from Al Jazeera
Media coverage of the Palestinian resistance movement is shaped to fit the Western narrative of nonviolence.
Ibrahim Shikaki Last Modified: 06 Jul 2011 09:28
Even when Palestinians resist nonviolently, the Israeli response is always violent
Over the past few months, several international media outlets have published articles fixating on the so-called "new" Palestinian nonviolent movement. Two fallacies have accompanied such reporting and analysis. First the use of the term "nonviolent" and its connotations; and second, the narrative surrounding the movement.
Unfortunately, the source of these articles is often respected media outlets that have reported fairly on the Palestinian cause, including Al Jazeera English.
The latest articles in the series are Al Jazeera English's "Green shoots emerge at Qalandia checkpoint", the Economist blog's "Here comes your non-violent resistance", and Time magazine's "Palestinian Border Protests: The Arab Spring model for confronting Israel".
The articles are replete with quotes such as "but the traditional resistance of burning tires and throwing stones will not change overnight. We need to give the world a picture of nonviolent Palestinian resistance", and "we're going to continue marching in nonviolence until it is very clear in the international media who is violating human rights".
#1: There is no such thing as Palestinian "nonviolent" resistance
To start with, the danger of using the term "nonviolent resistance" insinuates that any other form of resistance is violent, hence giving it a negative undertone.
In Arabic, Palestinians do not distinguish between violent and non-violent resistance, but rather between armed resistance and popular resistance. The Palestinian people and political factions have relied on both forms, as well as others, throughout the past century.
In fact, and unlike other colonial schemes in South Africa or Algeria, the goal of the Zionist colonial plan is to uproot and ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people - hence, by simply existing and standing firm on their land, Palestinians are actually resisting.
While I don't mean to advocate for a specific form of resistance here, there must be a clear distinction between two different notions.
On the one hand, there are attempts to impose the idea that nonviolence is the only form of resistance "allowed", thus falsely implying that all other forms of resistance are violent, immoral or illegal. On the other hand, a general consensus views resistance as a legitimate right of the Palestinian people, as it is the right of any people living under oppression, colonisation and foreign occupation.
According to this view, popular resistance is perceived to be more effective than armed resistance at this stage of struggle. Because of the discrepancy between these two statements, the term "violent" has been extended to reach the throwing of stones at Israeli tanks or heavily armoured military checkpoints.
Many different forms of popular resistance characterised the first Intifada, including children jumping from house to house during curfew hours to provide sugar and flour to neighbors; youth playing soccer on the edges of streets so as to warn graffiti writers when a military vehicle was passing through; volunteer work; commercial strikes and boycotts; as well as mass protests that included throwing stones at army outposts and military vehicles.
The fact is, facing a brutal war machine with stones is but a symbolic gesture. It is a symbol of the vast discrepancy in power between the Palestinian people and Israel's war machine.
Stones aimed at Israeli tanks or other armed vehicles were a means for the unarmed indigenous people of Palestine to demonstrate their refusal of occupation and oppression. Youth, women, the elderly and all sectors of society participated in this form of resistance.
Stones could be violent, however, when used systematically by Israeli soldiers to smash Palestinians' limbs, as part of a policy ordered by Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli minister of defence, to "break their bones". The Knesset refused to even investigate Rabin's order, and he was never been held accountable.
Moreover, media outlets advocating for these nonviolent tactics have chosen to completely overlook the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Although it does not fall under the two forms of resistance mentioned earlier, it can be only be categorised as a strictly non-violent tactic, aiming to pressure Israel to abide by its obligations under international law.
The overwhelming growth in the BDS movement, met with little to no coverage of its successes by most mainstream media outlets can only be an indicator of the hypocrisy of their coverage of Palestinian resistance: only shedding light on forms of resistance they categorise as relevant - or, dare I say, worthy.
Finally, it is important to comprehend the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that is often called "complex". In fact, and at the risk of oversimplifying, it is a conflict between an oppressor and an oppressed. Within that context the use of violence and force can be exemplified perfectly in the words of Paulo Freire:
"Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as oppressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior situation of violence to establish their subjugation. Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognise others as persons - not by those who are oppressed, exploited and unrecognised."
#2: Western narrative and terminology
The second problem posed by this narrative and the discourse surrounding these articles is more significant and more worthy of criticism.
The articles present the current so-called nonviolent movement as the "correct" way to resist, where Palestinians' choice of the correct resistance method will demonstrate our worthiness to be given our rights and independence.
Portraying our rights to freedom and self determination as contingent upon our chosen method of resistance is at best inaccurate, and at worst rather racist.
Implying that our rights have not been fulfilled because we have not demonstrated our worthiness of them relieves Israel of the need to uphold international law and grant us our basic rights, and also excuses Western hegemonies for awarding Israel full impunity to carry on with its violations and crimes.
It must be made clear that our right to return and to end Israel's occupation, colonisation and apartheid are guaranteed by international conventions, and their fulfillment is an obligation - irrespective of the methods of resistance we choose to follow, or any other factors, for that matter.
In addition, suggesting that popular protest is a new phenomenon in Palestine where "the real Martin Luther King-style nonviolent Palestinian protestors have arrived" is a shameful distortion of facts by media outlets.
Resistance in Palestine, and particularly popular resistance, is more than a century old, where the overwhelming majority of resistance to Zionist colonisation, British rule, and later Israel's oppression has taken the form of civil,popular uprisings. Palestinian popular resistance can only be Palestinian-style! Journalists need to abandon lazy journalism, and expand their memory-span to more than ten years.
Thus we are allowed to follow Western values and figures, or the footsteps of those whoever they find acceptable, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr (MLK). While everyone is waiting for the next "Palestinian Gandhi", what if we want a Palestinian Che Guevara or Malcolm X?
It was them, after all, who analysed and focused on the "international western power structure", a structure that has only developed in influence and tools since the 50s and 60s. And while having the utmost respect for the satyagraha of Gandhi and MLK's battle in the civil rights movement, Palestinians need not look far to find role models within Palestine's history and heritage for alternative means of resistance.
In this issue, as in others, the hypocrisy of Western hegemonic powers is prevalent.
Democracy is only acceptable if the outcomes are what they have chosen - only neoliberal economic policies that please the real axis of evil (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organisation) are allowed in developing countries; and queer communities around the world must follow Western mechanisms of pride and advocacy.
Though these are all apparently different issues, the same paradigm applies to all of them: Western hegemonic ideologies and forms of action are used to measure the legitimacy of others that are suggested around the world.
Particularly for Palestinians, narrative is one of the key issues.
Israel has the world in its hands, not because it is threatening them by force or military power, but because it controls the discourse. That is why when a group of Israelis harass Palestinians and plot to assassinate a head of mosque they are referred to in the media as "mobsters and gangs", or mentally unstable such as Baruch Goldstein - never as "terrorists" or "extremists".
This is similar to the indirect control processes applied throughout hundreds of years of colonialism, the same trope has been used to reinforce the coloniser's power: the primitive barbarians vs the enlightened people.
A recent ad campaign in the US demonstrates this, it reads: "In any war between the civilised man and the savage, support the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."
It is our role as Palestinians to be aware of the narrative distortions and to fight against that discourse. If we succeed, it would be much harder for someone such as Binyamin Netanyahu to humiliate the Palestinian people and the so-called Palestinian "leadership" in front of the US congress as he did so recently.
The 'right' form of resistance?
While there is no question that, within Palestinian society, all forms of resistance to oppression must be respected and valued, it is crucial not to be dragged into the Western narrative, especially since a large number of us among the nation's youth are already exposed to it by the media, the internet or via studying abroad.
The idea that there is only one "right" way of resistance or that armed and popular resistance are contradictory is false (or at least lacks historical evidence) if a simple review of colonial history is applied (Algeria, South Africa, etc).
The priority nowadays, indeed, should be to widely engage all movements, groups, and individuals in the demand to produce a new legitimate leadership institution that represents all Palestinians regardless of their venue. That body would be able to democratically (and internally) identify the most potent form of resistance.
In the aforementioned articles, Palestinian participants in popular protests are often quoted in a manner such as: "If some teenagers threw rocks, they had apparently failed to attend the workshops on nonviolence the organisers had arranged", and that they "insist no stones were thrown until Israeli troops fired tear gas, and then only by adolescents".
These statements show Palestinian protesters to be apologetic for the symbolic gesture of throwing stones - and this is at the expense of questioning the very presence of Israel's occupation forces.
History has shown that Israel's use of extreme violence is a constant - irrespective of the violent or nonviolent actions of Palestinians. It is crucial we realise that throughout the years of our struggle against Zionism and colonialism, the Zionist response to all the various forms of resistance was, in essence, the same - violence.
Sixty years ago, forty years ago, in the first and second Intifadas, and in the recent "peaceful" marches, the Israeli response was always violence and bloodshed - young men and women have been shot with live and rubber-coated ammunition, beaten with clubs and suffocated by toxic gas.
It would be naive to expect the Israeli response to differ in the future, nor would it be required to resist nonviolently to show the ugly face of Israeli occupation - since it is demonstrated in every single action of Palestinian daily life.
Regardless of our strategy, Israel will continue to deny our existence as a nation, will not admit the ethnic cleansing it committed in 1948, and will continue its suppressive measures of oppression against Palestinians everywhere.
It is our role to focus on our similarities and points of agreement about resistance rather than our differences.
The Palestinian people must mobilise around resisting Israeli apartheid through a program that is generated from a discussion within a truly representative body - which is only possible through direct elections for a new Palestinian National Council (PNC).
Ibrahim Shikaki is a UC Berkeley graduate. He works as an associate researcher at the Palestine Economic Research Institute (MAS) and is a Ramallah-based youth organiser.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Greek consulate, governor confirm ‘powerful’ pressure on Greece led to flotilla ban
US boat to Gaza as it cast off from Athens
by Alex Kane on July 4, 2011
from mondoweiss.com
For the past few days, speculation has run rampant that the Greek government, presiding over a country in dire economic straits, was heavily pressured into issuing an order that banned the “Freedom Flotilla” ships from sailing out towards Gaza. And while the extent and details of that pressure remain unknown, two official sources from the Greek government have now confirmed that heavy pressure was put on Greece.
Greece, for its part, has claimed that the ban on flotilla ships leaving their ports was issued because of “the need to protect national interests” and the “immediate dangers to human life posed by the attempt to break the blockade.”
The first confirmation came via a Jewish Voice for Peace tweet, which announced that someone from New York’s Greek consulate told a caller that the U.S. government “ordered” Greece not to let the U.S. Boat to Gaza sail out of a Greek port. According to the caller, the U.S. State Department had nothing to say when asked about the Greek consulate’s comment.
The second confirmation came today, when a reporter from the Guardian interviewed the provincial governor of the Ionian islands, which includes Corfu, a Greek island from where a flotilla ship is waiting to set sail for Gaza. Jack Shenker reports:
The flotilla activists have always claimed they had local political support for their mission, and from what [Spiros] Spirou, [the provincial governor], told me it appears that they’re right. In open defiance of his political bosses in Athens, Spirou told the Guardian and al-Jazeera that he “admires and supports the activists’ struggle” and would make no attempt to stop their boat from making a break for international waters if it chose to do so.
But the local coastguard don’t come under Spirou’s control, and the decision from the central Greek government to stop any flotilla vessels from leaving port appears increasingly irreversible. “Greece loves peace, but at this moment it can’t confront more powerful economic forces,” said the governor. He confirmed that official attempts to tie the flotilla up in bureaucracy and paperwork were merely a pretext for preventing it from sailing at all.
“The ban has come from the ministries in Athens and I have no responsibility for it at all – I’ve tried to get in contact with them and get an explanation but I have not been able to get through,” he insisted. “Right now Greece is in crisis and decisions have been taken at an international level.”
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Future headline from the New Yolk Crimes
Texas Governor Rick Perry announced at a news conference today that Texas will secede from the United States to become a sovereign Christian republic and enter into a confederation with Israel.
"Not only will our bold move bring us all closer to Judgement Day and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, it will also give the Texas Republic a strong military and political ally to prevent the godless socialist USA from from interfering with our holy mission," declared Perry, who now holds the title of President of the "Sovereign, Kingdom Come Republic of Texas, LLC."
A statement was issued from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's office which said, "Israel hopes that this will be an amicable departure between the US and Texas and that our three great nations can negotiate a mutual defense and economic cooperation treaty that will benefit us all." Unofficial sources within the Israeli government intimated that relocation to Texas of Arabs could help solve the Jewish state's demographic problems and also help Texas. "Hey," an unidentified source from within the Israeli government told the press speaking of the population transfer plan, "the Arabs aren't Mexicans. I know Rick Perry can work with that."
"Not only will our bold move bring us all closer to Judgement Day and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, it will also give the Texas Republic a strong military and political ally to prevent the godless socialist USA from from interfering with our holy mission," declared Perry, who now holds the title of President of the "Sovereign, Kingdom Come Republic of Texas, LLC."
A statement was issued from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's office which said, "Israel hopes that this will be an amicable departure between the US and Texas and that our three great nations can negotiate a mutual defense and economic cooperation treaty that will benefit us all." Unofficial sources within the Israeli government intimated that relocation to Texas of Arabs could help solve the Jewish state's demographic problems and also help Texas. "Hey," an unidentified source from within the Israeli government told the press speaking of the population transfer plan, "the Arabs aren't Mexicans. I know Rick Perry can work with that."
Flotilla is about liberation and human rights
Huwaida Arraf: ‘[The flotilla] is not about aid, this is about Palestinian human rights, this is about liberation’
by Adam Horowitz on July 1, 2011
by Adam Horowitz on July 1, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Beware of Israelis bearing gifts to Greek prime ministers
Netanyahu's big fat Greek Wedding
from Haaretz
Published 22:47 01.07.11
Latest update 22:47 01.07.11
Netanyahu has invested in his relationship with Greece over the course of the past year-and-a-half, and his gamble has finally paid off as Greece blocks Gaza-flotilla-bound departures from its ports.
By Barak Ravid Tags: Gaza flotilla Gaza Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sometimes seems almost too arrogant and self assured for his own good. However, unlike in most instances, this weekend he actually has justification for his haughtiness.
Netanyahu’s personal investment in his relationship over the past year-and-a-half with Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou in which he increased diplomatic ties with the floundering European nation seems to have put the final nail in the Gaza flotilla’s coffin.
Netanyahu, Papandreou
In his speech Thursday night for the Israeli Air Force Flight School graduation ceremony, Netanyahu discussed diplomatic efforts being made to prevent the Gaza flotilla from setting sail. The only leader that Netanyahu mentioned by name in his address was Greece’s George Papandreou.
Just a day earlier, the prime minister spoke with his Greek counterpart, imploring him to issue an order preventing ships from disembarking from Greece toward the Gaza Strip. Unlike in the past, Papandreou responded positively, and a top Israeli official involved in the talks between the Greek prime minister and Netanyahu said that Israel knew as early as Thursday afternoon that Greece was planning to block ships from leaving its ports toward the strip.
The romance between Netanyahu and Papandreou began in February of 2010, when the two met coincidentally at the “Pushkin” restaurant in Moscow. Netanyahu took advantage of their chance encounter to speak with the Greek prime minister about Turkish extremism against Israel and the two quickly became friends.
The Israeli and Greek leaders have spoken to each other at least once a week ever since they met in Moscow.
The Turkish flotilla to Gaza in May of 2010 led to serious concern among the intelligence and military ranks in Greece, who began pressuring the government to strengthen diplomatic ties with Israel. Papandreou did not need much convincing.
In July of 2010 he arrived in Jerusalem, the first official visit of a Greek prime minister to Israel in 30 years. A few weeks later Netanyahu travelled to Athens, spending a whole day with Papandreou and other officials on a nearby island.
Israeli diplomats can attest that the budding friendship between the two countries over the course of the past year-and-a-half has been nothing short of dramatic. Intelligence communication has increased, the IAF has conducted a number of joint exercises with Greece’s air force and Netanyahu has requested Papandreou’s assistance in passing on several messages to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Many of Netanyahu and Papandreou’s talks in the past few months have revolved around the severe financial crisis Greece is currently suffering. Netanyahu recently decided to come to the aid of his newfound friend in a meeting of foreign ministers and European leaders, imploring them to provide Greece with financial aid.
“Netanyahu has become Greece’s lobbyist to the European Union,” an Israeli diplomat said.
In recent weeks, as efforts to stop the impending pro-Palestinian flotilla to Gaza came to a head, Netanyahu reaped the benefits of his investment in Israel-Greece ties and his gamble on the European country paid off.
He was able to create a viable alternative to relations with Turkey in several regards, showing Erdogan that Israel will not hesitate to become close to its greatest enemy in the West.
And when the moment of truth came, Greece followed through and ordered all Gaza-bound departures be blocked from leaving its ports. Greece’s decision, along with the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation's (IHH) announcement that it would not be sending the Mavi Marmara and the president of Cypress’s statement forbidding ships from sailing to Gaza sealed the fate of the flotilla almost entirely.
“The flotilla organizers did not take into account that Greece of July 2011 is not the Greece of May 2010,” said a top Israeli official that worked intensively in the past few months to prevent the Gaza flotilla mission from taking place.
“Today there is a different Greece when it comes to Israel,” he added. “The organizers of the flotilla did not understand this, and now they are paying the price.”
from Haaretz
Published 22:47 01.07.11
Latest update 22:47 01.07.11
Netanyahu has invested in his relationship with Greece over the course of the past year-and-a-half, and his gamble has finally paid off as Greece blocks Gaza-flotilla-bound departures from its ports.
By Barak Ravid Tags: Gaza flotilla Gaza Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sometimes seems almost too arrogant and self assured for his own good. However, unlike in most instances, this weekend he actually has justification for his haughtiness.
Netanyahu’s personal investment in his relationship over the past year-and-a-half with Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou in which he increased diplomatic ties with the floundering European nation seems to have put the final nail in the Gaza flotilla’s coffin.
Netanyahu, Papandreou
In his speech Thursday night for the Israeli Air Force Flight School graduation ceremony, Netanyahu discussed diplomatic efforts being made to prevent the Gaza flotilla from setting sail. The only leader that Netanyahu mentioned by name in his address was Greece’s George Papandreou.
Just a day earlier, the prime minister spoke with his Greek counterpart, imploring him to issue an order preventing ships from disembarking from Greece toward the Gaza Strip. Unlike in the past, Papandreou responded positively, and a top Israeli official involved in the talks between the Greek prime minister and Netanyahu said that Israel knew as early as Thursday afternoon that Greece was planning to block ships from leaving its ports toward the strip.
The romance between Netanyahu and Papandreou began in February of 2010, when the two met coincidentally at the “Pushkin” restaurant in Moscow. Netanyahu took advantage of their chance encounter to speak with the Greek prime minister about Turkish extremism against Israel and the two quickly became friends.
The Israeli and Greek leaders have spoken to each other at least once a week ever since they met in Moscow.
The Turkish flotilla to Gaza in May of 2010 led to serious concern among the intelligence and military ranks in Greece, who began pressuring the government to strengthen diplomatic ties with Israel. Papandreou did not need much convincing.
In July of 2010 he arrived in Jerusalem, the first official visit of a Greek prime minister to Israel in 30 years. A few weeks later Netanyahu travelled to Athens, spending a whole day with Papandreou and other officials on a nearby island.
Israeli diplomats can attest that the budding friendship between the two countries over the course of the past year-and-a-half has been nothing short of dramatic. Intelligence communication has increased, the IAF has conducted a number of joint exercises with Greece’s air force and Netanyahu has requested Papandreou’s assistance in passing on several messages to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Many of Netanyahu and Papandreou’s talks in the past few months have revolved around the severe financial crisis Greece is currently suffering. Netanyahu recently decided to come to the aid of his newfound friend in a meeting of foreign ministers and European leaders, imploring them to provide Greece with financial aid.
“Netanyahu has become Greece’s lobbyist to the European Union,” an Israeli diplomat said.
In recent weeks, as efforts to stop the impending pro-Palestinian flotilla to Gaza came to a head, Netanyahu reaped the benefits of his investment in Israel-Greece ties and his gamble on the European country paid off.
He was able to create a viable alternative to relations with Turkey in several regards, showing Erdogan that Israel will not hesitate to become close to its greatest enemy in the West.
And when the moment of truth came, Greece followed through and ordered all Gaza-bound departures be blocked from leaving its ports. Greece’s decision, along with the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation's (IHH) announcement that it would not be sending the Mavi Marmara and the president of Cypress’s statement forbidding ships from sailing to Gaza sealed the fate of the flotilla almost entirely.
“The flotilla organizers did not take into account that Greece of July 2011 is not the Greece of May 2010,” said a top Israeli official that worked intensively in the past few months to prevent the Gaza flotilla mission from taking place.
“Today there is a different Greece when it comes to Israel,” he added. “The organizers of the flotilla did not understand this, and now they are paying the price.”
Friday, July 1, 2011
‘Campaigning against Israeli apartheid has resulted in 23 Palestinian solidarity activists facing US federal grand jury’
by annie on June 29, 2011
Send to a Friend del.icio.us Digg Furl
Maureen Clare Murphy, managing editor of Electronic Intifada has written an important article for Al Jazeera titled Criminalising Palestinian solidarity. Murphy herself has been issued a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury the government says is "an investigation into violations of the laws banning material support to foreign "terrorist organisations."
The following video appears on Murphy's Blog @EI
Send to a Friend del.icio.us Digg Furl
Maureen Clare Murphy, managing editor of Electronic Intifada has written an important article for Al Jazeera titled Criminalising Palestinian solidarity. Murphy herself has been issued a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury the government says is "an investigation into violations of the laws banning material support to foreign "terrorist organisations."
The following video appears on Murphy's Blog @EI
New exciting breakthroughs in Israeli democracy, now more "vibrant" than ever
from Mondoweiss
Knesset Committee outdoes itself with ‘bill to prevent harm to the state of Israel through boycotts’
Jun 30, 2011 09:43 am | Lizzy Ratner
What will those modern-day McCarthys in the Israeli Knesset think up next?
By now we’ve all become accustomed to the creepy, liberty-limiting laws emerging every few months or so from the right-wing (though hardly always right-wing) precincts of the Israeli Knesset. I’m thinking, of course, of the Nakba law, the Loyalty Oath law, the law requiring NGO’s to declare their sources of funding, and so on and so on and so on. But the last few weeks have seen a flurry of anti-Democratic efforts that have been impressive even by the current Knesset’s standards. There was the bill proposed earlier this month by four right-wing members of Knesset that would give the government the power to disband existing NGOs and refuse to register new ones if they “deny the Jewish character of the State” – a clear jab at the country’s Arab population. More recently, on Sunday, two proposals were presented to the Ministerial Legislation Committee, each designed to limit the amount of money “political” NGOs can receive from foreign entities – and foreign entities, by the way, include the United Nations and the European Union.
Now there is “The Bill to Prevent Harm to the State of Israel Through Boycotts.” That’s right, a law that would make it a civil violation to call publicly for a boycott of the State of Israel.
The latest version of this law, which is a flagrant strike at democracy, free speech, and the right to resist, passed the Knesset’s farcically-named Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee on Monday. This means the bill has a strong chance of becoming law soon. The bill targets “anyone who publishes a public call for a boycott of the State of Israel” and threatens them with a fine to be determined by the courts. In addition, the bill takes direct aim at NGOs that support boycotts by threatening to retract or deny their tax exempt status.
Yossi Gurvitz at +972 has a disturbing analysis of how the bill will work, whom it will target, and what it sets out to do. As the title of his article suggests, it is nothing less than "a way to persecute the Israeli left."
Meanwhile, the website for Coalition of Women for Peace, which has been leading a campaign against the bill called “Right to Resist,” describes the bill as “one of the most dangerous anti-democratic laws promoted in this current Knesset.” It continues: “It criminalizes non-violent, legal and legitimate means to promote social and political aims that are protected in civil rights of freedom of expression, opinion and assembly.”
It’s hard to imagine how a bill like this could be legal, but legality, like morality, doesn’t seem to bother the bill’s supporters much. According to the Coalition of Women for Peace, Yisrael Beiteinu MK David Rotem, who chairs the Knesset committee that passed the law, responded to a question by Palestinian MK Taleb Assana suggesting the bill breaches international law with the verbal equivalent of a shrug. "International law is none of my interest," he apparently said.
Herewith, a translation of the “The Bill to Prevent Harm to the State of Israel Through Boycotts":
Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011
Definition
1. In this law, “boycott of the State of Israel” – deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties with a person or other party, solely for reason of his/her/its relation to the state of Israel, to any of its institutions or to any area under its control, which could cause them economic, cultural or academic harm.
Boycott – a civil wrong
2. (a) Anyone who publishes a public call for a boycott of the state of Israel, and its content and circumstances may reasonably be expected to lead to a boycott, and the publisher is aware of this possibility – is committing a civil wrong and the law of Tort [new version] shall apply to him/her.
(b) Regarding Section 62a of the law of Tort [new version] causing breach of contract by calling for a boycott of the state of Israel shall not be seen as sufficient justification.
(c ) If a court finds that a wrong has been committed under this law, it shall be permitted to order the party committing the wrong to pay compensation independently of actual damage done (exemplary damage). When determining the sum of compensation the court shall take into account the circumstances of the wrong, its severity and its scope.
Regulations regarding restrictions on participation in a tender
3. The Minister of Finance is permitted, pending authorization by the Constitutional Committee of the Knesset, to set regulations regarding restrictions on participation in a public tender, due to undertakings made by a party making an offer to participate in a boycott of the state of Israel, including undertakings not to purchase products or services produced or provided in the state of Israel, in any of its institutions or in an area under its control.
Regulations regarding withholding of benefits
4. (a) The Minister of Finance, with the agreement of the Minister of Justice, is permitted to decide with regard to any party who knowingly publishes a public call to impose a boycott on the State of Israel or regarding any party who agreed to participate in a boycott [in special cases], that –
(1) The party shall not be considered a public institution (charity) for purposes of Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance;
(2) The party shall not be eligible to receive funding from the council for regulation of sports gambling according to Section 9 of the law for regulation of sports gambling 1967;
(3) The party shall not be considered a public institution (charity) for purposes of receiving support according to Section 3a of the Budget procedures law 1985;
(4) The provisions of the state guarantees law 1958 shall not apply to the party;
(5) The party shall not be eligible for benefits under the law for promotion of capital investments 1959 and under the law for promotion of research, development and industry 1984.
(b) The enforcement of the authority of the Minister of Finance in accordance with subsection (a)(2) shall be done with the agreement of the Minister of Sport, and the enforcement of his authority in accordance with subsection (a)(3) shall be done with the agreement of the Minister appointed by the government to be responsible for the budget section, as defined in para (2) of the definition ‘responsible for the budget section’ in the Budget law 1985. The enforcement of his authority in accordance with subsection (a)(5) shall be done with the agreement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Employment.
Implementation
4[sic]. The Minister of Justice is appointed to implement this law.
Knesset Committee outdoes itself with ‘bill to prevent harm to the state of Israel through boycotts’
Jun 30, 2011 09:43 am | Lizzy Ratner
What will those modern-day McCarthys in the Israeli Knesset think up next?
By now we’ve all become accustomed to the creepy, liberty-limiting laws emerging every few months or so from the right-wing (though hardly always right-wing) precincts of the Israeli Knesset. I’m thinking, of course, of the Nakba law, the Loyalty Oath law, the law requiring NGO’s to declare their sources of funding, and so on and so on and so on. But the last few weeks have seen a flurry of anti-Democratic efforts that have been impressive even by the current Knesset’s standards. There was the bill proposed earlier this month by four right-wing members of Knesset that would give the government the power to disband existing NGOs and refuse to register new ones if they “deny the Jewish character of the State” – a clear jab at the country’s Arab population. More recently, on Sunday, two proposals were presented to the Ministerial Legislation Committee, each designed to limit the amount of money “political” NGOs can receive from foreign entities – and foreign entities, by the way, include the United Nations and the European Union.
Now there is “The Bill to Prevent Harm to the State of Israel Through Boycotts.” That’s right, a law that would make it a civil violation to call publicly for a boycott of the State of Israel.
The latest version of this law, which is a flagrant strike at democracy, free speech, and the right to resist, passed the Knesset’s farcically-named Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee on Monday. This means the bill has a strong chance of becoming law soon. The bill targets “anyone who publishes a public call for a boycott of the State of Israel” and threatens them with a fine to be determined by the courts. In addition, the bill takes direct aim at NGOs that support boycotts by threatening to retract or deny their tax exempt status.
Yossi Gurvitz at +972 has a disturbing analysis of how the bill will work, whom it will target, and what it sets out to do. As the title of his article suggests, it is nothing less than "a way to persecute the Israeli left."
Meanwhile, the website for Coalition of Women for Peace, which has been leading a campaign against the bill called “Right to Resist,” describes the bill as “one of the most dangerous anti-democratic laws promoted in this current Knesset.” It continues: “It criminalizes non-violent, legal and legitimate means to promote social and political aims that are protected in civil rights of freedom of expression, opinion and assembly.”
It’s hard to imagine how a bill like this could be legal, but legality, like morality, doesn’t seem to bother the bill’s supporters much. According to the Coalition of Women for Peace, Yisrael Beiteinu MK David Rotem, who chairs the Knesset committee that passed the law, responded to a question by Palestinian MK Taleb Assana suggesting the bill breaches international law with the verbal equivalent of a shrug. "International law is none of my interest," he apparently said.
Herewith, a translation of the “The Bill to Prevent Harm to the State of Israel Through Boycotts":
Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011
Definition
1. In this law, “boycott of the State of Israel” – deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties with a person or other party, solely for reason of his/her/its relation to the state of Israel, to any of its institutions or to any area under its control, which could cause them economic, cultural or academic harm.
Boycott – a civil wrong
2. (a) Anyone who publishes a public call for a boycott of the state of Israel, and its content and circumstances may reasonably be expected to lead to a boycott, and the publisher is aware of this possibility – is committing a civil wrong and the law of Tort [new version] shall apply to him/her.
(b) Regarding Section 62a of the law of Tort [new version] causing breach of contract by calling for a boycott of the state of Israel shall not be seen as sufficient justification.
(c ) If a court finds that a wrong has been committed under this law, it shall be permitted to order the party committing the wrong to pay compensation independently of actual damage done (exemplary damage). When determining the sum of compensation the court shall take into account the circumstances of the wrong, its severity and its scope.
Regulations regarding restrictions on participation in a tender
3. The Minister of Finance is permitted, pending authorization by the Constitutional Committee of the Knesset, to set regulations regarding restrictions on participation in a public tender, due to undertakings made by a party making an offer to participate in a boycott of the state of Israel, including undertakings not to purchase products or services produced or provided in the state of Israel, in any of its institutions or in an area under its control.
Regulations regarding withholding of benefits
4. (a) The Minister of Finance, with the agreement of the Minister of Justice, is permitted to decide with regard to any party who knowingly publishes a public call to impose a boycott on the State of Israel or regarding any party who agreed to participate in a boycott [in special cases], that –
(1) The party shall not be considered a public institution (charity) for purposes of Section 9(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance;
(2) The party shall not be eligible to receive funding from the council for regulation of sports gambling according to Section 9 of the law for regulation of sports gambling 1967;
(3) The party shall not be considered a public institution (charity) for purposes of receiving support according to Section 3a of the Budget procedures law 1985;
(4) The provisions of the state guarantees law 1958 shall not apply to the party;
(5) The party shall not be eligible for benefits under the law for promotion of capital investments 1959 and under the law for promotion of research, development and industry 1984.
(b) The enforcement of the authority of the Minister of Finance in accordance with subsection (a)(2) shall be done with the agreement of the Minister of Sport, and the enforcement of his authority in accordance with subsection (a)(3) shall be done with the agreement of the Minister appointed by the government to be responsible for the budget section, as defined in para (2) of the definition ‘responsible for the budget section’ in the Budget law 1985. The enforcement of his authority in accordance with subsection (a)(5) shall be done with the agreement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Employment.
Implementation
4[sic]. The Minister of Justice is appointed to implement this law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)