Archives: Articles

By Ted Snider

15 Jul 2021 – Syria rocks under continued US bombing and reels under withering US sanctions. But why? Why are we still not friends with Syria?

Bashar al-Assad has long courted a relationship with the west. He has long been willing to act in a way that would make friendship possible. In his 2009 article entitled “Syria Calling,” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that then Senator John Kerry, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and who had just met with Assad, said that Assad “wants to engage with the West…. Assad is willing to do the things he needs to do in order to change his relationship with the United States.” Hersh says that Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the ruler of Qatar, told him that “Syria is eager to engage with the West.”

Amongst the many “things he needed to do,” the US would want him to prove himself in at least five areas: 9/11, ISIS, chemical weapons, Israel and Iran. He proved himself in all five.

9/11

Assad made sure that he made his support for the US clear in the wake of 9/11 by issuing a statement expressing Syria’s support for the US war on al-Qaeda. But his support went well beyond words. In Reporter: A Memoir, Seymour Hersh says that Assad went as far as “sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country’s most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where most of the planning for 9/11 was carried out.” Assad also provided the US with details about a future al-Qaeda attack on the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, which Hersh says that he confirmed was invaluable.

Al-Qaeda & ISIS

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are existential threats to the Assad government, and Assad was fighting against them for his survival. In a counterfactual unconvoluted world, that should make Assad our friend. And there was evidence as early as 2014 that Syria was directly cooperating with the US. According to reports at the time, US intelligence was passing Syria information on the location of ISIS leaders for the targeting of air strikes with the German intelligence agency, the BND, acting as middleman.

Chemical Weapons

Despite repeated discredited reports of Assad using chemical weapons, Syria has long ago complied with US demands to surrender its chemical weapons stockpile. In September 2013, as a result of a plan negotiated by Syria, Russia and Iran, Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moalllem, declared Syria’s willingness to acknowledge its chemical weapons, sign the international convention against chemical weapons, place its arsenal under international control and swear off any future development of chemical weapons. Assad followed that statement by sending a letter to the UN, declaring Syria’s intention to sign the international chemical weapons treaty. Once again, Assad went beyond mere words, and, on September 14, the US and Russia finalized an agreement on the removal or destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons. According to The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), by January 2016, the destruction of those chemical weapons had been completed as promised.

Israel

Syria has for a very long time been trying to do the thing they needed to do to be accepted into a friendship with the west by entering into a peaceful settlement with Israel. Remarkably, as early as 1973, Hafez Assad, Bashar’s father and president of Syria before his son, told Nixon that he accepted UN Resolution 242. He told the US that “If the Israelis return to the 1967 frontier and the West Bank and Gaza becomes a Palestinian state, the last obstacles to a final settlement will have been removed.” Twenty years later, Assad favorably modified his offer even more. In Mythologies Without End, Jerome Slater reports that Assad told the US that a peace agreement with Israel would no longer require the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

By 1994, meetings between Assad and Clinton resulted in joint statement that Syria was willing to begin peaceful relations with Israel, including full diplomatic relations. According to Slater, though, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin suspended the promising talks. Though the talks would eventually resume, in 1995, it was Rabin, and not Assad, who once again broke them off.

Assad would try again with a new Israeli prime minister. But Shimon Peres, like Rabin before him, would break off the talks.

Next would be Ehud Barak. In December 1999, Assad gave his latest version of a peace offering: he would sign a peace treaty if Israel would withdraw from the Golan Heights. In early 2000, the Clinton administration drew up the draft of the treaty. In a remarkable story told by Patrick Tyler in his book, A World of Trouble, Assad sent his foreign minister to Washington to meet with Barak and Clinton. But when Barak’s plane landed, and the door opened, Barak would not come out: he panicked and told assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, “I can’t do it.” Indyk was stunned that Barak was backing out at the last second before the meeting. Barak had changed his mind, and Assad’s attempt at peace fell incomplete on the tarmac.

In June 2000, Hafez Assad died and was replaced by Bashar Assad. Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, says that, when Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father, he asked for a resumption of talks with Israel. He told now prime minister Ariel Sharon that he would resume talks with no preconditions. Zunes reports that Sharon ignored him, and the US and Israel turned him down.

Bashar Assad would try again with Ehud Olmert. In July 2006, Syrian and Israeli negotiators actually began to draft a peace treaty. But when Syria requested that the talks be escalated to a senior level and become official, Olmert rejected the request and terminated negotiations. When Israeli officials later felt out the US about resuming exploratory talks with Syria, according to Haaretz, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent out the US answer to the possibility of friendship with Syria: “Don’t even think about it.”

Seymour Hersh reports that Assad continued talks with the US into the Obama administration. Zunes said in a personal correspondence that the blame for the failure of those talks lays, not with Assad, but with Israel: “Nothing could happen, Zunes said, “without the return of the Golan, which Netanyahu refuses to do”.

In March 2019, when Netanyahu declared, and Trump formally recognized, Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, their return became impossible. Slater points out that even that provoked no military response from Syria.

Iran

For Israel, one of the things Syria needed to do to change their relationship was to facilitate the driving of a wedge between them and Iran. What is seldom discussed is that Syria seems to have been willing to do even that.

In the 2006 negotiations, Israel made it a condition that Syria sever ties with Iran. Slater reports that senior Syrian officials told Israeli journalists that, in the context of a peace agreement, Syria would distance itself from Iran. In July 2008, Slater reports, Israel’s lead negotiator said that Assad was “increasingly open to a peace deal with Israel which could greatly weaken Iran’s influence in the Middle East.”

So, while congress continues to ask Biden to justify bombing Syria without congressional approval, the real question is why is the US bombing and sanctioning Syria at all.

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

2 August 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Ramzy Baroud

By calling an ice cream company ‘terrorist’ for simply adhering to international law, Israeli President Isaac Herzog revealed the absurdity of the official Israeli strategy to counter the BDS movement.

28 Jul 2021 – Ben & Jerry’s decision to suspend its operations in the occupied Palestinian West Bank is an event that is proving critical to Palestinian efforts, which ultimately aim at holding Israel accountable for its military occupation, apartheid and war crimes.

By responding to the Palestinian call for boycotting apartheid Israel, the ice cream giant has delivered a blow to Israel’s attempts at criminalizing and, ultimately, ending the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

What differentiates Ben & Jerry’s decision to abandon the ever-growing market of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank from previous decisions by other international corporations is the fact that the ice cream company has made it clear that its move was morally motivated. Indeed, Ben & Jerry’s did not attempt to mask or delude their decision in any way. “We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” a statement by the Vermont, US-based company read on 19 July.

Expectedly, the Israeli government was infuriated by the decision, especially as it comes after years of a well-funded, state-sponsored, global campaign to discredit, demonize and altogether outlaw the BDS movement and any similar initiatives that aimed at boycotting Israel.

For years, the Israeli government has viewed the boycott movement as a real, tangible threat. Some Israeli officials went as far as perceiving the ‘delegitimization’ resulting from the boycott campaign as the primary threat faced by Israel at the present time. Well attended conferences were held in Las Vegas, Brussels, Jerusalem and elsewhere, hundreds of millions of dollars raised, fiery speeches delivered, while politicians and ‘philanthropists’ lined up at many occasions, vowing their undying allegiance to Israel and accusing anyone who dare criticize the ‘Jewish State’ of ‘anti-Semitism’.

However, Israel’s biggest challenge was, and remains, its near-complete reliance on the support of self-serving politicians. True, those ‘friends of Israel’ can be quite helpful in formulating laws that, for example, falsely equate between criticizing Israel and anti-Semitism, or render the act of boycott illegal, and so on. In fact, many US states and European parliaments have bowed down to Israeli pressure to criminalize the BDS movement and its supporters, whether in the realm of business or even at the level of civil society and individuals. All of this is amounting to very little.

Additionally, Israel doubled down on its attempts to control the narrative in mainstream media, in academia and wherever the anti-Israeli occupation debate proved to be consequential. Through a Kafkaesque, and often bizarre logic, Israel and its supporters deliberately misinterpreted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, applying it at every platform where criticism of Israel or its Zionist ideology is found. The reckless Israeli dialectics was, sadly – albeit predictably – embraced by many of Israel’s Western benefactors, including the US, Canada and Italy, among others.

Yet, none of this has ended or even slowed down the momentum of the Palestinian boycott movement. This fact should hardly come as a surprise, for boycott movements are fundamentally designed to circumvent governmental control and to place pressure on politicians, state and corporate apparatuses, so that they may heed the calls of civil society. Thus, the more Israel attempts to use its allies to illegalize, delegitimize and suppress dissent, the more it actually fuels it.

The above is the secret of the BDS success and Israel’s very Achilles’ heel. By ignoring the boycott campaign, the movement grows exponentially; and by fighting it, using traditional means and predictable language, it grows even faster.

In order to appreciate Tel Aviv’s unsolvable quandary, just marvel at this odd response, which was offered by top Israeli officials in response to Ben & Jerry’s decision. Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, warned the British company that acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, of “severe consequences”, threatening that Israel will take “strong action”, most likely referring to legal action.

But what was truly strange was the language used by Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, who accused Ben & Jerry’s of participating in “a new form of terrorism”, namely, “economic terrorism”. On 21 July, Herzog vowed to fight “this boycott and terrorism in any form.”

Note how the Israeli response to the continued success of the Palestinian boycott movement remains confined in terms of options and language. Yet on the legal front, most attempts at indicting BDS activists have repeatedly failed, as the recent court rulings in Washington demonstrate. On the other hand, the act of accusing an ice cream company of ‘terrorism’ deserves some serious examination.

Historically, Israel has situated its anti-Palestinian propaganda war within a handful of redundant terminology, predicated on the claim that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, the security and very existence of which is constantly being threatened by terrorists and undermined by anti-Semites.

The above mantra may have succeeded in shielding Israel from criticism and tarnishing Israel’s victims, the Palestinians. However, it is no longer a guarantor of international sympathy and solidarity. Not only is the Palestinian struggle for freedom gaining global traction, but the pro-Israeli discourse is finally discovering its limitations.

By calling an ice cream company ‘terrorist’ for simply adhering to international law, Herzog has revealed the growing lack of credibility and absurdity of the official Israeli language.

But this is not the end of Israel’s problems. Regardless of whether they are branded successful or unsuccessful, all BDS campaigns are equally beneficial in the sense that each campaign kickstarts a conversation that often goes global, as we have seen repeatedly in the past. Airbnb, G4S, and SodaStream, are but a few of many such examples. Any global debate on Israel’s military occupation and apartheid is a BDS success story.

That said, there is one strategy that will surely end the BDS campaign, and that is ending the Israeli occupation, dismantling the racial system of apartheid and giving Palestinians their freedom as enshrined and protected by international law. Alas, this is the only strategy that Israeli officials are yet to consider.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

2 August 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Ahmed Abbes and Jonathan Rosenhead

More than 1000 academics, artists and intellectuals have signed a “Declaration on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid in Historic Palestine,” in a sign of the growing acceptance of the term in the west.

27 Jul 2021 – When in a few years historians look at the year 2021 in Israel, it’s a safe bet that the salient theme will not be COVID-19 or the exit of Netanyahu but apartheid. The year began on January 12 with the publication of B’Tselem’s report A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid. Three months later, on April 27, Human Rights Watch drove the point home by publishing its report A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution. Just two months later, on July 6, more than 600 academics, artists and intellectuals from more than 45 countries issued a Declaration calling for the dismantling of the apartheid regime in historic Palestine. Since then, the number of signatories has grown steadily and has now reached 1,000, including Nobel Prize winners, prominent academics and artists.Apartheid is a crime. It has been internationally recognised as such since November 30, 1973, when the UN General Assembly adopted the “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid“. In the Rome Statute of 2002 which established the international criminal court, apartheid is specified as a crime against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over other racial group or groups and committed with the intension of maintaining that regime.”

The fit with Israel’s discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians is manifest, and yet remained for decades virtually impossible to acknowledge publicly. When President Jimmy Carter in 2006 dared to publish a book about Israel with ‘apartheid’ in its title there was uproar. When more than a decade later a UN study came to the same conclusion (“Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid“, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), 2017) the reaction was convulsive. Outrage by Israel-supporting bodies and countries at the use of the ‘A’ word led to a directive from the UN Secretary General that the report be withdrawn; and ESCWA Executive Director Rima Khalaf resigned rather than implement this instruction.

In 2021, the year of Israeli apartheid, that log jam has broken. This year, the world’s civil societies have had enough. Across countries and continents, across age groups and ethnicities, the marches, the manifestos, the opeds, the motions passed overwhelmingly have swelled into a torrent. And Israel’s practice of apartheid now adds to its violations of international law in the compelling pressure for international action.

The Declaration on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid in Historic Palestine, now with an impressive weight of one thousand prominent endorsers, will add to that pressure. Its signatories include the former ESCWA Executive Director Rima Khalaf and the ESCWA report’s authors Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley, as well as Nobel Peace Prize laureates Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire, the Nobel Chemistry Laureate George Smith, academics with legal expertise Monique Chemillier-Gendreau and John Dugard, scholars Bertrand Badie, Étienne Balibar, Hagit Borer, Ivar Ekeland, Suad Joseph, Edgar Morin, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Jacques Rancière, Roshdi Rashed and Gayatri Spivak, health researcher Sir Iain Chalmers, composer Brian Eno, musician Roger Waters, author Ahdaf Soueif, economist and former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN Sir Richard Jolly, former Vice President of the European Parliament Luisa Morgantini, South African politician and veteran anti-apartheid leader Ronnie Kasrils and Canadian peace activist and former national leader of the Green Party of Canada Joan Russow.

The endorsers declare their categorical rejection of the apartheid regime set up on the territory of historic Palestine and imposed on the Palestinian people as a whole, including refugees and exiles wherever they might be in the world.

They call for the immediate dismantling of this apartheid regime and the establishment of a democratic constitutional arrangement that gives all its inhabitants equal rights and duties, regardless of their racial, ethnic and religious identities, or gender preferences, and which respects and enforces international law and human conventions, and in particular gives priority to the long deferred right of return of Palestinian refugees expelled from their towns and villages during the creation of the State of Israel, and subsequently.

They urge their governments:

• to cease immediately their complicity with Israel’s apartheid regime;
• to join in calling for the dismantling of apartheid structures and their replacement by an egalitarian democratic governance that treats everyone subject to its authority in accordance with their rights and with full respect for their humanity; and
• to support this necessary transition in a manner sensitive to the right of self-determination enjoyed by both peoples presently inhabiting historic Palestine.

________________________________________________

Ahmed Abbes, mathematician, research director in Paris, secretary of the French Association of Academics for Respect for International Law in Palestine (AURDIP) and coordinator of the Tunisian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (TACBI).

Jonathan Rosenhead is an operational researcher and Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics. He is chairman of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) and is an Officer of Jewish Voice for Labour.

2 August 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Gerald A Perreira

Except for the hum of US helicopters flying overhead, there was a deafening silence throughout the Caribbean region, during the recent Operation Tradewinds, Progressive and Pan-African forces did not utter a word, as soldiers from Guyana, Brazil, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago participated in this region-wide military exercise with army personnel from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, France and the Netherlands,

We were told that Operation Tradewinds was “a US Southern Command sponsored combined joint exercise conducted with partner nations to enhance the collective ability of defense forces and constabularies to counter transnational criminal organizations, conduct humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief operations.”

The catch-phrases “transnational criminal organizations”, “humanitarian assistance” and even “disaster relief operations” are worn-out euphemisms for the neo-colonial presence of the US Empire and its European allies in Guyana and throughout the region. Military exercises and CIA manuals are a vital part of the game plan to ensure the continued strength and influence of the hegemon.

Their lackeys in the region follow suit, utilizing tactics of disinformation. Often, when people from poor and marginalized communities in the Caribbean and the Americas resist neo-colonialism and its persistent, debilitating poverty and oppression, they are labelled “criminals”, and legitimate grassroots movements are described as “criminal gangs”. This then acts as an excuse for State repression, extra-judicial killings, imprisonments and political assassination. In Colombia and Brazil, activists, and in particular, African and Indigenous activists, are targeted for elimination. According to Africa Globe, an African-Brazilian is killed by the police every 23 minutes. Operation Tradewinds was a tacit reminder that if things get out of hand in the ‘colonies’, the Empire is there to back up their local ‘governors’, who pose as presidents and prime ministers.

The poverty and suffering throughout the region is largely due to the persistent imperialist plunder and exploitation of our abundant natural and human resources, as well as the imposition of political and economic systems that maintain dependency and dysfunction, while widening the gap between rich and poor. Countries in the region that have dared to break these chains, such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Bolivia, suffer the Empire’s full wrath. Speaking for Guyana in 2021, the most apt description would be a neo-plantation, where the colonial structures, institutions and systems remain firmly in place, and where the president, prime minister and other government officials are no more than governors, viceroys and overseers for the Empire, as in colonial times. That is why Caribbean liberation theologian, Kortright Davis, could have proclaimed, “emancipation still comin”.

Geo-Political and Historical Fatalism
It’s hard to fathom the seeming acceptance, across the political spectrum, of this provocative military exercise, coordinated by the world’s major imperialist powers. The very same powers that worked together as a well-oiled machine in the destruction of the Libyan revolution. Provocative, because the exercise was so obviously staged in an attempt to intimidate Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and any other nation in the Caribbean or the Americas that dares to dream of sovereignty and the right to self-determination.

To remain silent, is to acquiesce. A dangerous acceptance of the absurd notion of historical and geo-political fatalism is in the air. The acronym T.I.N.A (There Is No Alternative) was concocted so it could be transplanted into our thinking and sure enough it is manifesting itself. Even amongst Pan-Africanists across the region I am sensing a kind of “this is the reality we have to deal with”. Really? With this self- defeating approach, they are actually legitimizing and ‘Pan-Africanizing’ neo-colonialism and in so doing, forfeiting our inalienable right to authentic independence and self-determination.

Joe Biden has now tightened the noose around Cuba’s neck. It’s no surprise that the planned distribution of Cuba’s vaccines, Soberana, Abdala and Mambisa, to the Caribbean, Central and South America and Africa, sent the Empire’s machinery into overdrive, accelerating its attempts to create chaos in Cuba. As far as the imperialists were concerned, this phenomenal achievement by a small, truly sovereign and socialist nation had to be disrupted and discredited.

US imperialists, be they Democrats or Republicans, displaying the fact that their wickedness knows no bounds, have actually hindered Cuba’s access to syringes and other supplies to assist in the manufacture and distribution of life-saving vaccines in the middle of a global pandemic. Cuba’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, rightfully described this as an “act of genocide” and said that “like the virus, the blockade asphyxiates and kills.”

Worldwide, Youth are Rejecting Capitalism
If anything has laid bare capitalism’s contradictions, it is COVID 19. Capitalism’s failure is on show as never before. Youth around the world are rising up in large numbers with the word ‘socialism’ on their lips. And most worrying to the ruling classes and the imperialists, is that the youth movements in their own countries are among the largest. According to recent polls, a majority of youth in the US are rejecting capitalism. More than half of those polled view socialism positively. These young people in advanced capitalist countries such as the US, the UK and France are struggling to make ends meet. Unemployment figures are soaring, social and economic inequality is growing at an unprecedented rate, and even those who have employment are forced to have a side hustle or two. The inarguable connection between racism and capitalism is highlighted everywhere they turn. In the early 60s, when Malcolm X said, “you can’t have capitalism without racism” he had to argue that point in order illustrate it, in 2021, the nexus between capitalism and racism has surely become self-evident.

Increasingly, youth in the West are no longer blaming themselves for their situation, as neo-liberals and conservatives have encouraged them to do, but are instead turning their disdain towards the economic and political system which they see as being rigged against them. They are laying bare the injustice perpetrated by the ideology of White supremacy, which allows Africans in the US to be shot in their homes, neighbourhoods, malls, playgrounds and streets by agencies of the State. Chanting “Black Lives Matter” and “No pride in genocide”, Black and White youth in the citadels of capitalism are tearing down, burning and smashing symbols, icons and images of this system.

The blatant way in which Bernie Sanders was sidelined and rigged out of the US presidential race, despite overwhelming support, contributed to the huge wave of disillusionment. It was a bitter pill for the thousands of young people who were actively involved in his campaign. After witnessing this electoral charade, the numbers of disenchanted youth soared, causing many to turn their back on any remnant of belief they still had in the US political system and bogus liberal democracy. In increasing numbers, US citizens are simply no longer able to close their eyes to the fact that the US is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

When detractors claim that socialism does not work, I ask them for just one example of a place anywhere on earth where neo-liberal capitalism is working. I’m still waiting for a case in point! In fact, if socialism is such a failure, why do the imperial powers spend millions trying to derail it – surely it should fail of its own accord?

Truth be told, it is White supremacy that came into the world as capitalism that is failing, and it is the US Empire and its European allies that are in crisis – directionless and floundering. Despite their bravado and victorious rhetoric, the question is not if this Empire will fall, but rather when? Forced to withdraw their troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq, having failed to achieve their objectives, they are mired in humiliation and defeat. Old Joe is a fool, as are Boris and Macron. Of course, no Empire goes down without a fight. As the Empire falls into the hell of its own making, for the vast majority, life on this earth will get even harsher than it already is. In its dying throes, we can expect the Empire to become even more vicious. All progressive and revolutionary oriented governments and movements understand that the Empire’s fight back will intensify in this historical period.

The Empire Fights Back to No Avail
It is in this context that the Empire’s most recent assault on Cuba took place. As the crisis of capitalism intensifies, the imperial powers are more determined than ever that no alternatives to neo-liberal capitalism can be left standing.

Imperialism’s policy has always been to nip socialist and revolutionary oriented governments in the bud, by ensuring that they are never given a breathing space. However, despite economic sanctions, covert and overt acts of sabotage, campaigns of disinformation, funding and support of insignificant counter-revolutionary entities and fake NGOs to the tune of millions of US dollars, CIA orchestrated coups, political assassinations and contra-wars, it has not been easy, to say the least, to nip the revolutions of the Caribbean and the Americas in the bud.

Although concerted efforts have been made and millions of US dollars spent, Biden will be the 12th US president who has tried to bring Cuba to its knees. After the waging of a brutal and unrelenting CIA sponsored contra-war against the Sandinista government for more than a decade, today support for President Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua is stronger than ever. In Venezuela, under enormous pressure, as the Empire continues to unleash the full extent of its destabilization arsenal on this nation-state, the Bolivarian revolution has survived, In Bolivia, following the US-backed electoral/constitutional coup that forced President Evo Morales from office, the Movement Towards Socialism party that he led, is back in power. In Haiti, Colombia, Brazil, Peru and across the region, the resistance continues.

“Look for Me in the Whirlwind…”
What the imperialists fail to understand is that the Caribbean and the Americas have an extraordinary legacy of resistance that has unleashed an historical revolutionary continuum that they can never defeat. Revolutionary leader, Maurice Bishop asked: “When will imperialism learn? He went on to explain that, “they can kill our bodies but they can never kill the spirit of a people fighting for their liberation…”

In 1987, addressing revolutionaries from the Caribbean and the Americas gathered at the World Mathaba in Libya, Muammar Qaddafi alluded to this impressive and defiant legacy, stating, “I have the feeling that the new world will begin in your region. It is there that the new outlines that will shape the world – outlines that correspond to our aspirations – shall be etched out.”

There can be no doubt that the spirit of Tupac Amaru, Agüeybaná II, Hatuey, Cuauhtémoc, Cahuide, Guaicaipuro, Lautaro, Dessalines, L’Ouverture, Boukman, Bolivar, Marti, Sandino. Bussa, Kofi, Atta, Bogle, Nanny, Makandal, Garvey, Guevara, Castro, Allende, Bishop and so many others rage on. Marcus Garvey told us to look for him “in the whirlwind or the storm, look for me all around you, for, with God’s grace, I shall come and bring with me countless millions of Black slaves who have died in America and the West Indies and the millions in Africa to aid you in the fight for Liberty, Freedom and Life.” It brings to mind the ancient phrase: “They tried to bury us, but they didn’t know we were seeds”.

Exhausted Playbook
The most recent attempt to destabilize Cuba simply illustrates just how exhausted the imperialist playbook is – floods of hashtags, bots, automated trolls, doctored photographs and videos, large cash payments to insignificant counter-revolutionary groups etc. The oppressed masses throughout the Caribbean and the Americas know exactly what is going on. In 2021, there is no nation on earth not facing huge challenges, let alone a nation that has withstood more than 60 years of harsh and comprehensive economic sanctions. Cuba’s survival under such harsh and intolerable conditions, is proof of the resolve and resilience of the Cuban people and the revolution they gave birth to. No matter how high the price they are forced to pay, they refuse to surrender their God-given right to true independence, dignity and self-determination. There can be no doubt that the Cubans have come too far to turn back, and will resolve their own issues and challenges on their own terms.

Declaration of War
On July 22nd, when Biden intensified the embargo by introducing new sanctions targeting individual Cuban officials and entities, he declared war. Sasha Tirador, a well-known Miami based counter-revolutionary, exclaimed, “This is huge!”

Another high profile and outspoken Miami based counter-revolutionary, Orlando Gutierrez-Boronat and Miami mayor, Francis Suarez, called for US airstrikes on the island-nation.

Contributing to the war-room like discourse, in an interview with MSNBC, Marc Rubio commented that “at the end of the day, the key…is to go after the loyalty and the confidence of those in the security apparatus in Cuba.”

The Biden administration is doing everything it can to provide internet access to the Cuban people to “circumvents the regime’s censorship efforts”. This is rich, coming from a US administration that is tagging what it considers to be ‘inappropriate messages’ on facebook for referral to facebook management. The US State has, in effect, become an extension of facebook in its attempts to censor.

In a clear directive to US partners in the region, Biden, referring to Cuba, Venezuela and others, said that “advancing human dignity and freedom is a top priority” for his Administration, and the US would work closely with its “partners throughout the region” to achieve these goals. And there they were, US military helicopters flying overhead in in Guyana, not far from the Venezuelan border, as part of Operation Tradewinds.

Never tiring of hypocrisy, Biden of course is speaking as president of a country with the largest incarcerated prison population on earth, including many political prisoners, where censorship and State-sponsored disinformation has become the order of the day, where the entire population, and in particular dissidents, are targeted for Orwellian type surveillance, and where demonstrations are put down with brutal militaristic force. Nowhere on earth is the ‘fascistization’ of the State more evident than in the US of A.

#UnBlockCuba
We must intensify our fight back. Words, resolutions and statements of solidarity are important but not enough. Revolutionary and progressive forces across the Caribbean and the Americas must mobilize and organize a mass movement around just one single demand that we can all agree on: An immediate end to the United States illegal embargo on Cuba. (#UnBlockCuba)

We must call on our progressive and revolutionary brothers and sisters worldwide to take up this campaign with such thunder that the Empire comes under pressure to relent. Only then can we demonstrate that there is indeed an alternative, and that we are determined to defend that alternative.

Revolutionary Pan-Africanist and socialist, Kwame Ture said, “When Africa called, Cuba answered”. He was of course not only referring to the medical brigades and other humanitarian assistance, but also to Cuba’s unprecedented military assistance in the fight against the South African Apartheid regime, and the decisive battle at Cuito Cuanavale. Now, when after 6 decades of illegal sanctions that have crippled Cuba economically, and are fomenting unrest among Cuba’s youth, as they were designed to do, Cuba is calling. Let us answer with a resounding and sustained campaign of resistance until the illegal embargo is lifted. In doing so, we will send a definitive message to the US rogue regime, that in the words of Grenadian freedom fighter, Maurice Bishop, “we are in nobody’s backyard”.

Gerald A. Perreira is chairperson of Organization for the Victory of the People (OVP) based in Guyana and an executive member of the Caribbean Chapter of the Network for Defense of Humanity.

29 July 2021

By M K Bhadrakumar

As often in modern history, Britain provides the plot for Washington to act. Russia, China, Iran are in the US crosshairs and Washington’s future agenda is principally oriented to blocking China’s Belt & Road, promoting regime change in Central Asia, using militant Islam as geopolitical tool, and consolidating a long-term presence in Afghanistan as a template of its Indo-Pacific strategy.

***

The ministerial meeting at Dushanbe last week of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the SCO contact group with Afghanistan left a trail of disappointment. The SCO statement on Afghanistan was a baby step — significant, nonetheless, considering the group’s growing inner contradictions.

There is no progress at the Doha talks, either. Meanwhile, Pentagon has quietly resumed the air attacks on Taliban. The US may not have boots on the ground but is rebuilding the politico-military capacity to charter the peace process in directions that suit its geopolitical interests.

The apparent US retrenchment hoodwinked the regional states. On its part, Russia even reached out to the US to form a collegium under the canopy of its Troika mechanism. Formats other than the Doha process are also being discussed. Everyone seems to want to boost the political process. Tehran recently hosted a conference for the representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban.

China made an offer to be a facilitator for intra-Afghan dialogue “at any time.” But, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov quickly stepped in to advise, “We think there’s no need to come up with any new agreements to do this. We just need to implement what has already been approved by, above all, the Afghan government and the Taliban (at Doha).”

Russia seems to prefer CSTO to the SCO as the security vehicle to handle the developing Afghan situation. Lavrov also disclosed that the Troika has “discussed, in particular, the candidacies of India and Iran. I believe this would boost this format’s capabilities. We’ll see how it goes from here.”

Of course, Iran is credited with influence over both the Taliban and the Afghan government as well as among the Shia communities in Afghanistan, especially the Hazaras. But Iran will not share a table with the US as a long-term US involvement in Afghanistan impacts Iran’s national security.

As for India, it has been a fellow traveller of the US bandwagon in Afghanistan all along and had a closed mind as regards the Taliban’s credentials as an autonomous Afghan entity. India enjoys excellent relations with the Afghan government headed by President Ashraf Ghani. (The Afghan army chief is expected in Delhi next week,)

Unsurprisingly, short of putting boots on the ground, India has taken a firm stand about the “legitimacy aspect” of the Taliban, which more or less corresponds to what Ghani has been saying, namely, that the Taliban’s mainstreaming ought to be through a constitutional, democratic process.

Evidently, any expansion of the Troika to induct Iran and India would be a non-starter. Basically, the US is determined to be involved in Afghanistan and the troop withdrawal will only mean rebooting of policies with greater emphasis on strengthening the ties with the Ghani government. Period. The regional states are yet to wake up fully to this stunning reality.

The Biden Administration has a compass to navigate the Afghan situation, with a default position buttressing a ‘forward policy’. The withdrawal of troops means that the danger of US fatalities is minimal in the period ahead. This enables the US to go full throttle to try to prevent a Taliban takeover that would tarnish President Biden’s reputation globally. Thus, Washington is finessing a new working relationship with Ghani.

The US doubts the Taliban’s capability to overpower the Afghan armed forces in the near term. This gives respite to recalibrate the US response. A ceasefire is not particularly necessary for the US at this point, as it may only work to Taliban’s advantage in the prevailing circumstances. In fact, the US has resumed th air strikes against the Taliban.

Russia, China, Iran are in the US crosshairs and Washington’s future agenda is principally oriented to blocking China’s Belt & Road, promoting regime change in Central Asia, using militant Islam as geopolitical tool, and consolidating a long-term presence in Afghanistan as a template of its Indo-Pacific strategy.

But the compass also has a default position. The newly-created regional Quadrilateral Diplomatic Platform (US-Uzbekistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) or QUAD-2 (pairing with the US-led QUAD in Indo-Pacific) provides a framework to recalibrate policies in the event of a Taliban takeover, which the Pentagon doesn’t still rule out entirely.

A window of opportunity is opening for Washington to leverage the traditionally western-oriented Pakistani elites and wean Islamabad away from Beijing’s embrace. Conceivably, the QUAD-2 meshes with the new Global Infrastructure Initiative that the Group of Seven leaders meeting in Cornwall, England, on June 11-13 agreed on.

At any rate, the QUAD-2 representatives issued a joint statement on Friday predicated on their mutual consensus that “peace and connectivity are mutually reinforcing.” The leitmotif is China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which the US perceives as Beijing’s hugely consequential geopolitical tool potentially in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The US is reasonably certain that the Taliban will find the QUAD-2 attractive as a platform to legitimise its regime and to source western aid.

Washington apparently kept Russia and China guessing and sprang a nasty surprise. Moscow is furious and has switched back to its own default position to accuse Washington of strategising the use of militant Islamic groups as geopolitical tools. But that won’t embarrass Washington, as the Deep State is behind the QUAD-2 strategy.

The US strategy stems out of Halford Mackinder’s famous Heartland theory! And the role of Britain, which has excellent equations with both Ghani and the Pakistani army chief Gen. Bajwa, is almost certainly there. As often in modern history, Britain provides the plot for Washington to act.

A report in the Daily Telegraph on July 13 quoted British Defence Minister Ben Wallace in an exclusive interview as saying, “Whatever the government of the day is, provided it adheres to certain international norms, the UK government will engage with it.”

Wallace recognised that the prospect of the UK working with the Taliban would be controversial. So he added the caveat: “What (the Taliban) desperately want is international recognition. They need to unlock financing and support (for) nation building, and you don’t do that with a terrorist balaclava on. You have to be a partner for peace otherwise you risk isolation. Isolation led them to where they were last time.”

Clearly, the Anglo-American compass has a default position to adjust to the Taliban takeover, which cannot be ruled out by any reckoning as things stand. The US, UK and the western powers hope to leverage the Taliban to work with them rather than against them in its own self-interest.

From all appearances, Russia is furious and has scrambled to circle its wagons both on the diplomatic plane (here, here and here) as well as by way of countermeasures in military terms. Too little, too late? But then, Russia has a record of getting its act together only after the flood gates have opened.

***

Posted in his blog, indianpunchline, July 23, 2021, by the author.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar served the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years. He introduces about himself thus: “Roughly half of the 3 decades of my diplomatic career was devoted to assignments on the territories of the former Soviet Union and to Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

29 July 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Thomas Scripps

Ecuador has stripped Julian Assange of his citizenship. The move is another outrageous assault on the WikiLeaks founder’s democratic rights, made in preparation for his extradition to the United States on charges under the Espionage Act. He is currently held in the UK’s Belmarsh maximum security prison, pending a case in the High Court.

The decision to revoke citizenship was confirmed by the Pichincha court for contentious administrative matters last week. At the court, a judge backed the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry’s claims that Assange’s naturalisation letter contained inconsistencies, different signatures and possibly altered documents, and that fees had gone unpaid.

Assange’s lawyer, Carlos Poveda, will appeal the “purely political” decision, which he argued was based on unsubstantiated allegations. He commented, “More than the importance of nationality, it is a matter of respecting rights and following due process in withdrawing nationality.”

Assange was not able to appear in the case, nor given the materials needed to prepare. Poveda explained, “From the first hearing we have said that Julian was not summoned legally, the documents must be translated because his language is English and that was not respected in all documents”.

When he asked for his client to be present at the hearing via a videolink, the Ecuadorian authorities sent a URL, of no use to Assange who is denied access to a computer and the internet.

Ecuador awarded Assange citizenship in December 2017, after granting him asylum in August 2012. He had taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London two months previously, seeking protection from the looming threat of extradition to the United States. The government of Rafael Correa asked the British government to allow Assange safe passage to Ecuador but was refused, with London threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of Ecuador’s embassy and storm the building. This left Assange trapped in conditions the United Nations condemned as arbitrary detention.

During this time, the Ecuadorian government was placed under substantial pressure by the US and, with a shift to the right following the 2017 presidential election of Lenín Moreno, Assange’s position in the embassy became increasingly tenuous.

On March 27, 2018, a delegation from US Southern Command visited Ecuador, stating that the purpose of the discussions was to strengthen “security cooperation” and “exchange ideas and reiterate US commitment to the longstanding partnership.”

One day later, the Ecuadorian authorities imposed a communications blackout on Assange, blocking any internet or phone contact with the outside world and preventing his friends and supporters from visiting him.

His communications were partially restored in October 2018 under strict, anti-democratic conditions. Assange was required to “comply scrupulously” with a “prohibition” on “activities that could be considered as political and interference in the internal affairs of other States, or that may cause harm to the good relations of Ecuador with any other State.” His visitors were required to provide the Ecuadorian authorities with ID details and surrender their mobile phones and other devices—a procedure that was used to facilitate the US-backed surveillance of Assange and his associates, including his lawyers.

The same month, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a letter to Moreno stating, “We are very concerned with Julian Assange’s continued presence at your embassy in London and his receipt of Ecuadorian citizenship last year.”

The letter made clear that giving up Assange would be necessary for the US “to move forward in collaborating with your government on a wide array of issues,” from “economic cooperation” to “the possible return of a United States Agency for International Development mission to Ecuador.”

In March 2019, Moreno secured a $4.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, amid a deepening financial crisis and in pursuit of a restructuring of Ecuador’s economy. The former Ecuadorian minister of foreign affairs, Ricardo Patiño, commented afterwards, “The arrest of Assange is part of Lenin Moreno’s agreement with the IMF”. This assessment was echoed by John Polga-Hecimovich of the United States Naval Academy, who explained, “Assange impeded Moreno’s ability to seek technical assistance, international loans, and greater security and commercial cooperation with the United States.”

In April 2019, the Ecuadorian authorities allowed British police to enter the embassy in London and arrest Assange, revoking his asylum and suspending his citizenship. The subsequently published diaries of former Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan revealed that this trampling of international law was the product of “many months of patient negotiation” and watched live in the “Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office.”

Dragged through a two-year legal travesty, Assange was given a faux reprieve this January when the judge blocked his extradition to the US on the sole grounds that to do so would be “oppressive” due to his mental health. This left the door wide open to a US appeal based on promises to ensure Assange’s safety, which the High Court has agreed to hear.

Extradition expert Nick Vamos predicts the appeal has a high chance of success. By confirming its revocation of citizenship, Ecuador has removed another possible complication.

Assange’s case exposes the democratic pretensions of capitalist governments and parties the world over. US imperialism has swept aside every democratic right and principle of international law and employed every form of intimidation and subterfuge possible in pursuit of its target, all with barely a whisper of protest. Governments have lined up to assist the US, from Sweden’s manufactured sexual assault investigation and Britain’s serving as jailer, to Australia’s abandonment of its own citizen and now Ecuador’s withdrawal of asylum and citizenship.

Successive US governments have also been able to count on the uniform support of the political establishment. The Assange manhunt, begun under Obama and escalated by Trump, has been continued seamlessly by the Biden administration—a reality belatedly acknowledged by Amnesty International this Monday.

Speaking with long-time WikiLeaks supporter Stefania Maurizi, Amnesty’s Julia Hall explained, “We had some hope early on, when the Biden Administration first took office in January, and we really thought that potentially there could be a review of the case… Then we saw the appeal. It was really quite disappointing, because we did think that possibly there was an opening there, and for reasons that the Administration has not articulated well so far, they have made the decision to pursue.”

In fact, the US has made its reasons clear: the destruction of Assange as a warning and precedent for those who would expose and oppose imperialist crimes.

Highlighting the extreme danger of Assange’s position, Hall said of the United States’ promises that Assange will be well-treated: “when you look at the assurances and you see that the US government reserves the right to put him in a maximum-security facility or to subject him to Special Administrative Measures, based on his conduct, you are not in a state where the prohibition of torture is absolute.”

She continued, “The US has made it easy for other governments to use assurances, but what this really does is undermine the international prohibition on torture.”

The conclusion which must be drawn from these events is that no confidence can be placed in any government or state institution to win Assange’s freedom. This task falls to the international working class, whose developing struggle against world capitalism and imperialism is the only basis on which Assange’s safety, and democratic rights in general, can be secured.

Originally published in WSWS.org

29 July 2021

Source: countercurrents.org

By Derek Summerfield

Introduction

This paper concerns torture and medical complicity in its practice. In 2015, Amnesty International noted that 157 states had ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), but 141 states surveyed in the previous 5 years had used torture. Torture is a form of terrorism. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 defined torture as a crime against humanity.

The World Medical Association (WMA) is the major international watchdog for medical ethics, an independent confederation of over 100 national medical associations. Founded in 1947 as a response to egregious abuses by German and Japanese doctors in World War 2, the WMA Declaration of Tokyo is the seminal anti-torture manifesto for doctors. It lays down a doctor’s unconditional duty not just to take no part in torture but, equally ironclad, to protest, speak out and protect the victim whenever encountered. Inaction is not an option. In two press releases in 2007, the WMA upgraded its call for doctors to document torture and speak out. Then WMA President Jon Snaedal noted that doctors could be a powerful voice in the struggle against torture, emphasising that ‘the absence of documenting and denouncing such acts might be considered as a form of tolerance and of non-assistance to the victims’.

A relevant precedent for the WMA concerned the Medical Association of South Africa (MASA), a member association, who had taken no action against police surgeons who stood by when anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko was tortured and murdered in prison in 1977. In anticipation of imminent expulsion, the MASA withdrew from the WMA, later conceding that the threat of expulsion had been force for change in medical ethics in South Africa.

Torture in Israel

Israel is a signatory to UNCAT but evidence of the routine use of torture on Palestinian detainees has long been accumulating in the public domain. In May 1998, a Human Rights Watch report to UNCAT recorded that Israel ‘continues to use torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during the interrogation of Palestinian detainees. The magnitude of Israel’s violations of UNCAT is well known to the Committee, having been extensively documented by UN bodies and international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations.’1 In 2007, B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, studied the testimony of 73 Palestinian prisoners gathered since 2005 and concluded that Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence agency, had inflicted physical and mental abuse amounting to torture on almost all of them.2 Amnesty briefed UNCAT in September 2008 regarding Israel’s failure to implement the Convention in the Occupied Territories and intensification of measures amounting to torture.3 In its 2008 Annual Report, the United Against Torture (UAT) Coalition of 14 Palestinian and Israeli human rights organisations concluded that ‘the use of torture and ill-treatment by Israeli authorities against Palestinians is both widespread and systematic. The UAT Coalition has observed and recorded evidence of acts, omissions and complicity by agents of the State at all levels, including the army, intelligence service, police, judiciary and other branches of government.’4 In November 2008, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) filed a contempt of court motion to the High Court of Justice against the government of Israel and the General Security Service for their responsibility for a policy that granted a priori permits to use torture in interrogations. No Israeli official had ever been charged or sentenced for torture-related crimes.

Medical complicity with torture and the Israeli Medical Association

In 1993, Amnesty International concluded that Israeli doctors working with the security services ‘form part of a system in which detainees are tortured, ill-treated and humiliated in ways that place prison medical practice in conflict with medical ethics’. Amnesty pointed to the implication of statements by Israeli officials (intended to allay concerns about ill-treatment) that detainees were ‘under constant medical supervision’.5

Also in 1993, Amnesty documented the telling example of the Nader Qumsieh case. Five days after his arrest, Qumsieh was brought to a medical centre in Be’er Sheva, where a urologist diagnosed a torn scrotum and bleeding. Qumsieh testified that he had been beaten during interrogation and kicked in the testicles. The urologist later received a call from the Israeli military, and as a result wrote a second report which he antedated by 2 days, without further examination of the patient. In it he recorded that ‘according to the patient, he fell downstairs 2 days before he came to the emergency room.’ This time his medical findings were recorded as: ‘superficial haematoma in the scrotal area, which corresponds to local bruises sustained between 2 and 5 days prior to the examination’. The urologist’s original report disappeared from Qumsieh’s medical file.6

Israeli Medical Association (IMA) President Yoram Blachar defended Israeli practices in a Lancet letter in 1997. He wrote that ‘the guidelines on interrogation recommend only that ‘moderate physical pressure’ be sanctioned. Even this is restricted to cases defined in terms of a ‘ticking bomb’.’ Yet in 1994, UNCAT had reiterated that ‘moderate physical pressure’ was indeed torture, and also outlawed the ‘ticking bomb’ justification. Here a president of a national medical association was defending torture in the pages of a famous medical journal.7 In November 1999, the then Head of Ethics of the IMA Eran Dolev was interviewed by a delegation from the London-based Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture (where I was then the principal psychiatrist). During the interview he stated that ‘a couple of broken fingers’ during the interrogation of Palestinians was a price worth paying for information. When I quoted this in the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine (JRSM) in 2001, IMA President Blachar castigated this in JRSM as ‘lies and vilification’ and threatened to sue me. The four-delegation members responded in JRSM by affirming that this was exactly what Professor Dolev had said.8

In 2007, PCATI published ‘Ticking Bombs’, the detailed testimony of nine Palestinian men tortured between 2004 and 2006, painting a graphic picture of how Israeli doctors formed an integral part of the running of interrogation units whose output included torture. They alleged that doctors, several of whom were named, saw the prisoners at various points before, between or after experiences of torture (which in one case led to spinal damage and disability), did not take a proper history, made no protest on these men’s behalf as the Declaration of Tokyo demands and typically prescribed simple analgesia before returning them to their interrogators. Several cases had allegedly been known to the chief medical officers of the Israeli Prison Service and Police Service.9

Following repeated requests by PCATI, the IMA eventually agreed to investigate ‘Ticking Bombs’. Professor Avinoam Reches, chairman of the IMA Ethics Board, sent a 14-line letter dated 9 March 2009 back to PCATI to report the outcome. The investigation had amounted to phone calls to a few of the named doctors, all of whom denied involvement, and no examination of the relevant medical files. Reches concluded that there was no evidence ‘other than the word of the prisoners’. What kind of investigation discounts victim testimonies at the outset? When six UK doctors wrote about ‘Ticking Bombs’ in the Lancet in 2007, the IMA threatened to sue.10

The British Medical Association (BMA) is a WMA member and I drew the issue to the attention of the BMA as early as 1997. I was asking them to take the matter up at the WMA, as they were entitled to do. I sent the same material to the then WMA Secretary General Delon Human in 2001, who defended the IMA largely on the grounds that they had ratified the Declaration of Tokyo.11 In 2005, Edwin Borman, chair of the BMA International Committee, wrote to me to say they ‘sought to engage constructively with our Israeli colleagues’ and would not be ‘partisan’.

In now preparing a formal international appeal to the WMA, we were aware that campaigning about human rights issues in Israel–Palestine is qualitatively different from human rights work elsewhere. Publications deemed critical of Israel often evoke vitriolic and ad hominem attacks on writer and medical journal—though little engagement with the cited evidence base. There are calls for journal editors to be disciplined or dismissed. In response to a BMJ paper of mine in 2004, Yoram Blachar, IMA president as well as then WMA Chair of Council (the political head of the WMA), posted a bmj.com Rapid Response stating that ‘the lies and hatred he spews are reminiscent of some of the worst forms of anti-semitism ever espoused’.12 Yet the paper was based on work by a UN rapporteur, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Johns Hopkins and Al Quds Universities, Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) and the Palestinian Environmental Non-governmental Organisations Network. The same paper produced nearly 1000 hostile emails sent directly to the editor Kamran Abbasi, mostly crude, abusive and with recurrent reference to anti-semitism, some threatening violence against the editor or his family and myself.13 In 2007, the Royal Society of Medicine were pressured by pro-Israel doctors into withdrawing an invitation to me to speak at a conference on religion, spirituality and mental health.14

In May 2009, 725 doctors, including 115 professors, from 43 countries (235 from UK) made a joint appeal to WMA Chair of Council Edward Hill from the USA. I was convenor and Professor Alan Meyers of Boston University and Jewish Voice for Peace USA was lead signatory. We attached a detailed dossier of evidence as above and requested that it be distributed to all council members (these are geographically scattered around the world and only convene yearly). The WMA is mandated to ensure that its member associations do not breach WMA codes like the Declaration of Tokyo. We asked the council to investigate the IMA’s ethical track record in the light of the evidence, and thus to review the probity of their recent appointment of IMA President Yoram Blachar as WMA president. We had public support from Professors Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein in the USA, and from Dr Wendy Orr in South Africa. Orr had been working as a medical officer for the district surgeon in Port Elizabeth in the 1980s and blew the whistle on torture and the complicity of state doctors in cases she saw—her ethical duty under the Declaration of Tokyo.

Our appeal was covered by the BMJ and various newspapers. The Jewish Chronicle quoted Blachar as saying the appeal was a ‘joke’ and ‘you will see that many of the names are Arab’.15 The IMA launched a campaign to gather 10 000 signatures to counter these ‘slanderous charges’. In an unprecedented move in July, the IMA formally announced severance of any further contact with PHRI because PHRI founder, Israeli psychiatrist Ruchama Marton, was one of the 725 signatories, and because PHRI publications were giving comfort to Israel’s enemies. In a letter explaining this to PHRI, Blachar described the IMA as a ‘defensive barrier’ against ‘international anti-Israeli bodies’.

In August 2009, a libel action was initiated against me personally in London by Dr Blachar and the IMA through Mark Stephens of Finer, Stephens, Innocent libel lawyers. The current president of the world’s official medical ethical watchdog was suing someone for pointing to an incriminating evidence base and asking the watchdog to act as mandated. They alleged that I was conducting ‘a malicious campaign of vilification’ that was ‘promiscuous with falsehoods’, and that I had deceived the other 724 signatories. They demanded immediate public retraction in the Lancet, BMJ and Guardian, and substantial damages. I resisted the case and a large number of signatories emailed Mark Stephens direct to assert that they were not deceived. Echoing our appeal, Dr Ishai Menuchin, executive director of PCATI, was reported in the Jewish Chronicle as reaffirming the complicity of Israeli doctors in a ‘black hole’ in which torture was going unchecked.16 The libel action was not pursued.

But from the WMA Council Chair Hill we heard nothing, not even acknowledgement of receipt of the material, even after reminders to him and to Dr Otmar Kloiber, permanent WMA secretary general. Months later, lead signatory Alan Meyers managed to get Dr Hill on the phone at his clinic. Hill told him firmly that the WMA would not be responding and not to send further material. We found out later that our request for the appeal to be circulated from WMA headquarters in France to council members was not honoured. When the WMA presidency passed to Dr Dana Hanson of Canada later in the year, we resent the appeal and evidence base, but with the same result. Calls in the BMJ from the executive directors of PHRI and PCATI for the WMA to act were similarly fruitless.17

Appeals to UN special rapporteurs on torture on the basis of new evidence

Finding the WMA resistant, we turned in 2010 to the UN special rapporteur on torture, who then was Manfred Nowak from Austria. In March 2009, UN Human Rights Council Resolution (A/HRC/10/L.32) had tasked the rapporteur to give particular attention to the problem of medical complicity. We got no acknowledgement from him but repeated the appeal when he was succeeded by Juan Mendez of Argentina (the first rapporteur to have himself been a torture victim). His reports noted that the government of Israel routinely did not respond to representations by the rapporteur.18

A paper copy of a yet more detailed report, ‘Doctoring the Evidence, Abandoning the Victim’, recently published, was given directly to Juan Mendez in London in 2011.19 Based on testimonies and evidence from the files of over 100 torture victims assisted by PHRI/PCATI since 2007, the report demonstrated an institutionalised pattern of active or passive involvement by doctors in torture in Israel. Not one doctor had spoken out and sought to protect the victim. Case studies included doctors’ names. The executive summary concluded that ‘medical professionals abandon their duty by failing to document and report torture; by passing on medical information to interrogators; returning interrogees to the custody of their interrogators when in danger of being exposed to further torture or ill-treatment; and in extreme cases, by taking an active part in the interrogation. Because of their unique social status, the presence of medical professionals in facilities where torture or ill-treatment are carried out indicates the boundaries between the permissible and the impermissible: it grants Israeli Security Agency (ISA) interrogators a stamp of approval. It furthermore precludes the victim from presenting evidence which can aid in pursuing justice through legal or administrative proceedings. Over 700 complaints alleging torture/ill-treatment by ISA interrogators have been filed since 2001 and not one criminal investigation has been initiated. Medical staff in prisons, detention centres and hospitals which treat prisoners are part of the broader administrative systems, primarily the medical apparatus of the Prison Service, the IMA and the Ministry of Health. There are serious doubts that the IMA is willing to enforce these rules: persistently repeated requests by PCATI/PHRI calling the IMA’s attention to cases arousing suspicion of doctors’ involvement in torture and cruel or degrading treatment have not been dealt with substantively.’ PCATI/PHRI noted that IMA ethical codes contained clauses placing the needs of the security apparatus above medical ethics. This is inconsistent with UNCAT and the Declaration of Tokyo, which brook no exceptions. PHRI said that if doctors were taken out of the system in Israel, the practice of torture could not be maintained.

In 2014, the BMJ published a progress report on our campaign 5 years on and asked Rapporteur Mendez to comment.20 He wrote that the IMA’s silence on torture might well be a breach of medical ethics but that the IMA and WMA were outside his mandate.21 It was not clear why he had not taken up directly the evidence in ‘Doctoring the Evidence, Abandoning the Victim’.

Following further representations from us, Hamish Meldrum, BMA Council chair, wrote to signatory Ghada Karmi in March 2010 to say that the BMA had formally written to the WMA regarding the IMA. Nothing came of this.

A fresh appeal to the WMA

In 2015, another incriminating study was published by B’Tselem and by HaMoked, Centre for the Defence of the Individual. It was based on affidavits from 116 Palestinians held and interrogated at the Shikma facility from August 2013 to March 2014. Five were children. Nearly every detainee was exposed to a range of measures described: single or concerted beatings, sometimes with rifle butts and often while detainee was handcuffed and blindfolded; repeated interrogations of up to 35 hours at a time and for up to 40 days while tied tightly in an unnatural position on a special chair; sleep deprivation; solitary confinement; extremes of temperature; threats to the family of the detainee; prolonged periods tied spreadeagled to the four corners of a bed in solitary confinement; poor or absent medical care. Four of the children were subjected to physical violence.22

In January 2016, 71 UK doctors made a fresh appeal to the new WMA president, the prominent UK medical academic Sir Michael Marmot, attaching the new evidence from B’Tselem and PCATI as above, and a paper on the sexual torture of Palestinian detainees.23 I was convenor and Dr Chris Burns-Cox lead signatory. Within days we were astonished to see published on the website of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre a letter from WMA President Marmot on WMA notepaper, dated 25 January, written to Dr Shimon Samuels, director for International Relations at the centre.24 The Wiesenthal Centre is self-described as a Jewish, pro-Israel organisation and was an entirely uninvolved party. WMA President Marmot had instantly exonerated the IMA and afforded them a widely publicised propaganda coup. He wrote that ‘investigations have revealed no wrong doing’ by the IMA. This is contradicted by the whole evidence base cited above. After we published an account as a bmj.com Rapid Response, the BMJ asked Marmot three times for a response but he declined.1 The matter was referred to the General Medical Council (GMC) but I was told that they were unable to appraise the duties of a WMA president.

Our last appeal to the WMA, submitting the new evidence, was in 2017 when the president was now Dr Desai Dhinjlal of India. The result was as before.

A reminder of what is at stake: the recent case of Sameer Arbeed

Amnesty reported that in September 2019, a healthy 44-year-old Palestinian man Sameer Arbeed was arrested in the course of a murder investigation.25 Severe torture led to his admission to intensive care at Hadassah Hospital, reportedly on a ventilator with broken ribs and kidney failure. The authorities were quoted as stating that once he improved he could be taken back for further interrogation. By knowing exactly how Arbeed had sustained his injuries, by treating him but not protesting about the torture, by tolerating his return to a situation in which he could be further tortured, all the hospital doctors who dealt with him were in clear breach of the WMA Declaration of Tokyo. The IMA has remained silent.

Conclusions

A principled, evidence-based appeal by 725 doctors from 43 countries regarding medical complicity with torture in Israel has lasted 12 years to date, spanning four WMA presidencies and two UN special rapporteurs on torture. It has been a litmus test of whether there is rigorous and even-handed regulation of doctors worldwide regarding complicity with torture. We have found that there is not, and that regulation is largely window dressing. The bodies whose mandate it is to address the issue have not acted. If such weight of incriminating evidence, using the case of Israel as example, does not make a difference at the WMA or elsewhere, no evidence ever would. UN rapporteurs seem largely impotent. The WMA acts in partisan violation of its mandate when it acts at all, and does not appear accountable. We endorse public calls for its reform.26 The WMA has spoken out about states like Iran or Bahrain but would not act against Israel or, it seems, other powerful Western states. Political power trumps ethics. The WMA provides a figleaf in that membership per se is held up as evidence of ethical probity. What happens when the national medical association is itself the principally accused party?

Israel is not a unique case. In the recently published ‘The Torture Doctors’, Steven Miles describes medical complicity with torture as ‘pandemic’ and that ‘a complete lack of accountability is the norm’.27 In 2014, the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights and Public Interest lawyers detailed 58 separate allegations regarding UK doctors’ involvement in torture in Iraq in 2003–2008, but only one case was ever pursued by the GMC. This was Derek Keilloh, who failed to record fatal torture-inflicted injuries in the Baha Mousa case. In the USA, the American Psychological Association refused to act on cast-iron evidence of active complicity with torture by one of its members after 9/11. Miles quotes a survey which found that 75% of Indian doctors had seen a tortured person and one in seven had actually witnessed torture, yet nothing happens and the Indian Medical Association appears silent. This is what sustains impunity. As the IMA case demonstrates, national medical associations or regulatory bodies like the GMC may function at base as buttresses and shields of the state.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not required.

References

 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

This E-book consists of a Preface and Ten Chapters.

We are dealing with an exceedingly complex process.

In the course of the last 17-18 months starting in early January 2020, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the Covid crisis. From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic.

I suggest you first read the Highlights (below), the Preface and Introduction before proceeding with chapters II through X.

Alternatively you may wish to View the Global Research Video entitled: The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis (released in February 2021), which provides a 25 minutes summary.

Each of the ten chapters provides factual information as well as analysis on the following topics:

What Is Covid-19, what is SARS-CoV-2, how Is it identified, how is it estimated?

The timeline and historical evolution of the Corona Crisis,

The devastating economic and financial impacts,

The enrichment of a social minority of billionaires,

How the lockdown policies trigger unemployment and mass poverty Worldwide,

The devastating impacts on mental health.

The E-book also includes analysis of curative and preventive drugs as well as a review of Big Pharma’s Covid-19 “messenger” mRNA vaccine which is an “unapproved” and “experimental” drug affecting the human genome. (It is a dangerous drug. See Chapter VIII)

Also analyzed are issues pertaining to the derogation of fundamental human rights, censorship of medical doctors, freedom of expression and the protest movement.

The last chapter focusses on the unfolding global debt crisis, the destabilization of national governments, the threats to democracy including “global governance” and the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” proposal.

This E-Book is made available free of charge with a view to reaching out to people Worldwide. it is accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.

If you wish to make a donation click here to cover the costs of the book (e.g. $10-$20 dollars, that would be much appreciated).

If you want to become Member of Global Research click here

Please help us in this endeavor. Kindly forward to family, friends and colleagues, within your respective communities.

Since its publication in mid-December 2020, the E-Book has been consulted by more than 230,000 readers.

eaders can reach Prof. Michel Chossudovsky at crgeditor@yahoo.com

Video

click the lower right corner to access full-screen

The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis – Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

 

Highlights

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.

The COVID-19 public health “emergency” under WHO auspices was presented to public opinion as a means (“solution”) to containing the “killer virus”.

If the public had been informed and reassured that Covid is (according to the WHO definition) “Similar to Seasonal Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat. The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright.

The first stage of this crisis (outside China) was launched by the WHO on January 30th 2020 at a time when there were 5 cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany.

Do these numbers justify the declaration of a Worldwide public health emergency?

The fear campaign was sustained by political statements and media disinformation.

People are frightened. They are encouraged to do the PCR test, which is flawed. A positive PCR test does not mean that you are infected and/or that you can transmit the virus.

The RT-PCR Test is known to produce a high percentage of false positives. Moreover, it does not identify the virus.

From the outset in January 2020, there was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide public health emergency.

In February, the covid crisis was accompanied by a major crash of financial markets. There is evidence of financial fraud.

And on March 11, 2020: the WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 44,279 cases and 1440 deaths outside China out of a population of 6.4 billion (Estimates of confirmed cases based on the PCR test)..

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, confinement and lockdown instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations.

Unprecedented in history, applied almost simultaneously in a large of number countries, entire sectors of the World economy have been destabilized. Small and medium sized enterprises have been driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

The social impacts of these measures are not only devastating, they are ongoing under what is described as “A Second Wave”. There is no evidence of a “Second Wave”. Amply documented the PCR estimates are flawed.

The health impacts (mortality, morbidity) resulting from the closing down of national economies far surpass those attributed to Covid-19.

Famines have erupted in at least 25 developing countries according to UN sources.

The mental health of millions of people Worldwide has been affected as a result of the lockdown, social distancing, job losses, bankruptcies, mass poverty and despair. The frequency of suicides and drug addiction has increased Worldwide.

“V the Virus” is said to be responsible for the wave of bankruptcies and unemployment. That’s a lie. There is no causal relationship between the (microscopic) SARS-2 virus and economic variables.

It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy. And there is ample evidence that the decision to close down a national economy (resulting in poverty and unemployment) will inevitably have an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality.

Since early February 2020, the Super Rich have cashed in on billions of dollars.

Amply documented it’s the largest redistribution of global wealth in World history, accompanied by a process of Worldwide impoverishment.

Preface

The fear campaign has served as an instrument of disinformation.

Media lies sustained the image of a killer virus which initially contributed to destabilizing US-China trade and disrupting air travel. And then in February “V- the Virus” (which incidentally is similar to seasonal influenza) was held responsible for triggering the most serious financial crisis in World history.

And then on March 11, a lockdown was imposed on 193 member states on the United Nations, leading to the “closure” of national economies Worldwide.

Starting in October, a “second wave” was announced. “The pandemic is not over”.

The fear campaign prevails. And people are now led to believe that the corona vaccine sponsored by their governments is the “solution”. And that “normality” will be restored once the entire population of the planet has been vaccinated.

The SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

How is it that a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which under normal conditions would take years to develop, was promptly launched in early November 2020? The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer is based on an experimental gene editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.

Were the standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets conducted?

Or did Pfizer “go straight to human “guinea pigs.”? Human tests began in late July and early August. “Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm.”

This caricature by Large + JIPÉM explains our predicament:

Mouse No 1: “Are You Going to get Vaccinated”,

Mouse No. 2: Are You Crazy, They Haven’t finished the Tests on Humans”

And why do we need a vaccine for Covid-19 when both the WHO and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have confirmed unequivocally that Covid-19 is “similar to seasonal influenza”.

The plan to develop a vaccine is profit driven. It is supported by corrupt governments serving the interests of Big Pharma. The US government had already ordered 100 million doses back in July and the EU is to purchase 300 million doses. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians, at the expense of tax payers.

In the following chapters, we define the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the controversial RT-PCR test which is being used to “identify the virus” as well establish the “estimates” of the so-called “positive cases”.(Chapter III)

In Chapter II, we examine in detail the timeline of events since October 2019 leading up to the historic March 11, 2020 lockdown.

We assess the broad economic and social consequences of this crisis including the process of Worldwide impoverishment and redistribution of wealth in favour of the Super Rich billionaires.(Chapter IV and V).

The devastating impacts of the Lockdown policies on mental health are examined in Chapter VI.

Big Pharma’s vaccination programme which is currently being imposed on millions of people Worldwide is reviewed in Chapter VIII.

Chapter X concludes with an analysis of the World Economic Forum’s proposed “Great Reset” which if adopted would consist in scrapping the Welfare State and imposing massive austerity measures on an impoverished population.

This E-Book is preliminary. There is a sense of urgency. People Worldwide are being lied to by their governments.

A word on the methodology: our objective is to refute the “Big Lie” through careful analysis consisting of:

• A historical overview of the Covid crisis, with precise data.
• Quotations from official documents and peer reviewed reports. Numerous sources and references are indicated.
• Scientific analysis and detailed review of “official” data, estimates and definitions,
• Analysis of the impacts of WHO “guidelines” and government policies on economic, social and public health variables.

Our objective is to inform people Worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a pretext and justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries.

This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: 7.8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings Worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

27 July 2021

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

By Vanessa Beeley

Vanessa Beeley in Idlib – Children are being killed, homes are being shelled, and fields scorched, often by Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists armed with US-made weapons or by Turkish artillery. Where’s the outcry in the West against these war crimes?

23 Jul 2021 – UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres celebrated the extension of a “humanitarian” border crossing at Bab Al Hawa, on July 10th, as a “lifeline for millions of people” – many Syrians would rather describe it as a “lifeline” for Al Qaeda.

On the 15th July I visited Jurin, a village to the north of the Hama governorate and only 5km from the Syrian allied military frontlines with the Al Qaeda-dominated armed groups controlling Idlib, north-west Syria.

We arrived at around 9 am to the boom of mortar and rocket fire from the Jabal az Zawiya mountain that is under control of Turkish-backed armed groups. Jurin is in the Al Ghab plains at the foot of two mountain ranges and is an easy target for the elevated terrorist positions, occupying Jabal az Zawiya.

On June 20th, a three-year-old child, Massa Akram Saleh, was murdered by the armed groups who targeted her family home, injuring her father and brother, five-year-old Akram Saleh, whose body was lacerated by shrapnel wounds. Massa was rushed to Al Sqeilbiyyeh hospital, a journey of one hour, but later died. Her brother and father are still receiving treatment. Massa’s grandfather told me:

If this had been a child of the militants, the UN would have made a big case of it. Hundreds of children have died in our area but it is as if nobody died at all”

The grandfather describes a daily deluge of attacks from the Turkey-assisted armed groups, targeting the triangle of Jurin, Al Safafeh and Zkereh. He begs the Syrian forces to push the militants at least as far as the M4 highway and away from the region, to bring an end to the ceaseless aggression.

This is an aggression that apparently is not worth mentioning in UN reports on the cross border “humanitarian” activity. He thanks the Syrian Arab Army for doing everything they can to keep the extremist groups at bay.

While the grandfather is talking to me, a mother carrying a baby, hugging her children, is cowering and weeping in the background as the shells continue to fall. Next to her is Massa’s grandmother who cannot move without her walking frame.

One shell had hit the outer wall of the house just before we arrived, another had blown a two meter crater in the garden behind the extended family home. A third exploded five meters from where I was standing while I interviewed a second family member, Ghaith Ghazi Saleh. He told me:

We are being targeted on a daily basis with shells from Az Zawiya mountain. During the last two or three years we have seen Turkish convoys coming into the area not more than 2km from our farmlands, they prevent us from cultivating our farmlands [..] the artillery that bombards us is Turkish. The coordinates are provided by the terrorists”

Vanessa Beeley is an independent journalist and photographer who has worked extensively in the Middle East–on the ground in Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Palestine–while also covering the conflict in Yemen since 2015.

26 July 2021

Source: www.transcend.org

By Gideon Levy

15 Jul 2021 – Gideon Levy writes in Haaretz on 15 July 2021:

Damn them all. Damn Rafael Gana, the deputy head of the Israel Prison Service, who wrote to the interior minister: “Your request does not meet the prerequisites for consideration.” Damn Katy Perry, the head of the Israel Prison Service, who approved the decision. Damn Public Security Minister Omer Bar Lev, the heartless coward, who didn’t lift a finger to change this evil decision. And above all, damn the Shin Bet, which probably stands behind the decision, as it stands behind far more than we know.

Damn all those who are partner to this sadistic decision not to release Khalida Jarrar from prison to attend her daughter’s funeral. Damn this new government, which presumed to herald a change, and none of whose ministers acted to oppose the evil institutions that decided to leave Jarrar in prison. Not even ministers Merav Michaeli and Tamar Zandberg, who presumably have far more in common with the secular feminist freedom fighter Jarrar than with their colleague Ayelet Shaked.

And damn the Israeli media, which, with the exception of this newspaper, took no interest in the story, which was reported worldwide but not in Israel. Jarrar is a political prisoner. After a sequence of arrests without trial, she was sentenced to two years in prison for “belonging to an illegal organization,” in a land where there is no organization that is permitted to Palestinians. Jarrar is scheduled to be released September 25, about two months from now. All the existential dangers that lie in wait for the country upon her release will be ready to pounce in another two months.

On Sunday, her daughter Suha was found dead, apparently from cardiac arrest. Suha’s body was found about five hours after her death, after her sister in Canada was unable to reach her by phone and asked friends to break into the house. Suha’s father Ghassan was in Jenin at the time and rushed to her home. The Khalidas have two daughters: Suha, who completed a master’s degree in climate change in Canada and worked for the Al Haq human rights group in Ramallah, and Yafa, who completed a doctorate in law in Canada and lives there.

I will never forget that moment in the military court in Ofer in the summer of 2015: Yafa, Suha and Ghassan in the audience, Khalida in the dock, and the Israel Prison Service officer, Bassam Kashkush, suddenly allowed the two young women to approach their mother and embrace her. Even the warden teared up. It was forbidden, against regulations, but what Officer Kashkush dared to permit, in a rare moment of humanity and compassion, the State of Israel, the head of the Prison Service and the interior minister failed to do.

All that was needed was a tiny degree of humanity. All that was missing was a minimal amount of humanity. “He had a mother, after all,” wrote poet Nathan Alterman. They are also parents, after all, Katy and Omer and the Shin Bet agents. Are they capable of imagining what it means to lose a young daughter and not be able to go to her funeral? Not to be with her father and sister during their tragedy? To mourn in grief in a cell in Damon Prison? To hear about the death of their daughter on Radio Palestine?

What else? What else needs to be said about Israeli insensitivity, except for one thing: Jarrar is a human being. But to most Israelis, she isn’t. She’s a terrorist, although she has never been convicted of terrorism, and she is a proud Palestinian, and that is even worse, apparently.

The day after Suha’s death, when there was still hope that Jarrar would be released, the banquet hall in the center of Ramallah was filled with people. The entire secular left of the city came to be with Ghassan, who remained so alone in his mourning. He cried and cried, and everyone cried with him. Fadwa Barghouti, Marwan’s wife, who sat next to me, said their son Aarab was at this moment visiting his father in prison for the first time since the outbreak of the coronavirus. He is the only one in the family allowed to visit Marwan. Fadwa is not allowed to visit her husband, and Khalida is not allowed to attend her daughter’s funeral. Israeli malevolence, how awful it is.

Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board.

26 July 2021

Source: www.transcend.org