Just International

Reservists issue open letter refusing to fight in Gaza, exposing Israel’s war crimes

By Jean Shaoul

The death toll in Israel’s war of annihilation in Gaza speaks to a policy of shoot to kill, a policy whose existence the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) denies. But several Israeli soldiers have given statements to the daily Haaretz confirming such a policy. Their testimonies corroborate those of Palestinian eyewitnesses and doctors.

These soldiers are part of a small but growing number who have served in the war that have signed the first letter of refusal to serve published by reservists since October 7. The 41 reservists wrote, “The six months during which we participated in the war effort proved to us that military activity alone won’t bring the hostages home.”

Referring to the invasion of Rafah: “This invasion, aside from endangering our lives and the lives of innocents in Rafah, won’t bring back the hostages alive… It’s either Rafah or the hostages, and we choose the hostages. Therefore, after the decision to enter Rafah rather than to bring about a hostage deal, we, male and female reservists, are declaring that our conscience doesn’t allow us to lend a hand to forfeiting the lives of the hostages and torpedoing another deal.”

Some of the soldiers spoke to Haaretz following their recent release from active duty in Gaza, describing their reasons for refusing to continue fighting. These included being authorized to open fire on Palestinians virtually at will, including on unarmed civilians that did not appear to be posing any imminent threat, and being required to torch residential buildings and kill civilians during bombing raids.

Tal Vardi, a Tank Corps commander, was first sent to fight Israel’s war against Hezbollah in the north, replacing the battalions of conscripts sent to the south, where he was engaged mainly in teaching younger reservists tank operations. He had no hesitation in accepting reservist duty in the north. The turning point came when the fascistic government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose to mount a ground operation in Rafah in preference to signing a deal to release the hostages and end the war.

Vardi said, “The moment the operation began in Rafah I felt it was beyond what I could feel right about ethically, stand behind and justify. We’re just chasing after heads in order to demonstrate some kind of achievement, without any strategy and direction.”

Yuval Green, a 26-year-old student and reserve paratrooper opposed to Israel’s occupation in the West Bank, explained that he had been undecided about continuing doing reserve duty and had been on the point of refusing to sign up for the October 7 war. He was sent to the Khan Yunis area where he was required to torch a residential building without any confirmation that it was the home of a Hamas combatant.

On another occasion, the company commander ordered his squad to torch one of the houses where they had been staying because they were leaving military equipment there that would reveal army combat methods. Green recalled, “I said if we’re doing that, I’m going. And they really did burn down the house and I left. I went up during the next leave and didn’t return.”

He told +972 Magazine, “There were no restrictions on ammunition. People were shooting just to relieve the boredom,” citing an incident when a whole battalion opened fire.

Michael Ofer Ziv, a 29-year-old reservist, had interrupted his vacation in Turkey to report for duty when the war started. As a brigade control officer, his task was to track in real time films of drones and Israel Air Force bombings in Gaza. He said, “It’s far from you and the feeling is that it isn’t real.”

It was a week or two before he realized that “every time you see it, it’s a building that’s falling. If people were in it, then they’re dead. And even if there aren’t any people inside, everything that’s there—televisions, memories, pictures, clothing—is gone. It’s high-rise buildings. In the war room, they know what the level of evacuation is.

“They keep saying, for example, 50 percent were evacuated from the area. I remember a day when I heard ‘50 percent were evacuated from northern.’ That same day, I saw a building in the area fall and I thought to myself: ‘50 percent were evacuated from the area, but 50 percent are still there.’ At the same time there are also bombings in southern Gaza, and we know nobody was evacuated from there. On the contrary, everyone fled to there.”

Ofer Ziv said that when his brigade entered Gaza, permission to fire was given with relative ease. “There are areas where it’s forbidden to fire without approval of the command, for all kinds of reasons. For example, it’s forbidden to bomb buildings that are near humanitarian areas. In the end, sometimes we fire of course. You get exceptional permission.”

He added, “When a commander asked me at some point if we’d get permission to fire somewhere, I told him: ‘We’ll get permission, the only question is when.’ In other words, the vibe is ‘You can fire wherever you want. You have to get permission, but there will be permission. It’s only bureaucratic.’ I can count on one hand the times when we were told: ‘You can’t fire there.’”

He explained, “At first, it’s very hard to say what’s justified and what isn’t. From a distance it’s easy to say: ‘That’s how it is in war; people get killed.’ But in war there aren’t 30,000 people killed, most of them buried beneath the ruins when they’re bombed from the air. The feeling is of indiscriminate firing.”

Gaza’s health authorities place the confirmed death toll at 39,000 plus thousands lost in the rubble. A recent study by the Lancet put the estimated death toll at 186,000.

A fourth reservist, a 26-year-old in Military Intelligence who asked not to be named, described his experiences. Responsible for finding assassination targets, he began to realise he was taking part in actions that violated his conscience. He said, “They justify it with a hundred reasons.”

He explained, “You feel you’re doing something without any military rationale, with a risk of causing very serious harm to people who are undoubtedly innocent, only because you have to demonstrate an achievement.” “In the end, refusal is a political act,” he said. “What’s being done there is a crime, one reason being its uselessness, and it’s personally harming my future as a citizen of this country.”

Giving testimony before a Knesset committee last month, Guy Zaken, a soldier who operated D-9 bulldozers in Gaza, testified that he and his crew “ran over hundreds of terrorists, dead and alive.” A soldier he served with subsequently committed suicide, one of at least 10 known to have committed suicide since the start of the war. Around 1,600 are reportedly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Tal Mitnick, Israel’s first conscientious objector to its war of annihilation on Gaza, has finally been released from military jail after serving six successive sentences totalling more than six months, the longest period ever served by an Israeli conscientious objector, and exempted from serving in the Israeli army. The 18-year-old was the first person since the October 7 war against the Palestinians broke out to refuse the compulsory draft for young people on conscientious grounds.

He said, “I’m relieved to be exempted after such a long time. Luckily, I had an opportunity to play a part in the struggle against the war and the occupation.” He added, “There are growing voices in our society that realize that only peace can guarantee security, and that the only way to get out of the cycle and bring about a different future for both peoples is a cease-fire and a hostage deal.”

Mitnick is one of three young people who have refused to serve in the IDF as conscientious objectors.

In June, the 19-year-old Sofia Orr was released after spending 85 days in Neve Tzedek military jail after refusing to enlist. She told the IDF, “I refuse to enlist in order to show that change is needed, and that change is possible, for the security and safety of all of us in Israel-Palestine, and in the name of empathy that is not restricted by national identity.” She explained, “I refuse to enlist because I want to create a reality in which all children between the Jordan River and the [Mediterranean] sea can dream without cages.”

Despite being sentenced to several stretches in military jail, she still refused the draft. “I realized that the army doesn’t stand for the basic values I grew up with, of resolving conflicts with dialogue, of empathy, and of solidarity and equality—not in how it treats its own soldiers and not in how it conducts itself externally in the occupation and war. It’s a system that is inherently very aggressive and violent, and I cannot take part in any such system.”

A third young Israeli, Ben Arad, is still in jail, after being sentenced in April for refusing the draft.

23 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

Video: NATO Member States Are Under the Command of the Pentagon. NATO-Exit

By Michel Chossudovsky

This interview was recorded on July 2, 2024. It was intended to be published prior to the NATO Summit.

Due to temporary technical problems, the programme was not recorded in the Lux Media Studio. Our thanks to Lux Media for their support.

***

NATO is not an alliance. It is an organisation under the command of the Pentagon, and its objective is the military control of Western and Eastern Europe.

US bases in the member countries of NATO serve to occupy these countries, by maintaining a permanent military presence which enables Washington to influence and control their policies and prevent genuine democratic choices.

NATO is a war machine which works for the interests of the United States, with the complicity of the major European power groups, staining itself with crimes against humanity.

These wars are financed by the member countries, whose military budgets are increasing continually to the detriment of social expenditure, in order to support colossal military programmes like that of the US nuclear programme which costs 1,300 billion dollars.

To exit the war system which is  exposing us to increasing dangers, we must leave NATO, affirming our rights as sovereign and neutral states.

In this way, it becomes possible to contribute to the dismantling of NATO and all other military alliances, to the reconfiguration of the structures of the whole European region, to the formation of a multipolar world where the aspirations of the People for liberty and social justice may be realised.

We propose the creation of a NATO EXIT International Front in all NATO member countries, by building an organisational network at a basic level strong enough to support the very difficult struggle we must face in order to attain this objective, which is vital for our future.

—Excerpts from the Florence Declaration, Florence, April 7, 2019

Click here to watch the interview.

23 July 2024

Source: michelchossudovsky.substack.com

Why the world must stand behind ICJ decision on Israeli occupation

By Richard Falk

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) overwhelmingly decided last week that Israel is no longer legally entitled to act as the occupying power in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, noting that its further presence in these territories is unlawful.

The decision took the form of an “advisory opinion” in response to two “legal questions” put to the ICJ by the United Nations General Assembly in 2022.

Israel declined to take part in the court proceedings except by way of a written statement objecting to the whole process as improper, arguing that Israel’s consent was needed before its governmental conduct could be legally evaluated by the ICJ, even in a process labelled as “advisory”.

Does being an “advisory opinion” rather than a formal judgment in a “contentious” case make a decisive difference in the political weight or legal authoritativeness of the outcome in this comprehensive legal scrutiny of Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories?

An important question is raised by the formal, obligatory format of the ongoing South African ICJ case alleging Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

From Israel’s point of view, these two cases are not very different, beyond the ICJ focusing on the alleged legal wrongdoing associated with 57 years of prolonged occupation in one instance, and in the other, South Africa seeking the court’s support to end the Gaza genocide that started last October.

In both instances, Israel has denounced the ICJ for reaching legal conclusions that it says compromise its security and right to defend itself. With such reasoning, Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza, while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.

‘No one will stop us’

Israel’s language of rejection is clear, with the prime minister’s office noting in a statement: “Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of the discussion at the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the ‘legality of the occupation’ – a move designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.” Or in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruder language, “no one will stop us”.

On a superficial level, this near-convergence of outcomes seems to neglect the intended distinction between what is “advisory” (and hence non-binding) and what is “obligatory” and binding.

Upon more reflective consideration, this convergence is far deeper, grounded more in the evolving jurisprudence of the ICJ than in Israel’s criticisms of the process and refusal to implement the rulings in either case.

In its lengthy landmark decision on the issue of the Israeli occupation, the ICJ reached nine conclusions, none of which were opposed by more than four of the 15 participating judges.

This level of judicial consensus in such a politically polarised atmosphere lends support for viewing the court’s decision as authoritative when it comes to evaluating Israel’s behaviour as an occupying power in relation to international humanitarian law – especially the Fourth Geneva Convention governing belligerent occupation – and international human rights law, especially the treaty prohibiting racial discrimination.

Such a consensus is strengthened by additional comments from judges from Global South countries (including Somalia and Lebanon) that go further than the advisory opinion itself to explore the relevance of the colonial background that informs the occupation of Palestine.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the US and Australian judges cast their votes in line with the ICJ consensus, despite their governments being ardent supporters of Israel, with eyes closed to Israeli criminality in both the long occupation and the Gaza genocide.

Primacy of geopolitics 

As with the South African case, the ICJ gained widespread approval for so clearly putting law ahead of national identity. This kind of prioritisation is missing from the political organs of the UN, especially the Security Council, where affiliated flags take unquestioned precedence – and to be sure that the primacy of geopolitics is sustained, the permanent members, P5, get a veto (prompting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to object with the pithy words: “The world is greater than five.”)

The ICJ formulates the substance of its legal analysis in language that intends to be obligatory with respect to Israel. It directs all states and the UN itself to implement its rulings on matters of illegality and the consequences of Israeli unlawfulness. While the decision is labelled “advisory”, as required by the ICJ framework, its pronouncements on the law are stated as if authoritative, and they are supported by the overwhelming majority of judges.

The ICJ also appears to be claiming the authority to tell three categories of political actors – Israel, all states and the UN – what their obligations are with respect to its central finding that Israel’s prolonged presence is no longer legal and should be terminated as rapidly as possible.

In the process of reaching this weighty conclusion, the ICJ found that Israel was responsible for blocking the Palestinian right to self-determination, wrongfully annexing Palestinian territory by force, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention through its large-scale settlement project, and relying upon discriminatory policies and practices to administer the occupied  territories.

The few judges who refused to go along with these findings argued that the ICJ proceedings took insufficient account of Israeli security concerns and counter-arguments.

Regardless, this advisory opinion lends important authoritative support to several central Palestinian grievances with respect to international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly concerning the lawfulness of controversial Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories – and the legal duty of Israel, other states and the UN to follow this decision up with concrete action.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years.

24 July 2024

Source: middleeasteye.net

How Does a Drone Fly From Yemen to Tel Aviv?

By Dr Marwan Asmar

It is a distance of 2000 kilometres and is seen as a major feat for the Houthis and a win for Gaza

Yedioth Ahronoth has revealed new details about the “Jaffa” drone that attacked Tel Aviv leading to the death of an Israeli and the injury of at least 10 others.

[https://twitter.com/AdameMedia/status/1814501042987393365]

The Israeli newspaper reported the drone attack on a residential building in central Tel Aviv killing ex-Israeli sniper Yevgeny Perder was launched from Yemen and travelled for 2,000 kilometres to land on the Israeli city.

This in itself is baffling the Israeli authorities. They admit they saw the drone travelling in the night skies of Tel Aviv, Friday, but thought nothing of it. Now they say it was a “human error” on the part of the Israeli forces that should have intercepted the drone quickly and neutralized it.

The Israeli media have since become interested and amazed at how the Yaffa drone travelled all the way with no detection whatsoever and across many countries and seas.

Some of the fly routes taken by the drone were new compared to the previous trajectories that frequently landed on Eilat, a once dazzling touristic city in southern Israel.

This time the paper said the drone was ordered to make a more complicated fly path to make the matter difficult and confusing to sway the detection systems in the Israeli army, the paper said. And it succeeded.

[https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1814248215354474554]

The Israeli daily stated  the Jaffa drone warhead was “relatively small and contained several kilograms of explosives,” to allow it to travel a long distance but the paper claimed “the extent of the damage was limited.”

The social media have been active and covering the drone flight and show the chaos this created Tel Aviv between Shalom Aleichen and Yehuda Streets and since embarrassed the Israeli authorities.

[https://twitter.com/TheCradleMedia/status/1814168172615917780]

“The full flight path is still under investigation, but according to preliminary assessments of the Israeli army, the drone passed through Sinai and crossed the Mediterranean Sea off the southern coast,” of Tel Aviv according to Yedioth Ahronoth.

[https://twitter.com/AdameMedia/status/1814501042987393365]

The explosion occurred at dawn on Friday, about 100 meters from the US Embassy’s branch office complex according to Anadolu.

[https://twitter.com/AdameMedia/status/1814367462650966527]

The Yemeni “Ansar Allah” movement – Houthis – stated “the Yemeni Armed Forces’ air force carried out a qualitative military operation targeting one of the important targets in the occupied Jaffa region, the so-called Israeli Tel Aviv.”

[https://twitter.com/Ahmed_hassan_za/status/1814381142067515745]

The Houthis explained the operation was carried out “with a new drone called “Yafa” capable of bypassing the enemy’s interception systems and being unable to be detected by radars. The operation successfully achieved its goals.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made an assessment of the situation after such targeting, with officials confirming “there will be a reaction, and that a response within the territory of Yemen is on the table” according to Jo.24 website.

The Houthis say they will continue to strike Israeli cities as long as Israel maintains its slaughter of Gaza.

Dr Asmar is an Amman-based writer covering Middle East affairs.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

NATO Accelerates Its Conflict With China

By Vijay Prashad

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Washington, the focus was on Ukraine. In the Washington Declaration, the NATO leaders wrote, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.” Ukraine formally applied to join NATO in September 2022, but soon found that despite widespread NATO support, several member states (such as Hungary) were uneasy with escalating a conflict with Russia. As early as NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, the members welcomed “Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” However, the NATO council hesitated because of the border dispute with Russia; if Ukraine had been hastily brought into NATO and if the border dispute escalated (as it did), then NATO would be dragged into a direct war against Russia.

Over the last decade, NATO has expanded its military presence along Russia’s borders. At the NATO summit in Wales (September 2014), NATO implemented its Readiness Action Plan (RAP). This RAP was designed to increase NATO’s military forces in Eastern Europe “from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south.” Two years later, in Warsaw, NATO decided to develop an enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in the Baltic Sea area with “battlegroups stationed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.” The distance between Moscow and the border regions of Estonia and Latvia is a mere 780 kilometers, which is well within the range of a short-range ballistic missile (1,000 kilometers). In response to the NATO build-up, Belarus and Russia conducted Zapad 2017, the largest military exercise by these countries since 1991. Reasonable people at that time would have thought that de-escalation should have become the priority on all sides. But it was not.

Provocations from the NATO member states continued. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the NATO countries settled on a course of fully backing Ukraine and preventing any negotiations toward a peaceful settlement of the dispute. The United States and its NATO allies sent arms and equipment to Ukraine, with U.S. high military officials making provocative statements about their war aims (to “weaken Russia,” for instance). Ukrainian discussions with Russian officials in Belarus and Turkey were set aside by NATO, and Ukraine’s own war aim (merely for Russian forces to withdraw) was ignored. Instead, NATO countries spent billions of dollars on weapons and watched on the sidelines as Ukrainian soldiers died in a futile war. On the sidelines of the NATO summit in Washington, Royal Netherlands Navy Admiral Rob Bauer, who is the chair of NATO’s Military Committee, told Foreign Policy, “The Ukrainians need more to win than just what we have set up.” In other words, the NATO states provide Ukraine with just enough weapons to continue the conflict, but not to change the situation on the ground (either by a victory or a defeat). The NATO states, it seems, want to use Ukraine to bleed Russia.

Blame China

NATO’s Washington Declaration contains a section that is puzzling. It says that China “has become a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine.” The term “decisive enabler” has attracted significant attention within China, where the government immediately condemned NATO’s characterization of the war in Ukraine. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said that NATO’s statement “is ill-motivated and makes no sense.” Shortly after Russian troops entered Ukraine, China’s Wang Wenbin of the Foreign Ministry said that “all countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected and upheld.” This is precisely the opposite of cheerleading for the war, and since then China has put forward peace proposals to end the war. Accusations that China has supplied Russia with “lethal aid“ have not been substantiated by the NATO countries, and have been denied by China.

Lin Jian asked two key questions at the July 11, 2024, press conference in Beijing: “Who exactly is fueling the flames? Who exactly is ‘enabling’ the conflict?”. The answer is clear since it is NATO that rejects any peace negotiations, NATO countries that are arming Ukraine to prolong the war, and NATO leaders who want to expand NATO eastwards and deny Russia’s plea for a new security architecture (all of this is demonstrated by German parliamentarian Sevim Dağdelen in her new book on NATO’s 75-year history). When Hungary’s Viktor Orban—whose country holds the six-month presidency of the European Union—went to both Russia and Ukraine to talk about a peace process, it was the European states that condemned this mission. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, responded with a harsh rebuke of Orban, writing that “Appeasement will not stop Putin.” Alongside such comments come further promises by the Europeans and the North Americans to provide Ukraine with funds and weapons for the war. Strikingly, the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte even allowed Ukraine to use an F-16 jet from the Netherlands given to Ukraine when Rutte was the prime minister of that country to strike Russian soil. That would mean that weapons from a NATO country would be used directly to attack Russia, which would allow Russia to strike back at a NATO state.

NATO’s statement that characterizes China as a “decisive enabler” permitted the Atlantic alliance to defend its “out of area” operation in the South China Sea as part of its defense of its European partners. That is what permitted NATO to say, as outgoing Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a press conference, that NATO must “continue to strengthen our partnerships, especially in the Indo-Pacific.” These Indo-Pacific Partners are Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. Interestingly, the largest trading partner of three of these countries is not the United States, but China (Japan is the outlier). Even the analysts of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank have concluded that “a delinking of global production processes and consumption from China is not in sight.” Despite this, these countries have recklessly increased the pressure against China (including New Zealand, which is now eager to join Pillar II of the AUKUS Treaty among Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom). NATO has said that it remains open to “constructive engagement” with China, but there is no sign of such a development.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

NATO: 75 and Still Threatening

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Bring out the bon bons, the bubbles, and the praise filled memoranda for that old alliance.  At the three-quarter century mark of its existence, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is showing itself to be a greater nuisance than ever, gossiping, meddling, and dreaming of greater acts of mischief under the umbrella of manufactured insecurity.  It is also being coquettish to certain countries (Ukraine, figures prominently in the wooing stakes) making promises it can never make good.

Its defenders, as is to be expected, see something very different before the mirror.   They call the alliance a call for freedom, its enduring importance a reassuring presence.  The more appropriate response would be convenience, the assurance of an alliance with collective obligations that would, given the circumstances, compel all parties to wage war against the aggressor.  In terms of alliances, this is one programmed for conflict.

NATO is a crusted visage of a problem long dead.  In the Cold War theatre, it featured in the third act of every play involving the United States and the USSR, a performance that always took place under the threat of a nuclear cloud.  Any confrontation in Europe’s centre could have resulted in the pulverization of an entire continent.  For its part, Moscow had the Warsaw Pact countries.

At the end of the Cold War, NATO had effectively ceased to be relevant as a deterrent force on the European continent.  A new cut of clothing was sought for the members.  Rather than passing into retirement, it became, in essence, a broader auxiliary force of US power.  In the absence of a countering Soviet Union, the organisation adopted a gonzo approach to international security.

In 1999, the alliance became a killing machine for evangelical humanitarianism, ostensibly seeking to protect one ethnic group against the predations of another in Kosovo.  In 2011, it involved itself in military operations against a country posing no threat to any members of the alliance.  NATO, along with a steady air attacks and missile barrages, enforced the no-fly zone over Libya as the country was ushered to imminent, post-Qaddafi collapse.  When the International Security Force (ISAF) completed its ill-fated mission in Afghanistan in 2015, NATO was again on the scene.

NATO’s Strategic Concept document released at the end of June 2022 took much sustenance from the Ukraine conflict while warning about China’s ambitions, a fairly crude admission that it wished to move beyond its territorial limits.  “The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.”  Why such an alliance should worry about such eastward ambitions illustrates the wayward dysfunction of the association.

On April 27, 2022 the then UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and ultimately doomed prime minister pushed the view that NATO needed to be globalised.  Her Mansion House speech at the Lord Mayor’s Easter Banquet was one of those cat-out-of-the-bag disclosures that abandons pretence revealing, in its place, a disturbing reality.

After making it clear that NATO’s “open door policy” was “sacrosanct”, Truss also saw security in global terms, another way of promoting a broader commitment to international mischief.  She rejected “the false choice between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security.  In the modern world we need both.”  A “global NATO” was needed.  “By that I don’t mean extending the membership to those from other regions.  I mean that NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats.”

Praise for the alliance tends to resemble an actuarial assessment about risk and security. Consider this from former US ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute.  NATO, in his mind, is “the single most important geostrategic advantage over any potential adversary or competitor”.  With pride, he notes that “Russia and China have nothing comparable.  The 32 allies in NATO train together, operate together, live together under a standing unified command structure, making them far more capable militarily than any ad-hoc arrangement.”

There is nothing to suggest in these remarks that NATO was one of the single most provocative security arrangements that helped precipitate a war that torments and convulses eastern Europe.  Many a Washington mandarin has been of such a view: moving closer to Russia’s borders was not merely an act of diplomatic condescension but open military provocation.

One should, with tireless consistency, refer to the State Department’s doyen of Soviet studies, George F. Kennan, on this very point. In 1997, he issued the appropriate warning about the decision to expand NATO towards the Russian border: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

This speared provocation is repeated in the 2024 NATO Declaration made in Washington this month. It is effaced of history and context, Ukraine being a tabula rasa in the international system with no role other than that of glorified victimhood, a charity case abused in the international system.  “We stand in unity and solidarity in the face of a brutal war of aggression on the European continent and a critical time for our security,” states the declaration.

Kyiv is promised aid under the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine program, though such provision is, in the manner of an all-promising eunuch, crowned by a caveat: “NSATU will not, under international law, make NATO a party to the conflict.”  The prospects for future conflict are guaranteed by the promise, however empty, that, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.”

The declaration goes on to speak on the “interoperable” and “integrated” nature of Kyiv’s operations with the alliance.  “As Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”

NATO’s warring streak was further affirmed at the Washington summit by injudicious remarks about trying to make it “Trump proof” – a testament to the sleepless nights the strategists must be having at the prospect of a presidency that may change the order of things.  He is bound to have gotten wind of that fact.  Aggravated, the Republican contender may well withdraw the US imperium from the alliance’s clutches.  In Washington’s absence, the NATO family might retreat into fractious insignificance.  The ensuing anarchy, rather than stimulating war, may well do the opposite.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

International Court of Justice finds Israel’s occupation of Palestine illegal

By Andre Damon

In a devastating condemnation of the Israeli government and its imperialist backers, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Friday that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is unlawful, ordering all countries to cease enabling it.

The court ruled categorically that Israel’s 56-year-old domination over “the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” is “illegal.” The occupied territories include the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, whose population is being systematically massacred by Israel in an ongoing genocide.

In its sweeping ruling, the court found that, beyond the criminality of Israel’s war against the population of Gaza, the entire framework within which the genocide is being conducted is itself illegal, and that its enablement by the imperialist powers is also illegal.

The court declared that “All States must cooperate with the United Nations to put into effect modalities required to ensure an end to Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It adds that countries must not “render aid or assistance in maintaining” the illegal occupation.

In a refutation of the imperialist powers’ justifications for funding and arming the Gaza genocide based on claims that “Israel has a right to defend itself,” the court ruled that “Israel’s security concerns cannot override the principle of the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force.”

The Biden administration has declared dozens of times that the support of the United States for Israel’s war against the population of Palestine is “ironclad.” Since the start of the Gaza genocide, the US has provided Israel with $6.5 billion in weapons and has pledged a further $14 billion. This included more than 14,000 2,000-pound bombs.

With the help of these weapons, Israel has likely killed 186,000 Gazans or more since October, according to a survey published in The Lancet.

In announcing the ruling, Nawaf Salam, the president of the ICJ, said,

The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the occupied Palestinian territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful.

Responding to Friday’s ruling, the UK-based charity Oxfam declared that Israel “is committing the crime of apartheid in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which is one of the most serious international crimes.”

Philippe Sands, counsel for Palestine in the ICJ case, declared in response to the ruling,

This is as clear and far-reaching a ruling as I have come across from this court. … Its legal consequences are entirely without ambiguity, its political consequences far-reaching. … Among the many practical consequences, the court has made clear its view, by an overwhelming majority, that the US and other embassies in Jerusalem are illegal and must be removed for international law to be respected.

Israel has fully annexed East Jerusalem and declared Jerusalem as its capital. In an embrace of the illegal occupation, the Trump administration moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, a move upheld by the Biden administration.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, international law expert William Schabas declared, “[The advisory ruling] is not just directed against Israel. It’s directed against Israel’s friends, and it’s telling them that they cannot contribute in any way to the settlement policy, to the continued acts of violence and persecution in the occupied territories.”

In a statement responding to the ruling, Amnesty International declared, “The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion, and the conclusion is loud and clear: Israel’s occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid.”

Israeli officials responded with condemnations of the ICJ and by reasserting the very content of the ruling: that Israel is seeking to dominate and annex the entirety of the Palestinian territories.

“We will not accept moral preaching from the court,” blustered Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“The Jewish people are not conquerors in their own land—neither in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “No false decision in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and the legality of Israeli settlement in all the territories of our homeland cannot be disputed.”

The ICJ is the highest legal body of the United Nations. Friday’s ruling is in response to a 2022 request by the United Nations General Assembly to rule on the legality of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. It is separate from the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor has accused Israel of genocide.

While Friday’s ruling presents a devastating legal indictment of the Israeli government and its imperialist backers, the fact remains that it, like numerous other court rulings and UN resolutions, has no practical force whatsoever.

The ruling comes ahead of the visit by Netanyahu to Washington on July 24 to deliver a joint address to Congress, in which the war criminal prime minister will give a progress report to his imperialist paymasters. The imperialist powers, led by the United States, are thoroughly committed to supporting the genocide in Gaza as part of the reassertion of neo-colonial domination all over the world.

The task of opposing and ending the Gaza genocide falls to the working class, and it can only be accomplished through the building of an international movement of workers and young people all over the world against war and imperialist barbarism as a critical element of the struggle for socialism. The rally called by the Socialist Equality Party, International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) and International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees (IWA-RFC) on the day of Netanyahu’s appearance in Washington will be a decisive step in building this movement, and we urge the broadest possible attendance at this critical event.

20 July 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

Guess Who Are the Real Protagonists of Anti-Semitism

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

We are witnessing accusations of anti-semitism in colleges and universities, coupled with police intervention, arrests, prison sentences, for all those who act in solidarity with the people of Palestine.

But there something very fishy going on.

While Western governments are actively repressing the protest movements against Israel’s act of genocide, —with mass arrests on charges of antisemitism— those same governments are supporting Ukraine’s Nazi movement which actively participated and collaborated with Nazi Germany in the genocide directed against the Jewish population of Ukraine during World War II.

***

Update: The French Elections. “The Left” Supports the Nazi Regime in Kiev?

Ironically, the only party firmly committed to suspending military aid to the Nazi Kiev regime is Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) which is tagged by people on the Left as fascist and anti-semitic.

Meanwhile, according to the Kiev Post, Ukraine is rejoicing.

Several of France’s leftist parties which are part of the NFP socialist coalition are firmly supportive of Ukraine’s Nazi regime.

A message to my friends on the Left: How is it that people who are committed to social democracy and socialism are endorsing a Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine?

The world is upside down.

The Left is misinformed. Supporting the Nazis in Ukraine serves the interests of the Global Financial Establishment and the hegemonic interests of the US.

C’est Le Monde à l’Envers 

—M. C., July 9, 2024

***

The following image is revealing, from left to right: the blue NATO flag, the Azov Battalion’s Wolfangel SS of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Nazi Swastika (red and white background) are displayed, which points to collaboration between NATO and the Neo-Nazi regime.

Western countries have been financing the Nazi Summer Camps

Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Military Training for Young Children, Para-military Recruits

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 13, 2024

A Head of State sponsored by the CIA

Video: A Jewish-Russian Proxy President: Zelensky Transformed into a Neo-Nazi.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Silview Media, June 15,  2024

According to NATO: “the war started in 2014”

The Smoking Gun: Who Started the War? Was it Russia or Was it US-NATO? NATO Confirms that the Ukraine “War Started in 2014”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 29, 2024

Sounds contradictory?

My question is: Who are the anti-Semites? The answer is obvious.

Our Western governments (including the majority of NATO member states), which are generously financing the Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.  

From a legal standpoint, this is a criminal act on the part of our governments, which should be opposed by a vast social movement in all NATO member-states.  

The dominant Nazi faction within the Kiev government regime (which is supported by our governments) exerts its power within the realm of intelligence, internal affairs, national security and the military.

Amply documented, the 2014 US-sponsored EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat was carried out with the support of these two Nazi factionsSvoboda and Right Sektor headed by Dmytro Yarosh, which have committed countless atrocities directed against Ukraine’s Jewish community.

Dmytro Yarosh (Centre) EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat

Andriy Parubiy founded in 1991 the Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda [Freedom]), together with Oleh Tyahnybok. Parubiy was subsequently appointed Chairman of Ukraine’s Parliament (Verkhovna Rada).

According to Andriy ParubiyAdolf Hitler was “the torchbearer of democracy”. 

“I’m a major supporter of direct democracy,… By the way, I tell you that the biggest man, who practised a direct democracy, was Adolf Aloizovich [Hitler]”. (Quoted by South Front)

Remember Victoria Nuland of F**k the EU Fame

The US Congress, Canada’s Parliament, the British Parliament, the European Parliament, have invited and praised M. Parubiy.

Here is Victoria Nuland with the leader of the Svoboda Nazi Party, Tyannybok.

The Holocaust in Ukraine

With the formation of a new government composed of Neo-Nazis, the Jewish community in Kiev is threatened. This community is described as “one of the most vibrant Jewish communities in the world, with dozens of active Jewish organizations and institutions”.

A significant part of this community is made up of family members of holocaust survivors.

“Three million Ukrainians were murdered by the Nazis during their occupation of Ukraine, including 900,000 Jews.” (indybay.org,January 29, 2014).

Ukraine’s Nazi movement collaborated with Nazi Germany in the early 1940s. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) participated in the killings of Ukraine’s Jewish population.

The map below is the territory under Nazi Germany occupation (recorded in 1942) extending from Galicia to Kiev and Odessa.

It indicates cities with Jewish ghettoes as well as the locations of major massacres.

According to the WW II Holocaust Museum:

“Before World War II, the 1.5 million Jews living in the Soviet republic of Ukraine constituted the largest Jewish population within the Soviet Union, and one of the largest Jewish populations in Europe. … The number of Jews in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic (UkrSSR) rose to 2.45 million people [from 1939-1941]”

Amply documented the OUN-B and its National Insurgent Army (UPA) were actively involved in the massacres of Jews, Poles, Communists and Roma in major cities including Odessa and Kiev.

At the outset of Operation Barbarossa (June, 22 1941), in coordination with the death squads (Einsatzgruppen) of Nazi Germany, members of the OUN-B were instrumental in the killings in the City of Lviv, Western region of Galicia, resulting in the massacre and deportation of more than 100,000 Jews:

The Lviv pogroms were the consecutive pogroms and massacres of Jews in June and July 1941 in the city of Lwów. (Lviv, Lvov) in German-occupied Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine (now Lviv, Ukraine). The massacres were perpetrated by Ukrainian nationalists (specifically, the OUN), German death squads (Einsatzgruppen), and urban population from 30 June to 2 July [1941].”

The members of OUN-B actively collaborated with the Wehrmacht’s occupation forces (1941-1944).

In Ukraine: “..up to a million Jews were murdered by Einsatzgruppen units, Police battalions, Wehrmacht troops and local Nazi collaborators” (emphasis added)

On September, 1 1941, the Nazi-sponsored Ukrainian newspaper Volhyn wrote, in an article titled Let’s Conquer the City, namely Lviv:

“All elements that reside in our land, whether they are Jews or Poles, must be eradicated.

We are at this very moment resolving the Jewish question, and this resolution is part of the plan for the Reich’s total reorganization of Europe.

The empty space that will be created, must immediately and irrevocably be filled by the real owners and masters of this land, the Ukrainian people”. (Emphasis added)

The map below is the territory under Nazi Germany occupation (1942) extending from Galicia to Kiev and Odessa.

It indicates cities with Jewish ghettoes, the locations of major massacres.

In this regard, the Janowska concentration camp was established in the outskirts of Lviv in September 1941.

Lviv had a Jewish population of 160,000. The Janowska camp combined “elements of labor, transit, and extermination”.

“By the time Soviet forces reached Lviv on 21 July 1944, less than 1 per cent of Lviv’s Jews had survived the occupation.“ (Emphasis added)

What this means is that our governments —which claim to be firmly committed to social democracy– are actively supporting and financing the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime. 

Specifically, the German penal code prohibits “The Denial of the Holocaust” as well as the “dissemination of Nazi propaganda”.

We are dealing with something far more serious than Nazi “hate speech”, namely the relationship of the German Government with the Kiev regime’s Nazi Movement.

Our governments, including the totality of NATO member states, have been instructed by Washington to SUPPORT and SPONSOR Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi regime, which came to power in 2014 in the wake of a US-sponsored coup d’Etat.

____________________________________________________

NAZISM = ANTI-SEMITISM 

WESTERN GOVERNMENTS WHICH SUPPORT THE NEO-NAZI KIEV REGIME ARE ANTI-SEMITIC 

There can be no peace when elected governments are supporting Ukraine’s NAZI Movement.

There can be no peace when US-NATO are actively supporting and financing Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

There can be NO PEACE when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit (scheduled for 9-11 July 2024) has already announced its unbending support for the Kiev Nazi regime.  

NATO is the protagonist of fraud and crimes against humanity.

NATO’S MANDATE IS TO SUPPORT NAZISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM.

ABOLISH NATO, NATO-EXIT.

NO NATO, NO WAR.

For more details see:

Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Government Is Supported by the International Community. Adolph Hitler is “The Torchbearer of Democracy” in Ukraine

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 21, 2024

________________________________

21 June 2024

Source:  michelchossudovsky.substack.com

Student Organizing & Change-Making on University Campuses

By Samer Alatout

This commentary is based on an episode of Rethinking Palestine, Al-Shabaka’s podcast series, which aired on May 27, 2024. The discussion may be listened to in full here.

In April 2024, students at Columbia University set up an encampment on campus grounds in solidarity with the Palestinian people—particularly those in Gaza facing the ongoing genocide.  Their demands to the university administration were simple: to disclose investments and divest from companies complicit in the oppression of Palestinians. Similar encampments soon spread across college and university campuses throughout the US, as well as in Canada, the UK, and Europe.

While unprecedented in the context of Palestine solidarity, these encampments and protests follow a long legacy of student mobilization in the US against war and imperialism. Just like their predecessors, students today are facing brutal repression from university administrations, as well as from security and policy forces. Hundreds of students and faculty members have been injured, arrested, and even suspended from their institutions. They have also faced smear campaigns by the media and agitators, attempting to discredit the protests and the people behind them.

This commentary offers key insights into this new wave of student mobilization. It details student demands and places them within the historical legacy of US student organizing. The commentary also examines the relationship between university administrators, students, and faculty, and finds hope in the kinship emerging between the latter two groups at this critical moment.

Student Demands: Understanding Disclosure and Divestment

The US has a long history of student activism, particularly across university campuses. Indeed, student mobilization previously emerged during the civil rights movement, Vietnam War, anti-apartheid movement, and Iraq War. Each of these efforts followed a similar trajectory: In the short term, student activists were met with condemnation from university administrators and violent police responses. Meanwhile, the impact of student actions and demands began to feed into a growing discourse of condemnation towards the US and its geopolitical allies. Years later, the very universities that attempted to stifle such mobilizations would come to celebrate their former students, acknowledge their bravery, and claim that times have since changed and campuses were now safe spaces for justice-based organizing.

Universities across the US are generating profits to sustain operations by investing millions—if not billions—of dollars in companies that actively support Israeli settler colonization and Palestinian subjugationSHARE ON X

Standing on the shoulders of these historic mobilizations, today’s student organizing efforts are centered on US complicity in Israel’s genocidal assault in Gaza. Through protests and encampments, the students are making specific demands of their universities—namely, disclosure and divestment. To effectively grasp the impact and potentiality of these mobilizations, it is important to first understand the basis behind their calls.

Many colleges and universities across the US have endowments that are intended to help fund the core operational costs of the institutions in perpetuity. The value of a university endowment varies, with Harvard University possessing the largest at a total of roughly $50 billion. The top 15 university endowments amount to over $315 billion. Importantly, these endowments are sustained through investments in stocks, capital, and other instruments. Some of these investments feed directly into companies that help to uphold the infrastructure of Israeli settler colonization—including weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin, technology company Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and telecommunications company Motorola Solutions. Lockheed Martin, for example, has provided Israel with Hellfire missiles, transport planes, as well as F-16 and F-35 fighter jets throughout the genocide in Gaza. Hewlett Packard Enterprise has supplied the Israeli government for years with various systems that enable its ministries to surveil and store information on Palestinians throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Meanwhile, Motorola Solutions remains the sole supplier of 4G to the Israeli military and previously designed a unique smartphone model for the Israeli military.

Thus, universities across the US are generating profits to sustain their operations by investing millions—if not billions—of dollars in companies that actively support Israeli settler colonization and Palestinian subjugation. Accordingly, students are calling on their academic institutions to divest from such companies and develop investment strategies that better align with the universities’ stated values.

This demand is part of a long student history of divestment calls, which was widely prevalent throughout the anti-apartheid movement in the 1970s and 1980s. During these years, students advocated for universities to become “South Africa free” by cutting financial ties with companies who conducted business with the apartheid regime. The movement resulted in 155 colleges and universities across the US and Canada divesting from South Africa between 1977 and 1988. Furthermore, its impact spread beyond college campuses to directly impact the decision-making of US corporations, many of whom—including General Electric and PepsiCo—ultimately ceased operations in South Africa until the end of apartheid. Thus, divestment efforts have proved effective for nearly fifty years.

Demands for disclosure and divestment go hand-in-hand: Universities must make their investments open to public access, and must then divest from those actively engaged in human rights violationsSHARE ON X

The divestment demand also builds on the call made by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, an organizing framework that is increasingly becoming part of the mainstream public discourse. The movement’s prevalence has significantly increased as a result of the presence of strong Palestinian voices in the public sphere, especially across social media platforms, in recent years. This is a major shift from past decades, where Palestinian experts and analysts were sidelined in favor of non-Palestinian advocates. Furthermore, the brutality of the genocide in Gaza has pushed the boundaries of risktaking for many: What may have felt like too great a risk in the past—either on our careers, reputations, or safety—now feels necessary in the face of Palestinian erasure. This is despite the many local, state-wide, and nation-wide crackdowns on BDS activity, including legislation across 38 states to penalize those participating in boycotts. Today, we are witnessing Palestinians and Palestinian Americans at the helm of these organizing efforts and risk-taking, and students are carrying this critical work forward.

Still, a major obstacle remains for this call to be effective: the majority of college and university investments remain private. That is, academic institutions largely refuse to publicly disclose their investment portfolios; many establish distinct foundations to house profits and manage investments, so as to further distance the university from its financial liabilities. As such, students and faculty are unable to make concrete demands for divestment. This is why the call for disclosure is central to the current student uprising. Financial transparency is a basic democratic principle that all higher education institutions—particularly public universities—should adhere to.

Student demands for disclosure and divestment therefore go hand-in-hand: Universities must first make their investments open to public access, and must then divest from those companies actively engaged in fundamental human rights violations.

Student Encampments: Spaces of Resistance & Future-Building

The student encampments lay bare a number of truths about university administrations. Firstly, that they perceive themselves as the sole arbiters of these institutions, separate from faculty, staff, and student body. Such is made abundantly clear when protest spaces are unilaterally declared illegal and police forces are called in for their dismantlement. In deploying the threat—or at times, actual use—of violence, university administrations exemplify their power as diametrically opposed to that of the students. Indeed, doing so fortifies a relationship between the two that is built on the demand for compliance, and on punishment in the face of defiance.

Students are reacting to the exceptional horror with an exceptional response—both by demanding accountability from their institutions as well as by prefiguring what an alternative and just world could look likeSHARE ON X

Despite this, we must recall that the administration is not synonymous with the university itself. Rather, the university is made up of a constellation of groups—including students, faculty, and staff. Each of these constituencies has a stake in the institution, and each should accordingly participate and have representation in its governance. This is exactly what the students are demanding: A direct role in determining how investment decisions are made, and which values or ethics are used to inform those decisions. The students deserve to feel a mutual sense of belonging and kinship with the university—that they belong to it, and that it belongs to them. The same is true for all constituencies on university and college campuses, and participating in institutional decision-making is a key part of this process.

The student encampments have also revealed the contrasting responses on campuses to the Palestinian genocide in Gaza. While many university administrations desire to continue business as usual and disregard their complicity, students are reacting to the exceptional horror with an exceptional response—both by demanding accountability from their institutions as well as by prefiguring what an alternative and just world could look like. From the outside, the tent-filled encampments serve as a physical and symbolic reminder of the refugee camps that have emerged in Gaza since October 2023. Within these encampments, however, students are building forward-looking spaces that are inclusive, participatory, and safe for all. Like their predecessors, these spaces are filled with skills-sharing and popular education resources, rooted in an ethos of community-building and liberation. In this way, they are pushing the boundaries of what is considered possible on university campuses.

The recent student mobilizations have also galvanized university faculty and staff, and strengthened the coalition between these constituencies, in what may be a lasting impact beyond the current negotiations. From the faculty side, many are keen to support the students through assisting with negotiation processes, passing down historical expertise, and offering physical protection (as may be seen through the numerous human chains formed by faculty around student protestors). It is in these times that we are reminded that the role of the professor is more than just pedagogical and educational; it is also about providing a nurturing and protective environment for students to thrive intellectually, emotionally—and sometimes, unfortunately, that requires standing between them and a violent police force. In these moments and in these spaces, the power relationship between students and faculty shifts; we offer what we can and only when it is solicited, deferring to the organizers for guidance. Above all, as faculty we remain inspired and indebted to these students, who are carrying on the long legacy of change-making towards justice.

Al-Shabaka Policy Member Samer Alatout is an associate professor in the Department of Community and Environmental Sociology and the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at…

14 July, 2024

Source: al-shabaka.org

Activists call for boycott of Olympics as Israeli forces kill Gaza athletes

By The New Arab Staff

Israeli forces have killed a number of prominent sports players and athletes, triggering people to criticise their participation in the upcoming Olympics.

Activists have called for a boycott of the upcoming Olympics in Paris over Israel’s participation in the games, following the killing of a number of prominent sports figures, including children, in Gaza

Estimates from activists in Gaza state that around 350 sports players and athletes have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war on the enclave on 7 October. The figure includes at least 250 footballers.

This week, a renowned goal keeper, Shadi Abu-Alarraj, from Khan Younis, was killed in Israel’s attack on Al Mawasi according to local Palestinian media. The deadly attack on the area killed at least 90 Palestinians who were sheltering in the area, with the Palestinian ministry of health saying half of those killed were women and children.

Online, tributes poured in for the 36-year-old, with many remembering him for his skill.

Others questioned why Israeli forces and sports teams have not been held accountable, or punished, for their attacks on Palestinian sports personalities.

“Why hasn’t the Israeli Football Association been suspended yet, as they did with Russia?” one person questioned.

Earlier this week, 11-year-old Yazan Al-Sarsawi was also killed by Israeli fire in a direct shot to the head during an Israeli operation in Shujaiyya, east of Gaza City.

According to accounts shared online, Al-Sarsawi dreamed of playing professionally in the European league. He was also a fan of Cristiano Ronaldo.

Waseem Ayman Abu Deeb, a member of the Palestinian Athletics Team was also killed this week, after Israeli forces bombed his family home in Khan Younis.

Journalists and social media users highlighted that Abu Deeb had participated in the Arab under 20’s Championship in Jordan in 2018, the West Asian Championship for men and women in Jordan in 2018 , the Asian Games in Jakarta in 2018 as well as the Arab Championship for men and women in Tunisia in 2021.

Palestinians shared images of the athletes across social media sites.

Activists and campaigners have since called for the Olympics to ban Israel, while others have called for the boycotting on the event.

“No platform for genocide at the Olympics! The IOC must ban Israel, boycott Israel and Blacklist Israel,” one person wrote on social media platform X.

“Boycott the Olympics, the IOC is complicit. Israel is somehow allowed to compete on an international stage while committing ghoulish crimes against humanity like this,” another said.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed 38,584 Palestinians since 7 October and wounded at least 88,881 others in the same time frame.

The war has levelled entire neighbourhoods and destroyed much of the Strip’s infrastructure.

14 July, 2024

Source: newarab.com