PHRC on Kia Ora Gaza & Israeli Ambassador

PHRC on Kia Ora Gaza & Israeli Ambassador

/*The Palestine Human Rights Campaign Aotearoa/New Zealand (PHRC) has received a copy of a letter from the Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand, Shemi Tzur, that was sent to the Kia Ora Gaza group referring to the organisation's 10 August 2010 news media release. The letter sought to dissuade Kia Ora Gaza from bringing aid to Gaza independently of Israel's military blockade of the territory. PHRC makes the following comments:*/

The letter referred to what the Ambassador described as ?Israel?s lawful maritime blockade?. The blockade most certainly is not lawful and is being exercised with deadly force against the entire people of Gaza and, recently, also against civilian shipping in international waters. In defending itself against criticism Israel faces a huge credibility gap. For instance, Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said that Israel had nothing to apologise for over its recent attack on the //Mavi Marmara// and, using the language of the bully when things are not going his way, offered the excuse that the Israeli military were ?defending? themselves. Israel chose to intercept and board the flotilla, fully armed and knowing in advance from the manifests the nature of the cargo. Israel's other justification for its deadly violence ? the grotesque claim that it was ?at war? ? illustrates just how ideologically isolated Israel is because international law obliges the military to protect civilians.

The Ambassador stated that ?humanitarian aid is unnecessary?, which flies in the face of all the reports by United Nations rapporteurs and human rights groups. At present, Gaza is still unable to export anything and its people have no freedom of movement, not even in their own coastal waters, let alone the high seas. Israel, the letter claimed, had lifted most of its restrictions on the passage of goods to the Gaza Strip. It may possibly suit Israel to ease the restrictions while the heat is on but, without an end to the blockade, things could very quickly go back to how they were. Again, the question of credibility arises. History has taught us that Israel is a master of expediency and that its intentions as well as its behaviour require close scrutiny. The world has not forgotten that, contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel exported its citizens into a belligerently occupied Gaza Strip and set up segregated colonies at the cost of the lives, economy and freedom of movement of the people of Gaza. When it suited Israel, it unilaterally departed and dismantled the settlements. In the years leading up to that, anyone who might have suggested that the settlements must go would no doubt have been labelled a terrorist sympathiser. The fact that the settlements no longer exist shows how unnecessary all the pain and suffering had been in the first place. The settlements in the West Bank (referred to in Israel as Judea and Samaria) should also go because they are also established in defiance of international law.

In the absence of any evidence of Israeli goodwill, all protestations by Israel should be rigorously examined. In his letter the Ambassador stated, ?Now restrictions will be placed only on weapons, war materiel and items that can be used for military purposes.? Israel, it needs to be remembered, is the state that introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and that has neither signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty nor complied with the requirements of the IAEA. In spite of this there is no likelihood of restrictions being placed on the Zionist state's huge military establishment, so disproportionately underwritten by the US taxpayer.

Accusing Hamas of failing to ?recognise Israel? is a diversion. States either exist or they do not. Hamas has offered to respect Israel's Green Line frontier and has offered an open-ended ceasefire. It has also agreed to respect whatever future agreement may be reached between the whole Palestinian people and Israel. Israel's breaking of the ceasefire paved the way for the gross, and disproportionate, operation 'Cast Lead' offensive in which some 1400 Gazans died. Again, Israel's credibility was sorely discredited when it tried to deny the use of white phosphorus munitions in populated areas. In the face of overwhelming evidence Israel now admits its action which, to most observers, would appear to be a war crime. Even now, Israeli F-16s fly, from time to time, simulated air raids over Gaza City, inflicting sonic booms on an already traumatised population. Imagine how the families of the 342 children killed in operation 'Cast Lead' would react to such a sound.

The Ambassador tried to make much of the case of captive Israeli soldier, Gilad Schalit, which only serves to draw attention to the disproportionality of Israel's holding of thousands of civilian Palestinian prisoners. In particular, this year alone (up to 8am, 10 August 2010) Israeli soldiers had already abducted 229 Palestinian youngsters between the ages of 9 and 17. The largest number taken in a given age group was that of the 17-year-olds: 109. Many were dragged from their homes in the small hours of the morning. The PHRC daily newsletters //In Occupied Palestine// www.palestine.org dating from January this year report the names of these young victims and the circumstances of their capture. If Israeli children and teenagers had been abducted from their homes the news would have been extensively reported.

The shocking behaviour of Israel's occupation forces includes house demolitions, home invasions in which the contents are often vandalised, and beatings at checkpoints, in the streets and in victims' homes. Israeli soldiers hospitalised a three-year-old girl on July 23 in an assault on a bus full of women and children. Beatings of youngsters by Israeli occupation troops are not uncommon. (See //In/// ///Occupied Palestine// July 23 & 24 at www.palestine.org ).

Israel continues to defy international law with what it calls its ?separation barrier? (annexation Wall) in the West Bank that actually separates Palestinians, cutting off towns and villages from their farms and communities from each other and the outside world. A World Court ruling condemns the Wall as illegal and calls for its removal but the World Community makes no demand for Israel to comply.

Why should the world take Israel on trust while it enacts discriminatory laws such as the Law of Return (1950 and 1970) that grants the right of immigration only to Jews born anywhere in the world? Native-born Muslim and Christian Palestinian refugees, most of whom were driven out of their homes and land through the terrorism and massacres of 1947 and 1967, are denied their right of return (affirmed in Article 11 of UN Resolution 194) solely on the grounds that they are not Jewish. Israel's National Planning and Building Law (1965) creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements. There has recently been a spate of destruction of homes and entire villages. Discrimination is embodied in the Population Registry Law (1965) which requires all residents of Israel to classify their ethnic group and to carry an identity card with this information. Residents who do not have Jewish ID cards are subject to restrictions regarding driving, travel, marriage and even entry to cafés and bars.

Israel needs to change its behaviour and work hard to prove to the majority of international grass-roots opinion that it means what it says regarding human rights, the rule of law and democracy. So long as action belies protestation, Israel's motives will remain suspect.

Israel claims to speak for world Jewry to the distress of Jewish people who oppose what Israel does in their name. The world should listen to those voices, which include many Jewish celebrities who express their concern through a variety of actions. The organisation Jews Against Zionism states: ?We believe that the conflict in Palestine cannot be resolved without a return of Palestinian refugees and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel; and that this is impossible in the context of 'two states' and a re-partition of Palestine. We advocate the only approach which can lead to peace with justice in the region; we call for a unitary, secular and democratic Palestine, the return of Palestinian refugees and full and equal rights for Palestinians, Israeli Jews and all other people living in the whole of Palestine.? www.inminds.co.uk/jews-against-zionism.html .

Everyone has a right to peace and security but Israel demands security for itself at whatever cost to its neighbours, while not even considering the Palestinian people's need for security. The Port of Gaza should be open and the people of Gaza liberated to enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us. Israel could win both respect and security by accepting and abiding by all United Nations Resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the findings of the International Court of Justice.

ENDS

© Scoop Media