CounterPunch 22 May 2020

Why Israel Fears the Nakba: How Memory Became Palestine’s Greatest Weapon

by Ramzy Baroud

On May 15, thousands of Palestinians in Occupied Palestine and throughout the ‘shatat’, or diaspora, participated in the commemoration of Nakba Day, the one event that unites all Palestinians, regardless of their political differences or backgrounds.

For years, social media has added a whole new stratum to this process of commemoration. #Nakba72, along with #NakbaDay and #Nakba, have all trended on Twitter for days. Facebook was inundated with countless stories, videos, images, and statements, written by Palestinians, or in global support of the Palestinian people.

The dominant Nakba narrative remains – 72 years following the destruction of historic Palestine at the hands of Zionist militias – an opportunity to reassert the centrality of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. Over 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine in 1947-48. The surviving refugees and their descendants are now estimated at over five million.

As thousands of Palestinians rallied on the streets and as the Nakba hashtag was generating massive interest on social media, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, paid an eight-hour visit to Israel to discuss the seemingly imminent Israeli government annexation, or theft, of nearly 30% of the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

“The Israeli government will decide on the matter, on exactly when and how to do it,” Pompeo said in an interview with Israeli radio, Kan Bet, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Clearly, the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has American blessing to further its colonization of occupied Palestine, to entrench its existing Apartheid regime, and to act as if the Palestinians simply do not exist.

The Nakba commemoration and Pompeo’s visit to Israel are a stark representation of Palestine’s political reality today.

Considering the massive US political sway, why do Palestinians then insist on making demands which, according to the pervading realpolitik of the so-called Palestinian-Israeli conflict, seem unattainable?

Since the start of the peace process in Oslo in the early 1990s, the Palestinian leadership has engaged with Israel and its western benefactors in a useless political exercise that has, ultimately, worsened an already terrible situation. After over 25 years of haggling over bits and pieces of what remained of historic Palestine, Israel and the US are now plotting the endgame, while demonizing the very Palestinian leaders that participated in their joint and futile political charade.

Strangely, the rise and demise of the so-called ‘peace process’ did not seem to affect the collective narrative of the Palestinian people, who still see the Nakba, not the Israeli occupation of 1967, and certainly not the Oslo accords, as the core point in their struggle against Israeli colonialism.

This is because the collective Palestinian memory remains completely independent from Oslo and its many misgivings. For Palestinians, memory is an active process. It is not a docile, passive mechanism of grief and self-pity that can easily be manipulated, but a generator of new meanings.

In their seminal book “Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory”, Ahmad Sa’di and Lila Abu-Lughod wrote that “Palestinian memory is, at its heart, political.”

This means that the powerful and emotive commemoration of the 72nd anniversary of the Nakba is essentially a collective political act, and, even if partly unconscious, a people’s retort and rejection of Donald Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’, of Pompeo’s politicking, and of Netanyahu’s annexation drive.

Despite the numerous unilateral measures taken by Israel to determine the fate of the Palestinian people, the blind and unconditional US support of Israel, and the unmitigated failure of the Palestinian Authority to mount any meaningful resistance, Palestinians continue to remember their history and understand their reality based on their own priorities.

For many years, Palestinians have been accused of being unrealistic, of “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” and even of extremism, for simply insisting on their historical rights in Palestine, as enshrined in international law.

These critical voices are either supporters of Israel, or simply unable to understand how Palestinian memory factors in shaping the politics of ordinary people, independent of the quisling Palestinian leadership or the seemingly impossible-to-overturn status quo. True, both trajectories, that of the stifling political reality and people’s priorities seem to be in constant divergence, with little or no overlapping.

However, a closer look is revealing: the more belligerent Israel becomes, the more stubbornly Palestinians hold on to their past. There is a reason for this.

Occupied, oppressed and refugee camps-confined Palestinians have little control over many of the realities that directly impact their lives. There is little that a refugee from Gaza can do to dissuade Pompeo from assigning the West Bank to Israel, or a Palestinian refugee from Ein El-Helweh in Lebanon to compel the international community to enforce the long-delayed Right of Return.

But there is a single element that Palestinians, regardless of where they are, can indeed control: their collective memory, which remains the main motivator of their legendary steadfastness.

Hannah Arendt wrote in 1951 that totalitarianism is a system that, among other things, forbids grief and remembrance, in an attempt to sever the individual’s or group’s relation to the continuous past.
For decades, Israel has done just that, in a desperate attempt to stifle the memory of the Palestinians, so that they are only left with a single option, the self-defeating peace process.

In March 2011, the Israeli parliament introduced the ‘Nakba Law’, which authorized the Israeli Finance Ministry to carry out financial measures against any institution that commemorates Nakba Day.

Israel is afraid of Palestinian memory, since it is the only facet of its war against the Palestinian people that it cannot fully control; the more Israel labors to erase the collective memory of the Palestinian people, the more Palestinians hold tighter to the keys of their homes and to the title deed of their land back in their lost homeland.

There can never be a just peace in Palestine until the priorities of the Palestinian people – their memories, and their aspirations – become the foundation of any political process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Everything that operates outside this paradigm is null and void, for it will never herald peace or instill true justice. This is why Palestinians remember; for, over the years, their memory has proven to be their greatest weapon.

More articles by:Ramzy Baroud

 

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.

May 15, 2020

My Israeli Nemesis is Moving to America

by Ariel Gold

Erdan with IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz. Photograph Source: Israel Defense Forces – CC BY 2.0

My first run-in with Israeli politician Gilad Erdan took place on July 1, 2018, when I arrived at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, passport and visa in hand. After seven hours of interrogation, I was told that Erdan had had my visa revoked and was sending me directly back to the U.S. “We prevented Ariel Gold, an extreme boycott activist, from entering the country,” he pompously tweeted.

Now my nemesis is moving to America. On Monday, May 11, Erdan was appointed by Netanyahu to become the next ambassador to both the United States and United Nations.

To be fair, I am far from the first or most important person to be denied entry to Israel by Gilad Erdan. Erdan led the charge to deport Human Rights Watch’s Omar Shakir was the same politician denied entry to Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in August 2019. Still, back in 2018, he found the time to publicize his gripe against me. “Gold distributed videos on social networks, in which she harasses IDF soldiers and Border Police officers in Hebron, accusing the soldiers of apartheid and oppression, and that their actions do not conform to Jewish values,” he told the media.

It seems ridiculous that a country that heralds itself as the “only democracy in the Middle East” would feel threatened by a grassroots peace activist like me. But creating a more repressive Israeli state is exactly what Erdan has built his career on. As Erdan is about to become Netanyahu’s right-hand man in the U.S, it is important to understand where he comes from and what is on his agenda.
Erdan entered politics in the 1990’s as an advisor first to a younger Netanyahu and then to then Knesset member Ariel Sharon, who is notorious for the role he played in the 1982 massacre of thousands of civilians in Lebanon’s Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps.

Erdan joined Israel’s Knesset in 2003, placing third in the Likud primaries of 2008. As a member of Israel’s parliament, Erdan was a huge proponent of strengthening Israel’s alliance with the Christian Evangelical movement. This was despite the mission of evangelicals to return all Jews to Israel so that Armageddon can take place once Jews either convert to Christianity or burn up in a ball of fire. Erdan, it seems, has no problems with the antisemitic statements made by such evangelical leaders as John Hagee of Christians United for Israel—the largest pro-Israel lobby organization in the U.S. In the 1990s, Hagee referred to Hitler as a “hunter,” sent by God, to expedite God’s will of establishing a modern day Jewish state in Palestine. In his 2006 book “Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To war,” Hagee accused the Jews of causing the Holocaust through Jewish disobedience to God.

In 2015, Netanyahu appointed Erdan to the position of Minister of Public Security, Strategic Affairs, and Information, which he has held until now.
In 2016, Erdan and Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked came up with the “Facebook Law” enabling Israel to have Facebook and Google remove content deemed to be against the interests of Israel’s national security. In November 2017, he ordered cameras to be installed at the entry and exit of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (thankfully the Palestinian prayer protests forced him to have the cameras removed) and in January 2018, he called for Israel to utilize Trump’s time in power to annex the West Bank settlements. Speaking to a Likud’s Central Committee gathering, he declared, “the time has come to express our Biblical right to the land.” The soon-to-be ambassador to the U.N. also made clear his lack of regard for international law and global opinion, stating that: “we are telling the world that it doesn’t matter what the nations of the world say.”

I began paying closer attention to Erdan in 2017 the Israeli Knesset passed a law, initiated by Erdan, enabling the country bar entry on the grounds of support for the non-violent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement. Erdan announced at this time his intentions to create a database of people like me who peacefully protest.

In December 2018, Knesset approved $72 million for Erdan’s anti-BDS, anti-free speech project. In January 2018, Erdan released a blacklist of 20 organizations, including CODEPINK, now officially banned from entering Israel. Expanding his mission to suppress dissent and freedom of speech, in June 2019, he took credit for the unconstitutional anti-BDS laws being enacted in states across the U.S.

 “Our efforts are producing results. 27 US states now have counter-BDS legislation,” he gloated. “We must encourage investigations of terror-linked BDS groups and promote legislation that counters all forms of anti-Semitism including of course the anti-Semitic delegitimization of Israel,” he continued, calling for even further Israeli interference into U.S. policy.

Erdan won’t be the first Ambassador that I have taken issue with. In July 2016, I interrupted the current Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Ron Demer, as he spoke at a Democratic National Convention event in Philadelphia. In April 2018, I disrupted the current Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Dany Danon as he gave a talk at Syracuse University. You have “blood on your hands,” I told Danon before reminding his audience of the illegality of Israeli settlements.

Erdan will replace Danon as ambassador to the U.N. once he is confirmed by the new Israeli government, sworn in on May 14. He will then reside in New York City until he moves to Washington after Ron Dermer vacates his post, likely after the U.S. November elections.

Unfortunately, right now because of the COVID-19 crisis, my CODEPINK colleges and I won’t be able to tell Erdan in person just how unwanted and unwelcome he is in the United States. But mark my words, Erdan: In time, as you settle into NYC and then D.C., you will experience first hand, and in bright pink, the commitment that American activists have to free speech, democracy, freedom, justice, and equality for Palestinians.

More articles by:Ariel Gold

 

Ariel Gold is the national co-director for CODEPINK. Follow her on Twitter at @arielelysegold

From CounterPunch 12 May  2020

Cardinal George Pell and the Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Victoria.

by Kenneth Good

In the long and still unfinished search for justice, two agencies have been outstanding. The Victorian Police performed dogged investigatory work, and the Royal Commission over five years compiled damning evidence. On 12 November 2012, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox called for the establishment of a Royal Commission. He was a 30-year veteran in Newcastle, and wrote an open letter to the NSW Premier: “I can testify from my own experience that the church covers-up, silencing victims, hinders police investigations, alerts offenders, destroys evidence and moves priests.” None of that stops at the Victorian border.

 “The whole system needs to be exposed; the clergy covering up these crimes must be brought to justice and the network protecting paedophile priests dismantled” (quoted in David Marr, The Prince). Backed by many Labour party backbenchers, and federal centrist politicians, PM Julia Gillard, the country’s first woman leader, moved to establish a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Gillard faced constant misogynist attack from conservative figures, but did not flinch (Tony Abbott was ready to be photographed beside a huge poster, ‘Ditch the Bitch’). It was perhaps her ‘most lasting legacy’ (Louise Milligan, Cardinal). “It will change the nation”, Gillard claimed, as she left office.

The Commission revealed over 4,000 cases of alleged child abuse between 1950 and 2010, involving 1,880 perpetrators. The average age of the victims was 10.5 years for girls and 11.6 for boys. It took on average 33 years for them to come forward. And when they did they faced ‘obfuscation and cover-up’ and cold aloofness (Milligan). The Commission presented its final report to parliament on February 2017. But when Pell went on trial, 100 pages concerning what he knew about abuse within the Church were redacted, and not released publicly till May 2020.

Ireland is ‘the mother country of Australian Catholicism’. When a nine-year inquiry revealed ‘the rot in Ireland’, Pell was quick to claim that “Ireland is not Australia”. But by then, a new accountability had been opened in the approach to the Church in Australia, with the arrival of a well-trained, determined and secular police. The Melbourne Age published a police report accusing the Catholic church of protecting paedophiles, and showing no sympathy for victims. The Police linked 40 suicides in Victoria to ‘abuse by half a dozen priests and brothers’. Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson noted that investigations would uncover “many more deaths as a consequence of clergy sexual abuse” (Marr). In 2015 a former choirboy informed Victoria Police that he and another boy, now deceased, were sexually abused by Pell in the 1990s. In February 2016, it was publicly revealed that a Police taskforce was investigating Cardinal Pell for historical child abuse. In October detectives questioned him in Rome about a number of allegations, and on 29 June 2017 Pell was charged with historical sexual abuse offences.

On 15 August 2018, a trial into whether the Cardinal abused two choirboys when he was archbishop of Melbourne in the 1990s, began in the state’s County Court. The offending allegedly occurred in the sacristy of the cathedral after a Sunday mass. After the jury was unable to agree, a second trial began on 7 November 2018. On 11 December that year a jury found him guilty of one count of sexual penetration of a child under 16 and four counts of indecent acts with or in the presence of a child. The court then placed a suppression order on the case, banning all reporting on the trial until a verdict was reached in another case (which the Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently dropped). On 26 February 2019 the suppression order was lifted and the guilty verdict made public. On 13 March, the County Court sentenced the Cardinal to six years’ jail.

 In August that year, the Victorian Court of Appeal unanimously rejected two of his grounds for appeal, and rejected another on a 2-1 decision. His convictions were upheld. But on 7 April 2020, the High Court of Australia quashed Pell’s convictions, and he was freed (Timeline, ABC News, 14 May 2020).

Pell’s rule was to ‘always hire the best’, so he employed ‘the nation’s most celebrated attack dog’, Robert Richter, who labelled the worst of the Cardinal’s alleged crimes in the sacristy as “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration”. When he begged the court to distinguish between the actions of the Church and Pell, Judge Kidd affirmed: “I am imposing a sentence on Cardinal Pell for what he did”. His conduct in ‘forcing his penis into the mouth’ of one choir boy, in the busy Sunday sacristy, “was permeated by staggering arrogance” and, significantly, by a “sense of impunity” (quoted in Marr). A new man, Bret Walker SC, ‘the most respected intellectual advocate at the Australian bar’, represented Pell for his Appeal. Much time was given to the word must in analysing the jury’s duty to entertain inherent doubts about the prosecution’s case: Walker sought to ‘tease out those doubts’ (Marr).

Victims and Perpetrators

The long quest for justice began with the testimony of the one surviving choirboy, and there is near unanimity on his representation. He was a “very compelling witness”, he was “clearly not a liar, not a fantasist, [but] a witness of truth”, in the words of the Chief Justice of Victoria, Anna Ferguson, and the President of the Court of Appeal, Chris Maxwell (Marr). The testimonies of victims were usually clear on the essentials. Julie Stewart was a small schoolgirl at Holy Family Doveton, where ‘the mad priest Peter Searson’, both a sadist and a ‘dangerous paedophile’, operated, under Pell, the Auxiliary Bishop. Awareness of what was happening grew when the girl ‘ran crying from the confessional and straight to her principal to complain of the abuse.’ Eight years later, and three years after a Doveton delegation tried to warn Pell about Father Searson, Julie received compensation, under the ‘Melbourne Response’ scheme (devised by Pell), a derisory $25,000, and ‘forced to sign a deed of release’. Her school principal, Graeme Sleeman, ‘lost his career trying to bring Searson to justice (Milligan, ‘History Will Not be Kind’, ABC News, 8 May 2020, and Marr, Guardian, same day). Under Pell injustice prevailed.

Father Kevin O’Donnell, a serial paedophile, pleaded guilty to abusing eight children, then to a further 12, over decades, in ‘every parish’ to which he was moved. Two of his sorriest victims were the sisters, Emma and Katie Foster, aged about five at the time. After their abuse at Sacred Heart Primary in Oakleigh, Emma died of a drug overdose, and Katie, drinking to numb her pain, walked in front of a speeding car. Their parents (Chrissie and Anthony) became ardent campaigners for justice, and told a Victorian parliamentary inquiry that Pell showed a ‘sociopathic lack of empathy’ in his dealings with them (Cardinal). His cold and aggressive manner was on clear public display when he joined the Doveton faithful in a forum: Anthony Foster began with some known facts about O’Donnell’s assault on Emma, and Pell interjected: “I hope you can substantiate that in court”. When Chrissie Foster soon after named Searson as an abuser, he reportedly thundered: “It’s all gossip until its proven in court and I don’t listen to gossip” (quoted in The Prince).

The seemingly most awful perpetrator was Gerard Risdale, with more than 130 offences against children as young as four years, 1960s-1980s. Pell lived with him in 1973, he was uninterested in Risdale’s offending and why he was moved not less than six times. The Commission heard evidence that Pell was involved in some or all of these transfer decisions. When he did learn of Risdale’s behaviour, he dismissed it as “a sad story [which] wasn’t of much interest to me”, he informed the Commission in 2016 (quoted by Melissa Davey, ‘George Pell Failed the Children’, Guardian, 9 May 2020).

Nazareno Fasciale, a serial paedophile, was permitted to retire on grounds of ill-health. Charged by Victoria Police, he died six weeks later. Pell joined others in a requiem mass for Fasciale in March 1996.

Pell’s arrogance was again vented when he told the Commission in 2014 that he had originally taken comments from victims’ rights groups about abuse in the Church “with a grain of salt” (Davey, Guardian, 7 May 2020).

The Report of the Royal Commission

The release of the redacted pages, some 100, places Pell in a new, clear light. The Commission is seen to have ‘dissected forensically and rejected one by one’ Pell’s excuses, as ‘implausible, inconceivable, untenable and unacceptable’. Most were not historic crimes, but abuses that were happening around Pell ‘as he began his long climb to the top’ in the Catholic church. The Commissioners found that he knew enough even on his own evidence about Searson ‘to know he had to be removed from his parish, and that Bishop Pell ‘had the capacity and opportunity’ to act. Above all, ‘in direct contradiction to Pell’s evidence’, ‘he must have known why Risdale was being moved from parish to parish in Ballarat: sex with children’. Risdale’s crimes ‘were common knowledge’ and were known to the bishop and most of his ‘consultors’ or advisers. “It is inconceivable that the consultors did not know”, the Commission found. Risdale went on for another 15 years (Marr, ‘The Hidden Findings’, Guardian, 7 May 2020). Regarding Searson, the Commission affirmed: “We do not accept any qualification that [their conclusions are] only appreciable in retrospect” (quoted by Davey, same date).

In reaction to the revelations, Peter O’Brien, a solicitor who had represented victims, said that police must investigate the findings that Pell knew of the abuse and failed to act: “At the very least there must be a criminal investigation. The findings are extremely damning and suggest criminal, not only immoral, misconduct.” Dr Cathy Kezelman, president of the Blue Knot Foundatin, said that Pell was “allegedly complicit in covering-up and potentially concealing crimes…” Lisa Flynn, Shine Lawyers’ national practice leader, felt that Pell ‘did not deserve his Cardinal title (Davey, Guardian 7 May 2020).

Victoria Police told the ABC that they ‘would undertake an assessment’ of the Commission’s findings: they are ‘not completely ruling out the possibility of investigating the cardinal’. But Keiran Tapsell, author of a book on canon law, noted that laws on mandatory reporting on child sex abuse by clergy weren’t brought in in Victoria until 2014, and they don’t apply retrospectively. Previous attempts to prosecute senior Catholics for knowing about clergy abuse have failed (Jessica Longbottom, ABC News, 10 May 2020).

But Pell is arguably different and is seen to be different. Not least by his victims and their supporters. Paul Levey was 13 when he was sent to live with Risdale in Mortlake, where he was ‘abused daily for six months’. He visited the Vatican in 2016, with other survivors, seeking justice. Inspired by the release of the redacted documents, he is organising a petition for the defrocking of Cardinal Pell. In the first 48 hours, his petition was signed by 32,000 people. He intends to send it to Pope Francis, the Melbourne archbishop and the Ballarat bishop (Matt Neal, ABC South West Vic, 11 May 2020).

Pell’s offending against the surviving boy (Witness J) goes back to the 1990s. At his trial at the end of 2018, the judge advised the jury that, if they believed the victim, they must convict. After they did, a suppression order restricted reporting on Pell. But his intimidatory, bullying manners are recorded. While his defence before the High Court stressed the unreasonableness of his alleged behaviour in the busy Sunday sacristy, it is possible that such normalities could have been outweighed by his “staggering arrogance” and ‘sense of impunity’. The times are different, in Australia as in Ireland. The quest for justice is strengthened by the Commission’s findings.

More articles by:Kenneth Good

REFUGEE ACTIVISTS OCCUPY PRESTON HOTEL HOUSING MEDEVAC DETAINEES

The following article is from The Age online, and is more than about time that the non-Murdoch media acted like they say on the top of their paper - Independent - always.

It now remains to be seen whether they will try and build up a campaign to force this pathetic government and its loyal opposition to get the asylum seekers out of the concentration camps on Manus, Nauru and places like the Mantra hotel in Preston, Melbourne.

Australians who have not supported those trying to get these human rights abuses ended need to reconsider how they have felt being in "lock down" because of COVID-19, and now need to have some understanding of the cruelty to which asylum seekers have been exposed for all these years and DO SOMETHING!!

Refugee activists occupy Preston hotel housing medevac detainees

By Rachel Eddie

From The Age 12 May 2020

Activists barricaded themselves in rooms at the Mantra hotel in Preston for about seven hours on Tuesday, in solidarity with asylum seekers detained there after being medically evacuated from Manus Island and Nauru.

Healthcare workers have previously described the makeshift detention centre housing more than 60 men as a "very high-risk environment" for transmitting the coronavirus.

Refugee activists protest on the rooftop of the Preston hotel

Medevac detainees are being housed at the hotel where activists are protesting on the rooftop.

Eight activists checked into three rooms at the Bell Street hotel on Monday, and barricaded themselves into at least one of the rooms from 7.30am Tuesday.

The protesters have also occupied the roof of the hotel and locked themselves on as part of the demonstration. Banners have been draped from the roof saying: "let them out" and "seven years lock-down freedom now".

Footage from the scene shows police escorting all eight activists off the property mid-afternoon.


A statement from the Whistleblowers, Activists and Communities Alliance (WACA) said the demonstration aimed to draw attention to the need for detainees to be provided with the medical care they were brought to Australia for under the now-repealed "medevac laws".

Banners are on the roof of the hotel, saying, "let them out".Credit:WACA

"Over the last two months of this pandemic the federal and state government message has been 'we are all in this together'. Clearly some of us of are more in this together than others. We are not truly together until all, including detained asylum seekers and refugees, have their freedom," spokesperson Gaye Demanuele said.

Last month, more than 1180 healthcare professionals signed a joint letter to the government calling for the men to be released.

Related Article

Coronavirus pandemic

Doctors warn of deadly coronavirus risks for refugees, guests at Melbourne hotel

"Failure to take action to release people seeking asylum and refugees from detention will not only put them at greater risk of infection (and possibly death), it also risks placing a greater burden on wider Australian society and the health care system," said the letter, drafted by infectious diseases expert Professor David Isaacs.

More than 60 men are confined to a secure floor of the motel, which is off limits to other guests and staffed by armed guards. While Australian Border Force, which operates the motel's secure wing, has cancelled all outside visits, guards come and go throughout the day.

No detainee in immigration has tested positive to COVID-19, and a spokesperson said the Australian Border Force was focussed on health and safety during the pandemic.

The protesters began the demonstration about 7.30am on Tuesday.Credit:WACA

"A range of measures have been introduced to actively manage health, hygiene and cleaning requirements in all detention facilities. These measures are continually reviewed in line with the current health advice," the spokesperson said.

"All detainees continue to have ongoing access to the medical professionals located within facilities, including after hours."

Refugee activists on the roof of the Mantra hotel in Preston on Tuesday.Credit:WACA

Any detainee with flu-like symptoms are tested and quarantined, according to Border Force.

Kurdish man Farhad Bandesh was medically evacuated from Manus Island and then moved from the Mantra to the Melbourne Immigration and Transit Accommodation centre (MITA).

A refugee activist barricaded in a Mantra hotel room on Tuesday.Credit:WACA

"My friends [at Mantra] are really sick, mentally and physically, and the situation there is really stressful," Mr Bandesh said.

"At the moment I think they've got good energy because of the people that are supporting them, and we are still asking for our rights after so many years."

He thanked the protesters, "they show we are not alone".

"All the detention centres are all the same, everyone is panicking and they are scared. They don't want to catch the COVID-19."

The roof of the Mantra in Preston.Credit:WACA

Activists have bypassed lockdown restrictions during the pandemic by walking past Mantra and the MITA centre in protest of detention.

Walking is considered exercise and is allowable under Victoria's lockdown rules though protests themselves are a breach of the restrictions.

Last month, 30 people were also fined for protesting in support of refugees and asylum seekers outside the Preston hotel.

Mantra declined to comment.

UK SUPREME COURT REVERSES BDS BAN

From The Real News Network, 7 May 2020

UK Supreme Court Reverses BDS Ban

May 7, 2020

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the largest British Palestinian solidarity group, successfully petitioned to reverse a 2016 ban preventing local governments divesting from companies involved in the Israeli occupation.

---

Story Transcript

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown. A major decision by the UK Supreme Court protects the rights of organizations, including government organizations, to boycott, divest and sanction the State of Israel, even companies that support the exploitation of Palestine. In 2016, the British government issued severe guidelines banning government organizations and even local governments from participating in the BDS movement in any way.

Now this has impacted the Local Government Pension Scheme, the LGPS, which were obligated to invest the pension money of public service workers in companies that violate international law. Now, that decision was met in Britain with some resistance. Channel four of the BBC spoke with Rafeef Ziadah from the Palestine Society at SOAS University.

Rafeef Ziadah: I think it’s disgraceful that the British government has decided to intervene in this way, attacking local democracy and stopping councils from making ethical decisions around investments. I think the public has every right to be able to intervene in these issues, to talk to our elected officials and to have an impact on corporations that we disagree with, involved in arms trade, against sweatshop labor and for Palestinian rights as well.

Kim Brown: In response to the government decision at the time, world famous journalist Glenn Greenwald said that the attempt to ban BDS is the worst attack on freedom of speech in the West in contemporary times. So joining us to discuss this today is Ben Jamal. Ben is the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which is the largest UK civil society organization dedicated to securing Palestinian human rights. He joins us today from London. Ben, thank you so much for being here.

Ben Jamal: Nice to be here Kim.

Kim Brown: So, Ben, let’s go back to 2016 for a moment because I wanted to get your opinion about the British government’s decision to ban a boycott. We’ll get into, did they have the right to do so, in just a moment. But I wanted to get your take as to why they took this extraordinary step to put this down on paper.

Ben Jamal: Yeah. Well, I think, and we said this at the time, we had to really understand the government’s move as part of the global campaign that’s been going on for many years and which is right with the support of friendly allies amongst Western government, has sought to use what’s defined as law [inaudible 00:02:31] seeking to introduce laws that effectively criminalize BDS.

So we’ve seen laws introduced in the United States, I think more than 20 States have such laws. We’ve seen them introduced in France, we’ve seen them introduced in Germany, is part of the wider campaign to de-legitimize the Palestine Solidarity Movement and de-legitimized activism for Palestine. And these regulations that the government introduced in the UK in 2016 with the first serious attempt we’d seen in the UK to do something similar and to attempt to prohibit action that was effectively… People making decisions not to invest money in companies that were complicit in Israel’s violations of international law to attempt to prohibit that sort of activity.

Kim Brown: So talk to us a little bit about the appeal. What exactly did PCS argue in front of the UK Supreme court and how did the government defend its decision to impose a ban on BDS, on local governments?

Ben Jamal: Well, our argument was framed around… First of all, the obligation as we saw it of public bodies not to be complicit in having their money invested, having the money of their pension scheme holders invested in companies that we’re complicit in international law violations complicit in the violation of human rights, it was about the rights of pension holders on how their money was going to be spent. That if they said, “I don’t want my pension invested in a company that’s helping build illegal settlements”, they should have that right.

The grounds on which we had to fight the case were narrower. So the grounds on which we fought it and on which we won, were an argument about the fact that the government actually did not have the legal right to do what it was doing because pension law did not allow it to do that.

And also your question about how did the government justify what it was doing, I mean the regulations actually didn’t mention Israel or Palestine at all. They were framed in a way that said local government pension schemes cannot choose to divest in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns in any situation where the UK government itself has not imposed sanction. So didn’t specifically mention Israel, but in the whole of the rhetoric around the regulations, the government may clear this was about stopping BDS that was targeted, a company’s complicit in Israel’s violation of Palestinian human rights. When the regulations were announced, they were actually announced, if I recall correctly in a press conference in Tel Aviv, so the minister responsible nine districts in Tel Aviv and make clear that these were part of their view about the illegitimacy of boycott and the way they framed that, why did they say that boycott was illegitimate? Because they use the line that, without stating it boldly, that boycott is inherently antisemitic, they used the line, “The boycott campaigns damage community cohesion.”

In other words, that boycott campaigns are in some way targeted at the Jewish community, which is inherently untrue. The BDS movement is run on anti-racist principles. It targets complicity and not identity. It targets companies and institutions and organizations that are directly supporting Israel’s violation of human rights.

Kim Brown: There’s a lot of conflation between criticism of the state of Israel and antisemitism, but the court ruled in favor of PCS. What reasons did they give behind their decision?

Ben Jamal: So as I said, we made the argument and the thrust of our campaign obviously was the ethical position, but we had to fight it. And the reason we took the cases, we were advised that we had good legal grounds and that the most likely chance of success was the government didn’t have the power. There’s a principle in UK law relies on a Latin phrase called ultra vires. It means you’re acting outside the boundaries of the powers you have. So the argument that was used in that one was the pension regulations, the pension law to which the government attached these regulations puts obligations upon pension companies to make decisions that are always in the benefit of their members to enhance proper investment decisions, et cetera. And the argument in that one was the government did not have the right to attach conditions to how they invest money.

That had nothing to do with any of those considerations. I thought they were to do with foreign policy positions. So that’s the basis on which we won. So it’s a very important victory. Obviously the legal principle was narrow, but as a line in the sand against the government attempts to introduce anti-bias law is very important. But we do have another battle on our hands because the government in the recent Queen’s Speech, so that’s the statement that a new government makes when it’s elected, about what laws it intends to bring in over the next parliament over the next five years. The government has announced that intends to introduce another law that would ban all public bodies from supporting BDS campaign. So we know I have to take the fuel from this victory and build the coalition, which we’re in the process of doing to oppose the next law that the government is trying to bring in.

Kim Brown: The court’s decision is important and interesting, not just for people in the UK, but really all over the world and here in the US various politicians such as New York governor Andrew Cuomo has said that they can’t control what people buy or choose not to buy, but state institutions can nevertheless ban BDS activities and choose to boycott any company or organization that practices BDS. So in a way, if it’s a public institutions don’t belong to the people, but are the private tools of politicians to promote a pro-Israel agenda, do you think that the decision of the UK Supreme Court will have an impact beyond the Britain’s borders?

Ben Jamal: I mean, I hope it does in two ways. One, I think it encourages campaigners across with huge numbers of messages coming into us from fellow solidarity activists around the world. We’ve had messages, numerous messages from Palestine. One that stuck with me is someone who described it as a historic day and I spoke to them and said, “Look, you might be able to play in this, anti-semitism is a narrow vitreous and important victory.” They said, “No”, they don’t understand. I’m a Palestinian myself, so I did understand we Palestinians don’t win many victories against the UK government. And of course there’s a whole history going back to the boat for a declaration that informs that statement. And they also said to us, we’re all walking foot taller today. So it’s important as an act of solidarity, is important as encouraging others, we can fight back against these laws where we have legal tools available to us.

They are something we should use as part of our campaigning as well as making the political case. They’re also though important in other ways. We hope the more victories we win like this is an international solidarity movement, the more we send a message to those trying to introduce these punishers laws that they will be opposed and that we can build political campaigns and public support and use the law ourselves where it’s available to us to oppose these attempts.

 They’re really about suppressing the Palestinian peoples rights to call for action by the international community to oppose their oppression. But individual’s rights to say, “Well, I wish to show solidarity for the Palestinian people and I want to take action to ensure that my country, my institutions, my local authority, my university is not complicit in supporting this injustice in how it spends its money, particularly where that money might belong to me. It might be my money. So they’re choosing to invest in illegal and immoral activities.”

Kim Brown: A major decision announced by the UK Supreme Court and a big victory for the BDS movement. Today we’ve been speaking with Ben Jamal. Ben is the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. He’s been joining us today from London. Ben, we appreciate your time in speaking with us. Thank you so much.

Ben Jamal: Nice to be here Kim.

Kim Brown: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.

From CounterPunch 8 May 2020

100 Years of Shame: Annexation of Palestine Began in San Remo

  by Ramzy Baroud

Photograph Source: Delegates to the San Remo conference in Italy, 25 April 1920 – Public Domain

One hundred years ago, representatives from a few powerful countries convened at San Remo, a sleepy town on the Italian Riviera. Together, they sealed the fate of the massive territories confiscated from the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in World War I.

It was on April 25, 1920, that the San Remo Conference Resolution was passed by the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council. Western Mandates were established over Palestine, Syria and ‘Mesopotamia’ – Iraq. The latter two were theoretically designated for provisional independence, while Palestine was granted to the Zionist movement to establish a Jewish homeland there.

“The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the (Balfour) declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” the Resolution read.

The Resolution gave greater international recognition to Britain’s unilateral decision, three years earlier, to grant Palestine to the Zionist Federation for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland, in exchange for Zionist support of Britain during the Great War.

And, like Britain’s Balfour Declaration, a cursory mention was made of the unfortunate inhabitants of Palestine, whose historic homeland was being unfairly confiscated and handed over to colonial settlers.

The establishment of that Jewish State, according to San Remo, hinged on some vague ‘understanding’ that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

The above addition merely served as a poor attempt at appearing politically balanced, while in reality no enforcement mechanism was ever put in place to ensure that the ‘understanding’ was ever respected or implemented.

In fact, one could argue that the West’s long engagement in the question of Israel and Palestine has followed the same San Remo prototype: where the Zionist movement (and eventually Israel) is granted its political objectives based on unenforceable conditions that are never respected or implemented.

Notice how the vast majority of United Nations Resolution pertaining to Palestinian rights are historically passed by the General Assembly, not by the Security Council, where the US is one of five veto-wielding powers, always ready to strike down any attempt at enforcing international law.

It is this historical dichotomy that led to the current political deadlock.
Palestinian leaderships, one after the other, have miserably failed at changing the stifling paradigm. Decades before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, countless delegations, comprised those claiming to represent the Palestinian people, traveled to Europe, appealing to one government or another, pleading the Palestinian case and demanding fairness.

What has changed since then?

On February 20, the Donald Trump administration issued its own version of the Balfour Declaration, termed the ‘Deal of the Century’.

The American decision which, again, flouted international law, paves the way for further Israeli colonial annexations of occupied Palestine. It brazenly threatens Palestinians that, if they do not cooperate, they will be punished severely. In fact, they already have been, when Washington cut all funding to the Palestinian Authority and to international institutions that provide critical aid to the Palestinians.

Like in the San Remo Conference, the Balfour Declaration, and numerous other documents, Israel was asked, ever so politely but without any plans to enforce such demands, to grant Palestinians some symbolic gestures of freedom and independence.

Some may argue, and rightly so, that the ‘Deal of the Century’ and the San Remo Conference Resolution are not identical in the sense that Trump’s decision was a unilateral one, while San Remo was the outcome of political consensus among various countries – Britain, France, Italy, and others.

True, but two important points must be taken into account: firstly, the Balfour Declaration was also a unilateral decision. It took Britain’s allies three years to embrace and validate the illegal decision made by London to grant Palestine to the Zionists. The question now is, how long will it take for Europe to claim the ‘Deal of the Century’ as its own?

Secondly, the spirit of all of these declarations, promises, resolutions, and ‘deals’ is the same, where superpowers decide by virtue of their own massive influence to rearrange the historical rights of nations. In some way, the colonialism of old has never truly died.

The Palestinian Authority, like previous Palestinian leaderships, is presented with the proverbial carrot and stick. Last March, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, told Palestinians that if they did not return to the (non-existent) negotiations with Israel, the US would support Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.

For nearly three decades now and, certainly, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, the PA has chosen the carrot. Now that the US has decided to change the rules of the game altogether, Mahmoud Abbas’ Authority is facing its most serious existential threat yet: bowing down to Kushner or insisting on returning to a dead political paradigm that was constructed, then abandoned, by Washington.

The crisis within the Palestinian leadership is met with utter clarity on the part of Israel. The new Israeli coalition government, consisting of previous rivals Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz, have tentatively agreed that annexing large parts of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley is just a matter of time. They are merely waiting for the American nod.

They are unlikely to wait for long, as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said on April 22 that annexing Palestinian territories is “an Israeli decision.”

Frankly, it matters little. The 21st century Balfour Declaration has already been made; it is only a matter of making it the new uncontested reality.

Perhaps, it is time for the Palestinian leadership to understand that groveling at the feet of those who have inherited the San Remo Resolution, constructing and sustaining colonial Israel, is never and has never been the answer.

Perhaps, it is time for some serious rethink.

More articles by:Ramzy Baroud

 

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.

Hating Arabs as a Common Ground: Why Israel’s Coalition Government is Likely to Survive

From CounterPunch 1 MAY 2020

By Ramzy Baroud

Hating Arabs as a Common Ground: Why Israel’s Coalition Government is Likely to Survive

In January, Netanyahu was indicted on multiple counts of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. His trial is scheduled for May 24.

By making such an assertion, Gantz is simply deluding himself, following one the most disgraceful acts of political betrayal in the country’s modern history. By agreeing to join Netanyahu’s Likud party, Gantz has demolished his own parliamentary group which unified several major parties in one single bloc, all with the aim of removing Israel’s longest-serving leader from power.

The Blue and White, which until recently consisted of three parties (Hosen Li-Israel, Yesh Atid and Telem), presented itself to Israeli voters as a political force that would finally restore some credibility to Israel’s ailing political institutions.
Clearly, Israel was not ready for such a mission.

It is convenient to blame Gantz for the collapse of Israel’s once-burgeoning opposition, but the problem with Israel’s political elites is far more complex than that of a single individual.

Israeli leaders insist that democracy, transparency, and inclusion are achievable, even when millions of the country’s Arab citizens are marginalized and continue to be victims of institutional racism that dates back to the very foundation of Israel.

In actuality, Gantz could have formed a government with the help of the Joint List, a coalition of Arab and progressive parties, which is the only Israeli political bloc that represents hope for a better, more inclusive future.

The supposed Israeli ‘centrist’, however, opted to join Netanyahu – and to, consequently, alienate his own allies, Yesh Atid and Telem – than meet the reasonable conditions of the Joint List.

The Joint List, which had eventually endorsed Gantz to form a government, had merely requested the removal of the Nation-State Law (which defines Israel as a Jewish State), the Kaminitz Law (which restricts building in Arab communities in Israel) and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine, in accordance with international law.

The Arab parties’ demands were simply too much for Gantz to handle, for several reasons.

One, Gantz is essentially a right-wing politician and a military hawk, who favors the annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories and has called for even harsher wars on Gaza.

Two, the Blue and White would have never been able to build a wider coalition if it adhered to any of these demands. This much was made clear by the head of Yisrael Beiteinu leader, Avigdor Lieberman.

Three, Member of Knesset (Parliament) Zvi Hauser, one of the most influential figures of the Blue and White, is among the main forces behind the racist Nation State Law of July 2018. Expecting Hauser to cancel the jewel of his political achievements would be most unrealistic and would have further destabilized a party that has already lost nearly half of its supporters in a matter of days.

Hauser is an interesting character, an ambitious politician and a person to watch, as he will play an important future role in Israel’s coalition government.
Hauser will now become the “proverbial long arm of the Judicial Appointments Committee,” according to Yossi Verter, writing in Haaretz. This committee, in particular, was the main stumbling block in the difficult negotiations, which preceded the announcement of a government coalition deal between Gantz and Netanyahu.

According to the deal, Netanyahu can accept or reject any of Hauser’s future appointments. Hauser is unlikely to find Netanyahu’s interference unacceptable, simply because he is used to the idea of being Netanyahu’s point man.

Yes, indeed, Hauser entered public service in 1994 to serve as the Likud party’s spokesman under Netanyahu who, at the time, was the country’s opposition leader. In fact, Hauser’s political career throughout the years seems to be intrinsically linked to Netanyahu’s own.

And here, yet, is another common ground between the Likud and the Blue and White, which could make the planned annexation of parts of the occupied Palestinian West Bank and Jordan Valley very much possible.

The text of the coalition government agreement spoke of potential annexation of parts of the occupied territories as early as the summer, in accordance with the US President Donald Trump’s “Vision for Peace”.

This understanding was by no means a concession on the part of Gantz, who, too, supports some form of annexation.

That’s where Hauser’s role becomes vital once more, for it was Hauser himself who headed the ‘Coalition for the Israeli Golan’, which championed and promoted Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

Hauser’s wish received a huge boost in March 2019, when Trump signed the order recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli.

Despite its difficult birth and the Blue and White setback, the Netanyahu-Gantz coalition has more in common than meets the eye:
For one, Gantz seems to have abandoned his strategy of getting rid of Netanyahu through the court system. With Hauser as a middle man, Netanyahu, at least for now, is somewhat safe.

Secondly, not only is the annexation of Palestinian territories (despite strong Palestinian and international rejection to such a move) not a point of contention between the coalition partners, but a point of agreement as well.

Thirdly, with Gantz’s rejection of a coalition that includes the Joint List, and Netanyahu’s complete disregard for the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians are entirely erased from the political map of Israel’s ruling elites. This is unlikely to change in the future as well.

There is one positive aspect in Israel’s unpromising government coalition, and that is clarity. Knowing of Netanyahu’s anti-Palestinian, anti-peace, and anti-international law long legacy, we should have all the clarity needed to understand that no just peace can possibly be achieved when Netanyahu is still at the helm.

The same can be said of Gantz as well, who preferred to willingly shake the hand of the devil than to find common ground among the leaders of Israel’s Palestinian Arab community.

Even when Netanyahu’s eighteen-month term as Prime Minister expires, a Gantz-led Israeli government is unlikely to fare any better.

More articles by:Ramzy Baroud

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London, 2018). He earned a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, UCSB.