning is that Israel means apartheid. The people of Gaza are subjected to the full power of the Israeli state, including the power to kill them at will, and they are separate, oppressed and unequal.

2.

The second apologetic argument is that the discrimination is not based on race, and therefore the apartheid concept is inapplicable. This argument relies on a restricted reading of the term 'race' and 'racial group' that no serious authority on racism will accept today. 'Race' is a social category based on descent. It is immaterial whether Israeli law does or does not define Jews and Palestinians as separate 'races.' Suffice that these are legally distinct categories defined by descent. Discrimination against Hispanics in the U.S. is racism, even though Hispanics were never defined legally as as a "racial group" in the U.S. the way African-Americans were. The fact is that in Israel, people are legally segregated and discriminated based on their descent. If your mother was Jewish, you get one treatment, and if your mother was Palestinian, you get another treatment. If your "ancestors" lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, you can live there. If your grandmother lived there 70 years ago you cannot.

Furthermore, the convention against the crime of apartheid has a preamble that recalls the various other conventions that inform the text. These instruments relate apartheid to racial discrimination, human rights, rights of colonized people and the convention against Genocide. In order to reflect this context that clarifies the crime of apartheid, one must understand and define apartheid through the harm that the convention seeks to avoid, the harm it does to the victims. It isn't the racial theory behind Apartheid that the convention criminalizes, but the list of proscribed practices that create and maintain a domination by one group over another. 'Racial discrimination ' is defined in the U.N. convention for the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. This convention, mentioned in the preamble, specifies:

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (OHCR)

Racial discrimination is not discrimination based on belonging to a racial group. That would be a circular definition since races do not exist outside the context of discrimination. On the contrary, a 'racial group' is any group that suffers from (or inflicts) 'racial discrimination.' Apartheid is an extreme form of state sponsored and legalized racial discrimination.

3.

The last refuge of the scoundrel is "negotiations." According to this line of apologetics, we shouldn't seek legal means against Israel because Israel is "negotiating." Except it doesn't, and when it does, it does so in bad faith and with imaginary counterparties such as Mahmoud Abbas, counteparties that don't even represent themselves. And beside, you could apply the same principles to every street robbery:

No officer, this is no matter for the police to intervene in. We are negotiating. I gave him a choice, 'the money or your life,' and I'm waiting for the counter-offer.

Huge BDS victory: U.K. boycotting Lev Leviev over settlements

From Ha'aretz, March 3:

U.K. boycotting Lev Leviev over West Bank construction

By Barak Ravid

Tags: East Jerusalem, Africa-Israel

The British embassy in Tel Aviv has stopped negotiations to lease a floor in Africa-Israel's Kirya Tower because of the company's role in West Bank settlement construction.

The British embassy had been expected to move from its current Hayarkon Street location into the office tower on the corner of Kaplan and Begin. The lease would have cost $162,000 a year, the British press reported.

Africa-Israel is owned by Lev Leviev, a tycoon who recently left Israel and settled in Britain.

After the planned move was publicized in the daily Globes about a year ago, British pro-Palestinian groups began protesting. The press ran several pieces detailing the activities of Africa-Israel and its subsidiary Danya Cebus, and its role in three West Bank construction projects: Matityahu East, Har Homa in Jerusalem, and in Ma'aleh Adumim.

The British press also published several petitions calling on the Foreign Office not to move its embassy to Africa-Israel's building. One such petition, which appeared in the Guardian several months ago, was signed by Palestinian Authority parliamentarians including Hanan Ashrawi and Mustafa Barghouti.

The petition said that moving the embassy into a building owned by a company that builds in the settlements would send a message contravening British policy, and would be tantamount to criminal complicity.

The petitioners also argued that choosing this location would enable Israel to continue violating Palestinian human rights in the West Bank.

Due to the public pressure, a special debate was held in the British parliament several months ago. Kim Howells, then minister of state at the Foreign Office charged with Middle East affairs, was asked to explain plans to move to the embassy into the building.

Ambassador Tom Phillips requested details from Africa-Israel about the nature of its activities in the settlements, and a week ago, the British embassy in Tel Aviv received the information. As a result, plans to move into the tower were frozen.

The embassy in Tel Aviv confirmed the details of the story and explained that its decision stemmed from the fact that Africa-Israel's response regarding its involvement in settlement activity failed to assuage Britain's concerns.

In a letter to Leviev, ambassador Phillips said that the decision was made even though 51 percent of the building no longer belongs to Africa-Israel.

An embassy spokesmen said that the search for a new location in Tel Aviv will continue.

Ha'aretz does not mention that Leviev also owns Zufim settlement, which is built on land stolen from the village of Jayyous. Jayyous has been holding weekly protests against the wall, which is stealing almost 6,000 dunums of their farmland, land which will be invariably be given to Leviev to expand Zufim. For the most part the international press has ignored these protests, which have been brutally repressed by Israeli colonizing forces, with live ammunition, tear gas, beatings, and mass arrests. From Jayyous today:

Jayyous under curfew; soldiers threaten demolitions

Occupation forces have put the village of Jayyous under curfew again today, following clashes with youth near the Wall. Soldiers arrested one person and threatened to demolish several farms on the south side of the village.

This afternoon, local youth and soldiers clashed near the Wall in the southern part of the village. Following an exchange of stones and bullets, no less than 10 jeeps invaded the village. Regular army and border police put the entire village under curfew and arrested a youth.

Following the incursion, the army spread out into the streets on foot. Three jeeps are stationed in the center of the village, where soldiers are firing sound bombs and tear gas. A patrol entered the chicken farm on the south side of the village, declaring the area a closed military zone. Farmers were told that if they did not prevent local youth from stoning military patrols, both the chicken and cow farms would be demolished.

See also,Jayyous, a village trapped: IPS, March 1

The UK government has done the right thing by Bilin & Jayyous. Now will the government of Dubai?

UPDATE: Ha'aretz has "Hampshired" the article title, removing both Leviev and "boycotting." It now reads, "U.K. embassy nixes move to building of company behind West Bank construction." However, the title in the sidebar reads: "U.K. boycotts Israeli magnate over West Bank construction."

The article is on the front page above the fold in the Hebrew print edition. The Hebrew internet edition's title is: The British Embassy will not move to a building owned by Leviev: a company he owns builds in settlements." Apparently most of the comments so far are favorable. More coverage in Jordan's Albawaba:

Sharif Omar, the head of Jayyous’ Land Defence Committee, commented, “We feel heartened by the UK government decision opposing Leviev’s settlement construction, and we expect our brothers and sisters in the UAE to follow the UK government's example by banning Leviev from selling his diamonds in Dubai. We need more pressure in order to end Israeli repression, return our land, and restore our rights.”

Omar is quite correct that more pressure is needed on Dubai: despite initial assurances from a Dubai-based official and UAE consular officers in New York, Leviev has been able to sell his gems in Dubai through a local Palestinian-Moroccan partner, Arif Bin-Khadra. Leviev's plan to open shops under his own name was scuttled due to the campaign initiated against him there by Adalah-NY, but his website lists a "Leviev store-in-store" in one of Bin-Khadra's Levant stores. Dubai is proudly listed as one of Leviev's locations on the door of his New York shop. According to the Gulf News, the Arab League's Damascus-based boycott office considered placing Leviev & Levant on their boycott list in a November meeting. But a well-placed source says that the UAE pressured the league not to take action, for fear of the damage it would do to Gulf-Israeli relations.

AFP covered as well, in French. Now in English, in a UAE pub. Also, the JC. And the AP, as carried by YNet.

Classy Solidarity

Oswald Grübel, the new CEO of UBS, the Swiss bank that, like many of its Atlantic peers, exists today only thanks to generous public assistance that pays for its former recklessness, earned ca. $20,000 on his first two days on the job. His pre-bonus annual "compensation" is CHF 3 million. Some Swiss politicians toy with the idea of capping Grübel's salary at the subsistance level annual sum of CHF 850,000 (ca. $650,000). Asked why he wouldn't accept such a modest deal, Grübby explained.

I could have worked for free. I don't need these millions. But I can assure you that it would have offended even more people if I worked without a salary. (Le Matin)

The sacrifices rich people sometimes make for the sake of their class are humbling!

---

In case you're wondering why this news item, that has nothing to do Palestine, three reasons. First, because it is interesting. Second, it has a lot to do with Palestine, even if the connection is indirect. Swiss banks manage, according to the interview, a third of the private wealth of the world. These fortunes, oil fortunes, armament fortunes, mining fortunes, real estate fortunes, etc. are made with blood, and Palestine is one of indirect "theaters" of that bloodletting.

And third, we believe all bankers ought to be Jewish. This Grübby guy with his snot-nosed Umlaut rubs us the wrong way. Indeed the whole Swiss banking industry rubs us the wrong way. Why can't they appoint Elisha Wiesel, the son of Elie Wiesel, to run UBS? That takhshit has on his resume working as a managing director at Goldman Sachs, a job he secured because of his deep understanding of all things financial, nothing to do with his father's name. Elisha proved his acumen by investing all of daddy's Holocaust ra-ra foundation monies with Bernie Madoff. It was hard work getting Madoff to take the money, rubbing elbows until the suit had to be patched, days of inane golf playing, munching sushi way beyond the onset of nausea. What more qualifications do they want? The Swiss show their rank antisemitism by not letting their banks be run by Jews!

(PS. apparently the Wall Street Journal decided that information about poor Elisha was too touchy. But Google cache still has it.)

Peace Now: settlements to expand 100%

Peace Now released a report today saying Israel has plans for a mere 73,300 new homes in the West Bank, including East Jeruslem. That's a 100% increase in the number of current number of settlers -- about the same rate of increase between the moment the Oslo swindle was signed, up through Camp David in 2000. The unsurprising result: popular uprising, brutally quashed by the colonizers.

15,000 housing units are already approved, a further 58,000 units await the rubber stamp. 5,722 have been approved in E. Jerusalem. The two biggest settlements, Ma'ale Adumim & Ariel will double in size. Ha'aretz:

Peace Now says that a new right-wing government presents the danger of "expanding settlement growth at a rapid pace... with the clear intention of destroying the possibility of a two-state solution."

They are very observant. Anyhow most Israelis have no interest in a "two-state solution;" a Feb 18 Angus Reid Poll says 51% of Israelis oppose an "independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria." Only 32% support the idea -- and note the way the question is phrased, Gaza and E. Jerusalem aren't even on the table in terms of handing over sovereignity to Palestinians.

Bibi says this will all be "natural" growth -- one wonders what unnatural growth of settlements looks like? Anyhow Peace Now points out 17,000 homes are planned to be built "outside" the current footprint of the Gush Etzion "settlement bloc." 19,000 units will be built beyond the "separation barrier," including in the Hebron area.

Israeli economist: boycotts beginning to bite

Shir Hever, an economist with the Palestinian-Israeli Alternative Information Center (AIC), notes that four recent articles in Ha'aretz' business section, The Marker, have fretted about the impact of boycotts, divestment & sanctions (BDS) on the Israeli economy. Writes Hever in the AIC, March 1:

[...]

The growing protest against the atrocities committed by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip have begun to change something in the Israeli political discourse, and the first indication of this can already be seen in the Israeli economic media.

Although the Israeli economic media doesn't concern itself with the moral dimension of the attacks on Gaza, the economic dimension of recent events have created a rising level of concern. In order to demonstrate this trend, here are summaries of four articles that appeared in the Israeli The Marker magazine for economic news:

1. On 2 February, Guy Grimland warned about a growing phenomenon of boycott of Israeli high-tech companies, and several Israeli companies received letters from European and U.S. companies explaining that they cannot invest in Israel for moral reasons.

2. In 3 February, Nehemia Strassler, one of Israel's most famous economic correspondents, attacked the Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor, Eli Yishai, for calling on the Israeli military to "destroy one hundred homes in Gaza for every rocket that falls in Israel." Strassler had nothing to say about the Palestinians living in these homes or about the loss of life, but he warned:

"[the minister] doesn't even understand how the operation in Gaza hurts the economy. The horror sights on television and the words of politicians in Europe and Turkey change the behavior of consumers, businessmen and potential investors. Many European consumers boycott Israeli products in practice. Intellectuals call for an economic war against us and to enforce an official and full consumer boycott.

Calls are heard in board meetings of economic corporations to boycott trade relations with Israel. So far deals were cancelled with Turkey, the UK, Egypt and the Gulf States, and visits by economic delegations were cancelled. It’s much easier now to switch providers while abandoning Israeli providers. Many company boards are required to take wide considerations into account with regards to the good of society and the environment, and they put political considerations in that slot as well.

Of course there is an economic cost to severing diplomatic ties. Qatar cut its trade relations with Israel, Venezuela and Bolivia cut diplomatic relations. Mauritania recalled its ambassador and the relations with Turkey worsened considerably—and this bad ambience seeps into the business sector decisions. Here, just yesterday Dudi Ovshitz, who grows peppers for export, said that 'there is a concealed boycott of Israeli products in Europe.'"

3. On 6 February, Shuki Sadeh wrote about even more companies that have decided to boycott relations with Israel. A Turkish company demanded that Israeli companies sign a document condemning the Israeli massacre in Gaza before they can offer their services for it. Sadeh quoted Naomi Klein's recent call for boycott, the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for boycott and Israeli organizations that support the boycott and provide information for the global BDS movement. Sadeh's article also had concerned quotes by Israeli businessmen who demanded government intervention to protect them from the growing boycott.

4. In 11 February, Ora Koren reported that the Israeli business sectors feel the effects of the attack on Gaza. She reported that Israeli businessmen in Turkey are hiding their names so that the local BDS organizations won't learn about their activities, and that the situation is even worse in the UK.

These four articles are a sign that there is a shift in the effectiveness of the BDS movement against Israel, and that if the momentum is maintained and strengthened, Israeli businessmen may decide to move their headquarters away from Israel, or to begin to put pressure on the Israeli government to begin respecting international law, and ending the occupation.

Hever has written extensively on the economy of the occupation & the usefulness of BDS tactics to fight it, available here.

Remind me, why did Israel invade Gaza?

Any takers? Why was it? Regime change? Fight Hamas to the finish? To get Livni into power? Stop BiBi? I know what I'll do, I'll check out Ha'aretz, that's what I'll do. Hold on, let me have one more guess. It was to stop the rockets:

Three rockets fell Thursday in the area around the Gaza Strip, one in the yard of a Sderot home - just a few reminders that Israel is still far from its declared goal in Operation Cast Lead. Discussion about the military operation's outcome revolves around the term "deterrence."

Hmm, didn't stop the rockets then. How about regime change?

The blow Hamas was dealt has only led to increased admiration for the group, according to opinion polls in the territories. Hamas is still waiting for another crowning achievement: if abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is released for more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Still it's not all doom and gloom for the racist war criminals:

However, the army is currently reviewing its performance during the war and an encouraging picture is emerging in terms of its professionalism, control over units, aerial assistance to ground forces, quality of intelligence and logistics compared to the Second Lebanon War.

In other words they clearly lost in Lebanon and almost lost in Gaza and time may have them lose in Gaza for sure.

The lesson? I don't know, any takers?

Welsh university divests from arms suppliers to Israel

A great big mazel tov to students at Cardiff Uni in Wales; the university divested from BAE Systems & General Electric, both of which supply weapons to Israel. From the campaigners' blog, Feb. 26:

Victory for Cardiff Student Occupiers!

The occupation of Cardiff University has ended with success as Cardiff University acceded to the occupiers’ key demand – to divest from the arms trade. Cardiff University have given students written confirmation that they have divested from the arms trade and have instructed fund managers not to reinvest.

The occupation will end at 4pm today with the mass of students walking out together waving occupation banners and chanting ‘Free, Free, Palestine’. They then held a ‘Books not Bombs’ rally as they marched around campus declaring their success.

The victory comes after three days of occupation which has made students across the campus aware of the £209, 000 worth of shares which, until yesterday, Cardiff University held in the arms trade. This included BAE Systems and General Electric who supplied Israel with weapons used in the recent attacks on Gaza.

The Cardiff Occupation, organised by Cardiff Students Against War, was in opposition to the University’s investment in the arms trade and to the atrocities committed in Gaza, where 1.4 million Palestinians are blockaded in a semi-autonomous apartheid state.

The occupation has been inundated with messages of support including most notably one from Noam Chomsky:

I am very pleased to learn about the courageous and honourable actions of the Cardiff University students. These are particularly significant because of Britain's role in arms sales generally, and it's contribution to the savage onslaught on Gaza and on the occupied territories generally, second only to the decisive role of the United States -- a disgrace for all of us. I hope you have the greatest success in arousing public opinion and bringing these crimes to an end.

The action at Cardiff is the twenty-eighth UK student occupation to have taken place in the last few weeks. This unprecedented wave of student dissent has seen many university’s capitulating to demands. The Cardiff activists hope their success will inspire other students to hold occupations on their own campuses.

Durban poison?

From the BBC website:

The US is likely to boycott a UN racism conference, reports suggest, saying a text drawn up for the event criticises Israel and restricts freedom of speech.

An unnamed state department official said the draft document for April's forum in Geneva was "unsalvageable".

Canada and Israel have also said they plan to boycott the meeting.

In 2001, US and Israeli delegates walked out of a similar conference in Durban, South Africa, when a draft document likened Zionism to racism.

The 2001 draft expressed "deep concern" at the "increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism".

It talked of the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority".

Fair enough. The zionist idea is that Jews from anywhere have more right to most of Palestine than natives that are not Jewish. The word racial has been jettisoned of late, we prefer ethnic now, but I'm sure zionists wouldn't stoop to a mere technicality to get Israel off the hook.

But America has a two-fold beef here. Obama's representatives have found something about America to object to. It's the slavery thing. Some people at Durban II want to discuss the slave trade and America's role in it. Well America's first African-American president isn't having any of that.

I suppose the good to come out of that is that it vindicates those of us who suggested that Obama's ethnicity wouldn't make a, what is it they say over there? ah yes, dime's worth of difference.