On World Refugee Day: Trader Joe’s consumers take action for Palestinian rights

Indy Media

20 June 2009

On Saturday, June 20, activists gathered at Trader Joe’s in Oakland and San Francisco to demand that the company stop carrying Israeli goods. Protesters removed Israeli products from the shelves in order to show customers which products they should not buy. They also met with the store managers and asked them to notify their headquarters that they no longer wanted to carry Israeli herbs, couscous and cheese. Similar actions were held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Seattle, Washington, and Sacramento, California. The activists were inspired by campaigns to deshelve Israeli products in Wales and France.

“Trader Joe’s is a company with an excellent reputation for bringing a diverse array of high-quality foods from around the world to U.S. consumers. As Trader Joe’s consumers we are part of a growing movement of people globally who are calling on businesses to be consistent in following ethical business practices,” said Yasmin Qureshi, an organizer of the Don’t Buy Into Apartheid national network.

The group chose June 20th for its kickoff action because it is World Refugee Day, a day recognized world wide to spotlight refugees displaced by war and persecution. Of the eleven million refugees in the world today, over seven million are Palestinian refugees displaced as a direct result of the founding of the state of Israel, many for over 60 years. It is for this reason that Don’t Buy Into Apartheid calls on to Trader Joes to discontinue the sales of Israeli Couscous, Dorot frozen herbs, as well as Pastures of Eden Feta cheese on June 20, 2009.

“Consumer boycotts played an important role in bringing about the end of apartheid in South Africa,” said Sunaina Maira, Associate Professor of Asian American Studies at U.C. Davis. “Corporations with ethical business practices can stop funding injustice and occupation by refusing to sell products made in states that enact racial discrimination and violations of human rights law, such as Israel. The state of Israel was created in 1948 through policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and still continues to violate countless United Nations resolutions. Consumer boycotts are an effective non-violent strategy to pressure states to comply with international law.”

The manager at one Trader Joe’s told the activists, “If you convince our customers to stop buying these products, we will stop carrying them.” The group handed out coupons for customers to give to the cashiers asking the store to stop carrying Israeli products.

In 2005, a broad coalition of Palestinian groups issued a call for the international community to place boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel based on its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and discriminatory laws. “We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. These non-violent principled measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality and;
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.”

Don’t Buy Into Apartheid’s letter to Trader Joe’s was signed by over 35 organizations and 135 individuals. The campaign has gained over 600 members in one month. Trader Joe’s will join them in supporting social justice and racial equality by removing Israeli products from its shelves until Israel agrees to cooperate fully with international law.
For more information on the global boycott of Israeli, see
http://www.bdsmovement.net
http://www.quitpalestine.org/dbia

Africa-Israel under scrutiny for settlement construction

Adri Nieuwhof | Electronic Intifada

22 June 2009

Africa-Israel is the latest target of a boycott campaign by Palestine solidarity activists because of the company’s involvement in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. American and European financial institutions hold a substantial stake in Africa-Israel Investment, investigations reveal.

Africa-Israel Investment is an international holding and investment company based in Israel whose subsidiary, Danya Cebus, has been deeply involved in the construction of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). According to research by the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace, the company executed construction projects in the Israeli settlements of Modi’in Illit, Ma’ale Adumim, Har Homa and Adam. In addition, Africa-Israel offers apartments and houses in various settlements in the West Bank through the Israeli franchise of its real estate agency, Anglo Saxon, which has a branch in the Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

Diamond mogul Lev Leviev is Chairman of the Africa-Israel Investment Board of Directors, and holds roughly 75 percent of the company. On 8 March, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Lev Leviev does not have a problem with building in the OPT “if the State of Israel grants permits legally.”

Leviev and his brother-in-law Daviv Eliashov own the company Leader Management and Development (LMD). According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, LMD requested and was granted approval to expand the Zufim settlement with approximately 1,400 housing units. The company has begun construction and in the process, orchards and agricultural lands belonging to the Palestinian village of Jayyus have been bulldozed, and their water wells and greenhouses confiscated.

Israeli settlements in the OPT are illegal under international law. This has been confirmed by numerous UN resolutions and the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Israel’s wall in the West Bank. The settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The construction of settlements also violates of Article 53 prohibiting the destruction of property.

Recently, the Norwegian State Pension Fund came under pressure after Norwegian watchdog Norwatch revealed the pension fund had invested $850,000 in Africa-Israel Investment Ltd. According to the research of the authoritative financial source Capital IQ, with its investment, the Norwegian State Pension Fund became the fifth-largest investor in the company. Prior to a visit to the pension fund’s ethics committee, a delegation of the Norwegian Socialist Left Party traveled to the West Bank and Gaza Strip to learn about the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In a 15 May interview with the Ma’an News Agency, the party’s parliamentarian and spokesperson on foreign affairs, Aringgot Valle, stated that “No doubt we as a party cannot support investment in a company that violates human rights, contributes to an occupation and war.” Valle added that if the Norwegian State Pension Fund considers investing in Africa-Israel “then the ethics guidelines must be re-written.”

Norwatch also revealed that private Norwegian banks were involved in Africa-Israel. Banks offered customers the possibility to invest in BlackRock Emerging Europe Fund (EEF), which invests in Africa-Israel.

One of these Norwegian banks, Storebrand made clear to BlackRock that its investments in Africa-Israel are in contradiction with its ethical guidelines during meetings with the company in April and May. However, Christine Torklep Meisingset, head of Responsible Investments at Storebrand, told The Electronic Intifada that the bank decided not to divest from BlackRock EEF. Although she would not provide any information on the discussion, she indicated that Storebrand considered BlackRock’s response satisfactory. However, BlackRock refuses to comment publicly on the discussions.

On 12 June, BlackRock announced its purchase of Barclays Global Investors, a subsidiary of Barclays Bank. Capital IQ lists Barclays Global Fund Advisors as the second-largest investor in Africa-Israel Investments after Lev Leviev. Based on Capital IQ’s most recent information for this year, BlackRock is mentioned as the seventh-largest holder of Africa-Israel shares. After purchasing Barclays, BlackRock is now the second-largest investor in the company after Leviev.

The fourth-largest investor is the Vanguard Group. Vanguard has been the target of a campaign calling for divesting from companies investing in Sudan, because of companies’ alleged complicity in the genocide in Darfur. In sixth place is the US Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund. According to Capital IQ, rounding out the top 10 investors in Africa-Israel are Danish fund managers Investeringsforeningen Sydinvest and Swedish AP 1 pension fund, which are the eighth- and tenth-largest, respectively.

As corporations that abet or profit from Israel’s human rights violations come under further scrutiny, financial institutions and their investors face increasing pressure to drop these companies from their portfolios. Most recently, the Swedish pension fund AP7 excluded the French transportation company Alstom because of its involvement in the Israeli tramway project that runs on Palestinian land, and the Belgian-French financial group Dexia announced it will no longer finance illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate based in Switzerland.

Barak authorizes construction of 300 new homes in West Bank

Ha’aretz

23 June 2009

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has authorized the building of 300 new homes in the West Bank, defying U.S. calls for a halt to settlement growth.

According to Army Radio said 60 of the 300 homes slated for the Talmon settlement in the West Bank have already been built and that Barak had approved plans to construct another 240 units there.

U.S. President Barack Obama has pressed Israel to halt settlement activity as part of a bid to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Half a million Jews live in settlement blocs and smaller outposts built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

The World Court has ruled all settlements illegal under international law. The United States and European Union regard them as obstacles to peace.

Palestinians, who want their own state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see the settlements as a land grab meant to deny them a viable state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far refused to declare a settlement freeze, which could spark a backlash within his right-leaning coalition government.

Israel says the Palestinian Authority has not done enough to stop militant violence.

West Bank village sues developers in Montreal court

Leigh Anne Williams | Anglican Journal

22 June 2009

The Israeli-Palestinian dispute over land in the occupied territories has come to a Montreal courtroom this week. Lawyers for the West Bank village of Bil’in are suing developers Green Park International and Green Mount International, which are registered in Quebec, for building settlements on land that was confiscated from the village by Israel.

Prior to the start of the hearings, Mohammed Al-Khatib, who serves on the village council and is one of a committee of people who organizes weekly non-violent protests against the occupation, and Emily Schaeffer, a lawyer with the Israeli law firm that has taken on Bil’in’s case, traveled across Canada to explain why the village was suing the developers. Their tour was supported in part by Kairos, an ecumenical social justice organization of which the Anglican Church of Canada is a member, and numerous other organizations.

Late in 2004, Israel constructed the part of its security wall that cuts Bil’in’s land in half, Mr. Khatib says. It separated the residential part of the village from the agricultural land where they cultivate olive trees. In this place, he said, the wall is 4.5 km into Palestinian territory, outside the Green Line. The villagers were not offered compensation for the land that was taken, he said, but added they would not have accepted it anyway because they want their land, not money.

Ms. Schaeffer said that attempts to fight the case in Israeli courts have failed because it is within the context of “Israeli law, law made for the West Bank. And that’s why we’re here in Canada because we are looking for a country that will recognize that Israel’s laws in the West Bank are null and void. International law is what matters.”

Since the land was confiscated, parts of it have been used to build communities for Jewish settlers, and Green Park International and Green Mount International are the developers that have built the homes and buildings.

The case, Ms. Scaheffer said, is based on Canadian legislation called the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act of 2000, which incorporates the fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court and calls settlements a war crime. Bil’in’s lawyers are asking the court to declare that settlements are illegal, to stop the building of new structures, to remove the buildings and restore the land and to rule that each company must pay a penalty of $2 million and the registered director must pay $25,000. “It’s important to say that this is not compensation for the loss of the land but only a penalty. There is no price tag for this land. Bil’in is not interested in selling,” she said. “The next thing that is bigger than Bil’in and even bigger than Palestine is the idea that corporations need to be held accountable for violating human rights and violating international law,” she said.

The case is in its early stages. Filed in July 2008, this is the first time the two sides will appear in court for preliminary hearings on three motions filed by the corporations to dismiss the case. Ronald Levy, one of the lawyers representing the corporations, was unavailable for comment, but CBC reported that he planned to argue that the case should be dismissed because it is not the right jurisdiction for this issue.

Bil’in is known for its non-violent approach to protest, and it has many international supporters, including Israelis, who come to show solidarity with the villagers for weekly protests, and on anniversary days when there are larger demonstrations. Mr. Khatib says there are sometimes hundreds of Israelis protesting with them. “The struggle came to us, so it forced us to struggle, but also we [were] waiting for this chance to do what we think is a good way to resist, which is the non-violent resistance,” he said. Still, this kind of protest can be dangerous and has cost the villagers dearly. Mr. Khatib said thousands of protesters have been injured and, in April, a friend was killed when he was hit by a tear gas canister at close range. The canisters are meant to shoot as far as a half a kilometer, so they are like rockets, Mr. Khatib said.

He added that “our struggle is not against the Jewish (people)…we are against the occupation.” He said that the group does resist against the settlers as representatives of the occupation, but not as human beings. Mr. Khatib said he counts an Israeli man who was in the army as one of his best friends. “He was in the army and we know that he was in the army, but he’s here in Bil’in to resist the occupation … so we welcome him and anyone who will come to know and understand and to participate with us.”

The preliminary hearings are scheduled to wrap up on June 25.

Defense of universal jurisdiction speech presented to conference in Madrid

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

22 June 2009

Dear friends, comrades, partners in civil society, and national and international human rights organizations, thank you all for coming, and for joining us here today.

Today, the Gaza Strip lies in ruins. Five months after Israel’s criminal offensive, which cost the lives of 1,414 Palestinians – 83% of whom were civilians – and injured 5,300 others, recovery is impossible. The siege of the Gaza Strip, an illegal form of collective punishment imposed on Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants, has now been in place for over two continuous years. Individuals are denied their rights to freedom of movement, people and goods cannot enter or leave. Israel has systematically suffocated the economic and social life of the Strip, and created a humanitarian crisis. In Gaza today there is not even the concrete with which to build a tombstone. Five months after the end of the war, the situation in Gaza is exactly the same as it was on 18 January. Only the weather has changed.

It is because of this illegal siege that I cannot be here with you today. However, I hope that through this speech my words can still reach you.

On 29 January 2009 we were happy and proud. The Spanish Audencia Nacional had asserted that it would launch an investigation into the events surrounding the Al-Daraj attack in Gaza in 2002. This war crime killed 14 civilians, wounded approximately 150 others, and completely or partially destroyed 38 apartment buildings. It was a proud day across the globe, for all those who seek to uphold the rule of law, and to pursue accountability. It was especially significant coming so close as it did after the end of Israel’s war on Gaza. The Spanish judiciary had shown their independence and their integrity, continuing the trail of accountability from Pinochet to Ben-Eliezer.

However, we were shocked to see the Spanish Foreign Minister apologizing to Israel, and promising to change the law. Spain and Europe should be proud of the independence and integrity of their judiciaries. This is something that should be promoted, not restrained.

On 19 May we were shocked once more, as the Spanish Parliament passed a resolution requesting that the government limit the scope of Spain’s universal jurisdiction legislation. Today, we are at risk of losing one of the most important bastions in the fight for universal justice.

The consequences could not be more severe. Simply, they are continued suffering, death, pain and misery, as those who commit international crimes will continue to be granted impunity and encouraged to continue committing atrocities. The effects will be felt throughout the world. We are scared, not only as Palestinians but as international citizens. Without the rule of law, and without accountability, how can we uphold our rights? Are we to be consigned to the rule of the jungle, is Guantanamo to become a model for the future? Is international law to be disregarded, and are human rights to be cast aside, fresh victims of international politics?

It is this shock that has provoked these events in Madrid. We are gathered here, from all strands of society, and all walks of life, to speak out for justice. The rule of law must be upheld. If this amendment passes we will lose one more place where war criminals can be held to account; one more place, where impunity can be combated.

This is not an academic or a legal issue. It affects each and every one of us. To this day Israel pursues those responsible for crimes committed during the holocaust. This is right, and just. Yet this same principle must be applied to all. All suffering is equal, justice cannot be selective. The powerful must be held to account along with the weak. Entire peoples cannot be consigned to the rule of the jungle for the sake of political expediency.

The siege of the Gaza Strip which I referred to earlier is pertinently relevant to the discussion here today. The siege and its effects, which have contributed to the complete economic and social suffocation of Gazaand the emergence of a humanitarian crisis, highlight the key importance of universal jurisdiction. For too long now, Israel has been allowed to violate international law with impunity. Until effective pressure is placed on the State of Israel, and on individuals accused of committing war crimes, until they are investigated and prosecuted in accordance with international legal standards, impunity will prevail. In order for the rule of law to be relevant, it must be enforced. As long as impunity persists, individuals and States will continue to violate international law. It is civilians, the protected persons of international humanitarian law (IHL) who continue to suffer the horrific consequences, as they are killed, maimed, and deprived of their basic human dignity. It is for them that we are gathered here today, and that is something we must never lose sight of. We must continue our fight for justice, on behalf of those to whom justice has been denied.

Universal jurisdiction only applies when States with a more traditional jurisdictional connection to the crime, such as the place of commission, or the nationality of the perpetrator, prove genuinely unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute. In other words, it applies when national systems are unable to conduct an effective trial, or when they are unwilling to do so: when they attempt to shield those accused of international crimes from justice, to grant them impunity, and to effectively condone their acts. In such instances, universal jurisdiction allows foreign courts – acting as agents of the international community – to investigate and prosecute. Universal jurisdiction is established to ensure that justice is done. These crimes cannot go unpunished, victims legitimate rights to judicial remedy must be upheld. In the face of all that they have suffered, this fundamental principle of human rights cannot be neglected. It must be stressed that universal jurisdiction applies only to the most serious crimes. Crimes that include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture.

Ideally, the practice of universal jurisdiction would not be necessary. The establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 was an important step on the road to universal justice, whereby the protections of international law may extend to all individuals, without discrimination. However, to date, international politics have frustrated the development of the ICC. Due to the lack of universal ratification, there remain areas in the world to which enforceable international law does not extend; areas of the world where individuals continue to suffer war crimes, and torture, and where those who commit them are allowed to act with impunity. This situation cannot be allowed to prevail. Politics cannot be placed above individual’s human rights. International human rights law was established to protect individuals from the abuse of State power. It is inexcusable that today, when the fundamental importance of human rights are evident to all, that States be allowed to use their power to act outside the law. To act with impunity.

It is for this very reason, that universal jurisdiction is so important. In the absence of a universally ratified ICC, universal jurisdiction provides the only mechanism whereby international law can extend to all individuals. Today, in the fight against impunity and the fight for victims’ rights, universal jurisdiction represents the very foundation of our work. It is where we must make our stand. Today in Spain, universal jurisdiction cases are being pursued against the United States, against China, and against Israel, some of the most powerful and influential States in the world. Without universal jurisdiction, how can these States be held to account, how can we ensure that international law applies to all individuals, on the basis of their shared humanity and fundamental equality. The rule of law is essential; it is the basis from which human rights evolve. It is unacceptable that those in powerful countries be granted the benefit of the law’s protections, while those in weaker nations, all too often the victims of the powerful, are consigned to the rule of the jungle.

Universal jurisdiction offers hope to victims throughout the entire world, in many cases, it is their only hope. That is why the events of the next few days are of such profound importance. Spain enjoys a proud place in the fight for justice and equality. In the 1930s, international volunteers rallied behind Spain, fighting for freedom against oppression. In recent years, Spain has come to the forefront of the fight for universal justice, pursuing high profile cases such as Pinochet, Scilingo, and the Guatemal Generals. Yet the proposed amendment to Spain’s universal jurisdiction legislation would see this proud history undone. It would represent a serious setback not only for the international legal order, but for all those throughout the world who have been denied justice, those who have suffered at the hands of oppressive regimes, and those who continue to do so.

It is widely believed, that the Spanish proposal came about as a result of political pressure. The source of this political pressure must be acknowledged. It is exerted by States who have been accused of violating international law, of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture. The political pressure placed on the Spanish people is being exerted by States who seek to shield war criminals from justice.

This pressure must be fought. Politics can not be allowed to trample over justice. Individuals’ fundamental human rights cannot be casually disregarded in the corridors of power. Today, and over the coming days we must make a stand. We must speak truth to power.

Justice is not something to be discarded at a whim. Human rights, the fundamental principles of humanity, are vital. They must be protected, promoted, and strengthened. Not denied as a result of political pressure from those States who would see human rights discarded in their own self-interest; those States who believe that human rights are for some, and not for all.

Although universal jurisdiction is a universal issue, relevant to all individuals throughout the world, I would like to speak briefly from a Palestinian perspective. For many reasons I have worked as a human rights lawyer and defender. I have seen continuous violations of international law, and their horrific consequences. As I noted earlier, the Gaza Strip lies in ruins, forced to remain exactly as the Israeli’s left it on the 18 January, over five months ago. The annexation of Jerusalem continues unabashed. Despite recent international attention the illegal expansion of settlements in the West Bank continues.

It is evident that in order for the rule of law to be relevant, it must be enforced. For many years now Israel has been allowed to act with impunity. The consequences have been continuing cycles of violence, and increased violations of international law. The recent offensive of the Gaza Strip frames the consequences of this impunity against a harsh reality. This situation cannot be allowed to persist. Those responsible for such crimes must be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with international legal standards; if they are guilty they must be punished, their victims must see justice done. Those who commit war crimes must know that there are consequences to their actions beyond medals, they must know that they will be punished. Otherwise, as has been proven, war crimes will continue to be committed, civilians will continue to suffer the consequences, denied their legitimate rights, their dignity, and the chance of a normal life.

We will continue to devote time and effort in the fight for the rule of law and accountability. This is our life’s mission. We cannot bring the dead back to life, or remove the physical scars of torture, but we can pursue those responsible. We can attempt to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again.

We must combine our forces. Justice is on our side, and that gives us strength. Yet we are a thousand times stronger with your support, with the support of free people. On behalf of all Palestinians, and the residents of the Gaza Strip, I thank you for your efforts to date, and urge you to continue the fight.

In the interests of justice, and on behalf of the victims whose rights we have been mandated to fight for, this amendment cannot pass. I urge you to do all that you can, to lobby, to agitate, and to demonstrate. The fight against impunity cannot be lost.