In a move that was described as the first piece of legislation of Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul — a plan that (allegedly) destabilised Israel’s economy, military and foreign relations –the Israeli Supreme Court struck down the law in a 8-7 decision.  Significantly, the court ruled that the law should be repealed because it seriously and unprecedentedly damages Israel’s democratic character.

Twelve out of 15 Supreme Court judges ruled that the court has the authority to conduct judicial oversight on basic laws and intervene in extreme cases when the Knesset oversteps its legislative authority. A draft ruling was leaked a few days ago to Israel’s Channel 12 in an unprecedented move that resembled the leak of the 2022 Roe v. Wade ruling in the U.S.

Following this media leak, it is reported that Netanyahu and his political allies called on the court not to publish the ruling, claiming it would be divisive if it happened in the middle of the war in Gaza. Some also hinted that they believed the ruling would be illegitimate because two of the judges who supported striking down the law had already retired.

Before the October 7 Hamas attack, Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition had for months faced mass anti-government protests over the plan. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli reservists, including fighter pilots and members of the intelligence, cyber and special operations units in the IDF, stopped reporting to duty after the bill passed. In fact, in the weeks before the law passed, Israeli intelligence services warned Netanyahu four times that the internal crisis around the judicial overhaul weakens Israel’s deterrence and encourages its enemies in the region to consider attacking it.

Interestingly, ever since the Hamas attack, many in Israel have claimed Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul created a domestic crisis that distracted Israel’s attention from external threats and led to intelligence and security failure on Oct. 7.

Related:

How Does International Humanitarian Law Apply in Israel and Gaza?

The post Israeli Supreme Court strikes down controversial judicial overhaul law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could well be on his way out if two opposition parties manage to form a coalition government and oust him from power. Naftali Bennett, a hardliner who heads the Yamina party announced his plans on Sunday to form a coalition government with another Opposition party, the Yesh Adit led by Yair Lapid.

At present Netanyahu’s Likud party is in power, but Bennett and Lapid have until Wednesday evening to get together 61 seats to stake claim to form a government in the 120-member house. It is learnt that Bennett and Lapid have agreed to take turns as Prime Minister with Bennet going first.

On Sunday, Bennett, a 49-year-old former tech entrepreneur and millionaire who is known for his extreme right-wing views announced, “I will work together with my friend Yair Lapid to form a unified government so that we can pull the country out of chaos.”

Bennett wants to bring about a change in leadership in Israel as he strongly disapproves of Netanyahu’s handling of the Gaza crisis among other policies. His inclinations first became apparent on May 23 when he made a lengthy social media post saying that while he had previously “refrained from speaking out against the government and sharing advice in the studios and on Facebook while the soldiers and police endangered their lives on the ground” he now feels compelled to share his views. “I do not remember such a period of weakness, lack of function and national embarrassment,” he said about the Gaza crisis.

Bennett is known for his liberal views on business and economy, but a very hardline stance on religion and especially his open dislike of Palestinians. He has previously called Palestinian children “terrorists” and has also supported gunning down of Palestinians should they try to cross over into Israeli territory from Gaza. He has remained unsympathetic to their plight despite the fact that many of the casualties during the recent Gaza conflict were women and children, something that sparked global outrage.

Benjamin Netanyahu who has now been prime minister for 12 years, responded to Bennett’s announcement saying, “There is not a single person in the country who would vote for Naftali Bennett if he knew what he was going to do. This is the scam of the century! Instead of forming a dangerous left-wing government, immediately after the end of Lapid’s mandate, it is possible to form a good right-wing government for Israel.”

All eyes are now on Wednesday evening.

Related:

Plight of Palestinians in an unequal fight
Israel faces both a military and political defeat
ICC to probe war crimes in Palestinian territories

The post Israel: Is Benjamin Netanyahu on his way out? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 22, thousands of people marched in a peaceful pro-Palestinian rally in Central London. They put on record a people’s protest against Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip, that according to the organisers is perhaps the biggest one on the issue seen in recent times in the United Kingdom. Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire deal, with Egypt mediation, that came into effect  on Friday.  

According to a report in the portal Commondreams, the rally was carried out by nearly 2,00,000 people on Saturday in London. The organisers said it “was one of the largest demonstrations of solidarity with Palestinians in the United Kingdom’s history.” The march was orgnaised by groups including Stop The War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Palestinian Forum in Britain, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the Muslim Association of Britain, stated the report. 

Nearly 200,000 people out in London – by some reports the largest pro-Palestine demonstration in this country’s history.

Well done to everyone who showed we won’t stand by while war crimes are committed using British weapons. #UK4Palestine #FreePalestine #StopArmingIsrael pic.twitter.com/PJDqFw2yz0

— CND (@CNDuk) May 22, 2021

The rally had been planned “before Hamas and Israel reached a ceasefire  that began on Friday after an 11-day bombing campaign targeting the Gaza Strip,” stated the report. The 11 day attacks killed over 230 Palestinians including dozens of children, and rocket attacks launched by Hamas killed 12 Israelis, according to authorities. 

The organasiers groups went ahead with the demonstration despite the ceasefire  – which was brokered by diplomats from Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations – noting that “Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continue to face a brutal military occupation, including restrictions on movement, home demolitions, and the enforcement of military law on the civilian population,” stated the organisers, adding that, “Palestinian citizens of Israel are still subject to over 65 laws that discriminate against them and render them second class citizens, and Palestinians in exile are still denied their right to return home.”

We refuse to accept the status quo.

The status quo of occupation and apartheid is itself a daily act of violence by the Israeli government on the Palestinian people. #FreePalestine #UK4PALESTINE pic.twitter.com/MpyrsiaFbS

— Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) (@MABOnline1) May 22, 2021

Participants marched from Victoria Embankment to Hyde Park, chanting slogans including “Free Palestine!” and “No Justice, No Peace!” stated the reports adding that chants of “Boris Johnson, shame on you!” were also heard “as the demonstrators demanded the U.K. end its complicity in Israel’s violent policies.”

According to news reports, speakers including former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell were among those who addressed the huge crowd at Hyde Park. He said, “Yes, a ceasefire has been negotiated and we welcome a ceasefire. But let’s be clear, there will be no ceasefire in our campaign to boycott, disinvest, and sanction the Israeli apartheid state. The message is clear, we will not cease our campaign in solidarity until there is justice. So let’s make it clear, no justice, no peace.”

The rally organisers told media-persons, “Israel’s system of apartheid and ethnic cleansing cannot continue. We can’t stop just because Israel has temporarily stopped bombing Gaza. We must campaign and protest until the Palestinian people enjoy what is their birth right: freedom, justice and equality in their historic homeland.”

Related:

Israel faces both a military and political defeat
Israel’s attack on Palestine: Imperialist designs?

The post Londoners march in solidarity with Palestinians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The latest victim of the alleged Assassin State’s long list of terror killings stretching back many decades is an Iranian physicist, Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The liberal icons of the western media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, et al, who reported this crime, failed to evince even an iota of disapproval, not to say moral outrage, at this act. In their ethical universe, literally anything done by Israel against its perceived opponents, no matter how dastardly, is justified. Hence, the slant given to the news story: Fakhrizadeh was a nuclear physicist and, worse, is alleged to have worked in Iran’s nuclear program. The juxtaposition of these two identities is meant to subliminally suggest to the reader that he had thus virtually signed his death warrant, so his assassination by Israel is not a big deal. 

One can imagine the howls of outrage in the liberal media that would erupt if the situation was reversed, i.e. if an Iranian hit-squad (or one from some “Other-ed” entity) were to kill an Israeli or American physicist working in either of their country’s nuclear weapons programs. But then rank hypocrisy is the price that neoliberalism pays to US imperialism and its Zionist ally.

What is worth investigating is whether any of the scientific, specifically physicists, bodies have or will denounce this wanton murder of one of their fraternity. In the “bad” old days, such associations were quick to rightly oppose the restrictions placed on eminent Soviet scientists such as Andrei Sakharov. Are journals like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists going to denounce this killing?

*The views expressed are the author’s own. The author is a physicist who worked many years on nuclear issues at a US national laboratory.  

The post The assassin state keeps on killing: Does anyone care? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The release on November 6 of two Jordanian nationals, Heba al-Labadi and Abdul Rahman Mi’ri from Israeli prisons was a bittersweet moment. The pair were finally reunited with their families after harrowing experiences in Israel. Sadly, thousands of Palestinian prisoners are still denied their freedom, still subjected to all sorts of hardships at the hands of their Israeli jailers.

Despite the jubilant return of the two prisoners, celebrated in Jordan, Palestine and throughout the Arab world, several compelling questions remain unanswered: why were they held in the first place? Why were they released and what can their experience teach Palestinians under Israeli occupation?

Throughout the whole ordeal, Israel failed to produce any evidence to indict Labadi and Mi’ri for any wrongdoing. In fact, it was this lack of evidence that made Israel hold the two Jordanian nationals in Administrative Detention, without any judicial process whatsoever.

Oddly, days before the release of the two Jordanians, an official Israeli government statement praised the special relationship between Amman and Tel Aviv, describing it as “a cornerstone of stability in the Middle East”.

The reality is that the relationship between the two countries has hit rock bottom in recent years, especially following US President Donald Trump’s advent to the White House and the subsequent, systematic dismantling of the “peace process” by Trump and the Israeli government.

Not only did Washington and Tel Aviv demolish the region’s political status quo, one in which Jordan featured as a key player, top US diplomats also tried to barter with King Abdullah II so that Jordan would settle millions of Palestinian refugees in the country in exchange for large sums of money.

Jordan vehemently rejected US offers and attempts at isolating the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.

On October 21, 2018, Jordan went even further, by rejecting an Israeli offer to renew a 25-year lease on two enclaves in the Jordan Valley, Al-Baqura and Al-Ghamar. The government’s decision was a response to protests by Jordanians and elected parliamentarians, who insist on Jordan’s complete sovereignty over all of its territories.

This particular issue goes back years. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994. An additional annex in the treaty allowed Israel to lease part of the Jordan Valley for 25 years. A quarter of a century later, the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty failed to achieve any degree of meaningful normalization between both countries, especially as neighboring Palestine remains under Israeli occupation. The stumbling block of that coveted normalization was – and remains – the Jordanian people, who strongly rejected a renewed Israeli lease over Jordanian territories.

Israeli negotiators must have been surprised by Jordan’s refusal to accommodate Israeli interests. With the US removing itself, at least publicly, from the brewing conflict, Israel resorted to its typical bullying, by holding two Jordanians hostage, hoping to force the government to reconsider its decision regarding the Jordan Valley.

The Israeli strategy backfired. The arrest of Labadi – who started a hunger strike that lasted for over 40 days –  and Mi’ri, a cancer survivor, was a major PR disaster for Israel. Not only did the tactic fail to deliver any results, it further galvanized the Jordanian people, and government regarding the decision to reclaim Al-Baqura and al-Ghamar.

Labadi and Mi’ri were released on November 6. The following day, the Jordanian government informed Israel that its farmers will be banned from entering Al-Baqura area. This way, Jordan retrieved its citizens and its territories within the course of 24 hours.

Three main reasons allowed Jordan to prevail in its confrontation with Israel. First, the steadfastness of the prisoners themselves; second, the unity and mobilization of the Jordanian street, civil society organizations and elected legislators; and third, the Jordanian government responding positively to the unified voice of the street.

This compels the question: what is the Palestinian strategy regarding the nearly 5,000 Palestinian prisoners held unlawfully in Israel?

While the prisoners themselves continue to serve as a model of unity and courage, the other factors fundamental to any meaningful strategy aimed at releasing all Palestinian prisoners remain absent.

Although factionalism continues to undermine the Palestinian fight for freedom, prisoners are fighting the same common enemy. The famed “National Conciliation Document”, composed by the unified leadership of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails in 2006, is considered the most articulate vision for Palestinian unity and liberation.

For ordinary Palestinians, the prisoners remain an emotive subject, but political disunity is making it nearly impossible for the energies of the Palestinian street to be harnessed in a politically meaningful way. Despite much lip service paid to freeing the prisoners, efforts aimed at achieving this goal are hopelessly splintered and agonizingly factionalized.

As for the Palestinian leadership, the strategy championed by Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is more focused on propping up Abbas’ own image than alleviating the suffering of the prisoners and their families. Brazenly, Abbas exploits the emotional aspect of the prisoners’ tragedy to gain political capital, while punishing the families of Palestinian prisoners in order to pursue his own self-serving political agenda.

“Even if I had only one penny, I would’ve given it to the families of the martyrs, prisoners and heroes,” Abbas said in a theatrical way during his United Nations General Assembly speech last September.

Abbas, of course, has more than one penny. In fact, he has withheld badly needed funds from the families of the “martyrs, prisoners and heroes.” On April 2018, Abbas cut the salaries of government employees in Gaza, along with the money received by the families of Gaza prisoners held inside Israeli jails.

Heba al-Labadi and Abdul Rahman Mi’ri were released because of their own resolve, coupled with strong solidarity exhibited by ordinary Jordanians. These two factors allowed the Jordanian government to publicly challenge Israel, leading to the unconditional release of the two Jordanian prisoners.

Meanwhile, thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including 500 administrative detainees continue to languish in Israeli prisons. Without united and sustained popular, non-factional mobilization, along with the full backing of the Palestinian leadership, the prisoners are likely to carry on with their fight, alone and unaided.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His last book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

Courtesy: countercurrents.org

The post A Lesson for the Palestinian Leadership: Real Reasons behind Israel’s Arrest and Release of Labadi, Mi’ri appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Lebanese response, accompanied by jubilation throughout Lebanon, shows that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may have overplayed his cards. However, for Netanyahu it was a worthy gamble, as the Israeli leader is desperate for any new political capital that could shield him against increasingly emboldened contenders in the country’s September 17 general elections.

A fundamental question that could influence any analysis of the decision to strike Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza is whether the strategy originated from the Israeli government or the limited personal calculations of Netanyahu himself. I contend that the latter is true.

Israel has already violated the sovereignty of all of these regions, bombing some of them hundreds of times in the past, but striking all at once is unprecedented. Since neither Israel, nor its US allies offered any convincing military logic behind the campaign, there can be no other conclusion that the objectives were entirely political.

One obvious sign that the attacks were meant to benefit Netanyahu, and Netanyahu only, is the fact that the Israeli Prime Minister violated an old Israeli protocol of staying mum following this type of cross-border violence. It is also uncommon for top Israeli officials to brag about their country’s intelligence outreach and military capabilities. Israel, for example, has bombed Syria hundreds of times in recent years, yet rarely taken responsibility for any of these attacks.

Compare this with Netanyahu’s remarks following the two-day strikes of August 24-25. Only minutes after the Israeli strikes, Netanyahu hailed the army’s “major operational effort”, declaring that “Iran has no immunity anywhere.”

Regarding the attack on the southeast region of Aqraba in Syria, Netanyahu went into detail, describing the nature of the target and the identities of the enemy as well.

Two of the Hezbollah fighters killed in Syria were identified by the Israeli army, which distributed their photographs while allegedly travelling on the Iranian airline, Mahan “which Israel and the United States have identified as a major transporter of weaponry and materiel to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies in Syria and Lebanon,” according to the Times of Israel.

Why would Israel go to this extent, which will surely help the targeted countries in uncovering some of Israel’s intelligence sources?

The Economist revealed that “some … in Israel’s security and political establishments are uncomfortable” with Netanyahu’s tireless extolling of “Israel’s intelligence-gathering and operational successes in surprising detail.”

The explanation lies in one single phrase: the September 17 elections.

In recent months, Netanyahu has finally managed to wrestle the title: the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister, a designation that the Israeli leader has earned, despite his checkered legacy dotted with abuse of power, self-serving agenda and several major corruption cases that rope in Netanyahu directly, along with his wife and closest aides.

Yet, it remains unclear whether Netanyahu can hang on for much longer. Following the April 9 elections, the embattled Israeli leader tried to form a government of like-minded right-wing politicians, but failed. It was this setback that pushed for the dissolution of the Israeli Knesset on May 29 and the call for a new election. While Israeli politics is typically turbulent, holding two general elections within such a short period of time is very rare, and, among other things, it demonstrates Netanyahu’s faltering grip on power.

Equally important is that, for the first time in years, Netanyahu and his Likud party are facing real competition. These rivals, led by Benjamin Gantz of the Blue and White (Kahol Lavan) centrist party are keen on denying Netanyahu’s every possible constituency, including his own pro-illegal settlements and pro-war supporters.

Statements made by Gantz in recent months are hardly consistent with the presumed ideological discourse of the political center, anywhere. The former Chief of General Staff of the Israeli army is a strong supporter of illegal Jewish settlements and an avid promoter of war on Gaza. Last June, Gantz went as far as accusing Netanyahu of “diminishing Israel’s deterrence” policy in Gaza, which “is being interpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness.”

In fact, the terms “weak” or “weakness” have been ascribed repeatedly to Netanyahu by his political rivals, including top officials within his own right-wing camp. The man who has staked his reputation on tough personal or unhindered violence in the name of Israeli security is now struggling to protect his image.

This analysis does not in any way discount the regional and international objectives of Netanyahu’s calculations, leading amongst them his desire to stifle any political dialogue between Tehran and Washington, an idea that began taking shape at the G7 summit in Biarritz, France. But even that is insufficient to offer a rounded understanding of Netanyahu’s motives, especially because the Israeli leader is wholly focused on his own survival, as opposed to future regional scenarios.

However, the “Mr. Security” credentials that Netanyahu aimed to achieve by bombing multiple targets in four countries might not yield the desired dividends. Israeli media is conveying a sense of panic among Israelis, especially those living in the northern parts of the country and in illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Golan Heights.

This is hardly the strong and mighty image that Netanyahu was hoping to convey through his military gamble. None of the thousands of Israelis who are currently being trained on surviving Lebanese retaliations are particularity reassured regarding the power of their country.

Netanyahu is, of course, not the first Israeli leader to use the military to achieve domestic political ends. Late Israeli leader, Shimon Peres, has done so in 1996 but failed miserably, but only after killing over 100 Lebanese and United Nations peacekeepers in the Southern Lebanese village of Qana.

The consequences of Netanyahu’s gamble might come at a worse price for him than simply losing the elections. Opening a multi-front war is a conflict that Israel cannot win, at least, not any more.

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. His last book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is ‘These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons’ (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post The War Ahead: Netanyahu’s Elections Gamble Will be Costly for Israel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

All masks are off and all veneers discarded- the Consulate General of Israel in Mumbai along with one Indo-Israel Friendship Association is organising a public discussion on Hindutva and Zionism on August 26th, at the The Convocation Hall of University of Mumbai. The poster of the event flaunts images of Theodor Herzl and VD Savarkar, and the event has Subramanian Swamy and a professor from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Gadi Taub as speakers. So far, Israel’s mission in India spoke the language of bringing technology and building cultural ties. Israel’s agencies, as part of its Brand Israel, have tried to whitewash its occupation, apartheid and settler-colonialism against Palestinians by hosting events, film festivals, etc, in an attempt to deflect attention from its crimes.

Palestinians during Al-Nakba, their mass expulsion to establish Israel | Image Courtesy: Medium

However, this time the ruling dispensation in India gives the Israeli embassy the confidence to drop all pretenses. All along, it is the connivance of these ideologies that has brought India and Israel closer in the last half a decade, at the cost of Indian solidarity to Palestine. In this context, we are sharing an excerpt from Sukumar Muralidharan’s essay “The ideological common ground between Hindutva and Zionism”, from the collection From India to Palestine: Essays in Solidarity edited by Githa Hariharan.

As Hindu nationalist ideology moves into its more extreme fringes, its inherent paradoxes stand out with similar starkness. Early pioneers of the ideology articulated these in the confident belief that minor doctrinal inconsistencies would be of no consequence in the mission of facing down a common enemy in Islam. As India under colonial rule lurched from the bitter aftermath of the collapse of the Khilafat agitation into an extended phase of communal estrangement, the notion of a country inhabited by two nations became widely accepted, crystallised especially in two political vehicles: the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). A text published in 1939 by M.S. Golwalkar, a year before he took over the leadership of the RSS, remains one of the most authoritative statements on Hindu nationalism, offering rich insights through its comments on contemporary world events into the ideological pantheon it drew sustenance from.

Golwalkar’s statements lauding Nazi Germany for its virulent manifestation of “race pride”, which led to the expulsion of the Jews despite the world recoiling in horror at the enormity of the deed, are widely cited. These offer eloquent testimony in themselves, but only tell the full story when juxtaposed with the observations on Zionism that the same text offers. Golwalkar identifies India as one among the early nations that afforded sanctuary to the Jews after their country passed into Roman tyranny. This was obviously a bond in his rather twisted historical imagination, which persisted into that moment in history when the greater dispersal of the Jews took place, with the “engines of destruction . . . under the name of Islam” being let loose in the land. Palestine, in Golwalkar’s sense, suffered much like India did, losing its culture and traditions on account of the intrusions of Islam “Palestine became Arab, a large number of Hebrews changed faith and culture and language and the Hebrew nation in Palestine died a natural death.” But hope was not lost, since “the attempt at rehabilitating Palestine with its ancient population of the Jews is nothing more than an effort to reconstruct the broken edifice and revitalise the practically dead Hebrew National life.”

Nationalism for Golwalkar was a compound of religion, culture and language, which he found lacking in Palestine. All three attributes, though, were on display among the Jews, who, unfortunately, lacked a territory. It was entirely appropriate then, that “in order to confer their lost Nationality upon the exiled Jews, the British with the help of the League of Nations, began to rehabilitate the old Hebrew country, Palestine, with its long lost children.” “The Jews,” said Golwalkar, “had maintained their race, religion, culture and language: all they wanted was their natural territory to complete their Nationality”.

Golwalkar’s attitude towards India’s Muslims is well-known and recorded. They could either adopt the Hindu religion and all its customs, learn to glory in its heritage, or live on sufferance, “wholly subordinated… claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights”. India did not quite take that path, though Guruji, as he is referred to in RSS circles, should be credited with a remarkably accurate forecast of how life for the Palestinians would be after the Zionist takeover of their land.

Sukumar Muralidharan is a senior journalist and currently teaches journalism at O.P. Jindal Global University.

The following is an excerpt from From India to Palestine: Essays in Solidarity, edited by Githa Hariharan and published by Leftword Books (2014). Republished here with permission from the publisher.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post Israel Consulate in Mumbai Organises Event on Hindutva and Zionism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

In medical emergencies hospitals are practically out of reach. Vehicles ferrying patients can’t easily get past militarised check-points. A human rights issue is looming. Journalists are under tight monitoring. Controlled news is the order of the day.

A burst of gunfire can be clearly heard in a recent BBC television report. The police have not fired a single shot (since Kashmir’s special status became extinct earlier this month), says the government. Then, did BBC doctor the video, or did another uniformed force let go a volley on protesters? Or, was it the other way round- armed militants concealing among protesters shooting at the security forces? There are no details forthcoming, or even an accusation against BBC. Just blanket denial.

In the fog of one-sided propaganda, facts are a casualty. Political sources no longer exist when communications are down. Shah Faesal, a young bureaucrat-turned politician trying to leave the country, was arrested at Delhi airport and taken back to Srinagar. Senior opposition leaders on fact-finding missions were refused entry and made to turn back from Srinagar airport.

In under four days of the commencement of the state of disquiet on August 5, more than 400 Kashmiri politicians were thrown behind bars, including the hapless Sajjad Lone, who had cozied up to BJP. Ali Mohammed Sagar, the National Conference general secretary who has not lost a state legislator’s election from Khanyar in Srinagar since 1983, has been despatched to a jail in Bareilly in faraway UP.

In Srinagar, on the day of Eid-ul-Azha, one of the holiest days in the Islamic calendar, the largest mosques and Islamic sites of prayer of Muslim Kashmir, were out of bounds for the faithful. This has to be a low point for religious freedoms.

This writer can recall visits to the valley in the militancy years of the early ‘90s when the Indian state had to shoot its way out of the corner. The clampdown did not seem so severe then, though there were many serious problems.

In political terms, what the regime may have succeeded in doing — for the first time — is to unite all the political and social tendencies in a straight line against the Indian state. In conditions of extreme repression, this should ordinarily mean the deepening of repression.

In such a situation, there is real danger that the day of the mainstream politician — especially of a party like the National Conference (NC) — may be over for the foreseeable future. Consider the enormity and the tragedy. But for the NC and its stalwart founder-leader Sheikh Abdullah in 1947, when Jinnah pleaded with Kashmir to join Muslim Pakistan, Kashmir had chosen “secular” India.

All this is forgotten. There is hypocrisy, doublespeak. If a concerned citizen wonders whether the BBC report about firing on protesters is accurate after all, ‘Pas-Darshan’ — as distinct from the government television Door-Darshan which, now doesn’t seem so outrageous — knocks her on the head and questions her “nationalism”. How dare you swallow a foreign lie and ignore home-cooked official facts? That’s the new trend in our journalism.

If another citizen says that in a zealot Hindu dispensation very unusual goings-on are occurring in Kashmir perhaps because the valley is mainly Muslim, he is clobbered and warned not to be “communal”. In New India, inversions of the truth are welcome.

Undiluted propaganda and the falsification of history about Article 370 are peddled. ‘Pas-Darshan’ beams the catechism with gusto. The provision was “temporary” and had to go to bring the whole country under one law, says the government. Many have fallen for this, but not the Supreme Court.
 

Post-1947, even people of Jammu, who could have legitimately settled in the Valley, chose not to do so in any significant way

In 1968, in Sampat Prakah vs the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and then again in as recently as 2016 in SBI vs Santosh Gupta, the top court made it clear that Article 370 was by no means “temporary”. This means that Union home minister Amit Shah, in the Rajya Sabha on August 5, built his case on a dubious premise. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the strongman in the forefront of integrating the princely states in 1947, is falsely invoked to justify ending J&K’s special status when the Sardar was central to the discussions and negotiations that produced Article 370 and related provisions.

Another element of propaganda is that 370 came in the way of Kashmir’s development. This has to be a wilful departure from facts because the facts are laid out in the official statistics. On social and infrastructural indices like education, health, nutrition, roads and housing, J&K- especially Kashmir valley- surely ranks among the best places in India.

In his recent address to the nation on Kashmir, wittingly or unwittingly, the PM too has seriously erred. He said Kashmir “had been deprived of the Right to Education (RTE)” because J&K’s special status under Article 370 prevented the application of Indian laws to Kashmir. This is monumentally at variance with the reality.

The facts are that there is perhaps not a single law passed by Parliament that did not apply in J&K if New Delhi wished it to, and this was made possible by the much reviled Article 370. As for the RTE, Kashmir — unlike the rest of India — does not need it.

Since as far back as 1950, education was made wholly free in government schools and colleges right up to the most advanced level in Kashmir. It is probable that young Kashmiris may be among the best educated people anywhere in South Asia.

In the Kashmir context, there appears to be well-crafted propaganda at work. The agenda is to misrepresent and misinterpret the known facts in deference to BJP’s ideological imperatives, and to falsely suggest that the special status for J&K, arising from Article 370, has paved the ground for terrorism in the Valley.

Ergo, remove the special status, and permit people from other states to buy property in Kashmir. When that happens, and Hindus settle in the Valley, separatism or terrorism would vanish, runs the unstated logic.

Apart from the presumption that Muslims are terrorists by temperament, there are two problems with this Israel-like settlement plan (operational in Palestinian territories). The first is that the Israeli settlements have failed to bring peace and have indeed made matters worse, just like the Chinese plan for Xinjiang or Tibet. These do not constitute a solution.

Two, in the post-1947 period, even the people of Jammu, who could have legitimately settled in the Valley, chose not to do so in any significant way.

There is some anxiety even in BJP-held Jammu now about being flooded by property-seekers from outside.

We are summoning a disturbing, uncertain, future.

*Senior journalist based in Delhi. A version of this article first appeared in The Asian Age

First published on https://www.counterview.net/

 

The post Misrepresent “facts” a la BJP’s ideological Imperative: Mission Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jehad Abusalim, a Palestinian now living in the United States, grew up in Gaza. In Chicago last week, addressing activists committed to breaking the siege of Gaza,  he held up a stack of 31 papers. On each page were names of 1,254 Palestinians living in Gaza who had been killed in just one month of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” attacks five years ago.

“I felt shaky and uneasy all day preparing for this talk,” he told the group. He described his dismay when, looking through the list of names, he recognized one of a young man from his small town.

“He was always friendly to me,” Abusalim said. “I remember how he would greet me on the way to the mosque. His family and friends loved him, respected him.”

Abusalim recalled the intensity of losing loved ones and homes; of seeing livelihoods and infrastructure destroyed by aerial attacks; of being unable to protect the most vulnerable. He said it often takes ten years or more before Palestinian families traumatized by Israeli attacks can begin talking about what happened. Noting Israel’s major aerial attacks in 2009, 2013, and 2014, along with more recent attacks killing participants in the “Great March of Return,” he spoke of ongoing dread about what might befall Gaza’s children the next time an attack happens.

Eighty people gathered to hear Abusalim and Retired Colonel Ann Wright, of US Boats to Gaza, as they helped launch the “Free Gaza Chicago River Flotilla,” three days of action culminating on July 20 with a spirited demonstration by “kayactivists” and boaters, along with onshore protesters, calling for an end to the siege of Gaza. Wright resigned from her post as a U.S. diplomat when the United States launched the 2003 Shock and Awe bombing of Iraq. Having participated in four previous international flotillas aiming to defy Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza’s shoreline, Wright is devoting her energies preparing for a fifth in 2020.

Elizabeth Murray sounds the gong after each name is read aloud

Another organizer and member of US Boat to Gaza, Elizabeth Murray, who like Wright formerly worked for the U.S. government, recalled being in a seminar sponsored by a prestigious think tank in Washington, D.C., when a panel member compared Israeli attacks against Palestinians with routine efforts to “mow the lawn.” She recounted hearing a light tittering as the D.C. audience members expressed amusement. But, Murray said, “Not a single person objected to the panelist’s remark.” This was in 2010, following Israel’s 2009 Operation Cast Lead, which killed 1,383 Palestinians, 333 of whom were children.

Abusalim’s colleague at the American Friends Service Committee, Jennifer Bing, had cautioned Chicago flotilla planners to carefully consider the tone of their actions. A colorful and lively event during a busy weekend morning along Chicago’s popular riverfront could be exciting and, yes, fun.

But Palestinians in Gaza cope with constant tension, she noted. Denied freedom of movement, they live in the world’s largest open-air prison, under conditions the United Nations has predicted will render their land uninhabitable by 2020. Households get four to six hours of electricity per day. According to UNICEF, “sewage treatment plants can’t operate fully and the equivalent of forty-three Olympic-sized swimming pools of raw or partly treated sewage is pumped into the sea every day.”

Facing cruel human rights violations on a daily basis, the organizers urge solidarity in the form of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. U.S. residents bear particular responsibility for Israel’s military attacks against civilians, they note, as the United States has supplied Israel with billions of dollars for military buildup.

U.S. companies profit hugely from selling weapons to Israel. For example, Boeing, with headquarters in Chicago, sells Israel Apache helicopters, Hellfire and Harpoon missiles, JDAM guiding systems and Small Diameter Bombs that deliver Dense Inert Metal Explosive munitions. All of these weapons have been used repeatedly in Israeli attacks on densely populated civilian areas.

During the 2009 Operation Cast Lead, I was in Rafah, Gaza, listening to children explaining the difference between explosions caused by F-16 fighter jets dropping 500-pound bombs and Apache helicopters firing Hellfire missiles.

Israel continues using those weapons, and Israeli purchases fatten Boeing’s financial portfolios.

On July 19, young Palestinians outside of the Israeli consulate read aloud the names of people who had, five years ago, been killed in Gaza. We listened solemnly and then proceeded to Boeing’s Chicago headquarters, again listening as young people read more names, punctuated by a solemn gong after each victim was remembered. Ultimately, 2,104 Palestinians, more than two-thirds of whom were civilians, including 495 children, were killed during the seven-week attack on the Gaza Strip in 2014.

During the Free Gaza Chicago River flotilla on July 20, Husam Marajda, from the Arab American Action Network, sat in a small boat next to his grandfather, who was visiting from Palestine. His chant, “From Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go!” echoed from the water to the shore. Banners were dropped from bridges above, the largest reading, “Israel, Stop Killing Palestinians.”

Kayakers wore red T-shirts announcing the “Gaza Unlocked” campaign and managed to display flags, connected by string, spelling out “Free Gaza.” Passengers on other boats flashed encouraging peace signs and thumbs up signals. Those processing along the shore line, carrying banners and signs, walked the entirety of our planned route before a sergeant from the Chicago Police Department arrived to say we needed a permit.

We can’t permit ourselves to remain silent. Following the energetic flotilla activity, I sat with several friends in a quiet spot. “So many names,” said one friend, thinking of the list Abusalim had held up. “So many lives,” said another.

Kathy Kelly (info@vcnv.org) co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

A version of this article first appeared in The Progressive.

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post The Ongoing Dread in Gaza: So Many Names, So Many Lives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Conference was a rare opportunity aimed at articulating a discourse of international solidarity that is both inclusive and forward thinking.
There was near consensus that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement must be supported, that Donald Trump’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ must be defeated and that normalization must be shunned.

When it came to articulating the objectives of the Palestinian struggle, however, the narrative became indecisive and unclear. Although none of the speakers made a case for a two-state solution, our call for a one democratic state from Istanbul – or any other place outside Palestine – seemed partially irrelevant. For the one state solution to become the overriding objective of the pro-Palestine movement worldwide, the call has to come from a Palestinian leadership that reflects the true aspirations of the Palestinian people.

One speaker after the other called for Palestinian unity, imploring Palestinians for guidance and for articulating a national discourse. Many in the audience concurred with that assessment as well. One audience member even blurted out the cliched question: “Where is the Palestinian Mandela?” Luckily, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, Zwelivelile “Mandla” Mandela, was himself a speaker. He answered forcefully that Mandela was only the face of the movement, which encompassed millions of ordinary men and women, whose struggles and sacrifices ultimately defeated apartheid.

Following my speech at the Conference, I met with several freed Palestinian prisoners as part of my research for my forthcoming book on the subject.

Some of the freed prisoners identified as Hamas and others as Fatah. Their narrative seemed largely free from the disgraced factional language we are bombarded with in the media, but also liberated from the dry and detached narratives of politics and academia.

“When Israel placed Gaza under siege and denied us family visitations, our Fatah brothers always came to our help,” a freed Hamas prisoner told me. “And whenever Israeli prison authorities mistreated any of our brothers from any factions, including Fatah, we all resisted together.”

A freed Fatah prisoner told me that when Hamas and Fatah fought in Gaza in the summer of 2007, the prisoners suffered most. “We suffered because we felt that the people who should be fighting for our freedom, were fighting each other. We felt betrayed by everyone.”

To effectuate disunity, Israeli authorities relocated Hamas and Fatah prisoners into separate wards and prisons. They wanted to sever any communication between the prisoners’ leadership and to block any attempts at finding common ground for national unity.

The Israeli decision was not random. A year earlier, in May 2006, the leadership of the prisoners met in a prison cell to discuss the conflict between Hamas, which had won the legislative elections in the Occupied Territories, and the PA’s main party, Fatah.

These leaders included Marwan Barghouthi of Fatah, Abdel Khaleq al-Natshe from Hamas and representatives from other major Palestinian groups. The outcome was the National Conciliation Document, arguably the most important Palestinian initiative in decades.

What became known as the Prisoner’s Document was significant because it was not some self-serving political compromise achieved in a luxurious hotel in some Arab capital, but a genuine articulation of national Palestinian priorities, presented by the most respected and honored sector in Palestinian society.

Israel immediately denounced the document.

Instead of engaging all factions in a national dialogue around the document, PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, gave rival factions an ultimatum to either accept or reject the document in full. The spirit of the unity in the prisoners’ initiative was betrayed by Abbas and the warring factions. Eventually, Fatah and Hamas fought their own tragic war in Gaza the following year.

On speaking to the prisoners after listening to the discourse of academics, politicians and activists, I was able to decipher a disconnection between the Palestinian narrative on the ground and our own perception of this narrative from outside.

The prisoners display unity in their narrative, a clear sense of purpose, and determination to carry on with their resistance. While it is true that they all identified as members in one political group or another, I am yet to interview a single prisoner who placed factional interests above national interest. This should not come as a surprise. Indeed, these men and women have been detained, tortured and have endured many years in prison for being Palestinian resisters, regardless of their ideological and factional leanings.

The myth of the disunited and dysfunctional Palestinian is very much an Israeli invention that precedes the inception of Hamas, and even Fatah. This Zionist notion, which has been embraced by the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, argues that ‘Israel has no peace partner’. Despite the hemorrhaging concessions by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, this claim has remained a fixture in Israeli politics to this day.

Political unity aside, the Palestinian people perceive ‘unity’ in a whole different political context than that of Israel and, frankly, many of us outside Palestine.

‘Al-Wihda al-Wataniya’ or national unity is a generational quest around a set of principles, including resistance, as a strategy for the liberation of Palestine, Right of Return for refugees, and self-determination for the Palestinian people as the ultimate goals. It is around this idea of unity that the leadership of Palestinian prisoners drafted their document in 2006, in the hope of averting a factional clash and keeping the struggle centered on resistance against Israeli occupation.

The ongoing Great March of Return in Gaza is another daily example of the kind of unity the Palestinian people are striving for. Despite heavy losses, thousands of protesters insist on their unity while demanding their freedom, Right of Return and an end to the Israeli siege.

For us to claim that Palestinians are not united because Fatah and Hamas cannot find common ground is simply unjustified. National unity and political unity between factions are two different issues.

It is important that we do not make the mistake of confusing the Palestinian people with factions, national unity around resistance and rights with political arrangements between political groups.

As far as vision and strategy are concerned, perhaps it is time to read the prisoners’ National Conciliation Document’. It was written by the Nelson Mandelas of Palestine, thousands of whom remain in Israeli prisons to this day.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His last book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London).

Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post The Two Narratives of Palestine: The People Are United, the Factions Are Not appeared first on SabrangIndia.