Five Palestinians, including a one-year-old baby, have died in Gaza over the past two months after Israel rejected on security grounds or delayed their requests to cross the border for treatment in Israel or elsewhere, Physicians for Human Rights announced Thursday.

“The Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) misuses and overuses security reasons for rejecting requests by Palestinians of all ages,” said PHR in a press statement. “These deaths point to the urgent need for public oversight of the ISA, which has been given unlimited power in this matter. These cases, like others, are examples of the fact that the manipulative use made of ’security’ by the ISA costs lives.”

These Physicians must be really good, given their G-d given abilities to treat the sick and read the minds of Shin Bet officials. Especially considering the fact that the Shin Bet seemingly have very good reasons to not automatically grant such requests.

Meanwhile, I’m guessing there could be a hell of a lot more such requests in coming weeks.

Palestinian health minister Fathi Abu Maghli confirmed on Friday that investigations are continuing into the smuggling of counterfeit medicines and expired food products that are being sold in the Palestinian market.

He added that a report will be issued within the next few days that will include data, facts and figures about the extent of the problem.

—-

He added that the majority of those involved in the smuggling of an estimated four tons of counterfeit medicines seized in the Ram this week have been arrested. He said it has been established that there is a link between all the smuggling gangs in the West Bank.

According to Abu Maghli, a large number of expired medicines were seized in Nablus on Thursday. He added that the quantity seized is estimated to be worth around two million US dollars and includes around 16 different kinds of medicines, including cancer treatments.

Needless to say, I’m not expecting Physicians for Human Rights to blame the palestinian smugglers in case these expired medicines and food products cause fatalities.

The United Nations humanitarian chief today voiced his concern at the impact of indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israel during a visit to the town of Sderot, an area severely affected by bombardments from the Gaza Strip. “The people of Sderot and the surrounding area have had to live with these unacceptable and indiscriminate rocket attacks for seven years now. There is no doubt about the physical and psychological suffering these attacks are causing,” said John Holmes, who is on a five-day trip to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, his first as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs.

“I condemn them utterly and call on those responsible to stop them now without conditions,” added Mr. Holmes, who is also UN Emergency Relief Coordinator.

While in Sderot, Mr. Holmes met with the city officials, including the Mayor, who briefed him on the difficulties faced by local civilians as a result of almost daily rocket attacks. Over the past seven years, a number of houses in the area have been damaged, the local economy has suffered, and some 12 per cent of the city’s 22,000 residents have left.

“There are no military targets in this city. These victims here are innocent civilians. There is no time to lose in putting an end to this vicious circle of violence. More violence will not bring peace to the people of Sderot,” Mr. Holmes said.

A couple of things are interesting about this UN press release.Firstly, it didn’t bother to mention that many residents of the Negev have been injured or killed by Qassams – only that there has been property and economic damage. Even as Holmes condemns the rockets, he is minimizing their actual effect.

Secondly, notice what is missing from this – and essentially all – UN statements on Gaza?

There is no mention of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the Al Aqsa Brigades, or any of the other groups who actually fire them. The UN just mouths words condemning the attacks themselves without saying a single critical word about any specific group.

The UN has no problem condemning Israel explicitly, but when it comes to criticizing any Palestinian Arab group by name, the UN becomes mute. It is as if the United Nations is either too stupid to know who is responsible or too scared to say their names in fear of retribution.

The mere mention of Hamas would guarantee that UN statements get taken seriously by Hamas and the other terror groups as they would be forced to respond and show their own hypocrisy to the world. As it is, the UN seems to be only placating its critics with a worthless “condemnation” while staying away from any real criticism of the groups who take explicit responsibility – and pride – in shooting these rockets at civilians.

(cross-posted to Elder of Ziyon)

It comes to the apparent conclusion that even with a reduction of Palestinian Arab deaths at the hands of Israel this year, Israel was responsible for more PalArab deaths than Palestinian Arabs themselves were. It counts 373 Palestinian Arabs killed by the IDF and 344 killed in internal fighting.

The press releases don’t go into the details of B’Tselem’s methodology, and its apparent attempt to keep track of intra-Palestinian Arab violence gives it a veneer of respectability and even-handedness. But look a bit deeper into how it claims to get its numbers, buried almost unnoticeably on its website:

Since the beginning of the current intifada, B’Tselem has published on its website the names of every person (Israeli, Palestinian, and foreign) who was killed in the violence.

The data include the person’s name, age, and place of residence, the date and place of death, and who killed the individual. The data on Israelis who were killed indicate whether they were a civilian or member of the security forces. Regarding Palestinians who were killed, the data state whether they took part in the fighting, in the event that B’Tselem has this information. In some cases, the data provide a short description of the circumstances in which the individual was killed.

B’Tselem emphasizes that the listing of a person as a civilian, or having not participated in the fighting, or the inclusion of any other details regarding the cause of death, does not indicate that the person or entity that killed the individual violated the law, or that the deceased was innocent, or that any other legal or moral conclusion can be drawn from the facts. The lists of fatalities relate to persons killed during incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada, and are to be viewed solely in that light.

The problem is that B’Tselem uses a very expansive definition of deaths related to the intifada when counting Israeli killings and a very narrow one when counting Arab killings.

For example, it counts this as an Israeli killing related to the intifada (and as a killing of a minor):

Jihad ‘Alian Muhammad a-Nabahin, 17 year-old resident of al-Bureij Refugee Camp, Deir al-Balah district, killed on 09.11.2007 in al-Bureij Refugee Camp, Deir al-Balah district, by gunfire. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed when he and his friend tried to cross the perimeter fence and enter Israel.

If he was killed for only trying to cross a fence, and had no intent to do anything bad to Israelis (as B’Tselem implies when it says that he was not participating in hostilities), then what exactly does this death have to do with the intifada?

But when it comes to intra-Arab deaths, B’Tselem becomes much more restrictive in saying that they have to do with the intifada. While Hamas/Fatah battles do seem to count, tunnel collapses and “work accidents” and Arabs shooting other Arabs at checkpoints and Christians killed for being Christian and many other types of deaths do not make it into their list. So while over 600 Arabs were violently killed by each other this year, B’Tselem implies that the number is only 344, thereby neatly making it look like Israel is responsible for more Arab deaths than Arabs themselves are – a very wrong implication.

But B’Tselem’s dishonesty does not end there. They nicely list 53 minors and come to conclusions that most of them “did not participate in hostilities” when they were killed. Probably most of them didn’t, but again B’Tselem’s definition of “not participating in hostilities” includes minors who tried to cut through the fence around Gaza, trying to escape arrest, trying to “collect” Qassam rocket launchers, or throwing stones (the very definition of “intifada” according to Palestinian Arab propagandists.) Once again, B’Tselem interprets its own definitions in ways that maximize propaganda value and minimize adherence to a true picture.

One interesting statistic that B’Tselem doesn’t bother mentioning in its press release: the number of females killed. B’Tselem likes to count “minors” even though the majority killed were 16 and 17 years old. But its own list shows only 2 adult women (and 3 girls) killed by Israel during the year, as opposed to the 41 adult women and far more than 3 girls killed by PalArabs this year, statistics that B’Tselem doesn’t count in its quest for “human rights.”

In other words, B’Tselem will use statistics that seem to imply an Israeli policy of random shooting of non-combatants but that randomness falls apart when one sees that the minors are usually fully grown and the number of females killed is diminishingly small compared to men.

Publicizing those statistics as well as the others mentioned would make Arabs look more bloodthirsty than Israelis, and B’Tselem cannot countenance such a conclusion.

(cross-posted at Elder of Ziyon)

Attacks on innocent civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian, are forbidden under international law. The ISM seeks nothing more for Israelis and Palestinians than implementing international law, and we oppose any action of any kind against civilians, including suicide bombings.

Well, it looks like ISMer “Nick” didn’t get the memo.

Why don’t the residents of Sderot ask this question to their government?

Can you please stop the collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza?

BBC news reported the resignation today of the Mayor of Sderot, Eli Moyal. Eli Moyal is fed up with the situation and says the Israeli government is not doing enough to stop the missiles coming from Gaza nor is it re-enforcing houses in Sderot to protect local residents from rocket attacks on their homes.

The Israeli government controls all aspects of life in the Gaza strip. Israel has recently reduced electricity and fuel supplies to Gaza and threatens to reduce them further. Food and basic supplies are monitored and prevented from entering and people in need of treatment are prevented from getting to hospital. The people of Gaza live in a large prison.

When Israel does send its army into the Gaza strip to search for Hama’s militants it often results in civilian deaths. Israel collectively punishes the citizens of Gaza for the rocket attacks on towns such as Sderot, but also kills innocent men, women and children, who already live in a prison, in search of those responsible for firing the rockets.

The rocket attacks are a response to Israel’s brutal treatment of Gaza residents. If the citizens of Israel were to be treated as the Palestinians are currently being treated in Gaza they would also be fighting back as best they could.

However, the general public in Israel seem happy to allow the collective punishment of Gaza, unwilling to challenge the right-wing members of their government who care not for how many Palestinians die as long as they can get their Jewish state.

Local residents in Sderot are not happy. Unlike their fellow Israeli’s living in Tel Aviv they must endure the results of Israel’s constant oppression of the Palestinian’s.

And rightly the Ex-Mayor of Sderot blames the Israeli government. Eli Moyal has every right to be upset that rockets are falling down on his township. But what Eli Moyal has requested, that the government make an incursion to get those who shoot the rockets and to re-enforce houses to make them more resistant to rocket attacks, is not going to stop the rockets being fired upon Sderot.

The collective punishment of Gaza will stop the rockets falling on Sderot.

The killing of innocent civilians will stop the rockets. Talking to Hama’s, who represent over half of the Palestinian people, will stop the rockets. And no, requesting Gaza militants to stop firing the rockets before allowing Gazan residents to live like human beings will not work because Hama’s know that if they stop first, Israel will just keep destroying the lives of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza less any consequences. Israel’s treatment of Gaza is wrong, many members of the international community who don’t have vested interests in the suffering of the Palestinians have said it is wrong. It must stop.

Eli Moyal should be asking the Israeli government, pleading in fact, to stop the collective punishment of Gaza. Why do the residents of Sderot not see the root of the problem and accept that the government they voted in collectively punishes 1.5 million people and that this may have consequences, which are in the form of home made rockets.

The next Mayor of Sderot can do something for his township and the people of Gaza. He can ask the Israeli government to stop practicing numerous human rights abuses in the Gaza strip. He can ask the Israeli government to allow Gazans to live as human beings free of fear, which is created by military incursions, threats to cut electricity, limited staple goods, not knowing when food is next available, army incursions and rockets from fighter planes, just as rocket attacks on Sderot bring fear to its local residents.

The next Mayor of Sderot needs to ask Israel to respect the rights of 1.5 million people in Gaza so 22,000 residents in Sderot can be free of rocket attacks, which mind you, is something the people of Gaza also put up, along with so much else.

Nick doesn’t sound to me like someone who opposes the terrorist attacks on Sderot at all; in fact, it is clear that he supports them as the legitimate actions of an oppressed people.

Of course, in order to hold such a morally repugnant position, an ISMer like Nick has to lie. Here are some examples, along with my responses.

The Israeli government controls all aspects of life in the Gaza strip.

Hamas controls most of the aspects of life in the Gaza strip. If Israel controlled all aspects of life in the Gaza strip, palestinians certainly would not be afforded the opportunity to fire rockets into Israel.

The rocket attacks are a response to Israel’s brutal treatment of Gaza residents.

If the rocket attacks were a response to “Israel’s brutal treatment of Gaza residents”, why did they increase after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, leaving the palestinians more in control of their own destiny? The fact is that the cause of the rocket attacks was the withdrawal itself, with the palestinians, emboldened by what they perceived as an Israeli surrender, launching rockets from the very areas Israel abandoned (as Hizbullah did after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000).

If the citizens of Israel were to be treated as the Palestinians are currently being treated in Gaza they would also be fighting back as best they could.

Here, Nick suggests that Israeli citizens would fight back like the palestinians do if they were treated as badly. A number of points:

1. The treatment of Israeli citizens at the hands of the palestinians is worse than the treatment of palestinian civilians at the hands of Israel. For a start, palestinians deliberately target Israeli civilians, while the IDF does not target palestinian civilians. And when was the last time you heard of a palestinian wandering in Jerusalem being lynched by a mob of Jews?

2. Despite this treatment, the Israeli public has never endorsed the use of a terrorism as a means to counter our treatment at the hands of the palestinians. The rare instances of terrorist activities have been condemned, with the perpetrators brought to justice. Yet the palestinians encourage terrorism, and those who perpetrate terrorist attacks are lauded as martyrs, even by the so-called “moderate” PA leadership.

And no, requesting Gaza militants to stop firing the rockets before allowing Gazan residents to live like human beings will not work because Hama’s know that if they stop first, Israel will just keep destroying the lives of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza less any consequences.

If the terrorists stopped firing rockets on Israel, Israel would certainly ease restrictions on Gaza, as evidenced by our unilateral withdrawal from the area. The reason requesting a cessation of rocket attacks will not work is because the terrorists’ end game is the destruction of Israel.

(Nick also seems to ignore the fact that it is not only Hamas firing on Israel).

One can envisage someone like Nick – who clearly lies to further his agenda of supporting palestinian terrorism- going one step further and actively assisting terrorists with their “just cause.”

Update: Someone like Rachel Corrie, for example.

Corrie’s supporters claim she acted as a human shield to prevent a bulldozer from demolishing a house in Rafah. And while the IDF denied they were going to demolish the house in question, the fact remains that the IDF has demolished houses to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip. And while we have photographic proof of these tunnels, we now also have an admission from a palestinian smuggler that Rafah houses made for great smuggling tunnels.

“The houses in Rafah were right along the border, before the Israelis bulldozed them all, and you could dig for 50 metres and be on the other side. Because the tunnels were so short and because the borders were more open then, it was easy to get cheap wood so you could have props to hold up the whole length of the tunnel. Now we’re having to do without wooden props and dig tunnels that can be 1500 metres long.”

Given what we know of the ISM and people like Nick, there’s no doubt in my mind that Rachel Corrie was trying to prevent the IDF from finding these arms smuggling tunnels.

The first Intifada began in a piecemeal fashion with demonstrations and civil disobedience sparked by an increasing number of shootings and human rights abuses by the Israeli occupation.

The Intifada marked an end to passive resistance

The grassroots protests of 1987 escalated into full-blown riots involving much of civil society, from organisations, union groups to newly created institutions to the ordinary population who came out in large numbers on to the streets led by rock-throwing youths.

As the protest movement developed, more sophisticated missiles, such as the Molotov cocktail, were used and occasional operations by resistance fighters against the Israeli occupation forces and its installations were carried out.

Israel reacted by killing and deporting Palestinian residents, closing universities and making mass arrests. By December 1987 a full-scale uprising had broken out in the Gaza Strip. It continued for five years.

Inventive tactics

The Intifada (or popular uprising) marked a new era in mass resistance in Palestine, signalling an end to years of passivity. Lacking the necessary arms to face the Israeli military, people in the occupied territories invented their own ways of fighting back. Many young men took to wearing masks and ambushing the Israeli army with a rain of stones.

One interesting mode of asserting independence was when Palestinians rejected Israel’s daylight-saving time and worked to their own clock.

Initially the Intifada was led by the Unified National Command, a loose grouping of Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) bodies. Later, the PLO incorporated with the command to take credit for leading the Intifada.

Hamas members parade in the streets of the central Gaza Strip

Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) defied the secular national movement, especially in Gaza, and sought to take over the leadership of the Intifada. It saw the new developments as a deliberate relinquishment of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hamas continued to carry out field operations against the Israeli forces, insisting that armed resistance was the only way to win back Palestinian rights.

The Intifada developed more sophisticated tactics. The military operations and stone-throwing were backed by a network of well organised strikes, the boycotting of Israeli goods, closures and demonstrations.

Refugees’ resistance

The refugee camps became major centres for action. The goals of the Intifada won broad sympathy from the governments and people of Arab and Muslim countries, while Arabs in Israel took the side of their blood brothers.

They considered the Intifada to be a rebirth of the 1976 uprising, later known as the “day of the land”, which saw demonstrations and strikes in protest against the confiscation of Arab land for use by Jewish settlers in the north of Israel.

In June 1988, a new way of resistance to back the stone-throwers was adopted. Palestinian resistance fighters set fire to 500 Israeli interests over a 27-day period.

Israel had demanded the international community put pressure on the Intifada leaders to give up armed resistance. Yet, in July 1988 the Israeli authorities did not prevent a group of Jewish extremists from digging a new tunnel between the two Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, al-Buraq Wall and the al-Aqsa mosque.

Appeal to the people

Muslim clerics, through mosque loudspeakers, appealed to the people to defend their holy sites. Muslim Arab Palestinians rushed to stop the digging. The Israeli police forces were brought in leading to bloody clashes in and around al-Aqsa.

Later, fighting spread throughout Palestine. There were dozens of Palestinian casualties. A state of emergency was declared, and Palestinian cities, towns and villages were put under siege. Schools and universities were closed.

The Intifada carried on during the early 1990s

The Intifada carried on throughout the early 1990s. On 9 October 1990 Israeli forces killed 19 Palestinians in clashes with stone-throwers, and in December 1992, 413 Palestinians were deported to the inhospitable borders with Lebanon.

As the first Gulf war was underway in 1991, Iraq ceased to be a major power in the Middle East. The Palestinians felt that they had lost a substantial backer, and this resulted in rapid developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The peace process, started in Madrid in 1991, led to secret negotiations in Oslo, Norway, and by 1993 Arafat recognised Israel’s right to exist and signed a peace agreement.

In 1994, the Palestinians were given limited autonomy in parts of the occupied Palestinian territories. By that time, tension began to ease and the popular uprising petered out, amid high hopes for a better future.

According to the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, BTselem, 1124 Palestinians lost their lives in the first Intifada. Some 16,000 were imprisoned and many were routinely tortured. Fewer than 50 Israeli civilians were killed.

Notice how the palestinian’s actions are minimized. Terrorists are referred to as “resistance fighters”, and the constant terror attacks against Israeli civilians are hardly mentioned (except as the euphemistic “network of well organised strikes”). Arch terrorist Yasser Arafat is even described as recognizing Israel’s right to exist, despite what we know today. The ISM prefers to focus on the “rock-throwing youths” and the rejection of Israel’s daylight-saving time, as if these have been the main tactics of the palestinians. The only mention of killing is ascribed to Israel, with the casualty figures at the end of the post serving to show who the real barbarians are.

Now contrast with the ISM’s assertion that they are for non-violence:

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles.

As well as their so-called opposition to terrorism:

What is the ISM position on suicide bombings?

Attacks on innocent civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian, are forbidden under international law. The ISM seeks nothing more for Israelis and Palestinians than implementing international law, and we oppose any action of any kind against civilians, including suicide bombings.

Yeah, you were just innocently posing with guns, weren’t you Alan from Scotland, and the rest of you lowlifes?

Well, consider the drought ended.

I visited that wretched hive of scum and villainy today. Well, their website at least. And I came across this little gem.

PSL: On the International Day of Solidarity with Palestine, we remember the Nakba

Before I go on, I would like to remind you what the ISM says they are:

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles.

The ISM commemoration of the Nakba is a clear indication of what they consider to be the “occupation of palestinian land” – the Jewish presence in the entire State of Israel, and not just the territories acquired in 1967. Not that they haven’t made this patently obvious in other ways.

Palestinian right of return still a fundamental demand

The struggle in Palestine can be complex and confusing even for the closest of observers.

Like all great struggles, it has had many twists and turns, and will have many more. But the root cause of the conflict— the forcible expulsion of a people from their homeland—is neither ambiguous nor confusing. Sixty years ago, this is precisely what happened to the Palestinians in “The Catastrophe,” known as “Al-Nakba” in Arabic.

Actually, this is precisely what did not happen sixty years ago. What did happen is that the Arabs rejected the partition plan since it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and the reality of Arabs living under “Jewish control.”

Al-Nakba, one of the key events in modern Middle Eastern history, began on Nov. 29, 1947. That day, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 to partition the British Mandate (colony) of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The United Nations made this decisive step without consulting the Palestinian Arabs, who at the time comprised two-thirds of the population.

Most of the Jewish population was made up of settlers who had arrived in the previous three decades, mainly from Europe. More than 100,000 were survivors of the Nazi genocide.

Notice how the ISM are using the “settler” terminology to undermine the rights of Jews living in the land pre-1948! Also, what they are not mentioning is the fact that the Arab population also grew considerably (120%) in the previous three decades, thanks to immigration from neighboring states (due to the improved living conditions resulting from the Jewish work on the land). Yet the ISM does not refer to these Arabs as “settlers,” but rather “refugees.”

While the U.S. and British imperialists had done little before or during World War II to aid the Jewish victims of fascism, they used the horrors of Hitler’s death camps to rally support for the establishment of the state of Israel after the war.

The Palestinians—who had had nothing to do with European anti-Semitism or genocide—were not consulted before the U.N. vote.

I beg to differ.

There was no plebiscite or vote of the people. If there had been, the outcome would not have been in doubt: One unitary state would have been the overwhelming choice. The U.N. vote was an illegitimate act and a violation of the Palestinians’ right of self-determination.

The two-thirds majority required to pass Resolution 181 was only achieved through intense U.S. pressure. The vote ended up 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions. The Truman administration leaned heavily on its neocolonies and client states, particularly the Philippines, Liberia, Haiti and Thailand, all of which initially opposed the resolution.

Without those four votes, the resolution would have failed. For narrow and short-term interests, the Soviet Union voted for the resolution. This represented a betrayal of the Arab anti-colonial struggle and one that did great harm to the socialist cause in the region. Later, the Soviet Union would become a major ally of the Arab national liberation movement.

It is telling that here, the ISM dismisses UN resolution 181 as being “an illegitimate act” since it does not suit them, yet are prone to mentioning UN resolutions like the bible when talking of Israel’s obligations.

The forced displacement of a people

The U.N. vote led to celebration among the Zionists, the settler movement working to create an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine. Despite owning just six percent of the land, Resolution 181 awarded them 56 percent of Palestine.

The ISM omits to mention some crucial facts:

1. In 1922, the British had severed nearly 80% of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home (as defined by the League of Nations), and allocated it to what became Transjordan. The Partition Plan pertained to the remaining 20%.

2. The majority of the land awarded to the Jews was desert, which at that time was neither suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development.

3. The Jews were the majority in the land area awarded to them.

On the Palestinian side, there was anger and rebellion. As all parties knew ahead of time, partition meant war.

Fighting broke out immediately.

No, fighting did not “break out” like some kind of rash. The Arabs attacked the Jews with the aim of expunging them from the land.

In January 1948, the better-armed Zionist military forces began to carry out “Plan Dalet.” The point of the plan was to terrorize and drive out the Palestinian population. Before Plan Dalet, Palestinian villagers left their homes during battles, but typically went only as far as the next village.

There has been much discussion about the aims of “Plan Dalet.” While pro-palestinian historians claim it was an offensive in nature, others, like historian Benny Morris (himself a one-time sympathizer of the so-called “palestinian cause”), have concluded that it was defensive in nature, “in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states].”

On April 9, 1948, a Zionist paramilitary organization, the Irgun, massacred the entire village of Deir Yassin, raising “Plan Dalet” to a new level of brutality. When the dust had cleared, more than 200 Palestinian children, women and men lay dead. The massacre was meant as a warning to all Palestinians.

While the Jewish Agency formally “condemned” the Deir Yassin massacre, on the same day it incorporated the Irgun paramilitary into the official military Joint Command.

Twelve days after Deir Yassin, Zionist forces launched a lethal attack on the Palestinian areas of the mixed city of Haifa. They rolled barrel bombs filled with gasoline and dynamite down narrow alleys in the heavily populated city while mortar shells pounded the Arab neighborhoods from overhead. Nearly the entire Arab population fled.

Within a week, similar tactics led 77,000 of 80,000 Palestinians to flee the port city of Jaffa.

What exactly occurred at Deir Yassin is not as black and white as our ISM friend describes. There are claims that the Irgun broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area (to little or no effect), that a fierce battle ensued, and that male Arab fighters disguised themselves as women, resulting in the killing of many real women. What is clear, though, is that the Arabs and their sympathizers have milked the incident for all it’s worth (think “Jenin massacre”). Not to mention the fact that they won’t mention the number of Jews butchered by the Arabs.

By May 15, 1948, when Israel’s independence was proclaimed, 300,000 Palestinians were living and dying in abominable conditions of exile in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria and the Jordan Valley. By the end of that year, the number of dispossessed Palestinians had grown to 750,000.

In the 1948 war, Israel, with its superior economic and military resources and support from the Western powers, conquered 78 percent of Palestine.

Another boldfaced lie. Israel was horribly outnumbered and underarmed, with little or no help from the West. In fact, on December 5, 1947, the US imposed an arms embargo on the region. Britain rejected a US request to suspend weapons shipments to the Arabs, with the result that the Arabs had no difficulty in obtaining all the arms they needed. In addition, Jordan’s Arab Legion was not only armed and trained by the British; it was actually led by a British officer. In contrast, the Jews were forced to smuggle weapons, principally from Czechoslovakia.

The Israeli military strategy was to not only conquer land, but also to drive out as much of the Palestinian population as possible from that land.

Israel was attacked by the Arab states. This was not a war of conquest; it was a war for survival.

Nearly 80 percent of the Arab population was forcibly “transferred” to make way for the new Israeli state. Their farms, workplaces and homes were stolen, forming an indispensable foundation for the new Israeli economy and state.

Leaving aside the fact that had Arabs accepted the partition plan, there would be no “refugees,” most of the Arabs fled before and during the battle.

In the 1967 “Six-Day War,” Israel seized the remainder of historic Palestine: the West Bank and Gaza. This created 300,000 more refugees, many of whom were second-time exiles, having already fled the Israelis 19 years earlier.

Again, the Six Day War resulted from an Arab attempt to once again destroy Israel. It was not a war of conquest, something not changed by the fact that Israel once again kicked the Arabs’ collective behinds. Not only that, but Israel was willing to make peace with the Arab states, a peace that may well have involved territorial compromises. However, the Arabs made their intentions clear with the “three NOs” at Khartoum.

None of those driven out in 1948 and 1967, nor their descendants, now numbering more than six million, have ever been allowed to come back or been compensated for their loss. This injustice remains despite U.N. Resolution 194, passed in December 1948, stating unequivocally that all refugees must be allowed to return and have their homes, lands and other property restored to them. The U.S. and Israeli governments have ignored the U.N. resolution for more than half a century.

Actually, implicit in UN resolution 194 is a recognition that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. As Article 11 states:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

In addition, the quoted figure of 6 million refugees is grossly inflated. Even UNRWA, which has adopted an unreasonably wide definition of “refugee” (including a two-year pre-1948 residency requirement, and descendants of these people), has the number at over 4 million.

While forcibly preventing the return of any exiled Palestinians, the new Israeli state proclaimed that any person living anywhere in the world who had proof of one Jewish grandparent, regardless of whether they or their family ever stepped foot in the Middle East, had the “right of return” to Israel. Those “returning” would be granted immediately citizenship in the new exclusivist state.

Actually, the new Jewish state resulting from UN resolution 181. And given that the modern State of Israel arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, in which Hitler murdered those with one Jewish grandparent, it is perfectly understandable that the new state would adopt similar criteria, especially given Israel’s status as a safe haven for Jews everywhere.

Right of return remains key demand

Six decades after Al-Nakba, the right of return remains a key issue despite the Israeli and U.S. leaders’ constant efforts to dismiss it.

It is obvious why the cause remains so vital for Palestinians. If a people are deprived of their land, their very existence as a people is threatened. Defending the right of return is a key element in the struggle to maintain the unity of the Palestinian people between those who remain inside historic Palestine and those families that have been illegally expelled.

No, the cause remains vital for the palestinians as a tool to destroy Israel demographically.

Israeli opposition to Palestinian return is not really because there is “no room” for the Palestinians in Palestine, as Zionist ideologues often claim. That argument is blatantly racist. Palestinian demographer Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta has pointed out that most of the more than 500 demolished Palestinian towns and villages remain unoccupied today. They were destroyed and their residents driven away for mainly political purposes—the creation of an exclusivist state.

Interesting, considering that Israeli Arabs live in Israel to this very day, including members of the Knesset. Oops!

Nor is this some long-resolved issue buried in the sands of time. Hundreds of thousands of people forcibly exiled in 1948 and 1967 are alive today. Many hold among their dearest possessions the keys to their homes in Palestine. Some of those houses, particularly in the demolished villages, were bulldozed into the ground. Many others, however, especially in cities like Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and elsewhere were expropriated and turned over to Israeli settlers, who live in them to this day.

Again, notice the settler lexicon being employed to describe residents of Israel “proper”, and not just those residents of the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria.

Today, 46 percent of the six million Palestinian refugees reside inside historic Palestine, the 1948 borders of Israel, or the West Bank and Gaza. Another 42 percent live within 100 miles of its borders, in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. (Roane Carey, ed., The New Intifada, Versa, 2001)

Put another way, nearly nine out of 10 Palestinian refugees could be home in the time in takes many people in this country to commute to work.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families live in extreme poverty in 59 refugee camps, with no prospect of a better future. For them, the right of return is not abstract or academic, but an issue that speaks to their very survival. The situation is especially dire in the camps of Lebanon and Gaza, which are home to more than one million people.

The return of the exiled Palestinians would not mean, as is commonly claimed by the supporters of Israel, that the Jewish population would be forced to leave.

But it would mean that Israel could not continue as an apartheid-style state, with special rights for one group, serving the interests of imperialism in a key strategic region of the world.

This goes to the heart of why Israeli and U.S. ruling circles so adamantly oppose the Palestinian right of return. It also speaks to the need for all people who stand for justice and self-determination to defend the right of return as a fundamental democratic right.

Now you might be asking why I just bothered to fisk that lengthy piece. Well, I am a big believer in not allowing lies to go unanswered. Also, there are a number of young and impressionable people who join the ISM in the belief that the palestinians have been wronged by the evil Israeli occupiers (I know this occurs, since my wife’s cousin was one of these people, before she saw the light and renounced her evil ways).

Besides, that was good fun. There’s nothing like a good fisking to brighten up your day.

Akram Ibrahim Abu Sba’, member of the ISM regional committee Jenin and co-founder of one of ISM’s first permanent presences was killed by members of Islamic Jihad in the north Palestinian city of Jenin.

Akram was killed on duty, when he tried to smooth tensions between members of Palestinian security forces and members of Islamic Jihad.

Palestinian police officers and members of the security forces reported the following:

At approximately 10 pm Palestinian security forces stopped a car on Mustashfa street, near Jenin’s governmental hospital. The car driver, member of Islamic Jihads Al-Quds Brigade couldn’t show any valid registration papers for the car and so verbal clashes erupted between the people in the car and the security forces. When Akram, also member of the security forces joined the scene in order to smooth the clashes, he was shot twice in the chest by one of the men, sitting in the car. He was brought to Jenin’s governmental hospital and passed away as a consequence of his injuries.

Observations:

1. The ISM is using less harsh language to describe Abu Sba’s death (“passed away as a consequence of his injuries”) than they have used in the past to report the deaths of ISMers at the hands of Israel.

2. Notice how the ISM tries to downplay the murder, as well as the general murder and mayhem within palestinian society. Abu Sba’ is described as trying to “smooth tensions,” which is an interesting way to describe the situation of rival factions murdering each other.

3. Here we have a member of the ISM who is also a member of the palestinian “security forces” – who have been known to engage in terrorist activities against Israel. Yet the ISM denies any of its members are directly involved in terror, or in aiding terror (actually, they claim all their activists are “instructed never to touch any weapon, or even anything that resembles a weapon”).

4. What’s the bet Alan Rickman isn’t going to write a play about him?

Needless to say, they do not praise the officers for saving the life of a human being, but rather sympathize with those who are disappointed they did not get a chance to lynch him.

Humanism or Collaboration? Palestinian Police Saves Israeli Soldier In Jenin

In the early afternoon the Palestinian security forces returned an Israeli soldier who is understood to have become lost in the streets of Jenin.

At about 1.30 pm a single Israeli soldier, coming from Nasser street, entered the city center of Jenin. Eye witnesses reported that he was driving a civilian car, but because of his uniform it didn’t take long to expose his identity.

While his car entered the central square at Masjad al-Kabir, rumors about his presence started to spread across the city and caused a flood of Palestinians to surge in the direction of the Israeli soldier.

During this time, two Palestinian police cars stopped the Israeli soldier and accompanied him to the governmental compound of Jenin, the Muqata’a.

Some Palestinians reported that the Israeli soldier was injured by stone throwers and that some Palestinians managed to steal his M16 rifle. While this information could not be confirmed by either police or any other sources, it is sure that, after the soldier was taken away, his car was set on fire.

The DCO was informed about the mistaken solider and a few minutes later four Israeli jeeps arrived at the Muqata’a, where the Israeli soldier was handed over by Palestinian security forces .

At this, about 100 Palestinians gathered in front of the Muqata’a and some kids sought to express their anger by throwing stones at the Palestinian police. The police responded by throwing a number of sound bombs in their directions in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

Although the Palestinian police perhaps saved a life today, many Palestinians expressed their huge frustration and anger regarding this incident. The anger was further compounded and aggrieved by the fact that the saving of the Israeli soldier came only two days following the cruel assassination of two local residents by Israeli military forces.

Then I saw that Meryl had beaten me to the punch. Which is ok, because I think she’s scored a knockout blow.

Last time the ISM were accused of supporting terrorists, they went to great pains to deny it. Now they’ve just admitted it.

Let’s see them try to get out of this one.