Tag: Electronic Intifada

Arrest of Palestinian children on the rise

Mel Frykberg | The Electronic Intifada

25 September 2009

BILIN, occupied West Bank (IPS) – Eight children between the ages of 10 and 17 were arrested and detained by Israeli soldiers during military raids Monday night and Tuesday morning in the northern West Bank cities Nablus and Qalqiliya.

Defence for Children International- Palestine Section (DCI) has released a statement that the number of children detained in Israeli jails and temporary Israeli army detention centers this year has risen by 17.5 percent compared with 2008.

“The average number of Palestinian children held in Israeli detention in 2009 remains high, at 375 per month compared with an average of 319 in 2008,” says DCI.

“Disturbingly, 39 young children between the ages of 12 and 15 were detained in August 2009. This is up 85 percent compared to the corresponding period in 2008 of 21 children.”

Israel is a signatory to the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that “the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.”

Nashmi Muhammad Abu Rahme, 14, from the West Bank village of Bilin near Ramallah was arrested and dragged from his bed at 3 am on 15 August after Israeli soldiers raided his home.

The village of Bilin has been involved in a protracted campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience against Israel’s building of a wall which cuts through village land, separating villagers and farmers from their agricultural fields.

The villagers successfully petitioned an Israeli court to have the wall re-routed several years ago, but the Israeli army has failed to comply with the court’s orders.

“My family was awoken by the sounds of Israeli soldiers yelling and starting to smash down the door. I was blindfolded and tightly handcuffed by the soldiers and then thrown into the back of a jeep,” recalls Abu Rahme.

“During the journey to the military base I was repeatedly slapped, beaten and kicked until I was bleeding. I was very scared,” Abu Rahme told IPS.

Israeli medics treated Abu Rahme for bleeding and contusions before he was brought before an interrogator, again blindfolded and handcuffed. His interrogation lasted three hours, during which he was accused of throwing stones at soldiers near the wall on Bilin’s agricultural land.

Abu Rahme was kept in jail for a week before he was brought before a military prosecutor. He was fined 5,000 shekels ($1,340) and released.

“We have had about 12 children from our village arrested and detained by the Israelis,” Hassan Moussa, a schoolteacher from the neighboring village of Nilin told IPS.

Under Israeli administrative detention, Palestinians can be held for six months without trial, and this can be renewed at the end of that period for another six months.

“It interrupts their education when they are detained for weeks and months without being brought to trial,” says Moussa.

Most Palestinian children are held for stone-throwing. Israeli Military Order 378 carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for this, five years less than the average murder sentence in Israel.

“During interrogation, children as young as 12 years are denied access to a lawyer and visits from their families,” says DCI.

“While under interrogation children are subjected to a number of prohibited techniques. These include the excessive use of blindfolds and handcuffs, slapping and kicking, painful position abuse for long periods of time, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, and a combination of physical and psychological threats,” says DCI.

Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem describes the tiny cells where Palestinian children are often held in solitary confinement.

These include the “lock-up,” a dark cell of 1.5 by 1.5 meters. The “closet” is a narrow cell the height of a person that one can stand in but not sit or move. The “grave” is a box closed by a door from the top and measuring approximately one meter by 60 cm with a depth of about 80 cm.

DCI has documented at least seven cases during Israel’s war on Gaza at the beginning of the year where Gazan children were used as human shields by Israeli soldiers.

“There is a big difference in the way Palestinian and Israeli minors are treated by Israeli law,” Khaled Quzmar from DCI Palestine told IPS.

Palestinian children as young as 12 years are prosecuted in the Israeli military courts and are treated as adults as soon as they turn 16, in contrast to the situation under Israeli domestic law, whereby majority is attained at 18.

The Israeli army announced in July that it would be setting up a separate military court for juveniles. Hitherto both Palestinian adults and children had been tried together.

“The good news is that after 42 years of occupation the Israelis have recognized that their legal treatment of Palestinian children has been morally indefensible,” says Quzmar.

“The bad news is that the changes are merely semantic. Children will continue to be tried by the same judges in the same jails. The only difference is juveniles will be tried at separate times,” Quzmar told IPS.

Previously, according to military law, there was no statute of limitations on offenses by Palestinians, even if the suspect committed the offense when he or she was a minor.

“While the new order ostensibly sets a two-year statute of limitations for offenses committed by minors, it also allows the military prosecutor to overrule this. The prosecution will generally be given the benefit of the doubt,” added Quzmar.

Can we talk? The Middle East “peace industry”

Faris Giacaman | The Electronic Intifada

20 August 2009

Attempts to establish "dialogue" while Israel continues to oppress Palestinians only undermine the call for boycott. (ActiveStills)
Attempts to establish "dialogue" while Israel continues to oppress Palestinians only undermine the call for boycott. (ActiveStills)

Upon finding out that I am Palestinian, many people I meet at college in the United States are eager to inform me of various activities that they have participated in that promote “coexistence” and “dialogue” between both sides of the “conflict,” no doubt expecting me to give a nod of approval. However, these efforts are harmful and undermine the Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel — the only way of pressuring Israel to cease its violations of Palestinians’ rights.

When I was a high school student in Ramallah, one of the better known “people-to-people” initiatives, Seeds of Peace, often visited my school, asking students to join their program. Almost every year, they would send a few of my classmates to a summer camp in the US with a similar group of Israeli students. According to the Seeds of Peace website, at the camp they are taught “to develop empathy, respect, and confidence as well as leadership, communication and negotiation skills — all critical components that will facilitate peaceful coexistence for the next generation.” They paint quite a rosy picture, and most people in college are very surprised to hear that I think such activities are misguided at best, and immoral, at worst. Why on earth would I be against “coexistence,” they invariably ask?

During the last few years, there have been growing calls to bring to an end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people through an international movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). One of the commonly-held objections to the boycott is that it is counter-productive, and that “dialogue” and “fostering coexistence” is much more constructive than boycotts.

With the beginning of the Oslo accords in 1993, there has been an entire industry that works toward bringing Israelis and Palestinians together in these “dialogue” groups. The stated purpose of such groups is the creating of understanding between “both sides of the conflict,” in order to “build bridges” and “overcome barriers.” However, the assumption that such activities will help facilitate peace is not only incorrect, but is actually morally lacking.

The presumption that dialogue is needed in order to achieve peace completely ignores the historical context of the situation in Palestine. It assumes that both sides have committed, more or less, an equal amount of atrocities against one another, and are equally culpable for the wrongs that have been done. It is assumed that not one side is either completely right or completely wrong, but that both sides have legitimate claims that should be addressed, and certain blind spots that must be overcome. Therefore, both sides must listen to the “other” point of view, in order to foster understanding and communication, which would presumably lead to “coexistence” or “reconciliation.”

Such an approach is deemed “balanced” or “moderate,” as if that is a good thing. However, the reality on the ground is vastly different than the “moderate” view of this so-called “conflict.” Even the word “conflict” is misleading, because it implies a dispute between two symmetric parties. The reality is not so; it is not a case of simple misunderstanding or mutual hatred which stands in the way of peace. The context of the situation in Israel/Palestine is that of colonialism, apartheid and racism, a situation in which there is an oppressor and an oppressed, a colonizer and a colonized.

In cases of colonialism and apartheid, history shows that colonial regimes do not relinquish power without popular struggle and resistance, or direct international pressure. It is a particularly naive view to assume that persuasion and “talking” will convince an oppressive system to give up its power.

The apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance, was ended after years of struggle with the vital aid of an international campaign of sanctions, divestments and boycotts. If one had suggested to the oppressed South Africans living in bantustans to try and understand the other point of view (i.e. the point of view of South African white supremacists), people would have laughed at such a ridiculous notion. Similarly, during the Indian struggle for emancipation from British colonial rule, Mahatma Gandhi would not have been venerated as a fighter for justice had he renounced satyagraha — “holding firmly to the truth,” his term for his nonviolent resistance movement — and instead advocated for dialogue with the occupying British colonialists in order to understand their side of the story.

Now, it is true that some white South Africans stood in solidarity with the oppressed black South Africans, and participated in the struggle against apartheid. And there were, to be sure, some British dissenters to their government’s colonial policies. But those supporters explicitly stood alongside the oppressed with the clear objective of ending oppression, of fighting the injustices perpetrated by their governments and representatives. Any joint gathering of both parties, therefore, can only be morally sound when the citizens of the oppressive state stand in solidarity with the members of the oppressed group, not under the banner of “dialogue” for the purpose of “understanding the other side of the story.” Dialogue is only acceptable when done for the purpose of further understanding the plight of the oppressed, not under the framework of having “both sides heard.”

It has been argued, however, by the Palestinian proponents of these dialogue groups, that such activities may be used as a tool — not to promote so-called “understanding,” — but to actually win over Israelis to the Palestinian struggle for justice, by persuading them or “having them recognize our humanity.”

However, this assumption is also naive. Unfortunately, most Israelis have fallen victim to the propaganda that the Zionist establishment and its many outlets feed them from a young age. Moreover, it will require a huge, concerted effort to counter this propaganda through persuasion. For example, most Israelis will not be convinced that their government has reached a level of criminality that warrants a call for boycott. Even if they are logically convinced of the brutalities of Israeli oppression, it will most likely not be enough to rouse them into any form of action against it. This has been proven to be true time and again, evident in the abject failure of such dialogue groups to form any comprehensive anti-occupation movement ever since their inception with the Oslo process. In reality, nothing short of sustained pressure — not persuasion — will make Israelis realize that Palestinian rights have to be rectified. That is the logic of the BDS movement, which is entirely opposed to the false logic of dialogue.

Based on an unpublished 2002 report by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last October that “between 1993 and 2000 [alone], Western governments and foundations spent between $20 million and $25 million on the dialogue groups.” A subsequent wide-scale survey of Palestinians who participated in the dialogue groups revealed that this great expenditure failed to produce “a single peace activist on either side.” This affirms the belief among Palestinians that the entire enterprise is a waste of time and money.

The survey also revealed that the Palestinian participants were not fully representative of their society. Many participants tended to be “children or friends of high-ranking Palestinian officials or economic elites. Only seven percent of participants were refugee camp residents, even though they make up 16 percent of the Palestinian population.” The survey also found that 91 percent of Palestinian participants no longer maintained ties with Israelis they met. In addition, 93 percent were not approached with follow-up camp activity, and only five percent agreed the whole ordeal helped “promote peace culture and dialogue between participants.”

Despite the resounding failure of these dialogue projects, money continues to be invested in them. As Omar Barghouti, one of the founding members of the BDS movement in Palestine, explained in The Electronic Intifada, “there have been so many attempts at dialogue since 1993 … it became an industry — we call it the peace industry.”

This may be partly attributed to two factors. The dominant factor is the useful role such projects play in public relations. For example, the Seeds of Peace website boosts its legitimacy by featuring an impressive array of endorsements by popular politicians and authorities, such as Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Shimon Peres, George Bush, Colin Powell and Tony Blair, amongst others. The second factor is the need of certain Israeli “leftists” and “liberals” to feel as if they are doing something admirable to “question themselves,” while in reality they take no substantive stand against the crimes that their government commits in their name. The politicians and Western governments continue to fund such projects, thereby bolstering their images as supporters of “coexistence,” and the “liberal” Israeli participants can exonerate themselves of any guilt by participating in the noble act of “fostering peace.” A symbiotic relationship, of sorts.

The lack of results from such initiatives is not surprising, as the stated objectives of dialogue and “coexistence” groups do not include convincing Israelis to help Palestinians gain the respect of their inalienable rights. The minimum requirement of recognizing Israel’s inherently oppressive nature is absent in these dialogue groups. Rather, these organizations operate under the dubious assumption that the “conflict” is very complex and multifaceted, where there are “two sides to every story,” and each narrative has certain valid claims as well as biases.

As the authoritative call by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel makes plain, any joint Palestinian-Israeli activities — whether they be film screenings or summer camps — can only be acceptable when their stated objective is to end, protest, and/or raise awareness of the oppression of the Palestinians.

Any Israeli seeking to interact with Palestinians, with the clear objective of solidarity and helping them to end oppression, will be welcomed with open arms. Caution must be raised, however, when invitations are made to participate in a dialogue between “both sides” of the so-called “conflict.” Any call for a “balanced” discourse on this issue — where the motto “there are two sides to every story” is revered almost religiously — is intellectually and morally dishonest, and ignores the fact that, when it comes to cases of colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, there is no such thing as “balance.” The oppressor society, by and large, will not give up its privileges without pressure. This is why the BDS campaign is such an important instrument of change.

Faris Giacaman is a Palestinian student from the West Bank, attending his second year of college in the United States.

Internet users paid to spread Israeli propaganda

Jonathan Cook | Electronic Intifada

22 July 2009

The passionate support for Israel expressed on talkback and comment sections of websites, internet chat forums, blogs, Twitter and Facebook may not be all that it seems.

Israel’s foreign ministry is reported to be establishing a special undercover team of paid workers whose job it will be to surf the internet 24 hours a day spreading positive news about Israel.

Internet-savvy Israeli youngsters, mainly recent graduates and demobilized soldiers with language skills, are being recruited to pose as ordinary surfers while they provide the government’s line on the Middle East conflict.

“To all intents and purposes the internet is a theater in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we must be active in that theatre, otherwise we will lose,” said Ilan Shturman, who is responsible for the project.

The existence of an “internet warfare team” came to light when it was included in this year’s foreign ministry budget. About $150,000 has been set aside for the first stage of development, with increased funding expected next year.

The team will fall under the authority of a large department already dealing with what Israelis term “hasbara,” officially translated as “public explanation” but more usually meaning propaganda. That includes not only government public relations work but more secretive dealings the ministry has with a battery of private organizations and initiatives that promote Israel’s image in print, on TV and online.

In an interview this month with the Calcalist, an Israeli business newspaper, Shturman, the deputy director of the ministry’s hasbara department, admitted his team would be working undercover.

“Our people will not say: ‘Hello, I am from the hasbara department of the Israeli foreign ministry and I want to tell you the following.’ Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis,” he said. “They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the foreign ministry developed.”

Rona Kuperboim, a columnist for Ynet, Israel’s most popular news website, denounced the initiative, saying it indicated that Israel had become a “thought-police state.”

She added that “good PR cannot make the reality in the occupied territories prettier. Children are being killed, homes are being bombed, and families are starved.”

Her column was greeted by several talkbackers asking how they could apply for a job with the foreign ministry’s team.

The project is a formalization of public relations practices the ministry developed specifically for Israel’s assault on Gaza in December and January.

“During Operation Cast Lead we appealed to Jewish communities abroad and with their help we recruited a few thousand volunteers, who were joined by Israeli volunteers,” Shturman said.

“We gave them background material and hasbara material, and we sent them to represent the Israeli point of view on news websites and in polls on the internet.”

The Israeli army also had one of the most popular sites on the video-sharing site YouTube and regularly uploaded clips, although it was criticized by human rights groups for misleading viewers about what was shown in its footage.

Shturman said that during the war the ministry had concentrated its activities on European websites where audiences were more hostile to Israeli policy. High on its list of target sites for the new project would be BBC Online and Arabic websites, he added.

Elon Gilad, who heads the internet team, told Calcalist that many people had contacted the ministry offering their services during the Gaza attack. “People just asked for information, and afterwards we saw that the information was distributed all over the internet.”

He suggested that there had been widespread government cooperation, with the ministry of absorption handing over contact details for hundreds of recent immigrants to Israel, who wrote pro-Israel material for websites in their native languages.

The new team is expected to increase the ministry’s close coordination with a private advocacy group, giyus.org (Give Israel Your United Support). About 50,000 activists are reported to have downloaded a program called Megaphone that sends an alert to their computers when an article critical of Israel is published. They are then supposed to bombard the site with comments supporting Israel.

Nasser Rego of Ilam, a group based in Nazareth that monitors the Israeli media, said Arab organizations in Israel were among those regularly targeted by hasbara groups for “character assassination.” He was concerned the new team would try to make such work appear more professional and convincing.

“If these people are misrepresenting who they are, we can guess they won’t worry too much about misrepresenting the groups and individuals they write about. Their aim, it’s clear, will be to discredit those who stand for human rights and justice for the Palestinians.”

When this reporter called the foreign ministry, Yigal Palmor, a spokesman, denied the existence of the internet team, though he admitted officials were stepping up exploitation of new media.

He declined to say which comments by Shturman or Gilad had been misrepresented by the Hebrew-language media, and said the ministry would not be taking any action over the reports.

Israel has developed an increasingly sophisticated approach to new media since it launched a “Brand Israel” campaign in 2005.

Market research persuaded officials that Israel should play up good news about business success, and scientific and medical breakthroughs involving Israelis.

Shturman said his staff would seek to use websites to improve “Israel’s image as a developed state that contributes to the quality of the environment and to humanity.”

David Saranga, head of public relations at Israel’s consulate-general in New York, which has been leading the push for more upbeat messages about Israel, argued last week that Israel was at a disadvantage against pro-Palestinian advocacy.

“Unlike the Muslim world, which has hundreds of millions of supporters who have adopted the Palestinian narrative in order to slam Israel, the Jewish world numbers only 13 million,” he wrote in Ynet.

Israel has become particularly concerned that support is ebbing among the younger generations in Europe and the United States.

In 2007 it emerged that the foreign ministry was behind a photo-shoot published in Maxim, a popular US men’s magazine, in which female Israeli soldiers posed in swimsuits.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.

Why is South Africa still helping apartheid Israel?

Sayed Dhansay | Electronic Intifada

21 July 2009

A few weeks ago I departed from South Africa for the Gaza Strip in order to take up a short-term voluntary post with a humanitarian organization there. As the Rafah border crossing with Egypt is effectively the only passage in and out of the besieged territory, flying to Cairo was my only option in gaining access to Gaza.

The Egyptian border authorities controlling the Rafah crossing have varying and often arbitrary requirements that must be fulfilled by anyone wishing to enter Gaza, which change regularly and without notice. The latest requirement is that any non-Palestinian wishing to visit Gaza needs to obtain prior written permission from their embassy in Cairo. This is ostensibly to ensure that foreigners have received the relevant travel warnings from their respective embassies and to absolve the Egyptian government of any responsibility for their health or safety once in Gaza.

While this appears reasonable, as I learned over the next few days, it is actually designed to prevent the entry of foreigners into the Gaza Strip. At the South African Embassy in Cairo, I quickly realized that my government was conspiring with the Egyptian and Israeli siege of the tiny coastal territory. After repeated requests with various representatives, my embassy refused to provide the necessary permission for me to enter Gaza. Indeed, I was told that the embassy was under “strict orders directly from the South African government not to facilitate the travel of any South African citizen to Gaza via Rafah.” Even when I contacted the South African Ambassador, Ms. Santo Kudjoe directly, my request for assistance was denied without any credible reasons. After this, the embassy simply began ignoring my telephone calls.

What enraged me further was that the embassies of every other country, except Sweden, were cooperating with their citizens and providing them with the necessary letters of consent. I personally saw American, French and Polish aid workers entering because they had the dreaded letter.

I had expected to encounter difficulty from Egyptian and Israeli authorities upon attempting to enter Gaza. But neither had interfered. After traveling thousands of kilometers, and now literally standing a few hundred meters away from Gaza, the sad irony was that it was my own government that was preventing me from entering. I couldn’t understand why South Africa, which claims to be sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, had adopted this policy.

Since the beginning of the Israeli-led siege on Gaza over two years ago, the territory has been plunged into socioeconomic chaos. According to the UN, 80 percent of Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants are directly dependent on aid for their basic staple foods. Local trade and industry has collapsed due to virtually all imports and exports being unable to bypass the almost-permanently sealed borders.

The list of 3,000 to 4,000 basic items that were permitted to enter the area prior to the blockade has now been reduced to between 30 to 40 items, with basic household necessities such as light bulbs, candles, matches, books, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner prohibited from entering.

Almost no gasoline or diesel has been allowed in since November 2008, forcing people to run their vehicles and ambulances on cooking gas. Gaza’s only power plant has shut down several times after running out of fuel because the crossing used to import the fuel has been closed. Oxfam research shows that houses across Gaza are without electricity between 4 percent and 33 percent of the time.

In addition, the ban on import of pipes, pumps and other spare parts has caused the collapse of Gaza’s water and sewage network. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, Gaza residents receive only half of their required water needs, with 80 percent of that deemed unfit for consumption by international standards. WHO estimates that between 50-70 million liters of raw or poorly-treated sewage is released into the sea from Gaza daily, due to the collapsing sewage network. Some of Gaza’s sewage is stored in huge lagoons, one of which burst in 2007 causing at least five deaths.

The UN recorded that over 52,000 houses, 800 industrial sites, 204 schools, 39 mosques and two churches were partially or completely destroyed during Israel’s winter assault on Gaza. While international donors have pledged over $3 billion to help rebuild the devastated area, reconstruction efforts have been rendered impossible due to the blockade. As at June 2009, not a single pane of glass had entered Gaza from Israel, while only two truckloads of cement have been granted entry thus far.

Bearing this and our own recent struggle against oppression and apartheid in this country in mind, I find it utterly inconceivable that the South African government would stand in the way of aid workers attempting to render their time and skills in an area so desperately in need of assistance. I have heard several prominent political figures vociferously swearing their loyal support and admiration for the Palestinians on so many occasions, some even going as far as saying that “South Africa is not free until Palestine is free.” This however, unfortunately, appears to be nothing but lip service.

A recently published report conducted by the Palestinian grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign and endorsed by a broad range of humanitarian organizations, accused the South African government of “complicity in Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid.” The report highlights a striking inconsistency between South Africa’s constitution, its obligations under international law, and stated foreign policy on the one hand, and the government’s trade relations with Israeli companies that are directly linked to settlements, checkpoints and the “separation wall” in the Occupied Palestinian Territories — all deemed illegal under international law — on the other.

South Africa’s main power utility, Eskom, for example is accused of having close ties to the Israel Electric Company. According to a speech given at the Israeli Knesset by a South African government representative earlier this year, the Israel Electric Company will participate in the design of new power stations in South Africa. According to the report, the Israel Electric Company is the sole provider of power to all of the occupied West Bank’s illegal settlements.

In addition, Eskom has signed many large contracts with Alstom, a global giant in the transport and energy infrastructure industry, to upgrade its existing plants, as well as build new power stations. Alstom is the same company that is currently being sued in a French court for its involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project built on Palestinian land illegally, and threatening the destruction of many more homes.

Transnet, the South African government’s owner and operator of all national rail and port infrastructure, is also linked to the Israeli video surveillance company NICE Systems. In several multi-million dollar projects, NICE Systems is supplying Transnet with thousands of video surveillance cameras and ancillary equipment throughout the country. According to the report, NICE Systems is heavily involved in wiretapping and surveillance for the Israeli government, with close ties to Israeli intelligence.

South Africa’s state diamond trader Alexkor, is involved primarily in the mining and sale of rough, gem-quality diamonds on the South African Diamond Exchange. Being the world’s largest importer of rough diamonds, Israel is known to buy up a large percentage of South Africa’s rough diamonds. Alexkor is accused of doing business with Israeli diamond magnate Lev Leviev. Leviev, a Ukrainian-born billionaire is heavily involved in the construction of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Due to his extensive role in illegal settlement construction, Leviev has been boycotted by the British government, who refuse to rent property from him for the British embassy in Tel Aviv.

It is well-known that the former South African apartheid regime had close military ties with Israel. But according to the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign’s report, there are still extensive military ties between the two countries. These include the sale of explosive detonators, military aircraft, satellites, as well as spare parts and components for other military vehicles to Israel. In 2005, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that a high level delegation of South African defense ministry officials visited Israel in order to discuss military cooperation.

The report goes on to detail the involvement of numerous other South African State organs, including Telkom, in large-scale transactions and business deals with companies directly involved in the occupation, settlement construction as well as the separation wall.

In a written submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004, the Republic of South Africa clearly stated that it considers the separation wall and settlements illegal. It has therefore acknowledged the applicability of international humanitarian law to the case of Palestine, and thus implicitly accepted the obligations which flow from these laws. Furthermore, the Department of Foreign Affairs has affirmed that “respect for and adherence to international law underpins [South Africa’s] foreign policy.” In South Africa’s case as a third party, the most important obligation is thus to ensure that these laws are enforced.

Why then, do the South African government’s actions and trade relations conflict so drastically with their stated foreign policy and legal and moral obligations? It appears that the government is playing a double game by appeasing the public with lofty rhetoric on the one hand, while violating its own founding ideals as enshrined in the constitution on the other.

Due to their support of South Africans struggling against apartheid, Palestinians likewise expect the same level of support from the now free and democratic South Africa. It was largely because of the pressure exerted by the international boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that the apartheid regime was forced to abolish its racist policies. The least we can do is to return the favor and avoid short-term financial gain from blurring our moral responsibilities.

Having only recently broken free of the humiliation and degradation of apartheid, South Africa should be at the forefront of ending similar injustices wherever else they are found. And if our government is truly a peace loving democracy as it claims to be, then its economic policies should reflect its stated ideals accordingly.

Sayed Dhansay is a South African writer and political activist who volunteered for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in the Israeli-occupied West Bank in 2006-2007.

HeidelbergCement tries to sell West Bank mines as legal, boycott pressures grow

Adri Nieuwhof | Electronic Intifada

13 July 2009

HeidelbergCement, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of building materials, has become the target of legal action in Israel because of its activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). The company’s subsidiary, Hanson Israel, manufactures ready-made cement, aggregates and asphalt for Israel’s construction industry and operates a quarry in the occupied West Bank.

In March, the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din filed a petition with the Israeli high court demanding a halt to illegal mining activity in West Bank quarries, including Hanson Israel’s Nahal Raba quarry. Attorneys representing Yesh Din called upon the court to put an end to this “clearly illegal activity, which constitutes blunt and ugly colonial exploitation of land we [Israel] had forcefully seized.”

Yesh Din’s attorneys argued that the practice is reminiscent of occupation patterns in ancient times when there were no laws of war and the victor could plunder the occupied territory, enslave its economy and citizens, and transfer the natural resources of the vanquished to its own land. In May, Israel ordered a freeze on the expansion of Israeli-run stone and gravel quarries in the occupied West Bank. The Ministry of Justice asked the court to delay a hearing for six months to study the legal position of the quarries. In addition to its mining activity at Nahal Raba, the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace reported on the website Who Profits from the Occupation? that Hanson owns two concrete plants in the settlements of Modiin Illit and Atarot, and an asphalt plant south of the Elqana settlement.

Five years ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed in its authoritative ruling the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, that Israel is the occupying power in the Palestinian territories, and the illegality of settlement construction, which includes the construction of industrial sites in the settlements.

Transnational corporations like HeidelbergCement are required by international law to comply with international rules governing corporate responsibility with respect to human rights.

In 2003, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights defined norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. The norms are framed within the general obligation that “States have the primary responsibility to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of and protect human rights recognized in international as well as national law, including ensuring that transnational corporations and other business enterprises respect human rights.”

“Transnational corporations and other business enterprises,” the UN norms state, also specifically “have the obligation to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of and protect human rights recognized in international as well as national law, including the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.”

Hanson Israel’s concrete and asphalt plants in the OPT — just like the Israeli settlements — are contrary to international law. Israel’s mining of Palestinian natural resources, mainly for the Israeli market, also violates international law. Through Hanson Israel’s operations in the occupied West Bank, HeidelbergCement is involved in Israel’s violations of international law and the company acts against the rights and interest of the indigenous Palestinian people.

The UN Norms for transnational corporations are an authoritative guide to corporate social responsibility. Institutional investors and asset managers are increasingly insisting on corporate social responsibility as a requirement for their continued investment. As states fail to meet their obligations to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law, economic pressure can be used as a tool to hold companies who render aid or assistance to Israel’s violations of international law to account.

In early 2008, for example, the Dutch ASN Bank divested from the Irish construction firm Cement Roadstone Holding (CRH), a competitor of HeidelbergCement. CRH owns 25 percent of the Israeli Mashav Group, the holding company for Nesher Cement. According to the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace, Nesher provided cement for Israel’s wall, checkpoints and illegal settlements in the OPT. Activists in Ireland have demanded that CRH end all of its activities that facilitate the Israeli occupation.

The growing global movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel has brought major investor, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, under pressure to distance itself from companies benefiting from the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In May, 20 Israeli organizations sent a letter to the pension fund calling for divestment from 15 companies, including HeidelbergCement.

Following a sustained campaign calling for an end of French transportation giant Veolia’s complicity with Israeli violations of Palestinian rights, it was reported last month that the corporation planned to abandon its involvement in a light rail project in Jerusalem that would effectively normalize the illegal situation of Israel’s settlements.

Although Veolia’s headquarters in Paris has remained silent, the company’s communications manager in Sweden, Gunhild Saumllvinn, told the Swedish news agency TT on 14 June that heavy criticism of Veolia’s participation in the project and the loss of several major contracts is “probably is one of the reasons behind the decision” to withdraw involvement.

It seems that like Veolia, HeidelbergCement is attempting to sell off its Israeli subsidiary. The Israeli business magazine Globes reported in May that the Mashav Group and Engelinvest Group have shown interest in acquiring Hanson Israel. If Mashav buys Hanson, however, Irish firm CRH can expect to be greeted with increased pressure to divest from the Mashav Group, likely achieving a similar end as the Veolia divestment campaign.

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