WEARING OF THE GREEN/LONG LIVE A UNITED IRELAND/DOWN WITH BRITISH COLONIALISM!
Dear Readers Here you can hear and read the beautiful Irish Resistance Song againstthe century long brutal British oppression and colonialism, which not onlyoppressed and humiliated the Irish people, but also tried to destroy theirlanguage and culture!It makes me furious to watch, that till nowadays Northern Ireland, which is the rightful part of Ireland and an invention of British colonialism, is still oneof the last remnants of the British colonial Empire.
FINAL And let’s not forget this.When speaking about British colonialism, always the oppressed colonies in Africa and Asia were centres of the attention and with right, but much less Ireland.Never forget that the British colonialism started just there. SO: DOWN WITH THE PRO COLONIAL GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND!NORTHERN IRELAND MUST BE PART OF IRELAND AGAIN!THE IRA [1] WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT!And for me:I support any progressive Irish movement, which wants to fight for aUnited Ireland! I hope to see the Day, that Northern Ireland is united with the rest ofIreland againIt’s a question of Justice! ASTRID ESSED [1] WIKIPEDIAIRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
The following is the celebrated song which created such intense excitement throughout Great Britain, and for the incorporation of which in his piece, Mr. Bourcicault’ play of “Arrah na Pogue,” had to be withdrawn from the London stage.
I.
Oh, Paddy, dear, an’did you hear the news thats goin round?
The shamrock is forbid by law to grow on Irish ground.
No more St. Patrick’s day well keep, his color cant be seen,
For there’s a bloody law agin the wearin of the green.
I met with Napper Tandy, and he tuk me by the hand,
And he said, how’s poor ould Ireland, and how does she stand?
“She’s the most distressful country that ever you have seen,
They’re hangin men and women there for wearin of the green.”
II.
Then since the color we must wear is England’s cruel red,
Sure Ireland’s sons will neer forget the blood that they have shed.
You may take the shamrock from your hat and cast it on the sod,
It will take root and flourish there, though under foot ’tis trod.
When the law can stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow,
And when the leaves in summer time their verdure dare not show,
Then I will change the color I wear in my corbeen,
But till that day, plaze God, I’ll stick to wearin of the green.
III.
But if at last our color should be torn from Ireland’s heart,
Her sons with shame and sorrow from the dear ould soil will part.
I’ve heard whisper of a country that lies far beyant the say,
Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom’s day.
Oh, Erin, must we lave you, driven by the tyrant’s hand,
Must we ask a mother—s welcome from a strange but happier land,
Where the cruel cross of England’s thraldom never shall be seen,
And where, thank God, we’ll live and die, still wearin of the green.
END OF THE SONG
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Wearing of the Green/Long live a United Ireland!/Down with British colonialism!
INTRODUCTION READERSIsn’t it interesting, when roaming the Internet, to find an old article ofyourself, that you almost forgot!It goes about a Letter to the Editor I wrote in the past [2004] to the webzine”The Pravda” and that they apparently published.Not only is that interesting, but more interesting is the fact, that I wrote about averdict of the Israeli High Court about the building of the Israeli Apartheid Wall [1]You all know, of course, the more known verdict of the International Court ofJustice, declaring the Wall illegal for once and for all [2] but few people[I almost forgot!] will remember, that the Israeli High Court gave also its opinion,in fact supporting the building of the Wall, except for some minor point of criticism [3]And here it is, this voice of the past from Astrid Essed, protesting against theverdict of the Israeli High Court!See directly below And see for the notes, under my almost forgotten Letter to the Editor! ENJOY IT! ASTRID ESSED
ASTRID ESSED: THE VERDICT OF ISRAELI HIGH COURT REGARDING THE WALL6 JULY 2004
The recent verdict of the Israeli High Court, which states that the building of the Israeli Wall at the West Bank must be adjusted with 30 kilometers because of the violations of human rights is not only a partial fullfilling of the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population, but is also in contarily with International Law.
In the first place the motivation for the verdict is being based on the fact that because of the building of the Wall the inhabitants of the Beit Surik community had no entrance to their agricultural grounds and schools, but in the named verdict the Court doesn’t refer to the other Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank [85.000 people], who are likewise excluded from their agricultural grounds.
In the second place the Israeli building of the Wall is as such a violation of International Law, because it cuts deeply in the occupied Palestinian areas which is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 dd 1967 by which Israel was summoned to withdraw from the in the june-war occupied Palestinian areas.
Further the building of the Wall is being made possible by hugh Palestinian landownings which is yet apart from the flagrant injustice a violation of International Law [the 4th Geneva Convention] which forbids land and house-ownings of ”protected people” [people who are living under an occupation] It is therefore highly recommendable, that the Israeli High Court adjusts its vedict according to the principles of International Law.
”While Israel is heading for de jure annexation, the Wall is an important tool of Israel’s illegal and ongoing de facto annexation. The Wall’s path and its associated regime are planned to de facto annex some 46% of the West Bank, isolating communities into Bantustans, ghettos and “military zones.” STOP THE WALL.ORG https://stopthewall.org/the-wall/
[2]
”In December 2003, Resolution ES-10/14 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in an emergency special session.[111] 90 states voted for, 8 against, 74 abstained.[111] The resolution included a request to the International Court of Justice to urgently render an advisory opinion on the following question.[111]
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”[111]
The court concluded that the barrier violated international law”
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTLEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE INSTRUCTION OF A WALL INTHE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORYOVERVIEW OF THE CASE https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
By resolution ES-10/14, adopted on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth Emergency Special Session, the General Assembly decided to request the Court for an advisory opinion on the following question :
“What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the Report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions ?”
The resolution requested the Court to render its opinion “urgently”. The Court decided that all States entitled to appear before it, as well as Palestine, the United Nations and subsequently, at their request, the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, were likely to be able to furnish information on the question in accordance with Article 66, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Statute. Written statements were submitted by 45 States and four international organizations, including the European Union. At the oral proceedings, which were held from 23 to 25 February 2004, 12 States, Palestine and two international organizations made oral submissions. The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004.
The Court began by finding that the General Assembly, which had requested the advisory opinion, was authorized to do so under Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter. It further found that the question asked of it fell within the competence of the General Assembly pursuant to Articles 10, paragraph 2, and 11 of the Charter. Moreover, in requesting an opinion of the Court, the General Assembly had not exceeded its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests. The Court further observed that the General Assembly had adopted resolution ES-10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377 A (V), whereby, in the event that the Security Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. Rejecting a number of procedural objections, the Court found that the conditions laid down by that resolution had been met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened, and in particular when the General Assembly decided to request the opinion, as the Security Council had at that time been unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member. Lastly, the Court rejected the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed was not a legal one, or that it was of an abstract or political nature.
Having established its jurisdiction, the Court then considered the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalled that lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction had no bearing on its advisory jurisdiction, and that the giving of an opinion in the present case would not have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, since the subject-matter of the request was located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and was of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor did the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It further found that it had before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and empha- sized that it was for the General Assembly to assess the opinion’s usefulness. The Court accordingly concluded that there was no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.
Turning to the question of the legality under international law of the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court first determined the rules and principles of international law relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. After recalling the customary principles laid down in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and in General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which prohibit the threat or use of force and emphasize the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, the Court further cited the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). In relation to international humanitarian law, the Court then referred to the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which it found to have become part of customary law, as well as to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, holding that these were applicable in those Palestinian territories which, before the armed conflict of 1967, lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further established that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) were applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The Court then sought to ascertain whether the construction of the wall had violated the above-mentioned rules and principles. Noting that the route of the wall encompassed some 80 per cent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court, citing statements by the Security Council in that regard in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention, recalled that those settlements had been established in breach of international law. After considering certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall would prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine, the Court observed that the construction of the wall and its associated régime created a “fait accompli” on the ground that could well become permanent, and hence tantamount to a de facto annexation. Noting further that the route chosen for the wall gave expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements and entailed further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Court concluded that the construction of the wall, along with measures taken previously, severely impeded the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination and was thus a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right.
The Court then went on to consider the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, finding that the construction of the wall and its associated régime were contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that they impeded the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as their exercise of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Court further found that, coupled with the establishment of settlements, the construction of the wall and its associated régime were tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, thereby contravening the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court then considered the qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation contained in certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments, which might be invoked inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so required. The Court found that such clauses were not applicable in the present case, stating that it was not convinced that the specific course Israel had chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives, and that accordingly the construction of the wall constituted a breach by Israel of certain of its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. Lastly, the Court concluded that Israel could not rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall, and that such construction and its associated régime were accordingly contrary to international law.
The Court went on to consider the consequences of these violations, recalling Israel’s obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under humanitarian and human rights law. The Court stated that Israel must put an immediate end to the violation of its international obligations by ceasing the works of construction of the wall and dismantling those parts of that structure situated within Occupied Palestinian Territory and repealing or rendering ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime. The Court further made it clear that Israel must make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction. As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court held that all States were under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. It further stated that it was for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination be brought to an end. In addition, the Court pointed out that all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention were under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention. Finally, in regard to the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court indicated that they should consider what further action was required to bring to an end the illegal situation in question, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
The Court concluded by observing that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context, noting the obligation on Israel and Palestine to comply with international humanitarian law, as well as the need for implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions, and drawing the attention of the General Assembly to the need for efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems on the basis of international law and the establishment of a Palestinian State.[3]
”Of course this is not to say that that the Israeli ruling is a good one. For example, like many Israeli rulings there are political points that are treated as legal ones, such as the false characterization of all Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” [8]. Further the HCJ does justify the Wall in principle though the projected segments reviewed were deemed to be illegal because of the humanitarian impact of the suggested route [9]” ELECTRONIC INTIFADATHE ISRAELI HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE APARTHEID WALL15 JULY 2004 https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-high-court-justice-and-apartheid-wall/5156
With the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion regarding the consequences of the Apartheid Wall, the legality of this enterprise has been much discussed in almost all circles related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. On the Zionist side, aside from the usual canard about the “anti-Semitism” of the United Nations and the like, many commentaries have pointed to the recent Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruling about the wall and declared, in so many words, that this is the only legal ruling that matters. For example, in the recent diatribe against the ICJ by Alan Dershowitz [1] he writes: “The Israeli government has both a legal and a moral obligation to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision regarding the security fence.”
The interesting thing about this is that if one actually reads the HCJ decision [2], it in fact makes a very strong case against the Wall in general though its ruling only regarded only one small 40 km stretch of the Wall. Unlike the ICJ Opinion which was, as per its mandate, primarily focused on existing international treaties and conventions and Israel’s obligations stemming from them; the HCJ decision was based more on general legal principle.
The Israeli case – Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank – was a petition against eight separate land confiscation orders for the building of the Wall. The net result was that seven of these eight confiscation orders were deemed illegal and the one that was upheld was only upheld because the petitioners didn’t really argue against it [4].
Key point that resulted in the declaration that these confiscation orders were illegal was the principle of “proportionality” that was very succinctly defined in the ruling itself. [5] The actual factors taken into account were essentially the same that served as the basis of the ICJ Advisory Opinion, specifically the human impact that the Wall had on the resident Palestinian population [6]. The question and standard, treated as the third element of proportionality, deserves to be recalled in full (citations removed):
“The third subtest examines whether the injury caused to the local inhabitants by the construction of the separation fence stands in proper proportion to the security benefit from the the [sic] security fence in its chosen route. This is the proportionate means test (or proportionality “in the narrow sense”). Concerning this topic, Professor Y. Zamir wrote:
“The third element is proportionality itself. According to this element, it is insufficient that the administrative authority chose the proper and most moderate means for achieving the objective; it must also weigh the benefit reaped by the public against the damage that will be caused to the citizen by this means under the circumstances of the case at hand. It must ask itself if, under these circumstances, there is a proper proportion between the benefit to the public and the damage to the citizen. The proportion between the benefit and the damage – and it is also possible to say the proportion between means and objective – must be proportionate.
“This subtest weighs the costs against the benefits. According to this subtest, a decision of an administrative authority must reach a reasonable balance between communal needs and the damage done to the individual. The objective of the examination is to determine whether the severity of the damage to the individual and the reasons brought to justify it stand in proper proportion to each other. This judgment is made against the background of the general normative structure of the legal system, which recognizes human rights and the necessity of ensuring the provision of the needs and welfare of the local inhabitants, and which preserves “family honour and rights” (Regulation 46 of the Hague Regulations). All these are protected in the framework of the humanitarian provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention. The question before us is: does the severity of the injury to local inhabitants, by the construction of the separation fence along the route determine d by the military commander, stand in reasonable (proper) proportion to the security benefit from the construction of the fence along that route?” [7]
It was on this basis that the HCJ ruled seven of the eight confiscation orders under review to be illegal. Were this same principle to be applied to most of the Wall as it exists today, especially in cases like that of the Qalqilya ghetto, it is pretty reasonable to assume that most, if not all, the Wall would be deemed illegal. Better yet, the proportionality argument is generally accepted in all modern legal systems, unlike the more specific treaty/convention law that the ICJ was forced to focus on.
Of course this is not to say that that the Israeli ruling is a good one. For example, like many Israeli rulings there are political points that are treated as legal ones, such as the false characterization of all Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” [8]. Further the HCJ does justify the Wall in principle though the projected segments reviewed were deemed to be illegal because of the humanitarian impact of the suggested route [9].
Further, citing the usual excuse used by the HCJ in regard to IDF decisions, it seeks merely to review military actions for their illegality, not to actually impose its judgment on the IDF [10]. This is, along with the IDF option of utilizing the Emergency Regulations, one of the methods allowed to the IDF to freely disregard the High Court of Justice when so inclined. As was the case in the famous court ruling against torture, that in fact merely amounted to a slight change in the phrasing of the IDF terminology, i.e. “ticking bomb” justification, the court’s ruling can be safely ignored if the government chooses – for whatever reason – not to enforce it. This is one of the luxuries of being a non-constitutional state; the political executive is under no actual obligation to enforce any law or legal ruling. In the ruling itself, the IDF freely concedes that should some portion of the fence that is already constructed be deemed illegal, they will pay compensation, but there is no mention – much less compulsion – to reverse illegal sections or the Wall or to in fact stop committing the construction even if deemed illegal. [11]
Nevertheless, in order to portray itself as being a state that respects the rule of law, High Court of Justice rulings are usually afforded at least some general consideration. Thus the HCJ ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel, Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, is in fact a rather grave embarrassment since the projected Wall cannot be constructed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories at all without inflicting the same disproportionate – and hence illegal – circumstances on other local Palestinians. So how do they intend to reconcile this ruling with the Wall?
The Jerusalem Post provided the answer to this question on July 14: “A petition against the appropriation of land for construction of the security fence near the Kissufim road in the Gaza Strip was turned down Tuesday by the High Court of Justice. The petition was submitted by Palestinian residents of the al-Karara village in the Gaza Strip. According to IBA news, the ruling also cancels a freeze order on construction in the area.” [12] Since the HCJ ruling only related to one small segment of the Wall, and the determination has already been made, the HCJ can now simply refuse to accept further petitions, based on the argument that the IDF should be assumed to be taking the same proportionality concerns into account in other areas. That is, in so many words, it seems unlikely that there will be an option of legal appeal to any other segments of the Wall, based on the assumption that the IDF will act in “good faith” taking the previous ruling into consideration. Thus, yet agai n, we have another High Court of Justice ruling that can be safely ignored.
Make no mistake about it, the Israeli High Court of Justice is no friend to Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Nevertheless, when Zionists and others choose to counter the ICJ Advisory Opinion citing the HCJ ruling, one can – in all honesty – point out that if the HCJ ruling was in fact applied to the entire Wall, most of it would be illegal even under Israeli law. Of course this won’t happen, and even if it did the IDF is under no obligation to comply anyway, nevertheless, for the scoundrels out to justify the legality of the Wall, the High Court of Justice ruling is certainly no help. END OF THE ARTICLE
END OF THE NOTES
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Voice from the Past!/Letter to the Editor, sent and published by Pravda/”The verdict of the Israeli High Court regarding the Wall”
[At the 15th july 2021 crime reporter Peter R de Vries died, after beenshot in the streets of Amsterdam on 6th july. [2]I honor him, because he was far more than just a crime reporter and an investigator of criminal cold cases, but also a defender of the rights of unheard, like refugees and minorities.Therefore my hommageMay he rest in peace]
Peter R de Vries, the fearless crimefighter and advocate for the rights of the unheard, reminds me of a fictional character of oneof my favourite films ”Legends of the Fall” [3], colonel William Ludlow, whomoves his family to a ranch in Montana out of indignation and dissatisfactionwith the treatment of the American government against the native Americans . [4]In my terms:He fled for aggressive racist white Supremacy”In his terms:,”Losing the madness” [5]By the way:A must see film for you, readers! [6] Fearless and lovers of justice they both shared, fictional ColonelLudlow and crimefighter Peter R de VriesThe one retreated [as was the best thing he could do inpre WO I White supremacist America] and founded his Paradisein Montana, the other fought [as was the best thing to do innowadays the Netherlands]
So like Colonel Ludlow, Peter R de Vries was fearless and obsessed with justice, investigating cold cases [7] and what says more:Achieving great results! [8]
FEARLESS Fearless he was, his motto was:”On bended knee it’s no way to be free” [9] He was also tenacious, never gave up. [10] I don’t have to mention all his successes;Look at his Wikipedia! [11]His last effort was his assistence of the crown witness, Nabil B [12]in the Marengo process, the greatest drug trial in the history of the Netherlands [13]Perhaps that involvement costed him his life, as the Public Prosecuter’s Officethinks is ”more likely” [but nothing is sure, yet, all optionsare still open] [14] ADVOCATE FOR THE UNHEARD Although I admired Peter R de Vries for his great involvement in solvingcold cases and his support for the families of the victims [15], that’s notthe first reason I write this tribute to him. My reason is, that he was not only a dedicated crime fighter, but alsoan advocate of the rights of the unheard and victims of stogmatizationand discrimination.
HIS FIGHT AGAINST PVV LEADER G WILDERS Peter R de Vries was a fervent opponent of fascist PVV leader G Wilders [17]In his diary, he wrote ”Ik vind Geert W. zelf een gevaarlijk man, een demagoog met de potentievan een volksmenner.” [Translated in English: I think Geert W is a dangerous man, a demagogue with the potention of a people’s agitator” [18]
For his contribution to the fight against racism and IslamophobiaI sent Peter R de Vries an appreciation-mail [19]The price he paid for his Wilders criticism was a great number ofhatemails [20]I wonder how many of those people, wholay flowers at the place he was shot [21], were among those haters……
CHAMPION FOR THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES But Peter R de Vries did more:In a time and on a moment, that there was much resistanceagainst the coming of Syrian refugees to the Netherlands, who hadfled the war in Syria [22], Peter R de Vries stood firm for the refugee rights, he wrote this statement:”Respect and admiration for the refugees! [23]I quote from this statement among else:”Sometimes it seems that in public debate about the refugees it is no longer about people, but only about numbers, percentages, quotas and files. Often the refugee issue is discussed in a detached and intolerant tone of voice; like asylum seekers and refugees are profiteers who are here to seek fortune”AND”It has always amazed me how easily and lightly people condemn refugees about leaving their homeland; like it is a tempting challenge to build a new life in another country, with an incomprehensible language, different culture and a harsh climate. Like people just do that for fun…!”AND”And that is why I would like to emphasize that I have the upmost respect and admiration for those who have abandoned their homes in desperation for doom and disaster and are trying, with great difficulty, to build up a new life in a foreign country. In my opinion they should never have to hide or be ashamed; they can be proud, with their heads held high, because what they have achieved, what they have defied and what they have sacrificed more than most of us would dare or could bear. That is something we should be more aware off…” [24]
True and impressive words and again I sent him a appreciation-mail! [25] STATELESS REFUGEES But apart from writing, Peter R de Vries came in action!He helped a group of ”General Pardonners”, who were allowedto remain in the Netherlands, but yet didn’t become a passport,which made them ”stateless”By his effort [and of course from others] [26], State Secretary Ankie Broekers-Knol of Asylum Affairs made it possible that ten thousand so-called general pardonners can still get a passport. [27]One of the ten thousand stateless General Pardonners,Yosef Tekeste-Yemane, [who turned to de Vries about this humanitarian question] remarked:[comment after the shooting of Peter R de Vries]:”I hope he will still get what he has achieved.” [28] He also remarked:””He saw the injustice and got caught up in it, he was determined to help us and hoped the media would warm to this.” [29] And it worked!
EPILOGUE In his own way, Peter R de Vries made a great contribution inthe fight against injustice..Not only because of the fearless and tenacious way, he fought as a crime reporter [30], but for what he did for refugees.In the fight against racism, prejudices and Islamophobia. Therefore for me, he is a great man.I will not forget him! May he rest in peace. Astrid Essed NOTES Notes 1 t/m 20 https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-1-t-m-20-at-tribute-to-peter-r-de-vries/
Nearly 43,000 foreign men, women, and children linked to ISIS remain detained in inhuman or degrading conditions by regional authorities in northeast Syria, two years after they were rounded up during the fall of the Islamic State “caliphate,” often with the explicit or implicit consent of their countries of nationality, Human Rights Watch said today.
The foreign detainees have never been brought before a court, making their detention arbitrary as well as indefinite. They include 27,500 children, most in locked camps and at least 300 in squalid prisons for men, and scores of others in a locked rehabilitation center. The detainees suffer from rising levels of violence and falling levels of vital aid including medical care. In just one case, France has refused to allow a woman with advanced colon cancer to come home for treatment. One detained woman told Human Rights Watch that a guard ran over a young child in a vehicle, cracking his skull.
“Men, women, and children from around the world are entering a third year of unlawful detention in life-threatening conditions in northeast Syria while their governments look the other way,” said Letta Tayler, associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch. “Governments should be helping to fairly prosecute detainees suspected of serious crimes and free everyone else, not helping to create another Guantanamo.”
Governments that actively contribute to this abusive confinement may be complicit in the unlawful detention and collective punishment of thousands of people, most of them women and young children, Human Rights Watch said.
In February and March 2021, Human Rights Watch communicated via text, email, or phone with eight foreign women detained in camps for family members of male ISIS suspects in northeast Syria as well as relatives of five camp detainees. Human Rights Watch also spoke or emailed with members of six aid organizations and six civil society groups pressing for the detainees’ repatriations, as well as regional authorities, Western government officials, UN officials, journalists, and academics. In addition, Human Rights Watch reviewed dozens of reports, media articles, and videos about the camps and prisons.
People interviewed described increasingly desperate mothers and children struggling to maintain dignity amid harsh conditions and fears of contracting Covid-19. Three women in one camp, Roj, said that guards confiscated Qurans, threatened women for wearing niqabs, and raided tents at night. Women caught with cellphones or suspected of withholding information about crimes in the camp were sometimes beaten and jailed for days or even weeks, the women and a relative said. The regional authority, called the Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria, denied any abuse by guards and said that some women had attacked guards with stones and sharp objects. Badran Chia Kurd, Autonomous Administration’s deputy co-chair, told Human Rights Watch that women were in most cases jailed only for “a few days” if they tried to flee.=
One relative of a detainee said that her detained family member was suicidal. A young mother wrote that daily life in the camps made her want to “scream from the top of my lungs”:
It’s mentally exhausting. … never gets better here. Always worse. … majority of the children in the camp are sick. Almost everyday something bad happens. Children trapped in burning tents and dies. … We have water tank that contains worms. The toilets are dirty so people started to build [their] own toilets.
Like all detainees who communicated with Human Rights Watch, the women asked that they not be identified by name or nationality for fear of retaliation by other detainees or camp guards.
Holding the foreigners “is a huge burden” for the cash-strapped Autonomous Administration, Chia Kurd said. “The international community, in particular the countries who have citizens in the camps and prisons, are not assuming their responsibility. This issue, if not solved, will not only affect us, but the entire world.”
Countries with nationals held in northeast Syria should answer repeated appeals by the Autonomous Administration to help them provide detainees with due process, including the right to contest the legality and necessity of their detention before a judge. All detainees held in inhuman or degrading conditions, or who are not promptly charged with a recognizable criminal offense in fair proceedings should be immediately released.
Foreign countries should also comply with the Autonomous Administration’s repeated calls for them to repatriate detainees not charged with a crime, prioritizing the most vulnerable. Repatriated children should be accompanied by their parents in keeping with the child’s right to family unity. Foreigners facing risks at home of death or torture or other ill-treatment should be transferred to a safe third country.
Upon transfer home or abroad, detainees can be provided with rehabilitation and reintegration services and as warranted, investigated and prosecuted, Human Rights Watch said. Children who lived under ISIS and any women trafficked by ISIS should be treated first and foremost as victims, and children should face prosecution and detention only in exceptional circumstances.
In the meantime, foreign governments and donors should immediately increase aid to improve camp and prison conditions in northeast Syria and press the United Nations Security Council to reauthorize vital aid operations across Syria’s northeast and northwest borders to speed the delivery of aid.
Only 25 countries are known to have repatriated any nationals from northeast Syria and most have brought home or helped return only a token few, primarily orphans or young children, in some cases without their mothers.
The UN and donors, including many home countries of the foreign detainees, are providing humanitarian aid to the detainees and others in northeast Syria. But acute shortages of clean water, food, medicine, and adequate shelter and security persist, say UN experts and others.
The United States military, which leads the US coalition against ISIS, has funded measures to bolster security and ease overcrowding for some of the prisons, according to Chia Kurd, media, and US government reports. However, the measures appear to have done little to bring the prisons in compliance with minimum detention standards. Moreover, neither the US nor other members of the international community, including countries with nationals detained in northeast Syria, have funded any measures to provide the prisoners with due process, Chia Kurd said.
The international coalition against ISIS also reportedly plans to fund construction of additional detention centers for women suspects, as well as a 500-bed “rehabilitation center” for older boys. The United Kingdom, another key coalition member, is reportedly funding a project to double the capacity of one of the prisons, in Hasakah, from 5,000 to 10,000 detainees. UK and US defense officials did not respond to requests for comment in the time provided.
“Improving horrific prison conditions does not change the fact that indefinite detention without judicial review is unlawful,” Tayler said. “Expanding prisons and locked rehabilitation centers to warehouse hundreds of children who never even chose to live under ISIS is unconscionable.”
The detainees
Backed by a US-led coalition, regional fighters called the Syrian Democratic Forces rounded up tens of thousands of ISIS suspects and family members during the fall of Baghouz, then the last ISIS stand in Syria, during a weeks-long battle that ended March 23, 2019. The Syrian Democratic Forces are still holding nearly 63,400 of the family members, nearly all of them women and children, in two locked, heavily guarded, open-air camps encircled by barbed wire. Roughly 20,000 are from Syria, 31,000 from neighboring Iraq, and nearly 12,000 others – 8,000 children and 4,000 women – are from almost 60 other countries. Conditions for the non-Iraqi foreigners, who are kept in special annexes, are particularly dire.
The Syrian Democratic Forces are also holding about 10,000 men as well as at least 700 boys of all nationalities, most ages 14 to 17 in 14, overcrowded, makeshift prisons for ISIS suspects, Chia Kurd said. Prison conditions “do not meet minimum standards,” he said, blaming scarce international aid for the abusive conditions. Human Rights Watch in 2019 and 2020 documented the inhumane conditions in some of these prisons.
Camp Conditions
In al-Hol and Roj, the locked camps for family members, more than 90 percent of children are under age 12 and more than half under 5, aid groups say. Syrians and Iraqis in the camps have relative freedom, including the ability to leave and return to the camps. During multiple visits to the two camps from 2017 to 2019, Human Rights Watch documentedconditions in the foreigners’ annexes that amounted to cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment. Combined with the indefinite and arbitrary nature of detention, these conditions may also amount to torture when they deliberately inflict serious physical or mental harm on a detainee. Since then, detainees, family members, civil society representatives, and aid workers told Human Rights Watch, conditions have deteriorated further along with detainees’ despair.
“You can feel that people are giving up on the outside world, they are so desperate you meet a wall of hopelessness,” said Natascha Rée Mikkelsen, founder of Repatriate the Children-Denmark, who has visited the camps several times, including in February. “And the young children, some of them have diarrhea all the time and they are so skinny and so small. They just have this look like they are locked up. They have nothing to do and they know nothing about their future.”
Detainees and others interviewed by Human Rights Watch complained of contaminated water, overflowing latrines, shortages of fresh food and diapers, tents leaking or catching fire, rampant disease, insufficient medical care, and almost no schooling for children or counseling for a severely traumatized population.
While conditions are somewhat better in Roj than in the larger camp, al-Hol, detainees and family members described harsh conditions there as well. Three relatives, a civil society member and two detainees said noxious fumes from adjacent oil fields were causing asthma, deep coughs, and lung inflammations. One mother texted of being terrified by the lack of medicine for her child, by guards threatening to cut detainees’ clothes if they were not “short and colorful,” and of the desert winds that flipped over her tent at night:
Honestly I have ptsd [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] from the camps more than IS territory (even though I am traumatized from that lifestyle). … I would hold my daughter tight and stay alert all night watching the tent as it was about to collapse onto us at any moment. And it did actually happen many times.
In mid-March, said a Western European man whose grandchildren are in the camps, a small group of children no older than 6 crossed an internal camp fence to pick dandelions just on the other side. “The camp guards saw them, caught them, and beat them severely,” he said. “The children didn’t decide to be there, they don’t deserve to live like this in such terrible conditions.”
Two relatives described detainees waiting hours to access a shared phone that they could only use for seconds. Communication in one section for foreigners in Roj is limited to messages of less than a minute every 8 to 10 days, compounding detainees’ isolation, one relative said.
Life-Threatening Conditions
According to humanitarian groups and the UN Office of Counterterrorism, more than 700 detainees in al-Hol and Roj – at least half of them children – have died in the past two years. Several were killed by detainees in al-Hol who remain loyal to ISIS, while others died in crossfire between guards and detainees or from lack of medical care, unsanitary conditions, and accidents such as tent fires.
At least 29 people were killed in al-Hol camp alone in January and February 2021 including seven children. “The people who work there feel more and more scared of the situation, as if they have no control,” Mikkelsen said. “You have the feeling that any time you could be killed.”
In text messages relayed to Human Rights Watch, one woman in Roj described a fire breaking out in a tent housing two children whom guards left in the camp while jailing their mother for having a cellphone. The woman said it was one of three fires in Roj so far in 2021:
The 5 year old boy put the tent on fire and his 7 year old sister took him out from the burning tent. Two tent burned that day, it was terrible day cuz it took very long time to put the fire [out] since many fire extinguisher didn’t work and we didn’t know if there was more ppl trapped in the fire.
In February, 10 Frenchwomen in the camps went on a hunger strike to publicize their demand to stand trial at home. That same month, Pascale Descamps, a Frenchwoman whose 32-year-old daughter and four young grandchildren are held in Roj, began her own hunger strike to press the government to let her daughter leave to receive medical treatment for advanced colon cancer. Doctors in northeast Syria told her daughter that she needed “urgent” treatment but that the operation would be high-risk if performed locally, Descamps told Human Rights Watch. In December, the UN Committee Against Torture called on France to repatriate Descamps’ daughter for medical care but she remains in Roj. Descamps said that in intermittent audio messages, her daughter sounded desperate:
Every time my daughter talks to me, she starts crying. She tells me that she is getting worse, bleeding a lot, and getting weaker. She is like an animal in her tent, dying in front of her children. … I am not exonerating my daughter, but she has the right to a fair trial and to receive proper medical care given the seriousness of her health condition … I am also fighting for my grandchildren not to have to go through all this any longer. It is a stake in the heart to know that they see their mother so ill and to imagine that she could die there when France could repatriate her and her children. It’s like they have no rights anymore.”
Covid-19 is another threat. As of February 16, the UN had reported 8,537 cases of the virus in northeast Syria, but humanitarians warn that rates are vastly under-counted because of insufficient staff and supplies for extensive testing. At least 13 cases of Covid-19 had been reported in al-Hol and Roj as of December 2020. A greater outbreak could disproportionately harm camp and prison detainees as most are malnourished with severely limited access to medical services.
Detainees began receiving monthly handouts of masks and gloves in mid-2020 but they have to reuse them several times because of shortages, two women in Roj said.
Inhuman Prison Conditions
Despite some improvements, only one of the 14 makeshift prisons for male ISIS suspects is fit for the purpose, said a June 2020 US military report. The 10,000 men, most Syrian and Iraqi and 2,000 from other countries, are jammed into severely overcrowded cells with open latrines and poor ventilation. The prisons lack essential services including adequate medical care for festering wounds and infectious diseases including tuberculosis. Up to several hundred men have died in the prisons including one from Germany and another from the UK.
The 700 or more boys in the prisons are held separately from the men. About 400 are Syrian, 200 are Iraqi, and the rest come from several other countries, Chia Kurd said. The boys have access to outdoor courtyards, but have little access to education, recreation, and other essential services, he said.
Three well-informed sources speaking on condition of anonymity said that many of the boys in the prisons were taken from the camps where they lived with their mothers and siblings when they reached mid-adolescence and that some were as young as 12. Imprisoned Syrian boys can visit with families, but imprisoned foreign boys are not allowed visits with their mothers and siblings in the camps, Chia Kurd said. Between 100 and 110 more boys are living in a locked rehabilitation center. Services there, too, are “insufficient” due to a lack of aid, Chia Kurd said. The Autonomous Administration would like to transfer the boys in prisons to additional rehabilitation centers if foreign governments will build them, he said.
Chia Kurd said some of the boys were taken from the camps for families and elsewhere “for committing acts of violence” or for ISIS ideology, although Human Rights Watch received reports from local family support groups that at least some of the boys were taken simply because they had reached adolescence. UK-based Rights and Security International in 2020 reported that Syrian Democratic Forces forcibly disappeared dozens of boys from the camps.
The Kurdish-led coalition had prosecuted about 8,000 Syrians suspected of membership in ISIS and other armed groups in People’s Defense Courts as of early 2021, with about 4,000 more awaiting local prosecutions. The trials have been piecemeal with due process gaps and the Autonomous Administration has sought assistance from foreign governments to bring them in line with international standards. For two years, the Autonomous Administration has asked foreign governments to help it create a hybrid or international court to prosecute the detainees, Chia Kurd said. At times the regional authorities have proposed internationally supported local courts. But “the international community has not been cooperative with us,” he said.
Humanitarian Access
Medical and other supplies are scarce in the camps and prisons, in part because of difficulties aid workers face in gaining access to the region. Russia has since January 2020 used and threatened its veto power at the UN Security Council to force the closure of three of the four vital border crossings into Syria that UN agencies had used to transport medicine and other aid into the country. Turkey and Turkish-backed forces have also repeatedly cut offwater supplies to Autonomous Administration-held areas of northeast Syria, including al-Hol camp.
Representatives of four aid organizations said that these factors combined with mounting insecurity have forced many humanitarian organizations to suspend or scale back operations in northeast Syria.
Scant Repatriations
Despite the deplorable conditions, only 25 of nearly 60 home counties have repatriated any of their nationals from northeast Syria, and repatriation operations fell from 29 in 2019 to 17 in 2020 and 3 in the first 10 weeks of 2021, according to Save the Children and Human Rights Watch tallies. Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Russia, andUzbekistan have together brought home more than 1,200 of their citizens, about 85 percent of all returns. Repatriations by Western countries remain piecemeal. The UK, Australia, and Denmark have stripped citizenship of some nationals detained in northeast Syria, in some cases even when the revocation may leave them stateless.
A few countries, including Germany and Finland, have brought home some mothers with children. But others including Canada, the UK, and France have repatriated one or more children without their mothers and others, such as Sweden and Belgium, plan to do so. Systematic returns of children without their parents flout the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that countries should uphold the principle of family unity absent a professional assessment that separation “is necessary for the best interests of the child.” While governments obtain mothers’ written consent to take their children without them, Human Right Watch questions whether consent can be informed and voluntary for women indefinitely detained inside locked camps with no access to redress or counsel.
“If I had to choose again, I don’t know if I would have done it,” a Canadian mother in Roj said of her anguished decision to allow Canada to repatriate her 4-year-old daughter without her in March. “It’s the hardest sacrifice for a mother to make.”
Many governments contend that repatriations pose too much of a security risk. While governments have an obligation to keep people safe, security concerns do not obviate their parallel duty to uphold human rights, Human Rights Watch said. Moreover, as even the US-led coalition against ISIS argues, abandoning these detainees to indefinite confinement in dire conditions may pose a greater risk than bringing them home.
Men imprisoned as ISIS suspects in northeast Syria have repeatedly rioted and more than 100 have escaped to whereabouts unknown. With no way to leave legally, women are regularly paying traffickers to smuggle them and their children out of the locked camps, placing them at risk of being trafficked into forced labor and sexual exploitation, among other abuses, or of rejoining ISIS. Shunned by home countries, children may be vulnerable to recruitment by ISIS hardliners in the prisons and camps.
In contrast, repatriations or third-country transfers allow governments to conduct individual assessments of each returnee, monitor them as appropriate, and hold to account those who have committed serious international human rights crimes, a critical step in redress for thousands of ISIS victims.
Repatriations of the foreigners may also improve conditions for the Syrian ISIS suspects and family members whom the local authorities are also detaining in the camps and prisons. The Autonomous Administration has allowed more than 9,100 Syrians to return to their communities since 2019, including more than 2,600 under an amnesty it announced in October 2020, but thousands of others remain. As with the foreign detainees, the local authorities should release any Syrians held in degrading or inhuman conditions or without due process, and improve conditions for those who may not be able to return home because of risks that their communities may reject them or fears of returning to areas held by the government.
In January, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called repatriations by home countries, particularly of children, “an urgent and strategic counter-terrorism imperative.” The European Parliament and UNICEF have also called on member states to repatriate all children, taking into account the best interests of the child. The UN human rights commissioner, the UN counterterrorism chief, and 22 UN specialized human rights experts have called on home countries to repatriate their nationals as well. The 22 UN human rights experts noted that the “violence, exploitation, abuse and deprivation” suffered by foreign detainees in northeast Syria have resulted in deaths and in and of themselves “may well amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under international law,” with no effective remedy.
International Legal Standards
Countries have a responsibility to take steps to protect their citizens when they face serious human rights violations, including loss of life and torture. This obligation can extend to nationals in foreign countries when reasonable action by their home governments’ actions can protect them from such harm. International human rights law also provides that everyone has the right to a nationality. Governments have an international legal obligation to provide access to nationality for all children born abroad to one of their nationals who would otherwise be stateless, as soon as possible. All individuals have the rights to adequate food, water, clothing, shelter, and mental and physical health, and fair trials. All children have the right to education.
Detaining people in conditions that amount to inhuman or degrading treatment is strictly prohibited under human rights law.
The Autonomous Administration’s indefinite detention of these foreigners without due process, including their right to appear before a judge to review the legality and necessity of their confinement, is arbitrary and unlawful. The detention of ISIS suspects’ family members, particularly the children but also women who are not being investigated for any crimes, also amounts to guilt by association and collective punishment, prohibited under international law.
The arbitrary detention and lack of reintegration support for these children violates international principles for children associated with armed groups, who are to be viewed primarily as victims. UN Security Council Resolution 2396 of 2017, which is binding on all member states, emphasizes the importance of assisting women and children associated with groups such as ISIS who may themselves be victims of terrorism, including through rehabilitation and reintegration.
Resolution 2396 also calls on member states to investigate and prosecute suspects for involvement with foreign terrorist groups if appropriate. Given the absence of any fair trial proceedings for foreigners detained in northeast Syria, investigations by home countries remain the only viable option at this time to provide redress to victims for any serious crimes these detainees may have committed.
Countries with Citizens Detained in Northeast Syria
Citizens of at least 58 countries are reported to be detained in camps and prisons in northeast Syria: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, China, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Indonesia, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Maldives, North Macedonia, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Somalia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen.
END OF ARTICLE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Human Rights Watch]/Thousands of Foreigners Unlawfully Held in NE Syria
Dear Readers Underlying letter I wrote recently to the members of the Dutch parliament about thestructural mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.Here a ghastly example of prisoner mistreatment, revealed by the Israeli newpaperthe Haaretz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cq5UjR_NB0
Subject:Israeli violent conduct against Palestinian prisoners [This mail has been sent to all your collegue members of parliament, except forthe parties, The Party for Freedom, Forum for Democracy, the Reformed Political Party and JA21, concerning their pro Israel views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, As you’ll probably know, I write you regularly about the injustice concerning the Middle Eastern conflict and about other cases, concerning human rights. [1]Often I refer extensively to international law aspects [2] However, in this case I try to make it short[er], because the case is simple here:This concerns a shocking case of abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners and I demand you to use your influence, as fae as possible, to stop this!Here and now! SCHOKKENDE BEELDEN/MISHANDELING PALESTIJNSE GEVANGENEN The news reached me about the shocking mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners in the Israeli prison Ketziot [3] and the pictures were publicized by the Israeli newspaper the Haaretz in its Hebrew edition. [4] Mij bereikte het bericht over de schokkende mishandeling van Palestijnsegevangenen in de Israelische gevangenis Ketziot [3] en de beelden daarvan werden gepubliceerd door de Israelische krant de Haaretz in zijnHebreeuwse editie [4]See also the Youtube images! [5] What you see is obvious.Prisoners are dragged over the ground, thrown in a heap and beaten.What you see is unacceptable! The case, dating from 2019 [6], revealed by the Haaretz [which I appreciate], was ”investigated”I write ”investigated” with quotation marks, because there was noreal investigation, but it was ”swept under the rug” [7] In an editorial article The Haaretz writes:
”It wasn’t only the Prison Service that looked the other way. In the Israel Police, Lahav 433’s National Prison Investigation Unit did as little as possible to probe the affair: Only one guard was questioned and even though he admitted that he had engaged in gratuitous violence, it wasn’t enough for the police or prosecutors to proceed with an indictment. This was a negligent investigation – with no real effort to identify the guards and no police lineup – which proves that even when such an unusual case of abuse has been fully documented, the police still prefer to sweep it under the rug. [8] AND ”It’s hard to believe that the investigation would have ended this way if the prisoners had been Jews. But in this case, the victims were Palestinian terrorists and security prisoners belonging to Hamas. Therefore, not only was the case closed on the grounds that “the offender is not known,” but the warden on duty at the time, General Avichai Ben-Hamo, was promoted to the rank of major general. The other guards allegedly involved in the incident remain at their jobs.” [9] STRUCTURAL Although this incident in itself is serious enough, itdoes not stand alone.No, this violent behaviour against Palestinian prisonersis structural!Amnesty International writes in its review from 2020 among else:””The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity.” [10] This is a very serious matter!You must act against this, dear members of parliament, because I don’t have to explain to you, that yet apart from the humanity, those violent acts are contrary with the International Treaties! [11] YOUR EFFORT AND MORAL DUTY I expect from you, members of the Parliament, that you stand up againstthis structural violence against Palestinian prisoners, which also includes torture by violence. [12]Use your political power by posing questions in the Parliament and makinga plea for the suspension of the EU Israel Association Agreement, that includes a human rights clausule [13], in case Israel doesn’t listen. Too long this injustice had its chance and you can’t walk away from it!You swore an Oath or did a promise on the Dutch Constitution, which states in article 90:”The Government shall promote the development of the international legal order.” [14]
I count on your efforts. Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands
THOSE ARE THE POLITICAL PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES I WROTE TO, EXCEPT FOR THOSEI MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION
SEE ALSO IN DUTCH ISRAELISCHE BOMBARDEMENTEN OP GAZA IN MEI 2021/TERREUR IN OOST-JERUZALEM EN DE WESTBANK/BRIEF AAN TWEEDE KAMERLEDEN/STOP ISRAELISCHE TERREUR!/STOP DE BEZETTING!ASTRID ESSED18 MEI 2021
””De beelden dateren uit 2019 en zijn naar buiten gebracht door de Israëlische krant Haaretz in zijn Hebreeuwse editie. Ze tonen de mishandeling van een kleine zestig Palestijnse gevangenen door zo’n vijftien gevangenisbewaarders in de C-vleugel van de Ketziot-gevangenis in de Negev/Naqab in Israël.” [TRANSLATION:The images are from 2019 and have been revealed by the Israeli paperHaaretz in its Hebrew edition. They show the mistreatment of about 60 Palestinian prisoners by about 15 jailers in the C wing ofthe Ketziot prison in the Negev/Naqba in Israel”’ ARTICLE FROM THE RIGHTS FORUM THE RIGHTS FORUMSCHOKKENDE BEELDEN VAN MISHANDELING PALESTIJNSE GEVANGENEN IN ISRAELISCHE GEVANGENIS
Tientallen gevangenen worden geboeid over de grond gesleurd, op een hoop gegooid en afgeranseld. De zaak verdween in de doofpot, en dat is geen uitzondering.
De beelden dateren uit 2019 en zijn naar buiten gebracht door de Israëlische krant Haaretz in zijn Hebreeuwse editie. Ze tonen de mishandeling van een kleine zestig Palestijnse gevangenen door zo’n vijftien gevangenisbewaarders in de C-vleugel van de Ketziot-gevangenis in de Negev/Naqab in Israël. De gevangenen worden geboeid over de betonnen vloer gesleept, boven op elkaar gegooid, geschopt en met wapenstokken geslagen. Vijftien gevangenen raakten zodanig gewond dat ze in het ziekenhuis belandden. De beelden roepen herinneringen op aan de mishandeling van Iraakse gevangenen door Amerikaanse militairen en CIA-medewerkers in de Abu Ghraib-gevangenis bij Bagdad in 2004.
Doofpot
In zijn redactioneel commentaar schrijft Haaretz dat het geweld kennelijk een wraakactie was voor het neersteken van een bewaarder elders in het gevangeniscomplex – volgens Wikipedia het grootste detentiecentrum van Israël en zelfs ter wereld. De Israel Prison Service maakte destijds bekend dat veiligheidstroepen op de bewuste dag ‘een opstand van gevangenen onder controle hadden gebracht’. Op de beelden is van een opstand echter niets te zien.
De zaak is door de autoriteiten in de doofpot gestopt, schrijft Haaretz. De Prison Service ‘keek de andere kant op’ en de onderzoeksafdeling van de Israëlische politie – de National Prison Investigation Unit – volstond met het ondervragen van één gevangenisbewaarder. Hoewel die toegaf zich schuldig te hebben gemaakt aan ‘onnodig geweld’, werd geen vervolging ingesteld. De zaak werd gesloten onder het mom dat ‘de dader onbekend is’.
De politie ‘veegde de zaak onder het tapijt’, concludeert Haaretz, en ook de openbaar aanklager kwam niet in actie. ‘Het is moeilijk voor te stellen dat het zo zou zijn gelopen als de gevangenen Joden waren geweest’, voegt de krant daaraan toe. In dit geval ging het echter om ‘terroristen en veiligheidsgevangenen die lid waren van Hamas’.
Geen uitzondering, maar regel
Overigens betekent dat niet dat de gevangenen daadwerkelijk lid waren van Hamas en een misdaad op hun geweten hebben. Afgelopen jaar besteedden wij in een brede analyse aandacht aan het oppakken van Palestijnen onder het mom van ‘betrokkenheid bij terrorisme’. Onder die noemer verdwijnen aan de lopende band Palestijnen uit de door Israël bezette gebieden in Israëlische gevangenissen. Het is onderdeel van ‘het intimideren en terroriseren van de bevolking door het Israëlische bezettingsregime’, concludeerden wij.
Daarop wijst vandaag ook de vooraanstaande Israëlische mensenrechtenorganisatie B’Tselem. In een persbericht schrijft het dat het ‘witwassen’ van de zaak door de autoriteiten geen uitzondering is, maar regel: de Israëlische overheersing van de Palestijnen is gebaseerd op geweld en het witwassen daarvan. De nu naar buiten gekomen zaak onderstreept volgens B’Tselem het belang van onderzoek en vervolging door internationale gerechtshoven als het Internationaal Gerechtshof en het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag:
Het Israëlische apartheidsregime is gebaseerd op constant, georganiseerd geweld tegen Palestijnen. Dat geweld is cruciaal voor zijn voortbestaan. Daarom is het regime noch bereid, noch in staat om degenen die het geweld plannen en uitvoeren te onderzoeken, laat staan te vervolgen. […] De zaak bewijst eens te meer dat Palestijnse slachtoffers van geweld van Israëlische veiligheidstroepen binnen het bestaande Israëlische systeem geen gerechtigheid kunnen krijgen, en alleen kunnen hopen op behandeling van hun zaken door internationale gerechtshoven.
Mishandeling schering en inslag
Het mishandelen en martelen van Palestijnse ‘verdachten’ en ‘veiligheidsgevangenen’ is in Israëlische ondervragings- en detentiecentra schering en inslag. Het Israëlische Hooggerechtshof staat echter ‘speciale ondervragingsmethoden’ toe als er sprake is van ‘bijzondere veiligheidsrisico’s’, en die bepaling biedt politiediensten, de Prison Service en de veiligheidsdienst Shin Bet een vrijbrief om verdachten te mishandelen zonder dat er een haan naar kraait. Het Israëlische Comité tegen Marteling (PCATI) diende tussen 2001 en 2020 circa 1300 officiële klachten wegens marteling door de Shin Bet in. Dat leidde in slechts één geval tot strafrechtelijk onderzoek, dat uitliep op seponering.
Het martelen van gevangenen is onder internationaal recht en de Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens strikt verboden en geldt in het oprichtingsverdrag van het Internationaal Strafhof – het Statuut van Rome – als een oorlogsmisdaad. Eerder dit jaar maanden zeven mensenrechtenexperts van de VN Israël zich aan het internationaal recht te houden en rigoureus een eind te maken aan de verboden praktijken. De autoriteiten dienen alle wetten, voorschriften, beleidslijnen en praktijken die zulke misdaden mogelijk maken met spoed te herzien. Staten zijn verplicht marteling en mishandeling te voorkomen en, in het geval zulk wangedrag toch plaatsvindt, te bestraffen. Slachtoffers dienen gerehabiliteerd en gecompenseerd te worden.
END OF ARTICLE
[7]
”This was a negligent investigation – with no real effort to identify the guards and no police lineup – which proves that even when such an unusual case of abuse has been fully documented, the police still prefer to sweep it under the rug.”
The shocking video from Wing 3 of Ketziot Prison should have set off an earthquake in the Israel Prison Service, police and the State Prosecutor’s Office: Scores of Arab security prisoners were forcibly thrown down onto a concrete floor, sometimes on top of each other, as guards passed between them for long minutes, beating them with batons and kicking them randomly, without any resistance from their victims (as Josh Breiner reported Thursday).
The unrestrained violence is believed to have been carried out in revenge for the stabbing of a guard shortly beforehand near the wing. The guards’ act of revenge, which left 15 prisoners injured, was described by the Prison Service as “gaining control over a riot.” But the evidence clearly shows there was no riot, just the abuse of prisoners. The evidence was an open secret in the Prison Service: Top officials had viewed the video and knew exactly what occurred but acted as if nothing happened. The Prison Service knew that Ketziot’s officers turned a blind eye while at least 10 guards brutally beat the bound prisoners.
It wasn’t only the Prison Service that looked the other way. In the Israel Police, Lahav 433’s National Prison Investigation Unit did as little as possible to probe the affair: Only one guard was questioned and even though he admitted that he had engaged in gratuitous violence, it wasn’t enough for the police or prosecutors to proceed with an indictment. This was a negligent investigation – with no real effort to identify the guards and no police lineup – which proves that even when such an unusual case of abuse has been fully documented, the police still prefer to sweep it under the rug.
It’s hard to believe that the investigation would have ended this way if the prisoners had been Jews. But in this case, the victims were Palestinian terrorists and security prisoners belonging to Hamas. Therefore, not only was the case closed on the grounds that “the offender is not known,” but the warden on duty at the time, General Avichai Ben-Hamo, was promoted to the rank of major general. The other guards allegedly involved in the incident remain at their jobs.
Now, when the evidence has been revealed to the public, the affair can no longer remain behind prison walls. The state prosecutor must immediately order a thorough investigation that includes all the guards alleged to have been involved, and bring indictments. Any other outcome will only prove that from the state’s viewpoint, security prisoners don’t deserve to be treated like human beings.
The above article is Haaretz’s lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[8] ”It wasn’t only the Prison Service that looked the other way. In the Israel Police, Lahav 433’s National Prison Investigation Unit did as little as possible to probe the affair: Only one guard was questioned and even though he admitted that he had engaged in gratuitous violence, it wasn’t enough for the police or prosecutors to proceed with an indictment. This was a negligent investigation – with no real effort to identify the guards and no police lineup – which proves that even when such an unusual case of abuse has been fully documented, the police still prefer to sweep it under the rug.”
”It’s hard to believe that the investigation would have ended this way if the prisoners had been Jews. But in this case, the victims were Palestinian terrorists and security prisoners belonging to Hamas. Therefore, not only was the case closed on the grounds that “the offender is not known,” but the warden on duty at the time, General Avichai Ben-Hamo, was promoted to the rank of major general. The other guards allegedly involved in the incident remain at their jobs.”
Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It displaced hundreds of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as a result of home demolitions and imposition of other coercive measures. Israeli forces continued to use excessive force during law enforcement activities in Israel and the OPT. Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the OPT; many were unlawfully killed while posing no imminent threat to life. Israel maintained its illegal blockade on the Gaza Strip, subjecting its residents to collective punishment and deepening the humanitarian crisis there. It also continued to restrict freedom of movement of Palestinians in the OPT through checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli authorities arbitrarily detained in Israel thousands of Palestinians from the OPT, holding hundreds in administrative detention without charge or trial. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, including children, were committed with impunity. The authorities used a range of measures to target human rights defenders, journalists and others who criticized Israel’s continuing occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Syrian Golan Heights. Violence against women persisted, especially against Palestinian citizens of Israel. The authorities denied asylum-seekers access to a fair or prompt refugee status determination process. Conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned.
Background
Israel held parliamentary elections in March, the third in just over a year. In May, the two largest parties in the Knesset, Likud and the Blue and White alliance, reached a power-sharing agreement that included an announcement that Israel would further annex territories in the occupied West Bank starting in July 2020. This followed US President Donald Trump’s announcement of his “deal of the century”, which included a formal extension of Israel’s sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the vast majority of the illegal settlements in the rest of the occupied West Bank in exchange for land currently inside Israel. Israel postponed the annexation plans following diplomatic deals with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in September. The parliament was again dissolved in December, triggering another round of elections in three months’ time.
Israel imposed lockdown measures in March and in September to contain the spread of COVID-19, triggering waves of protests calling on the Prime Minister to step down. The measures allowed the Israel Security Agency (ISA) to use surveillance capabilities usually reserved for Palestinians to trace COVID-19 infections. The Prime Minister’s trial on corruption charges began in May.
In February, the Palestinian armed group Islamic Jihad fired around 80 rockets and mortar shells from the Gaza Strip towards Israel, causing minor injuries to over 20 people, after Israeli forces killed an Islamic Jihad operative. The Israeli army carried out multiple airstrikes in Gaza, injuring 12 Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza.
In August and September, Israel launched artillery and airstrikes against Gaza in retaliation for incendiary balloons and kites launched from Gaza into Israel. Palestinian armed groups launched indiscriminate rockets into Israel in response.
In August, Israel launched airstrikes against Hizbullah targets in Lebanon after it said that shots were fired from Lebanon into Israel. Israel also launched airstrikes against Iranian and Hizbullah targets in Syria.
In July, a district court rejected a case to force the Ministry of Defense to revoke the export licence of spyware company NSO Group, dealing a blow to victims of unlawful and targeted international surveillance.
Forcible transfers, forced evictions and demolitions
Israel demolished 848 Palestinian residential and livelihood structures in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, displacing 996 people, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Israeli authorities said many of the demolished buildings lacked Israeli-issued permits, which are virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain, or were in closed military zones. The law of occupation prohibits such destruction unless necessary for military operations.
In other cases, Israel confiscated residential and livelihood structures, including some that were donated for humanitarian purposes. Israeli forces also punitively demolished at least six Palestinian homes, leaving 22 people, including seven children, homeless, according to B’Tselem. Punitive demolitions constitute collective punishment and are prohibited under international law.
On 5 March, Israeli forces demolished the homes of Walid Hanatsheh, in Ramallah, and Yazan Mughamis, in Birzeit, displacing six Palestinians, after an Israeli court rejected a petition by the families against the punitive demolition. On 11 March, Israeli forces punitively demolished the home of Qassam Barghouti in Kobar village near Ramallah. The three men are in prison in Israel for alleged involvement in an attack in August 2019 that killed an Israeli civilian and injured two others outside Ramallah city in the occupied West Bank.
Israeli settler organizations initiated, with the support of the Israeli authorities, forcible evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem.
OCHA estimated in December that around 200 Palestinian households in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, had eviction cases pending against them, placing 800 adults and children at risk of displacement.
Israeli authorities demolished at least 29 residential and livelihood structures that belonged to Bedouin citizens living in “unrecognized” villages in the Negev/Naqab, according to the Negev Coexistence Forum, an Israeli NGO.
Discrimination
Israel continued to discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in areas of planning, budget allocation, policing and political participation. According to the Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Israel maintains over 65 laws that discriminate against Palestinians.
Local Palestinian councils in Israel went on strike to protest against discrimination in the distribution of the state budget for local councils. The vast majority of Palestinians in Israel, comprising over 20% of the total population, live in around 139 towns and villages. They received only 1.7% of the state budget for local councils.
In August, Adalah and the Arab Center for Alternative Planning filed a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court on behalf of 10 local Palestinian councils and dozens of Palestinian citizens of Israel against government policy discriminating against these communities in the distribution of housing, construction and land development benefits compared to neighbouring Jewish communities that enjoy higher socio-economic status and have access to such benefits.
Israel continued to deny Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza married to Palestinian citizens of Israel the right to nationality by enforcing the discriminatory Entry to Israel Law.
In December, the magistrate court in Krayot, near Haifa, rejected a petition for access to education by Palestinian citizens of Israel living in Karmiel, citing the discriminatory Nation State Law. The decision said that establishing an Arabic school in the town or funding transport for its Palestinian residents to study in Arabic schools in nearby communities would undermine the town’s “Jewish character”.
In December, the Israeli Health Ministry began the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines that excluded the nearly 5 million Palestinians who live under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Unlawful killings and excessive use of force
Israeli military and police used unnecessary and excessive force during law enforcement activities, including search and arrest operations, and when policing demonstrations.
Military and security forces killed at least 31 Palestinians, including nine children, in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, according to OCHA. Many were unlawfully killed by live ammunition or other excessive force when posing no imminent threat to life. Some of the unlawful killings appeared to be wilful, which would constitute war crimes.
Israeli forces frequently used excessive force against protesters in Kufr Qadum who continued weekly protests against settlements and settlement expansion. According to OCHA, 214 protesters and bystanders were injured during the year.
On 15 February, Israeli forces shot and injured in the eye nine-year-old Malek Issa while he was returning home from school in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Issawiya. No clashes were recorded at the time, according to OCHA. Israeli forces were maintaining a violent and intense police operation in Issawiya as a form of collective punishment.
Israeli forces frequently opened fire on fishermen and farmers in Gaza. According to Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, 12 fishermen and five farmers were injured.
Freedom of movement
For the 13th consecutive year, Israel continued its illegal air, land and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip, restricting the movement of people and goods in and out of the area, which continued to have a devastating impact on the human rights of Gaza’s 2 million inhabitants. Israel stopped the entry of construction materials and fuel into Gaza repeatedly. This shut down the only power plant in Gaza, leading to a further reduction in the supply of electricity, which had already been available for only about four hours a day. Israel also imposed a full maritime closure and repeatedly limited entry of goods to food and medicine only. The measures amounted to collective punishment at a time of increasing COVID-19 infections in Gaza.
On 2 February, following an exchange of attacks between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups, Israel cancelled the permits of 500 traders from Gaza that enable their holders to travel to Israel and the West Bank for business. The permits were reactivated on 18 February.
On 18 June, Omar Yaghi, a baby with a cardiac condition, died in Gaza after Israel denied the family a permit to enter Israel for a scheduled operation on 24 May at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan city.
In the West Bank, at least 593 Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks continued to heavily restrict the movement of Palestinians and access to rights, including health, education and work. Holders of Palestinian identification cards faced an ongoing bar on using roads built for Israeli settlers.
Israeli restrictions on freedom of movement continued to impede Palestinians’ access to health care, posing further threats to vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of access to hospitals and specialized clinics during the pandemic particularly affected Palestinian residents of the East Jerusalem neighbourhoods of Kufr Aqab and Shu’fat Refugee Camp, which are segregated from the rest of the city by military structures, including checkpoints, and the fence/wall.
Arbitrary detention
Israeli authorities conducted hundreds of raids throughout the West Bank to arrest Palestinians, usually at their homes at night. Those arrested were detained in prisons in Israel, along with thousands of other Palestinians from the OPT arrested in previous years. This violated international humanitarian law, which prohibits the transfer of detainees into the territory of the occupying power.
Israeli authorities used renewable administrative detention orders to hold Palestinians without charge or trial. Some 4,300 Palestinians from the OPT, including 397 administrative detainees, were held in Israeli prisons as of December, according to the Israel Prison Service. Many families of Palestinian detainees in Israel, particularly those living in Gaza, were not permitted entry to Israel to visit their relatives.
On 16 July, Israeli forces arrested Iyad Barghouti, an astrophysicist and professor at Jerusalem’s Al-Quds University, at a checkpoint near Jerusalem and placed him in administrative detention. He had previously been administratively detained in 2014 and 2016.
Israel held 157 Palestinian children in prison, including two in administrative detention, as of October. Defense for Children International Palestine said that children were interrogated without their parents present and placed with adults in prison. Under international law, detention of children should be a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate time.
Unfair trials
Palestinian civilians, including children, from the OPT were prosecuted in military courts that did not meet international fair trial standards.
Torture and other ill-treatment
Israeli soldiers, police and ISA officers continued to torture and otherwise ill-treat Palestinian detainees, including children, with impunity. Reported methods included beating, slapping, painful shackling, sleep deprivation, use of stress positions and threats of violence against family members. Prolonged solitary confinement, sometimes lasting months, was commonly used as a punishment.
Israeli forces occasionally denied medical help for Palestinians injured during law enforcement activities.
Freedoms of expression and association
The authorities used a range of measures, including raids, incitement campaigns, movement restrictions and judicial harassment, to target human rights defenders who criticized Israel’s continuing military occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territories.
Israel continued to deny human rights bodies entry to the OPT, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the OPT.
On 30 July, Israeli forces arrested Mahmoud Nawajaa, a human rights defender and co-ordinator of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement in the occupied West Bank, from his home in Ramallah. A prisoner of conscience, he was released without charge on 17 August.
On 13 November, the Jerusalem District Court rejected a petition by Amnesty International against the arbitrary and punitive travel ban imposed on its employee, human rights defender Laith Abu Zeyad. For undisclosed reasons, Israeli security forces continued to bar him from entering occupied East Jerusalem and from travelling abroad through Jordan.
Rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants
Israel continued to deny asylum-seekers access to a fair and prompt refugee status determination process, leaving many without access to basic services. About 31,000 asylum-seekers were living in Israel.
Gender-based violence
Violence against women persisted in Israel, especially against Palestinian citizens.
At least 21 women were killed as a result of gender-based violence.
Conscientious objectors
At least four Israeli conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned. Hillel Rabin spent 56 days in military prison for refusing to serve in the Israeli army citing oppressive policies against Palestinians.
In interrogating Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories, the Israel Security Agency (ISA, also known by the Hebrew acronyms Shin Bet or Shabak) routinely used methods that constituted ill-treatment and even torture until the late 1990s. In doing so, the ISA relied on the 1987 recommendations of a state commission headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Moshe Landau. The commission had held that, in order to “prevent terrorism”, ISA interrogators were permitted to use “psychological pressure” and a “moderate degree of physical pressure”. This permission was grounded, in the commission’s opinion, in the “necessity defense” laid out in Israeli Penal Law. In practice, the interrogation methods used by the ISA during that time went far beyond a reasonable interpretation of the term “moderate physical pressure”.This state of affairs persisted for years, despite the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment or torture – whether physical or psychological – being one of the few human rights that are considered absolute. As an absolute right, it may never be balanced against other rights and values and cannot be suspended or limited, even in difficult circumstances.In September 1999, following a series of petitions filed by human rights organizations and by Palestinians interrogated by the ISA, Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruled that Israeli law does not empower ISA interrogators to use physical means in interrogation. The justices ruled that the specific methods discussed in the petitions – including painful binding, shaking, placing a sack on a person’s head for prolonged periods of time and sleep deprivation – were unlawful. However, they also held that ISA agents who exceed their authority and use “physical pressure” may not necessarily bear criminal responsibility for their actions, if they are later found to have used these methods in a “ticking bomb” case, based on the “necessity defense”. Following this ruling, reports of torture and ill-treatment in ISA interrogations did drop. However, ISA agents continued to use interrogation methods that constitute abuse and even torture, relying on the court’s recognition of the “ticking bomb” exception. These methods were not limited to exceptional cases and quickly became standard interrogation policy.Several joint research reports published by B’Tselem and HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, based on hundreds of affidavits and testimonials given by Palestinians who underwent ISA interrogations after the HCJ ruling, indicate that the ISA still routinely employs psychological and physical abuse in interrogations. While interrogators steer clear of the specific methods that the court disqualified, the rationale is the same: using isolation from the outside world and harsh incarceration conditions, in addition to the interrogation itself, to psychologically pressure and physically weaken the individual. This combined use of holding conditions and interrogation methods constitutes abuse and inhuman, degrading treatment, at times even amounting to torture. It is regularly employed against Palestinians in ISA interrogations, in blatant violation of international law and basic moral standards.According to the accounts of Palestinians who have undergone ISA interrogation, they are held in inhuman conditions, including narrow, windowless cells that are sometimes moldy and foul-smelling and are constantly lit with artificial lighting that is painful to the eyes. Some detainees reported being held in solitary confinement, completely cut off from their surroundings. Some reported exposure to extremes of heat and cold, as well as sleep deprivation. Many described abominable hygienic conditions; among other things, they stated that the prison authorities do not allow them to shower, change clothes, brush their teeth or even use toilet paper. The food is intentionally poor in quality and quantity, and detainees lose weight while in custody. In the interrogation room, they are forced to sit bound to a chair, without moving, for hours and even days on end. Interrogators threaten the detainees, including threats to harm their relatives, as well as shouting and employing violence against them.Most Palestinians who are physically or mental abused in interrogation have no way to complain until the interrogation is over. This is because Palestinian detainees are regularly denied the right to meet with counsel, and HCJ petitions against the denial of this right have been repeatedly dismissed. Also, they usually cannot use the opportunity of coming before a judge in a remand hearing to air their grievances: Most hearings are extremely cursory and, in some of them, detainees are not represented or are denied the opportunity to confer with the lawyer representing them. Most detainees are not aware of the fact that they may approach the judge on their own initiative. In any case, they shy away from sharing what they are undergoing with the judge for fear of reprisal back in the interrogation room. Even when detainees do come forward, the authorities take no action, as years of monitoring by human rights organizations reveal. Since 2001, not a single criminal investigation has been launched into a complaint against an ISA interrogator, despite hundreds of complaints being lodged with the relevant authorities. Although formal changes have been made to the apparatus charged with looking into these complaints – including the appointment of an Inspector of Complaints by ISA Interrogees inside the ISA, and the subsequent transfer of the position to the Ministry of Justice – they have done nothing to alter the situation: Hundreds of complaints, zero criminal investigations.This system of interrogation, which relies on a combination of holding conditions and interrogator conduct, was shaped by state authorities. It is not the personal initiative of any particular interrogator or prison guard, and the actions described here are not anomalies to be weeded out by the justice system. The cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Palestinian detainees is inherent to the ISA’s violent interrogation policy. This policy is dictated from above, and not set by interrogators in the field.While the ISA runs the system, a broad network of partners collaborates to facilitate it. The Israel Prison Service (IPS) adapts prison conditions to match the interrogation plan designed to break the detainee’s spirit. Medical and mental health personnel greenlight the interrogation of Palestinians who arrive at the facility – including in cases of poor health – and even hand detainees back to the interrogators after caring for physical and mental injuries they sustained in interrogation, knowing full well that they would be subjected to measures of abuse and torture; soldiers and police officers abuse detainees while transporting them to the ISA, with their commanders turning a blind eye and the MAG Corps and State Attorney’s Office not bringing them to justice or holding them fully accountable. Military judges almost automatically sign off on motions for remand in custody and effectively sanction the continued abuse and inhuman conditions. The State Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General have thus far provided ISA interrogators with full immunity. Finally, HCJ judges regularly reject petitions seeking to overturn the denial of detainee’s rights to meet with legal counsel, clearing the way for continued abuse.All these are party, in one form or another, to the cruel, inhuman, degrading and abusive treatment to which Palestinians are subjected in ISA interrogations. By enabling the existence of this abusive interrogation regime, they all bear responsibility for the severe violations of interrogatees’ human rights and for the mental and physical harm inflicted on these individuals END OF THE ARTICLE [13] Article 2 Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.EURO MEDITERRANEAN AGREEMENT establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/delegations/israel/documents/eu_israel/asso_agree_en.pdf
[14] Article 90 Promotion of the international legal order The Government shall promote the development of the international legal order.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDSChapter 5 Legislation and administration
TOCAF Director and ManagementSubject: Your continuing involvement with the illegal Israeli settlements
Dear Director,Dear Management,
As you’ll probably know:This is not the first time I wrote to you to give you hell about your despicablerole concerning the illegal Israeli settlements:See below, under notes!And since you obviously felt any shame and are still involved in thosecriminal practices of your company, serving Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. [1], I’ll target you again and I’m sure that I am NOTthe only one!Must I-again- remind you of the fact, that, as I stated above, the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory [you serve the settlements inoccupied East Jerusalem!] are illegal according International Law? [2]Therefore, by serving those illegal settlements, you are not only complicit in stealing occupied Palestinian land, worse still:You are serving and maintaining the illegal Israeli occupation, thus defending and maintaining a criminal regime of opression and apartheid! [3]And by maintaining a regime of apartheid, you are complicit incrimes against humanity. [4]All the water in the world can’t wash the blood on your hands [5] by doing thus! ISRAELI TERROR IN EASTERN JERUSALEM’ Of course you are aware of the Israeli terror in Eastern Jerusalem:The house evictions of Palestinians in favour of the illegal settlementsyou facilitate , the storming of the Al Aqsa Mosque the excessive policeviolence against the Palestinian population [6]Especially neigbourhood Sheikh Jarrah is victim of Israeli etniccleansing operations and The Jerusalem Light Rail, hosted andfacilitated by your company, passes through Sheikh Jarrah, facilitating thug settlers and the Israeli occupation! [7]Have you no shame.Is your money deserving obsession that big, that you are willing to be complicit in warcrimes and crimes against humanity?For make no mistake:The crimes that Israel commits in occupied Gaza [8] are also yourco responsibility, since you facilitate the Israeli occupationregime! CONCLUSION I have said and written enoughAnd what says more:I’ve written the things you already knew, but ignored.So Directors and Management of CAF, again:You are complicit in warcrimes and crimes against humanity,as long as you facilitate the illegal settlements and the Israelioccupation regime of apartheid!So STOP IT! Withdraw your interests in the occupied territories as quick as the Light!Stop your criminal Work AND:I call on your shareholders [see cc] to stop you and pressure you todo the only right thing: To wash the blood of your hands and don’t support the Dark Powers that Be, which is this Regime of Occupation and Apartheid DIXI [Latin for: I have spoken] [9] Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdam NOTES SEE ALSO THE LINK TO THE NOTES https://www.astridessed.nl/notes-t-1-m-9-at-letter-to-caf-about-involvement-in-the-illegal-israeli-settlements/
JERUSALEM Transportation Masterplan Team (JTMT) has awarded the TransJerusalem J-Net consortium, comprised of CAF and the construction firm Shapir, a €1.8bn contract to undertake an extension to the Jerusalem light rail network.
The Private-Public Partnership (PPP) includes the construction of 27km of new track, 53 new stations and various depots covering a 6.8km extension to the Red Line, and the new 20.6km Green Line. The Red Line is currently 13.8km long with 23 stations, and carries around 145,000 passengers daily.
The consortium will also design and supply 114 new Urbos LRVs for the Green Line, and the refurbishment of the 46 vehicles currently in service on the Red Line.
The contract includes the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation.
CAF’s share of the contract is worth more than €500m, and includes the vehicle’s supply and refurbishment, signalling, energy and communication systems and project integration. CAF will also have a 50% stake in the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines, which is expected to have a €1bn turnover.
Construction is expected begin later this year with the new extensions fully operational by 2025.
Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland) also submitted bids for the contract.
END OF THE ARTICLE
]URBAN TRANSPORT MAGAZINECAF-SAPHIR CONSORTIUM WINS JERUSALEM GREEN LINELIGHT RAIL TENDER
The transport authority JTMT (Jerusalem Transportation Masterplan Team) has chosen the TransJerusalem J-Net Ltd consortium, consisting in the CAF Group and the construction firm Saphir, for the Jerusalem light rail project. The project value is 1.8 billion EUR.
The so-called Green line is a PPP (Private-Public Partnership) scheme and includes the construction of 20.6 kilometres of new track, 53 stations and a depot. Jerusalem opened its’ first light rail line, the red line in 2011. The new Green line uses the current Red Line on a stretch of 6.8 km. The contract also includes the design and supply of 114 low-floor Urbos trams (which will be operated as double-tractions) for the new Green Line and the refurbishment of the 46 units which are currently in service on the existing Red Line.
114 Urbos trams and 25 years of operation
The project scope of the consortium will also include the supply of the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation. The CAF Group’s scope of this project exceeds 500 million EUR. The Group will also have a 50% stake in the company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines. The project is expected to be implemented this year with the new network fully operative by 2025.
The future network
The tram’s Red Line currently extends along 13.8 km with 23 stations distributed on the route, was inaugurated in 2011 and providing transport to over 145,000 passengers on average per day. The Green lines is expected to have a ridership of 200,000 passengers per day. It will link the two campuses of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and continue south via Pat junction to Gilo while using a common section with the Red line in the city centre until the terminus of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem railway station which was inaugurated in 2018.
Of the eight entities that participated in the preliminary stages, only two consortiums submitted bids in the final stage. The other consortium consisted in the companies Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland). Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier are reported to have left the tender process at an earlier stage. The companies did not officially withdraw from the process due to political reasons. Nevertheless, the light rail development in Jerusalem has been criticized in the past as both lines run through the disputed area of East Jerusalem.
END OF THE ARTICLE
CAF
GET OFF ISRAEL APARTHEIDTRAIN
https://bdsmovement.net/boycott-caf
WHY?
Israel is only able to maintain its regime of occupation, colonisation and apartheid over the Palestinian people because of international complicity. Corporations play a key role in this.
The Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) project is so blatantly illegal that other multinationals which had participated in the initial stages of bidding for the project, including Alstom, Siemens, Systra, Bombardier and Macquarie withdrew from the call for tenders, leaving just two consortiums bidding.
The French company Veolia was forced to pull out of the same illegal Israeli JLR project in 2015 after losing billions of dollars in international tenders due to sustained BDS campaigning in Europe, the US and several Arab countries.
The Israeli business publication Globes claimed, expectedly, that the other firms did not “officially withdraw from the process for political reasons” but admitted that “for most of the international transportation and infrastructure companies, Jerusalem is ‘outside the pale.’”
Corporate involvement in the crimes of Israel’s regime of occupation and apartheid is not only morally reprehensible and a legal liability. It can hurt business, too.
MILESTONES
2020
October:
In the Spanish state over 100 people have asked the public train company RENFE not to contract CAF, due to its involvement in the illegal Israeli Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), in partnership with the Israeli company Shapir that is in the UN database of companies that enable and profit from Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise.
Eighteen human rights groups have asked the Spanish Minister of transport José Luis Abalos to exclude from public tenders CAF and all companies listed in the UN database, such as Alstom. Over thirty organisations in solidarity with Palestine sent a letter to Reyes Maroto the Spanish Minister of Industry and the publicly owned company RENFE. This letter was sent because the Minister had offered more public contracts to CAF in light of the company’s announcement of its plans to shut down one of its factories, Trenasa, causing 118 people to lose their jobs. This decision is incomprehensible seeing that the company ended 2019 with its highest record of earnings and its best record in sales. This and the fact that CAF is involved in an illegal Israeli project that serves settlements, which will expose the company to boycott campaigns globally, are clear evidence that CAF cares very little about its workers’ rights and about human rights in general.
In Oslo, Norway, the Palestine Committee and two railway unions received new trams from the Basque firm CAF with a protest. They’re asking Norway’s public sector not to work with CAF until it stops building Israel’s illegal Jerusalem Light Rail, entrenching apartheid.
Eight trade unions in Norway have joined the call to boycott CAF: Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees (National), Norwegian Union of Railway workers (National), National Union of Norwegian Locomotivemen (National), Fagforbundet- Helse, Sosial og Velferd, Oslo (Local), Norwegian Civil Service Union at OsloMet (Local), Lokomotivpersonalets forening Oslo (Local), Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions, local 850 (Local), and Oslo Sporveiers Arbeiderforening (Local).
CAF and Shapir are close to signing one of the largest project financing agreements ever agreed in Israel for the construction and operation of a network of lines in the illegal Jerusalem Light Rail project. The financing will be extended by a consortium of banks led by Bank Hapoalim, which like Shapir is included in the UN database of companies profiting from business in Israel’s illegal settlements.
END OF THE ARTICLE
” The Jerusalem light rail connects large Israeli settlement blocs in occupied East Jerusalem with the western part of the city, expropriating occupied Palestinian land and promoting increased territorial contiguity for settlements alongside growing territorial fragmentation for East Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHO PROFITS.ORGFLASH REPORTTRACKING ANNEXATION:THE JERUSALEM LIGHT RAIL AND THE ISRAELIOCCUPATION
”Development of the light rail line is bringing prosperity and growth to the city’s real estate and business sectors, an upsurge in cultural and entertainment centers, and accessibility to the downtown area for residents of large neighborhoods, such as Pigat Ze’ev.”
”Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
”Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
[QUESTION] 6 HOW CAN YOU ACCUSE ISRAEL OF APARTHEID WHEN ISRAELIVOTE IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS, HAVE PASSPORTS, MOVE FREELY,AND SERVE IN THE KNESSET? HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHQ & A: A TRESHOLD CROSSEDISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE CRIME OF APARTHEIDAND PERSECUTION
”We found the three elements of the crime of apartheid all come together in the OPT, pursuant to a single Israeli government policy. That policy is to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. In the OPT, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression and inhumane acts committed against Palestinians living there.”
[QUESTION] 7ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS APARTHEIDWITHIN THE GREEN LINE , THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS OFTHE STATE OF ISRAEL?OR ONLY IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA? HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHQ & A: A TRESHOLD CROSSEDISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE CRIME OF APARTHEIDAND PERSECUTION
”The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, populated by two groups of roughly equal size, and methodologically privileging Jewish Israelis while repressing Palestinians, most severely in the occupied territory.”
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHABUSIVE ISRAELI POLICIES CONSTITUTE CRIMES OFAPARTHEID, PERSECUTIONCRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY SHOULD TRIGGER ACTION TO END REPRESSION AGAINST PALESTINIANS
(Jerusalem) – Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The finding is based on an overarching Israeli government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians and grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem.
The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, populated by two groups of roughly equal size, and methodologically privileging Jewish Israelis while repressing Palestinians, most severely in the occupied territory.April 27, 2021
Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution
“Prominent voices have warned for years that apartheid lurks just around the corner if the trajectory of Israel’s rule over Palestinians does not change,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “This detailed study shows that Israeli authorities have already turned that corner and today are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”
The finding of apartheid and persecution does not change the legal status of the occupied territory, made up of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, or the factual reality of occupation.
Originally coined in relation to South Africa, apartheid today is a universal legal term. The prohibition against particularly severe institutional discrimination and oppression or apartheid constitutes a core principle of international law. The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court (ICC) define apartheid as a crime against humanity consisting of three primary elements:
An intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another.
A context of systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group.
Inhumane acts.
The reference to a racial group is understood today to address not only treatment on the basis of genetic traits but also treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin, as defined in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Human Rights Watch applies this broader understanding of race.
The crime against humanity of persecution, as defined under the Rome Statute and customary international law, consists of severe deprivation of fundamental rights of a racial, ethnic, or other group with discriminatory intent.
Human Rights Watch found that the elements of the crimes come together in the occupied territory, as part of a single Israeli government policy. That policy is to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the occupied territory. It is coupled in the occupied territory with systematic oppression and inhumane acts against Palestinians living there.
Drawing on years of human rights documentation, case studies, and a review of government planning documents, statements by officials, and other sources, Human Rights Watch compared policies and practices toward Palestinians in the occupied territory and Israel with those concerning Jewish Israelis living in the same areas. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Israeli government in July 2020, soliciting its perspectives on these issues, but has received no response.
Across Israel and the occupied territory, Israeli authorities have sought to maximize the land available for Jewish communities and to concentrate most Palestinians in dense population centers. The authorities have adopted policies to mitigate what they have openly described as a “demographic threat” from Palestinians. In Jerusalem, for example, the government’s plan for the municipality, including both the west and occupied east parts of the city, sets the goal of “maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city” and even specifies the demographic ratios it hopes to maintain.
To maintain domination, Israeli authorities systematically discriminate against Palestinians. The institutional discrimination that Palestinian citizens of Israel face includes laws that allow hundreds of small Jewish towns to effectively exclude Palestinians and budgets that allocate only a fraction of resources to Palestinian schools as compared to those that serve Jewish Israeli children. In the occupied territory, the severity of the repression, including the imposition of draconian military rule on Palestinians while affording Jewish Israelis living in a segregated manner in the same territory their full rights under Israel’s rights-respecting civil law, amounts to the systematic oppression required for apartheid.
Israeli authorities have committed a range of abuses against Palestinians. Many of those in the occupied territory constitute severe abuses of fundamental rights and the inhumane acts again required for apartheid, including: sweeping movement restrictions in the form of the Gaza closure and a permit regime, confiscation of more than a third of the land in the West Bank, harsh conditions in parts of the West Bank that led to the forcible transfer of thousands of Palestinians out of their homes, denial of residency rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their relatives, and the suspension of basic civil rights to millions of Palestinians.
Many of the abuses at the core of the commission of these crimes, such as near-categorical denial of building permits to Palestinians and demolition of thousands of homes on the pretext of lacking permits, have no security justification. Others, such as Israel’s effective freeze on the population registry it manages in the occupied territory, which all but blocks family reunification for Palestinians living there and bars Gaza residents from living in the West Bank, use security as a pretext to further demographic goals. Even when security forms part of the motivation, it no more justifies apartheid and persecution than it would excessive force or torture, Human Rights Watch said.
“Denying millions of Palestinians their fundamental rights, without any legitimate security justification and solely because they are Palestinian and not Jewish, is not simply a matter of an abusive occupation,” Roth said. “These policies, which grant Jewish Israelis the same rights and privileges wherever they live and discriminate against Palestinians to varying degrees wherever they live, reflect a policy to privilege one people at the expense of another.”
Statements and actions by Israeli authorities in recent years, including the passage of a law with constitutional status in 2018 establishing Israel as the “nation-state of the Jewish people,” the growing body of laws that further privilege Israeli settlers in the West Bank and do not apply to Palestinians living in the same territory, as well as the massive expansion in recent years of settlements and accompanying infrastructure connecting settlements to Israel, have clarified their intent to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis. The possibility that a future Israeli leader might someday forge a deal with Palestinians that dismantles the discriminatory system does not negate that reality today.
Israeli authorities should dismantle all forms of repression and discrimination that privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians, including with regards to freedom of movement, allocation of land and resources, access to water, electricity, and other services, and the granting of building permits.
The ICC Office of the Prosecutor should investigate and prosecute those credibly implicated in the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. Countries should do so as well in accordance with their national laws under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and impose individual sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, on officials responsible for committing these crimes.
The findings of crimes against humanity should prompt the international community to reevaluate the nature of its engagement in Israel and Palestine and adopt an approach centered on human rights and accountability rather than solely on the stalled “peace process.” Countries should establish a UN commission of inquiry to investigate systematic discrimination and repression in Israel and Palestine and a UN global envoy for the crimes of persecution and apartheid with a mandate to mobilize international action to end persecution and apartheid worldwide.
Countries should condition arms sales and military and security assistance to Israel on Israeli authorities taking concrete and verifiable steps toward ending their commission of these crimes. Countries should vet agreements, cooperation schemes, and all forms of trade and dealing with Israel to screen for those directly contributing to committing the crimes, mitigate the human rights impacts and, where not possible, end activities and funding found to facilitate these serious crimes.
“While much of the world treats Israel’s half-century occupation as a temporary situation that a decades-long ‘peace process’ will soon cure, the oppression of Palestinians there has reached a threshold and a permanence that meets the definitions of the crimes of apartheid and persecution,” Roth said. “Those who strive for Israeli-Palestinian peace, whether a one or two-state solution or a confederation, should in the meantime recognize this reality for what it is and bring to bear the sorts of human rights tools needed to end it.”
”Israel has maintained military rule over some portion of the Palestinian population for all but six months of its 73-year history. It did so over the vast majority of Palestinians inside Israel from 1948 and until 1966. From 1967 until the present, it has militarily ruled over Palestinians in the OPT, excluding East Jerusalem. By contrast, it has since its founding governed all Jewish Israelis, including settlers in the OPT since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, under its more rights-respecting civil law.”
REPORT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHA TRESHOLD CROSSEDISRAELI AUTHORITIES AND THE CRIME OF APARTHEID AND PERSECUTION
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Here’s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh! MAC BETH ACT V, SCENE I http://shakespeare.mit.edu/macbeth/full.html
Forcible takeovers of homes, brutal suppression of demonstrators, places of worship under assault, identity-based communal violence, indiscriminate rocket attacks, children killed in strikes: what to make of the dizzying headlines out of Israel and Palestine in recent days?
Without doubt, the recent events in Gaza and Jerusalem have given rise to grave abuses. We are investigating and will take some time as we gather the facts. There are, though, some preliminary takeaways based on what we do know.
The escalation began over the move to take over several Palestinian homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed but is occupied territory under international law. Israel planned to evict the Palestinian residents and transfer their longtime homes to Jewish settlers. Israeli courts allowed these moves under a 1970 Israeli law that facilitates the return of property to Jewish owners or their heirs, including Jewish associations acting on their behalf, that they claim to have owned in East Jerusalem prior to 1948, when Jordanian authorities assumed control until 1967.
The Palestinian families involved had earlier been displaced from inside what is today Israel. They are barred by law from reclaiming their land and homes, which the Israeli authorities confiscated, along with land belonging to many other displaced Palestinians, as “absentee property” in the aftermath of the events around the establishment of the state of Israel between 1947 and 1949. A final court ruling on the matter is expected soon.
This discriminatory treatment, with the exact opposite legal outcomes for claims of pre-1948 title to property based on whether the claimant is a Jewish Israeli or a Palestinian, underscores the reality of apartheid that Palestinians in East Jerusalem face. Nearly all Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem hold a conditional, revocable residency status, while Jewish Israelis in the same area are citizens with secure status. Palestinians live in densely populated enclaves that receive a fraction of the resources given to settlements and effectively cannot obtain building permits, while neighboring Israeli settlements built on expropriated Palestinian land flourish.
Israeli officials have intentionally created this discriminatory system under which Jewish Israelis thrive at the expense of Palestinians. The government’s plan for the Jerusalem municipality, including both the west and occupied east parts of the city, sets the goal of “maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city” and even specifies the demographic ratios it hopes to maintain. This intent to dominate underlies Israel’s crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, which Human Rights Watch documented in a recent report.
To protest the planned Sheikh Jarrah evictions, Palestinians held demonstrations around East Jerusalem, some of which included incidents of rock-throwing. Israeli forces responded by firing teargas, stun grenades, and rubber-coated steel bullets, including inside al-Aqsa Mosque, injuring 1000 Palestinians, 735 by rubber bullets, between May 7 and May 10, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). At least 32 Israeli officers have also been injured, according to figures cited by OCHA.
These practices stem from a decades-long pattern of Israeli authorities using excessive and vastly disproportionate force to quell protests and disturbances by Palestinians, often resulting in serious injury and loss of life.
Protests later broke out both in the West Bank and inside Israel.
Seeking to take advantage of the opportunity to brandish their image as defenders of al-Aqsa Mosque, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza fired rockets at Israeli population centers. Three people in Israel have been killed as a result, as of May 11. Such attacks, which are inherently indiscriminate and endanger the lives, homes, and properties of tens of thousands of Israeli civilians, are war crimes, as Human Rights Watch has extensivelydocumented over the years.
In response, Israeli forces launched airstrikes in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Health Ministry reported on May 11 that these strikes killed 30 Palestinians, including 10 children, though there are reports that some may have been killed in errant rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups. The legality of each strike requires thorough investigations, but the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in the densely populated Gaza Strip, where more than 2 million Palestinians live in a strip of territory that is 41 kilometers long and between 6 and 12 kilometers wide, and targeting at times of residential buildings is likely to harm civilians.
During armed hostilities over the last decade plus, Human Rights Watch has documented the regular use of excessive and vastly disproportionate force by Israeli authorities, at times deliberately targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure.
For years, this cycle of escalation has played on loop, at varying degrees of intensity. Even if the immediate crisis subsides, the vicious cycle will continue so long as impunity for serious abuses remains the norm and the international community fails to take the sort of measures to ensure accountability that a situation of this gravity warrants.
END OF THE ARTICLE
[7]
6. Basque company CAF is contracted to extend Israel’s Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) tram service to illegal settlements. Settlements are defined as war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The JLR passes through Sheikh Jarrah where illegal settlers backed by the Israeli state, their military, and police forces, are attempting to ethnically cleanse Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah.
Use social media to demand #CAFGetOffIsraelsApartheidTrain
EAST JERUSALEM: WHAT IS HAPPENING AND HOW YOU CAN TAKE ACTION NOW
Watching apartheid Israel’s bloody crushing of popular Palestinian protests in Sheikh Jarrah and occupied Jerusalme calls us to action. We have proven before our collective power in the form of #BDS. Here are 9 actions you can take to fight Israeli impunity and #SaveSheikhJarrah.
Over the last number of weeks Palestinian protests to #SaveSheikhJarrah, in occupied East Jerusalem, have grown in size. They have been met with brutal repression by Israeli apartheid security forces, including police officers trained in Israel’s police training academy partially owned by G4S and Allied Universal.
Indigenous Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah have fought lengthy legal battles in Israeli courts against eviction orders which would see them ethnically cleansed, forcefully evicted from their homes, and replaced with illegal Israeli settlers.
At the beginning of May, Israeli settlers submitted their response to the rightful claims of the residents of Sheikh Jarrah to the Israeli court, an apparatus of Israel’s apartheid regime.
The Palestinian families were then given time to reach an “agreement” with the settlers regarding the right to their homes. Sheikh Jarrah belongs to the Palestinian families. It is part of the occupied Palestinian territory, and therefore any Israeli settler presence in it amounts to a war crime under international law. Israel’s settlement enterprise is an integral part of its apartheid system against all Palestinians.
The Israeli court decision to give a period of time to “both sides” to seek a compromise and reach an agreement is colonial gaslighting. It is also a tactic used to exhaust the ongoing protests and public pressure to #SaveSheikhJarrah. More protests are scheduled to take place over the coming days, and residents vow to remain steadfast.
In Silwan, another East Jerusalem neighbourhood, extremist settlers backed by the Israeli state want to take over the homes of seven Palestinian families who are also fighting lengthy legal battles in Israeli courts.
In occupied Jerusalem, Israel keeps a 60:40 demographic ratio between Jews and Arabs. All ‘excess’ Palestinians are under threat of forced transfer.
In Jerusalem, the government’s plan for the municipality, including both the west and occupied east of the city, sets the goal of “maintaining a solid Jewish majority in the city” and a target demographic “ratio of 70% Jews and 30% Arabs”—later adjusted to a 60:40 ratio after authorities acknowledged that “this goal is not attainable” in light of “the demographic trend.”
Watching from afar Israel’s brutal violence against unarmed Palestinian protestors defending their homes and dignity can evoke feelings of anger mixed with powerlessness. We have proven before that collective action in the form of #BDS works best to express true and effective solidarity. Here are 9 actions you can take to fight Israeli impunity and #SaveSheikhJarrah
TAKE ACTION
First, use the power of social media to highlight what is happening. Use #SaveSheikhJarrah and #SaveSilwan in all of your social media posts. Share images and videos from activists who are facing social media censorship. Amplify the voices of the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.
Last week Human Rights Watch stated in their groundbreaking report what Palestinians have been saying for decades. Israel is an apartheid state. Now the global consensus is building. Israel’s regime of oppression, including its actions in Sheikh Jarrah, fits the UN definition of apartheid. We can work together to dismantle Israeli apartheid, as global solidarity and boycotts helped to end South African apartheid.Support our campaign and use #UNInvestigateApartheid on social media to add your voice to the global call.
Israeli security companies make millions of dollars in global exports every year by selling goods and services tested on Indigenous Palestinians, including those struggling against ethnic cleansing in occupied Jerusalem. AnyVision’s facial recognition system and NSO’s spying technology are among the most obvious examples of apartheid Israel’s tools of mass surveillance and repression. Israel tries them on Palestinians and exports them to dictatorships and far-right governments worldwide to support their crimes and human rights violations.Pressure your parliament/government to impose a #MilitaryEmbargo against Israel.
G4S and now Allied Universal own a 25% stake in Israel’s national police academy where Israeli police learn brutal & violent repression being used against residents and activists in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. Some of these militarized tactics end up being shared with U.S. and other police forces during joint training.Join our letter-writing campaign and urge Allied Universal executives to divest from Israeli apartheid.On social media use #StopG4S to demand they divest from Israeli apartheid.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Hewlett Packard (HPE and HP) play key roles in Israel’s regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid against the Indigenous Palestinians. They provide computer systems to the Israeli army and maintain data centres through their servers for the Israeli police who are violently repressing peaceful protestors defending their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan.Sign the international pledge and use #BoycottHP on social media.
Basque company CAF is contracted to extend Israel’s Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR) tram service to illegal settlements. Settlements are defined as war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The JLR passes through Sheikh Jarrah where illegal settlers backed by the Israeli state, their military, and police forces, are attempting to ethnically cleanse Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah.Use social media to demand #CAFGetOffIsraelsApartheidTrain
German sportswear manufacturer PUMA sponsors the Israel Football Association, which includes teams and pitches in illegal Israeli settlements, including Givat HaMivtar, just north of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem. Join the campaign launched by 200 Palestinian teams to #BoycottPuma.Share social media actions hijacking PUMA’s #OnlySeeGreat campaign with Palestinians #OnlySeeApartheid.
Boycott all products from Israel’s colonial settlements! Israeli produce like dates and avocados, many of which are produced by companies operating in settlements, can be found in local supermarkets. Demand your supermarket to stop stocking them.
International action can help stop Israel in its tracks. Email or call the elected officials in your country and urge them to adopt Human Rights Watch findings on Israeli apartheid and, crucially, its recommendations to condition all relations with Israel on dismantling its apartheid regime.
This Saturday June 5 is the annual shareholder meeting of CAF, a Basque company that is building the Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), a tram line serving Israel’s illegal settlements in Jerusalem.
The JLR passes through occupied Jerusalem including the Palestinian neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, which Israel wants to ethnically cleanse.
We need your help to pressure CAF shareholders: CAF must end its complicity with Israel’s violent occupation of Jerusalem.
Four Palestinian families are facing eviction from their Jerusalem homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Over the past few weeks, Israeli settlers, with the backing of lsrael’s military and police forces, have violently attacked Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and the rest of occupied Jerusalem.
This last wave of attacks is not new and is a core part of Israel’s systemic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Jerusalem- which is illegal under international law.
Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah are resilient and defiant, and despite Israel’s brutal attacks, they will not give up their rights to their homes.
You can stand with them by pressuring CAF to abandon the project to build Israel’s colonial tramway.
Pressure works, and there is a precedent. Two weeks ago, the Norwegian Oil Fund divested from CAF’s partner in the Jerusalem Light Rail, the Israeli company Shapir, due to its complicity in human rights violations. The Norwegian Oil Fund is also a shareholder of CAF.
On Saturday, CAF shareholders have a choice to make: take the company out of Sheikh Jarrah, and occupied Jerusalem, or face losing lucrative contracts around the world through BDS action.
END OF ARTICLE
[8]
”Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Israeli Government Still Holds Responsibility for Welfare of Civilians
The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.
In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.
A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”
The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.
In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”
If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
Israeli forces have displayed a shocking disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians by carrying out a number of airstrikes targeting residential buildings in some cases killing entire families – including children – and causing wanton destruction to civilian property, in attacks that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, said Amnesty International today.
The organization has documented four deadly attacks by Israel launched on residential homes without prior warning and is calling for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to urgently investigate these attacks. The death toll in Gaza continues to climb with at least 198 Palestinians killed including 58 children and more than 1,220 injured. Ten people in Israel, including two children, have been killed and at least 27 injured by Palestinian attacks.
“There is a horrific pattern emerging of Israel launching air strikes in Gaza targeting residential buildings and family homes – in some cases entire families were buried beneath the rubble when the buildings they lived in collapsed. In the cases documented below, no prior warning was given to the civilian residents to allow them to escape. Under international humanitarian law, all parties must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects and direct their attacks only at military objectives. When carrying out attacks, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians,” said Saleh Higazi, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“Although the Israeli military has given no explanation of what military objectives it was targeting in these attacks, it is hard to imagine how bombing residential buildings full of civilian families without warning could be considered proportionate under international humanitarian law. It is not possible to use large explosive weapons, like aircraft bombs that have a blast radius of many hundreds of meters, in populated areas without anticipating major civilian casualties.
“By carrying out these brazen deadly attacks on family homes without warning Israel has demonstrated a callous disregard for lives of Palestinian civilians who are already suffering the collective punishment of Israel’s illegal blockade on Gaza since 2007.”
The Israeli army claims that it only attacks military targets and has justified airstrikes on residential buildings on that basis. However, residents told Amnesty International that there were no fighters or military objectives in the vicinity at the time of the attacks documented.
“Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian property and infrastructure are war crimes, as are disproportionate attacks. The International Criminal Court has an active investigation into the situation in Palestine and should urgently investigate these attacks as war crimes. States should also consider exercising universal jurisdiction over those who commit war crimes. Impunity only works to fuel the pattern of unlawful attacks and civilian bloodshed, which have we have repeatedly documented in previous Israeli military offensives on Gaza,” said Saleh Higazi.
At least 152 residential properties in Gaza have been destroyed since 11 May, according to the Gaza-based human rights organization, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Public Works and Housing in Gaza, Israeli strikes have destroyed 94 buildings, comprising 461 housing and commercial units while 285 housing units have been severely damaged and rendered uninhabitable.
According to United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) more than 2,500 people have been made homeless due to the destruction of their homes and more than 38,000 people have been internally displaced and have sought shelter in 48 UNRWA schools across Gaza.
Indiscriminate rocket-fire by Palestinian armed groups towards civilian areas of Israel has also killed and injured civilians and damaged homes and other civilian properties. The rockets fired from Gaza into Israel are imprecise and their use violates international humanitarian law which prohibits the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate. These attacks should also be investigated by the ICC as war crimes.
Amnesty International has previously published evidence that the Israeli military had a deliberate policy of targeting family homes during the 2014 conflict.
Devastating attacks on family homes
In one of the heaviest episodes of bombardment since the latest fighting began, between 1am and 2am on 16 May Israel carried out airstrikes against residential buildings and streets in Gaza City. The attacks completely destroyed two residential buildings belonging to the Abu al-Ouf and al-Kolaq families – killing 30 people – 11 of them children.
Gaza’s Ministry of Labour building was also destroyed in the attacks. The attack blocked al-Wehda Street, one of the main roads leading to the main hospital in Gaza, al-Shifa.
The families residing in the four-storey al-Ouf building, which included residential apartments and shops, received no prior warning – they were buried beneath the rubble in the attack.
Yousef Yassin, a medic from al-Shifa Hospital, was one of the first to arrive on the scene of al-Ouf Building after the attack and helped pull survivors from the wreckage with the Red Crescent. He described the scene to Amnesty International as one of “great destruction”.
“I helped get out four dead [bodies], but there were many more. It was very hard. There was no warning, so people were inside their home sitting together, and this is a lively, bustling area,” he said.
Shortly before midnight on 14 May Israeli air strikes hit the three-storey building of the al-Atar family in Beit Lahia killing 28-year-old Lamya Hassan Mohammed Al-Atar her three children Islam, seven, Amira, six, and Mohammed an eight-month-old baby.
Lamya’s father, Hassan Al-Atar, a civil defence officer told Amnesty International he headed to the scene of the attack with an ambulance and rescue team after a relative called him with news of the attack. “He told me that our home had been bombed and [he was] stuck under the rubble [with his] wife and children,” he said.
“I arrived at the house, which is made up of three stories – 20 people live there – I tried to find people, but I could not. Then the rescue team arrived to help and we eventually found my daughter, a mother of three, with her children, one of whom was a baby, under one of the cement pillars of the house; all of them were dead. The other residents seem to have managed to escape from an opening after the bombing and got to the hospital. I was shocked,” he said.
Nader Mahmoud Mohammed Al-Thom, from al-Salatin neighbourhood in Beit Lahia, described how his home where he lives with eight others was attacked without any warning shortly after midnight on 15 May.
“There was no warning missile, no warning call, the house was bombed, and we were inside. Thank God that the civil defence and by sheer chance was close by and saved us from under the rubble, thank God no one died. We had injuries but not serious, when we got out I saw a fire at the gate of the house, then the ambulance took us to the hospital. I think this is when I lost consciousness. Thank God no one was badly hurt but we lost our house. We are now in the street; we do not know where to go what to do.”
His family sought shelter at an UNRWA school but the school they arrived at was closed when they arrived and they had to sleep outside in the school yard. His entire home was destroyed including his clothes, money and paperwork and all their belongings.
In addition to residential homes, Israeli attacks have damaged water and electricity infrastructure as well as medical facilities and halted the operations of the North Gaza Seawater Desalination plant, which supplies water to more than 250,000 people.
TOCAF Director and ManagementSubject: Involvement with the illegal Israeli settlements
Dear Director,Dear Management,
Sometimes I ask myself, how on earth it is possible, that there arestill companies, that work with notorious thieves and villains likeoccupation countries, helping them with stealing and robbering!Alas I have learnt, that your company, the Basque Spanish multinational CAF [Construcciones Y Auxiliar de Ferocarilles], is notorious for that, sincein August 2019, a consortium, led by your CAF and the Israeli infrastructurecompany Shapir was selected by Israel’s finance ministry, to lead the expansionof the Jerusalem Light Rail, serving Israel’s illegal settlements in occupiedPalestinian territory. Look for all the information under note 1! I think it is a shame and disgrace, that your company signed for openly violatingInternational Law and human rights!Your company must be beaten virtually for this. ISRAELI OCCUPATION Although it should not be necessary, for your sake someinformation about the Israeli settlements.Of course you know about the now 53 years Israeli occupation of thePalestinian territories the West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza [2],despite UN Security Resolution 242 [3] and all subsequent resolutions.As an occupation regime, Israel is responsible for and guilty ofstructural repression, human rights violations and systematic warcrimes [4] and crimes of humanity like ethnic cleansings. [5] So even when there were no illegal settlements, you should notcooperate with the Israeli occupation State!
ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS You know, or else you should know, that all Israeli settlements, built onthe occupied Palestinian territories are illegal according under International Law,according to article 49. 4th Geneva Convention, as the the Hague Convention. [6] Not only this settlement building is pure land theft, not seldom the settlers [theIsraeli inhabitants of the illegal settlements] are very agressive towards theoccupied Palestinian population as the Israeli human rights organization Btselem mentions.[7]And the worst part is, that those agressive settlers are often supported by Israeli Security Forces! [8]
EPILOGUE I have presented you with the facts.The facts you already knew, or should have known otherwise.I don’t know, what’s worse.
By leading the expansion of the Jerusalem Light Railand thus serving Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, you are notonly tainted by your cooperation with a criminal occupation regime, alsoyou are complicit in landtheft and de fcato expulsion of the occupiedPalestinian population from their own ground. Is that the way you earn your money.Your BLOODmoney? Shame on you!
If you have any conscience and decency, withdraw from youractivities, helping the illegal settlements in occupied Palestinianterritory.Evil practices. If not: Then History will put you on the black list, ading war criminalsand criminals against humanity. DIXI! [Latin: I have said, I have spoken] [9]
Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdam The Netherlands
JERUSALEM Transportation Masterplan Team (JTMT) has awarded the TransJerusalem J-Net consortium, comprised of CAF and the construction firm Shapir, a €1.8bn contract to undertake an extension to the Jerusalem light rail network.
The Private-Public Partnership (PPP) includes the construction of 27km of new track, 53 new stations and various depots covering a 6.8km extension to the Red Line, and the new 20.6km Green Line. The Red Line is currently 13.8km long with 23 stations, and carries around 145,000 passengers daily.
The consortium will also design and supply 114 new Urbos LRVs for the Green Line, and the refurbishment of the 46 vehicles currently in service on the Red Line.
The contract includes the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation.
CAF’s share of the contract is worth more than €500m, and includes the vehicle’s supply and refurbishment, signalling, energy and communication systems and project integration. CAF will also have a 50% stake in the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines, which is expected to have a €1bn turnover.
Construction is expected begin later this year with the new extensions fully operational by 2025.
Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland) also submitted bids for the contract.
END OF ARTICLE
”Of the eight entities that participated in the preliminary stages, only two consortiums submitted bids in the final stage. The other consortium consisted in the companies Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland). Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier are reported to have left the tender process at an earlier stage. The companies did not officially withdraw from the process due to political reasons. Nevertheless, the light rail development in Jerusalem has been criticized in the past as both lines run through the disputed area of East Jerusalem” URBAN TRANSPORT MAGAZINECAF-SAPHIR CONSORTIUM WINS JERUSALEM GEEN LINELIGHT RAIL TENDER
The transport authority JTMT (Jerusalem Transportation Masterplan Team) has chosen the TransJerusalem J-Net Ltd consortium, consisting in the CAF Group and the construction firm Saphir, for the Jerusalem light rail project. The project value is 1.8 billion EUR.
The so-called Green line is a PPP (Private-Public Partnership) scheme and includes the construction of 20.6 kilometres of new track, 53 stations and a depot. Jerusalem opened its’ first light rail line, the red line in 2011. The new Green line uses the current Red Line on a stretch of 6.8 km. The contract also includes the design and supply of 114 low-floor Urbos trams (which will be operated as double-tractions) for the new Green Line and the refurbishment of the 46 units which are currently in service on the existing Red Line.
114 Urbos trams and 25 years of operation
The project scope of the consortium will also include the supply of the signalling, energy and communication systems, as well as the operation and maintenance of both lines for 15 and 25 years respectively, with the possibility of extending the term of operation. The CAF Group’s scope of this project exceeds 500 million EUR. The Group will also have a 50% stake in the company that will manage the operation and maintenance of both lines. The project is expected to be implemented this year with the new network fully operative by 2025.
The future network
The tram’s Red Line currently extends along 13.8 km with 23 stations distributed on the route, was inaugurated in 2011 and providing transport to over 145,000 passengers on average per day. The Green lines is expected to have a ridership of 200,000 passengers per day. It will link the two campuses of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and continue south via Pat junction to Gilo while using a common section with the Red line in the city centre until the terminus of the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem railway station which was inaugurated in 2018.
Of the eight entities that participated in the preliminary stages, only two consortiums submitted bids in the final stage. The other consortium consisted in the companies Shikun & Binui and Egged (Israel), CRRC (China), Comsa (Spain), Efatec (Portugal) and MPK (Poland). Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier are reported to have left the tender process at an earlier stage. The companies did not officially withdraw from the process due to political reasons. Nevertheless, the light rail development in Jerusalem has been criticized in the past as both lines run through the disputed area of East Jerusalem.
END OF ARTICLEBDS MOVEMENTCAF/GET OF ISRAEL’S APARTHEID TRAIN
https://bdsmovement.net/boycott-caf
[2] ”Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Israeli Government Still Holds Responsibility for Welfare of Civilians
The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.
In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.
A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”
The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.
In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”
If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
”(Jerusalem) – At least 18 Israeli airstrikes during the fighting in Gaza in November 2012 were in apparent violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said today after a detailed investigation into the attacks. These airstrikes killed at least 43 Palestinian civilians, including 12 children.” HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHISRAEL: GAZA AIRSTRIKES VIOLATED LAWS OFWAR https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/12/israel-gaza-airstrikes-violated-laws-war
” Article 7 Crimes against humanity 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
”Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.
The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place. The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
”Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
In the autumn of 2020, the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIANY) called on all its members to stop being involved in the design of criminal justice facilities. Not long before, The Funambulist started a new campaign demanding architectural workers to “pledge to never participate in the design of spaces of detention”. Both calls are the result of a growing movement in architecture and design that acknowledges the responsibility of these fields in the construction of the carceral archipelago, and seeks to prevent architects, designers and engineers from realising future projects within this extensive system of prisons and related institutions. While these developments are major steps forward for a more ethical architectural practice today and in the future, assessing the lasting consequences of past projects should not be forgotten. Existing carceral institutions continue to impact people’s lives today, and should therefore all be critically reviewed by the architects involved and the field at large. One particular, seemingly ordinary prison which has drastically shaped the lives of thousands of people over the last decade is the Detention Center Rotterdam. It was the first in a series of new border prisons built from 2010 onwards, and the first prison in the Netherlands built as a public-private partnership. Architectural media gave it very little attention at the time, with barely any discussion on the consequences and ethics of making such an architectural project happen.
With the rise of the Dutch populist and extreme right in the early 2000s, a xenophobic and anti-immigrant sentiment gained a considerable foothold in national politics. It was in this context that the subsequent government ministers in charge of migration issues intensified their efforts. It started with their attempts to limit the number of newcomers and increase the strictness of governmental agencies responsible for processing asylum applications. At the same time a number of ‘bajesboten’ were brought into use, which are a kind of temporary, floating detention facility designed to detain and ultimately expel people without the ‘right’ papers. These ‘prison boats’ were to be replaced by a number of permanent border prisons meant to be realised, maintained and operated through a partnership between the responsible governmental agencies and the private sector. In early 2008, a consortium called DC-16, consisting of architecture firm EGM, construction companies Ballast Nedam and Strukton, service provider ISS and consultants Smits van Burgst, won the tender for a new detention center at Rotterdam-The Hague Airport, right off the airport’s tarmac.
When the construction of the new detention center was announced, social movements actively involved in migrant support and the struggle against forced deportations immediately started a campaign. The movements’ activists argued that those involved in the design and construction of the facility would be complicit in the large scale detention and deportation of foreign nationals, and kickstarted a series of actions aimed at slowing down and ultimately stopping the center’s construction. When one group started to inform the wider public and organised a theatrical ‘die-in’ in front of EGM’s office, Archined’s Piet Vollaard wrote that “it’s a good thing that employees of EGM are forced to think about the ethics of their profession”, but also that “if the conditions for detainees are improved considerably there are more arguments for than against EGM’s involvement”. Later, others set fire to parts of the construction site and besmirched one of the architects’ home and car with red paint. EGM declared that “it is inappropriate to hold individuals accountable for the implementation of governmental policies” and the former director of the BNA (the trade association of Dutch architecture firms) wrote an angry letter, but there was no further debate on the role of design and engineering firms in such projects. The construction of the detention center went ahead as planned.
The enormous prison complex finally opened in 2010, featuring 320 cells for a maximum of 576 detainees, housed in a couple of buildings surrounded by a high, nondescript anti-graffiti wall. While the architects and construction companies never published (or preemptively deleted) any information on the detention center’s design, it is still possible to get an idea of what the inside must be like by looking at the center’s promotional material, its insightful Instagram-account, feel-good documentaries on public television and, awkwardly, the website of the firm overseeing the installation of various site-specific art works in the center. For an outsider trying to make sense of what the Detention Center Rotterdam is all about, it can, like the center’s facade and the covers of the ministry’s annual reports, come across as pragmatic, efficient and matter-of-factly. In one employee’s Insta-post the function of the center is described as an almost inevitable process: “People who come here have not committed a criminal offence, they are simply here to return to their country of origin.” While this sounds almost compassionate, the reality is that the Detention Center Rotterdam has been built as a central node in a system that is designed to forcefully deport thousands of individuals on a yearly basis.
Anyone whose asylum application is rejected or any racially profiled person failing to produce a valid ID upon request of the police can be detained in a ‘foreign detention’ facility like the one in Rotterdam. At the center, various governmental agencies work together to arrange the detainee’s forced return to their country of origin. Being detained and suddenly confronted with the possibility of a forced expulsion is an incredibly stressful and often outright traumatising situation. For some, this happens soon after life-threatening journeys past hostile borders and dangerous sea crossings, hoping to find refuge. For those already residing in the Netherlands, it means the sudden disruption of their existence, and the permanent separation from family and friends. When all the bureaucracy has been sorted, the deportation will be carried out on either an arranged charter flight in collaboration with other European countries, or on a regular scheduled flight accompanied by military police. While officially no deportations to “unsafe countries” are being planned, the list of tragic stories about deportations from Rotterdam directly compromising someone’s health or safety is long. Among many others, Ali-Mohammed al-Showaikh was immediately detained for life without due process upon arrival in Bahrain, Louay Al-Zekra was deported to Lebanon while still being prosecuted for his sexual orientation, and, despite explicit warnings by Amnesty International, Ezzedine Mehimmed was expelled to Sudan. His friends still fear for his life today.
Many others at the Detention Center Rotterdam wait endlessly for a deportation that never comes. For example, when government officials don’t manage to sort out all the bureaucracy or when the country of origin refuses to accept a deportation, the detainee is released after 18 months along with a request to leave the Netherlands on their own. They are forced to live in illegality and in many cases end up in foreign detention again, for example when arrested for sleeping outside. Amnesty International has reported that many went through three, four or more cycles of foreign detention without having committed any crime. All these policies and mechanisms constitute a system in which the Detention Center Rotterdam is a central node, functioning as an oppressive machine that puts people in danger, disrupts lives and families and creates an incredible amount of psychological stress and trauma. Besides having such violent mechanisms carried out on a daily basis, the center has over the last ten years regularly made headlines with stories giving a glimpse of how the normalisation of such violence can easily lead to all kinds of horrific excesses. In 2013, a group of 60 desperate detainees saw no other option than to start a hunger strike. Later that year, after he was mistakenly registered as ‘deportable’, Russian refugee Aleksandr Dolmatov took his own life. More recently, a South-African man also died by suicide on the morning of his deportation. Last year, four guards were suspended for ‘extreme violence’ against a detainee. According to many organisations, punishing and intimidating detainees by putting them in isolation is also common practice, despite the grave consequences.
This border system is implemented by a wide array of governmental agencies under the responsibility of a democratically elected government. While supposedly democratic institutions are clearly not a guarantee to prevent the systemic normalisation of violence nor any excesses, it should also be acknowledged that this system would not have been able to function without architecture and its willing architects. Apart from being a well-regarded profession associated with creativity, modernity and progress, architecture is at its core the application of a set of technologies (doors, walls, roofs, locks) allowing those in power to sanction the organisation of bodies in space. While this is the case for all forms of architecture, the Detention Center Rotterdam makes it quite explicit in the short description of the facility on their website: “In the Detention Center Rotterdam foreign nationals [..] are being kept available for expulsion”. In other words, the high concrete walls, sliding doors, courtyards, hallways, access systems and isolation cells have been arranged in such a way that the authorities can easily store humans — or from the perspective of the system, unwanted bodies — in this location until they are deported. The way this architectural arrangement has been situated, practically adjacent to and with some cells overlooking the airport’s tarmac, adds to both the efficiency as well as the psychological impact on the detainees: the next plane can be yours.
The Detention Center Rotterdam, and the larger deportation machine it is part of, did not appear out of thin air. It was commissioned, designed and constructed. The entire DC-16 consortium, from EGM architects to the various construction firms, have a particular responsibility. Without them, the materialisation of the building could not have happened and the intensification of the violent process of forced expulsions would have been disrupted. What makes things worse, is that all these firms knew from the very beginning what they signed up for. In the years running up to the tender process, foreign detention and all its implications were constantly in the news, in particular the various controversies around the bajesboten or the 2005 Schiphol Fire which took the lives of 11 refugees. Also, activists warned all participating teams already in the first stage of the tender about the nature of the project and the inevitable impact on people’s lives. Still, the consortium’s companies took a very clear and conscious decision to press ahead, and in so doing accepted the likely consequences their involvement would have. These companies were indeed, as EGM architects stated ten years ago, “implementing governmental policies”, but if these policies entail the violent treatment of humans who have sought refuge in the territory said government controls, architects and engineers should at all times maintain their own ethical standards. In this case, that would hopefully be to refrain from any form of collaboration.
Holding EGM architects, Ballast Nedam, Strukton, ISS and Smits van Burgst accountable for their complicity won’t undo the construction of the Detention Center Rotterdam nor will it compensate for the endless suffering that it has facilitated. Still, it needs to be done as otherwise such companies are likely to engage in carceral projects again. Rather than engaging in debates about how their involvement might have improved conditions for detainees or how someone else might have done it instead, the focus should be on concrete actions these companies, and by extension all others in the broad field of architecture, can take right now. First of all, architects should support and amplify the ideas, proposals, and actions by movements calling for an end to the deportation machinery and organisations criticising its mechanisms. In particular architecture and design’s growing prison abolition movement needs to be sustained and expanded. For EGM architects, this means to immediately pull out of their involvement in the realisation of a prison village in Brussels and borough-based jails in New York. Secondly, the responsible firms need to work towards reparative justice, which should directly involve survivors and their organisations and give them a voice in how reparations can be initiated. Finally, the responsible firms, and all others in the field, need to collaborate in reshaping how the field is organised, in the Netherlands and elsewhere. A new architects’ union or reorganised BNA could play an important role in helping to change the terms of problematic commissions or even stopping them when necessary, and make sure no firm, big or small, will collaborate in the construction of oppression.
END OF ARTICLE
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [Article of Rene Boer in ”Failed Architecture”]/ THIS VERY NORMAL DUTCH ARCHITECTURE FIRM REMAINS RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING A DEPORTATION MACHINE
One year ago, on 9 February 2020, at 04.09 AM, the Alarm Phone was called by a group of 91 people who were in distress on a deflating black rubber boat off Garabulli, Libya. They were in panic, but they managed to clearly communicate their GPS coordinates, which Alarm Phone immediately relayed to the Italian and Maltese authorities, as well as to the so-called Libyan coastguard.
At 05.35h CET, the people in distress called the Alarm Phone for the last time. Contact with the boat was lost ever since.
The so-called Libyan coastguard, financed and trained by Italian and European authorities in their efforts to delegate border controls and border violence, told Alarm Phone that they had no intention to search and rescue the people in distress “because the detention centers were full”.
That day, another boat was rescued to Malta, and many hoped this was the boat that had alerted Alarm Phone. However, it quickly became clear that this was a second boat in distress: a white rather than a black boat, with 82 instead of 91 people on board.
Due to the silence by authorities on the fate of the black rubber boat, as well as of most boats in distress in the Central Mediterranean Sea, the Alarm Phone as well as relatives and friends of people in distress, often have to rely on fragmented information and try to match crucial – although minimal – details to understand what happened to people in distress.
The days that followed 9 February 2020 clearly revealed that the 91 people were nowhere to be found. There was no trace of them on land, and nothing indicating they were still at sea.
One month later, we wrote an open letter to all authorities asking about what happened on that day and what they have done to search and rescue the people in distress. We did not receive any answer from any of them.
Only ten months later, when we sent another request to all authorities in December 2020, Frontex responded – clearly the result of increased pressures on the EU border agency and investigations into its participation in push-backs which has prompted international attention and condemnation.
The picture shared by Frontex, taken on 9 February 2020, shows a deflated rubber boat in a position near the one reported by the 91 people in distress. However, no human remains are visible in the picture.
Throughout the past year, families and friends of the 91 people who were on board the black rubber boat contacted Alarm Phone as well as European authorities in their search for their loved ones, but nobody could give them answers.
Thanks to these collective efforts and self-organisation by the families, mostly in Darfur, a list of missing people was created, showing 62 names and many pictures, giving a name, a face, a smile to many of those who European authorities made disappear at sea.
Without bodies being found, and without clear answers, it is impossible for their families to know their fate and to have closure.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Mediterranean sea boat refugees/Solidarity with the families of the 91 people who disappeared at sea
BEFORE: This Letter to the Editor I sent to a number of Dutch and Belgian newspapersand is translated from Dutch. [1]Now, on this moment of writing, alas the Netherlands have introduced a curfew. [2]See my Letter to the Editor
Astrid Essed LETTER TO THE EDITOR TITLE: THE INSTALLATION OF A CURFEW [AN EVENING CLOCK] IN THE NETHERLANDS IS A DANGER TODEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND VALUES Letter to the Editor Dear Editor, The setting of the curfew in order to fight the Coronavirus is a dangerousdevelopment, a danger to democratic values.Why?First because of cutting off and controlling the freedom of movement of free citizens.Second:Because of the oppressive character of the curfew measure, it is mostlyused by dictatorships, authoritarian regimes or countries where a military couphas taken place, like the Bouterse military coup in Surinam in 1980, leadingto the Decembermurders in 1982, when 15 political opponents of theBouterse military dictatorship were executed without a trial.Also in the Second World War, the German occupier set a curfew in the Netherlands [called ”Spertijd”, ”Spertime” in English]For that dark page in the WO II past already is the thought of a curfew a bitterthing.So citizens have just reasons to object the idea of a curfew,Besides there is no proof whatsoever, that a curfew really helpsin the fight against Corona, because gatherings of young people, thattake place in the evening hours, are easily replaced to earlier hours, inthe afternoon for example.But the most dangerous thing is, that the extraordinary measure ofthe curfew will be normalized at a certain moment.That the public is getting used to it and that the oppositionagainst the curfew is reduced. A curfew can be used only as an extraordinary measures in stateof emergency or war situations.Use it for that and for nothing else. Astrid EssedAmsterdamThe Netherlands
The Netherlands introduced its first enforced curfew since World War Two on Saturday night. The restriction took effect at 9 p.m., and was to continue through 4:30 a.m. as a way to slow the spread of coronavirus in the country.
The curfew will continue every night through 4:30 a.m. on February 10. All members of the public must remain indoors during the curfew hours, except for certain work-related reasons and emergency situations where an exemption is permitted. Even then, the person on the street must carry with them an official government form that has been properly filled out.
Violators risk a fine of 95 euros, but will not receive a mark against them on their criminal record. Those caught with falsified document or who lied on their form to evade the restriction may be punished more severely, and could see their records affected in a way which can jeopardize their ability to get certain jobs or qualify for residence permits and visas.
It was proposed by the outgoing prime minister, Mark Rutte, and his health minister, Hugo de Jonge, earlier in the week. As the issue was considered too controversial for the caretaker Cabinet, it had to be approved by a majority in Parliament on Thursday.
“The idea behind the night-time curfew is that people will visit or meet up with each other less often,” the Cabinet said in a statement. “This is important because the government is gravely concerned about the spread of coronavirus variants that are even more infectious than the virus we are already familiar with in the Netherlands. We need to delay these new variants from gaining the upper hand for as long as possible.”
The last time the Netherlands had a curfew was in 1945, the year World War II ended in Europe
END OF NEWSMESSAGE
END OF NOTES
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor The installation of a curfew [an Evening clock] in the Netherlands [and everywhere] is a danger to democratic rights and values/Letter to the Editor
And again a Family finds is way, on the flight for hunger, war,hunger, persecution?Who will tell?And then THEY are the happy ones! How often does it occur, that families are torn apart, the man goes alone, parents lose their children during the flight.A woman loses her husband.Loosing everything they hold dear. They have to leave their dwelling residence to be registeredsomewhere on the orders of a dictator, a foreign occupier, whodon’t give a f….ck abolut their conditions. Whether they are rich or poor, healthy or sick.If the wife is pregnant or not. You have to leaveOr else…… Rich people can find a shelter, but poor peoplemust try to survive. And what if you are pregnant and poor?What if you are a Palestinian woman, standingby a checkpoint, in occupied territory, in needof delivery, at the mercy of the grace of occupyingsoldiers, of oppressors? NOWHERE WELCOMENOWHERE ALLOWED Untill someone pities you and givesyou permission to deliver your Baby in hisbasement.In his stable. Does that sound familiar? Christmas Tale is not about cosiness, Family Togethering, buying largeand expensive presents, although that is nice. It,s about exclusion, It’s about people, who are welcomed nowhere, who are oppressed Because of their:POVERTYRELIGIONDESCENTRACE DO I KNOW? Do I know, what nasty things people think of in theirblindness, xenophobia, hatred, obsession for money, greed, racism and antisemitism, to humiliate others. I don”\t know, what ugly things occupiers invent, whether they areIsraeli [Palestine], Chinese [Tibet], Moroccon [Western Sahara], or else,to humiliate the occupied people? What a US president invents to hold back desperate migrants.Children in cages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
CHILDREN IN CAGESA CHILD BORN IN A STABLE BOTH, NON WANTEDBOTH, NOT WELCOME What atrocities are inventing by any dictator on this Planet?And don’t you forget their invisble Western and Chinese [and other]comrades in Evil, who want to flourish their multinationals indictatorial countries! Christmas is all about exclusionBlocking people, who don’t have hope AMSTERDAM But let’s stay closer at home Because it is the mayor of Amsterdam, and her predecessors,who left out in the cold those refugees, who couldn’t be deported,but yet had no rights, no shelter, no food.Refugees, who dwell in Amsterdam since 2012, year after year, withoutrights https://wijzijnhier.org/who-we-are/
NOT WELCOMELIKE THE CHILD IN THE STABLE
CHRISTMAS/HOPE AND DESPAIR Christmas is exclusion But also the Unborn Child, on His Way with HisParents to Safety. The Parents and the Unborn Child, they know aboutexclusion, being not welcome.Therefore they are in Solidarity with all opressed, discriminated, occupied, humiliated and torturedpeople of the Earth The Child has come to this World to give them Hope What are You doing, Reader? GOOD CHRISTMAS DAYSWARM CHRISTMAS DAYS Astrid Essed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBvkKGQ2ptU
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor A Christmas Carol/Travel through the Night
![The Israeli separation barrier divides East Jerusalem and the Palestinian West Bank town of Qalandia. [File: Thomas Coex/AFP]](https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/TafQOExghNFA53NWHdh6penouZCvg70GtnbRrSB5al6iUqhN5NMC9AiFHgZa_PRE2xa2RV-0Paw3fM1ydDP59Mr06NcHTpZBuORzLshWkqgtvJh8D5hMeaUsOtT29XSiwRSpnn96EVKsSb41qtVJ7lnSCpyVg226VF1yyQlH=s0-d-e1-ft#https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/4805b373bf0949d0a31e6b7a375a0128_8.jpeg?fit=1170%2C696)
.jpg)
