11 june 2020
In a major blow to Israel’s war on Palestine solidarity, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled unanimously today that the French highest court’s 2015 criminal conviction of activists with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement advocating nonviolent boycotts of Israeli goods violated article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Palestinian BDS National Committee said in a press release.
In 2009 and 2010, eleven activists in France had participated in peaceful protests inside supermarkets calling for a boycott of Israeli goods in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality. They were convicted by French courts of “incitement to discrimination.”
Reacting to the ECHR ruling, Rita Ahmad from the Palestinian-led BDS movement said: “This momentous court ruling is a decisive victory for freedom of expression, for human rights defenders, and for the BDS movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality.
It confirms a 2016 European Union position defending the right to call for BDS against Israel to achieve Palestinian rights under international law.”
She added: “This is a major legal blow to Israel’s apartheid regime and its anti-BDS lawfare. At Israel’s behest, European governments, especially in France and Germany, have fostered an ominous environment of bullying and repression to silence Palestine solidarity activists.”
The ECHR decision comes at a time of widespread condemnations of Israel’s plans to formally annex large swathes of the occupied Palestinian territory.
In response to these plans and to Israel’s ongoing “apartheid regime” and “de facto annexation,” Palestinian civil society has reminded states of their obligations to adopt “lawful countermeasures,” including a ban on “arms trade and military-security cooperation with Israel” and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements.
“At a time when European citizens, inspired by the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US, are challenging the ugly legacy of European colonialism, France, Germany and other EU countries must end their racist repression of human rights defenders campaigning for Palestinian human rights and for an end to Israeli apartheid,” said Ahmad.
“Europe is deeply complicit in Israel’s occupation, siege of Gaza and slow ethnic cleansing of Indigenous Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and elsewhere. For as long as this complicity continues, BDS campaigns will too,” she added, saluting Palestine solidarity activists in France “who, despite the prevalent anti-Palestinian repression, have effectively campaigned against Israeli apartheid and against corporations that are complicit in its war crimes against Palestinians, including AXA, Veolia and Orange.”
European court rules against France in Israel boycott activist case
The human rights court rules the arrest of 12 BDS activists in 2010 over distribution of leaflets and wearing of shirts, calling for boycott of Israeli goods, 'lacked any relevant or sufficient grounds'; France ordered to pay 27,380 euros ($31,150) to each campaigner
The European Human Rights Court (EHCR) ruled on Thursday that a French criminal conviction against activists involved in a campaign to boycott products imported from Israel had no sufficient grounds and violated their freedom of expression.
France’s highest appeals’ court in 2015 upheld rulings that convicted campaigners on the basis of inciting racism and anti-Semitism.
Twelve people, who were part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, were sentenced over the distribution of leaflets in supermarkets in eastern France and wearing T-shirts in 2009 and 2010 calling for the boycott of Israeli goods.
Their legal team argued that the call for a boycott was a fundamental principle of freedom of expression.
The EHCR said there was little scope in European conventions for restrictions on political speech and that its very nature was to be controversial and virulent as long as it did not cross the line and call for violence, hatred or intolerance.
“The Court considered that the applicants’ conviction had lacked any relevant or sufficient grounds,” the ruling said.
France was ordered to pay 27,380 euros ($31,150) to each campaigner.
Israel has said the BDS movement, sponsored by pro-Palestinian intellectuals and bloggers, is motivated by anti-Semitism and a desire to paint Israel as illegitimate.
The ruling comes at a time when Israel is considering annexing parts of the West Bank, drawing criticism in Europe. Some countries, including France, say measures could be imposed on Israel if it went ahead with its plans.
“It’s a victory for freedom of expression and civic action,” said Bertrand Heilbronn, president of the France Palestine Solidarity Association. “(We) will continue to develop it (the BDS campaign) as long as Israel does not respect international law and human rights.”
In 2009 and 2010, eleven activists in France had participated in peaceful protests inside supermarkets calling for a boycott of Israeli goods in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality. They were convicted by French courts of “incitement to discrimination.”
Reacting to the ECHR ruling, Rita Ahmad from the Palestinian-led BDS movement said: “This momentous court ruling is a decisive victory for freedom of expression, for human rights defenders, and for the BDS movement for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality.
It confirms a 2016 European Union position defending the right to call for BDS against Israel to achieve Palestinian rights under international law.”
She added: “This is a major legal blow to Israel’s apartheid regime and its anti-BDS lawfare. At Israel’s behest, European governments, especially in France and Germany, have fostered an ominous environment of bullying and repression to silence Palestine solidarity activists.”
The ECHR decision comes at a time of widespread condemnations of Israel’s plans to formally annex large swathes of the occupied Palestinian territory.
In response to these plans and to Israel’s ongoing “apartheid regime” and “de facto annexation,” Palestinian civil society has reminded states of their obligations to adopt “lawful countermeasures,” including a ban on “arms trade and military-security cooperation with Israel” and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements.
“At a time when European citizens, inspired by the Black Lives Matter uprising in the US, are challenging the ugly legacy of European colonialism, France, Germany and other EU countries must end their racist repression of human rights defenders campaigning for Palestinian human rights and for an end to Israeli apartheid,” said Ahmad.
“Europe is deeply complicit in Israel’s occupation, siege of Gaza and slow ethnic cleansing of Indigenous Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and elsewhere. For as long as this complicity continues, BDS campaigns will too,” she added, saluting Palestine solidarity activists in France “who, despite the prevalent anti-Palestinian repression, have effectively campaigned against Israeli apartheid and against corporations that are complicit in its war crimes against Palestinians, including AXA, Veolia and Orange.”
European court rules against France in Israel boycott activist case
The human rights court rules the arrest of 12 BDS activists in 2010 over distribution of leaflets and wearing of shirts, calling for boycott of Israeli goods, 'lacked any relevant or sufficient grounds'; France ordered to pay 27,380 euros ($31,150) to each campaigner
The European Human Rights Court (EHCR) ruled on Thursday that a French criminal conviction against activists involved in a campaign to boycott products imported from Israel had no sufficient grounds and violated their freedom of expression.
France’s highest appeals’ court in 2015 upheld rulings that convicted campaigners on the basis of inciting racism and anti-Semitism.
Twelve people, who were part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, were sentenced over the distribution of leaflets in supermarkets in eastern France and wearing T-shirts in 2009 and 2010 calling for the boycott of Israeli goods.
Their legal team argued that the call for a boycott was a fundamental principle of freedom of expression.
The EHCR said there was little scope in European conventions for restrictions on political speech and that its very nature was to be controversial and virulent as long as it did not cross the line and call for violence, hatred or intolerance.
“The Court considered that the applicants’ conviction had lacked any relevant or sufficient grounds,” the ruling said.
France was ordered to pay 27,380 euros ($31,150) to each campaigner.
Israel has said the BDS movement, sponsored by pro-Palestinian intellectuals and bloggers, is motivated by anti-Semitism and a desire to paint Israel as illegitimate.
The ruling comes at a time when Israel is considering annexing parts of the West Bank, drawing criticism in Europe. Some countries, including France, say measures could be imposed on Israel if it went ahead with its plans.
“It’s a victory for freedom of expression and civic action,” said Bertrand Heilbronn, president of the France Palestine Solidarity Association. “(We) will continue to develop it (the BDS campaign) as long as Israel does not respect international law and human rights.”
11 mar 2020
Under pressure from the Zionist lobby, the German authorities have decided to prevent Palestinian writer Khaled Barakat from entering the country for four years.
Barakat already failed to have his residency renewed and was forced to leave the country six months ago.
The German police had arrested Barakat in June 2019 while he was in Berlin to participate in a symposium about Trump’s Middle East plan. He was then given one month to leave the country.
The German police claimed in a 24-page statement that Barakat “constitutes a security risk” because of “his beliefs and continuous talking about liberating Palestine from the river to the sea” and “working on a strategy to liberate Palestine” in addition to “insisting that ‘Israel’ has no right to exist”, which German authorities see as anti-Semitic.
The German authorities also claimed that its decision was taken because of Barakat’s intellectual influence on Arabs living in the country.
The reasons cited by the German authorities to justify its measure against Barakat vindicated that their decision was politically motivated and had nothing do with security or law.
Barakat had already been prosecuted by the German authorities over his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS).
The German parliament had adopted a decision in May 2019 criminalizing BDS and labeling it as anti-Semitic, a motion that was seen by human rights groups as a violation against freedom of expression.
Barakat already failed to have his residency renewed and was forced to leave the country six months ago.
The German police had arrested Barakat in June 2019 while he was in Berlin to participate in a symposium about Trump’s Middle East plan. He was then given one month to leave the country.
The German police claimed in a 24-page statement that Barakat “constitutes a security risk” because of “his beliefs and continuous talking about liberating Palestine from the river to the sea” and “working on a strategy to liberate Palestine” in addition to “insisting that ‘Israel’ has no right to exist”, which German authorities see as anti-Semitic.
The German authorities also claimed that its decision was taken because of Barakat’s intellectual influence on Arabs living in the country.
The reasons cited by the German authorities to justify its measure against Barakat vindicated that their decision was politically motivated and had nothing do with security or law.
Barakat had already been prosecuted by the German authorities over his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS).
The German parliament had adopted a decision in May 2019 criminalizing BDS and labeling it as anti-Semitic, a motion that was seen by human rights groups as a violation against freedom of expression.
1 mar 2020
The Palestinian-led boycott movement has slammed a motion passed by the Austrian parliament that singles out the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign for criticism, the Middle East Monitor reports.
Austria’s national parliament, on Friday, unanimously passed a resolution condemning the BDS campaign as anti-Semitic, and urged that the ‘anti-Israel’ movement not be supported.
Rejecting the claims of anti-Jewish bigotry, the BDS Movement statement affirmed that the campaign is a “human rights movement that rejects all forms of racism, including anti-semitism”.
In addition, the statement continued, “the resolution denies the rights of Palestinians and Austrian citizens to criticise Israeli colonialism and apartheid, and to non-violently boycott complicit businesses and institutions.”
“We call on people of conscience in Austria to defend freedom of expression, including the right to boycott for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality,” the BDS Movement concluded.
Austria’s national parliament, on Friday, unanimously passed a resolution condemning the BDS campaign as anti-Semitic, and urged that the ‘anti-Israel’ movement not be supported.
Rejecting the claims of anti-Jewish bigotry, the BDS Movement statement affirmed that the campaign is a “human rights movement that rejects all forms of racism, including anti-semitism”.
In addition, the statement continued, “the resolution denies the rights of Palestinians and Austrian citizens to criticise Israeli colonialism and apartheid, and to non-violently boycott complicit businesses and institutions.”
“We call on people of conscience in Austria to defend freedom of expression, including the right to boycott for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality,” the BDS Movement concluded.
12 feb 2020
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
The latest clash in the American civil war over Israel, which pits liberal progressives against right-wing reactionary nationalists, ended with an apology at the weekend by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Better known as AIPAC, the anti-Palestinian group issued a full apology for posting an advertisement accusing the Democratic Party of anti-Semitism. It has finally realised that its vilification of US lawmakers critical of the Zionist state is actually self-harming.
“Radicals in the Democratic Party are pushing their anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies down the throats of the American people,” the lobby group had said on Facebook. “America should never abandon its only democratic ally in the Middle East.” It urged its supporters to sign a letter of protest and not “abandon Israel”.
AIPAC’s fury was provoked by the insistence of senior Democrats that the annual $3.8 billion aid given by the US to the Zionist state should be conditional upon a change in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is one target of AIPAC’s ire. The Vermont senator, who is Jewish, has been the most powerful proponent of leveraging US aid to get the Israelis to respect international law.
Sanders is not alone amongst Democrats in expressing growing frustration over Israel’s annexation policy. Elizabeth Warren, another leading presidential contender, has also backed this idea in reply to a question about withholding aid to Israel if it continues building settlements in the occupied West Bank and moves further away from a two-state solution: “All options are on the table,” she insisted.
Likewise, Pete Buttigieg, another would-be candidate, echoed his colleagues’ views when asked about withholding US aid to Israel.
There seems to be a new mood in the US concerning Israel. Not since 1991 when George H W Bush refused to give Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees that it requested to resettle Soviet immigrants, until the Israelis froze settlement growth in the West Bank, have US politicians been as outspoken about penalising the Zionist state for its unlawful behaviour.
On the rare occasions that this has occurred, such as when Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) attempted to block bipartisan security aid to Israel in 2018, members of Congress were not subjected to the kind of excoriation that was witnessed over the weekend.
It would seem that Americans have forgotten the time when the least they expected from their politicians and Presidents was global leadership in punishing rogue behaviour of the kind that has been a consistent feature in Israel. Furthermore, to be able to do this without being accused of “anti-Semitism”.
Would AIPAC have considered President Dwight D Eisenhower an anti-Semite for threatening to withhold US aid in 1956 unless Israeli troops withdrew from Egypt within a 36-hour deadline? Or President Gerald Ford, who did something similar by halting new arms sales to Israel which had the effect of forcing a partial Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai in 1975?
Likewise, one suspects Americans would have been outraged if President Jimmy Carter, who forced Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1977 with a threat to cancel future arms sales, had been labelled an anti-Semite by a lobby group like AIPAC. Carter, who would go on to describe Israel as an “apartheid” state, also threatened to withhold aid during the Camp David talks that led to Israel leaving the Sinai completely.
Some degree of impartiality was maintained even under President Ronald Reagan, who in 1982 banned new sales of cluster bombs to Israel for six years after it was determined that that it was using them in Lebanon in violation of America’s Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement with the Zionist state.
In the three decades since George Bush Senior refused to give Israel the loan guarantees, no serious threat has been issued by any US President despite Israel’s acceleration of its colonial-expansionist policies. Instead, the Zionist state has acquired a unique status in Washington. It is viewed with the kind of awe one normally associates with religious fundamentalists, whose notion of the sacred is filled with a zeal that defies common sense.
AIPAC has apparently realised the self-harm that its advertisement has caused. The pro-Israel lobby group has been the most effective force in making and maintaining Israel’s bipartisan status immune to political changes on Capitol Hill.
However, Israel’s policies and the death of the two-state solution, to which liberal supporters of Israel clung desperately in the hope that the Zionist project could be redeemed, have made this an impossible task.
A growing number of progressive Democrat representatives no longer want to remain silent over the cost of America’s abiding loyalty to Israel. Their outspoken views, which in all likelihood would have been quite normal under previous administrations during the Cold War, reflect a growing chasm in US politics as far as Israel is concerned.
The image of the Zionist state as a liberal democracy, crafted painstakingly over many years, has taken a battering. In the decades in which Israel has enjoyed reverential status in Washington, it has managed to empty the Palestinian cause of any moral and legal considerations, and divorced it from normal laws governing the behaviour of democratic states.
At the same time, it has asserted for itself an ethno-religious identity at odds with secular liberal and democratic values while overseeing the longest military occupation in modern history which denies millions of people their basic rights. It is no wonder that liberal Democrats in the US are turning their backs on Israel.
A typical pro-Israel American now belongs to the Republican Party, or the far right, often now one and the same. Paradoxically — given that it was far-right ideology which was behind the Holocaust — Israel might be losing the support of progressive liberals, but it is gaining support on the right and far right, not only in the US, but also around the world in places like Hungary and Brazil, for example.
According to a 2018 survey carried out by the Pew Research Centre, nearly eight in ten US Republicans (79 per cent) sympathise more with Israel than they do with the Palestinians. This was a 29 per cent increase from 2001. On the other hand, sympathy for Israel amongst the Democrats has declined to just 27 per cent.
These changes in social attitudes are now reflected in Congress through the election of representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. This has made AIPAC’s task of preserving Israel’s status as a bipartisan issue more daunting than ever before.
AIPAC’s “unequivocal apology to the overwhelming majority of Democrats” whom it admitted were “rightfully offended” by being labelled anti-Semites, demonstrates that the pro-Israel lobby is fighting a losing battle.
Americans now “know too much” about Israel and its occupation to stay firmly on the fence. With attitudes towards the Zionist state hardening on both sides, Israel is unlikely to remain a bipartisan issue much longer. Instead, it will come to represent the dividing line between liberal democracy and ethno-religious fundamentalism, something with which no self-respecting Democrat would ever wish to be associated.
The latest clash in the American civil war over Israel, which pits liberal progressives against right-wing reactionary nationalists, ended with an apology at the weekend by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Better known as AIPAC, the anti-Palestinian group issued a full apology for posting an advertisement accusing the Democratic Party of anti-Semitism. It has finally realised that its vilification of US lawmakers critical of the Zionist state is actually self-harming.
“Radicals in the Democratic Party are pushing their anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies down the throats of the American people,” the lobby group had said on Facebook. “America should never abandon its only democratic ally in the Middle East.” It urged its supporters to sign a letter of protest and not “abandon Israel”.
AIPAC’s fury was provoked by the insistence of senior Democrats that the annual $3.8 billion aid given by the US to the Zionist state should be conditional upon a change in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is one target of AIPAC’s ire. The Vermont senator, who is Jewish, has been the most powerful proponent of leveraging US aid to get the Israelis to respect international law.
Sanders is not alone amongst Democrats in expressing growing frustration over Israel’s annexation policy. Elizabeth Warren, another leading presidential contender, has also backed this idea in reply to a question about withholding aid to Israel if it continues building settlements in the occupied West Bank and moves further away from a two-state solution: “All options are on the table,” she insisted.
Likewise, Pete Buttigieg, another would-be candidate, echoed his colleagues’ views when asked about withholding US aid to Israel.
There seems to be a new mood in the US concerning Israel. Not since 1991 when George H W Bush refused to give Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees that it requested to resettle Soviet immigrants, until the Israelis froze settlement growth in the West Bank, have US politicians been as outspoken about penalising the Zionist state for its unlawful behaviour.
On the rare occasions that this has occurred, such as when Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) attempted to block bipartisan security aid to Israel in 2018, members of Congress were not subjected to the kind of excoriation that was witnessed over the weekend.
It would seem that Americans have forgotten the time when the least they expected from their politicians and Presidents was global leadership in punishing rogue behaviour of the kind that has been a consistent feature in Israel. Furthermore, to be able to do this without being accused of “anti-Semitism”.
Would AIPAC have considered President Dwight D Eisenhower an anti-Semite for threatening to withhold US aid in 1956 unless Israeli troops withdrew from Egypt within a 36-hour deadline? Or President Gerald Ford, who did something similar by halting new arms sales to Israel which had the effect of forcing a partial Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai in 1975?
Likewise, one suspects Americans would have been outraged if President Jimmy Carter, who forced Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1977 with a threat to cancel future arms sales, had been labelled an anti-Semite by a lobby group like AIPAC. Carter, who would go on to describe Israel as an “apartheid” state, also threatened to withhold aid during the Camp David talks that led to Israel leaving the Sinai completely.
Some degree of impartiality was maintained even under President Ronald Reagan, who in 1982 banned new sales of cluster bombs to Israel for six years after it was determined that that it was using them in Lebanon in violation of America’s Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement with the Zionist state.
In the three decades since George Bush Senior refused to give Israel the loan guarantees, no serious threat has been issued by any US President despite Israel’s acceleration of its colonial-expansionist policies. Instead, the Zionist state has acquired a unique status in Washington. It is viewed with the kind of awe one normally associates with religious fundamentalists, whose notion of the sacred is filled with a zeal that defies common sense.
AIPAC has apparently realised the self-harm that its advertisement has caused. The pro-Israel lobby group has been the most effective force in making and maintaining Israel’s bipartisan status immune to political changes on Capitol Hill.
However, Israel’s policies and the death of the two-state solution, to which liberal supporters of Israel clung desperately in the hope that the Zionist project could be redeemed, have made this an impossible task.
A growing number of progressive Democrat representatives no longer want to remain silent over the cost of America’s abiding loyalty to Israel. Their outspoken views, which in all likelihood would have been quite normal under previous administrations during the Cold War, reflect a growing chasm in US politics as far as Israel is concerned.
The image of the Zionist state as a liberal democracy, crafted painstakingly over many years, has taken a battering. In the decades in which Israel has enjoyed reverential status in Washington, it has managed to empty the Palestinian cause of any moral and legal considerations, and divorced it from normal laws governing the behaviour of democratic states.
At the same time, it has asserted for itself an ethno-religious identity at odds with secular liberal and democratic values while overseeing the longest military occupation in modern history which denies millions of people their basic rights. It is no wonder that liberal Democrats in the US are turning their backs on Israel.
A typical pro-Israel American now belongs to the Republican Party, or the far right, often now one and the same. Paradoxically — given that it was far-right ideology which was behind the Holocaust — Israel might be losing the support of progressive liberals, but it is gaining support on the right and far right, not only in the US, but also around the world in places like Hungary and Brazil, for example.
According to a 2018 survey carried out by the Pew Research Centre, nearly eight in ten US Republicans (79 per cent) sympathise more with Israel than they do with the Palestinians. This was a 29 per cent increase from 2001. On the other hand, sympathy for Israel amongst the Democrats has declined to just 27 per cent.
These changes in social attitudes are now reflected in Congress through the election of representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. This has made AIPAC’s task of preserving Israel’s status as a bipartisan issue more daunting than ever before.
AIPAC’s “unequivocal apology to the overwhelming majority of Democrats” whom it admitted were “rightfully offended” by being labelled anti-Semites, demonstrates that the pro-Israel lobby is fighting a losing battle.
Americans now “know too much” about Israel and its occupation to stay firmly on the fence. With attitudes towards the Zionist state hardening on both sides, Israel is unlikely to remain a bipartisan issue much longer. Instead, it will come to represent the dividing line between liberal democracy and ethno-religious fundamentalism, something with which no self-respecting Democrat would ever wish to be associated.
