Gay Veteran Kicked Out of Army Receives Honorable Discharge

Gay Veteran Kicked Out of Army Receives Honorable Discharge
An 82-year-old Ohio veteran is receiving an honorable discharge a half century after the Army kicked him out for being gay.

What Can Be Learned From a Lone Wolf in Chains?

Haaretz January 26, 2016

What Can Be Learned From a Lone Wolf in Chains?

Israeli military interviews with Palestinian attackers were conducted within an unequal power relationship that is unethical and of dubious value.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.699221

Amira Hass | 

Border Police troops secure the location of a 'lone wolf' stabbing in East Jerusalem, May 20, 2015.Credit: Tali Meyer

●

 Senior IDF officers visit Palestinian terrorists in jail in effort to understand their motives 

●

 'Dying for nothing': Palestinian authorities at a loss trying to stop youths from attacking Israelis 

Prison wardens were dispatched to conduct applied, goal-oriented scientific research on their prisoners. That was one of the interesting news reports last week. We first read about it in Amos Harel’s column in Haaretz on January 15: “Senior IDF officers visit Palestinian terrorists in jail in effort to understand their motives,” after which other journalists reported on it.

IDF commanders and intelligence officers, as well as officers from the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, met in prison with Palestinians who had carried out lone-wolf attacks and survived. (According to the IDF Spokesman in the West Bank, 88 such attackers have been killed and 40 arrested during the current wave of violence. The police spokesman’s office said it did not have the parallel data regarding the fate of attackers in Israel and East Jerusalem.)

The reports show impressive willingness on the part of the investigators to give up their prior assumptions. (They found, for example, that neither religiosity nor incitement on social networks motivated the young people, though broadcasts by Hamas and Islamic Jihad did have an influence on them.)

An Army Radio report presented, among others, the following findings: The young men feel a deep alienation from sources of authority. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was not mentioned in the conversations. They have no organizational affiliation, but they share a feeling of national unity. They are alienated from their parents, with stories of violence within the family. They come from normative families and they are not marginal youths. Their ideology is abbreviated, like headlines, and shallow. The majority don’t even know what Israel is. Their only contact with Israelis is with soldiers at checkpoints.

This profile of young Palestinians is not made up. Indeed, one doesn’t need to travel as far as a prison to sketch it. But, according to the media reports, something basic is missing from the officers’ analysis.

The reports did not tell us how many of the detainees met with the investigators, how many of them were wounded during capture, where the meetings were held - in cells or prison administration offices. And, if in offices, were the detainees led to them with chains on their legs? The reports don’t say if there were detainees who refused to speak, and if so how many. Nor what happened when they refused, whether the investigators came wearing uniforms and identified themselves by their full names or whether the prisoners were wearing Israel Prisons Service uniforms.

These details remind us that the research was conducted within a double framework of unequal power relations - inside both the envelope of prison and the envelope of enforced Israeli rule.

Research under unequal power relations is unethical, even if it leads to conclusions that are not incorrect. Palestinian political prisoners have always been an enticing target for official researchers – psychologists in the service of the security services and ex-Mossad employees who smoothly landed at university security research institutes.

A Palestinian legal expert assumes that the detainees viewed the talks with the officers of COGAT and the army as a continuation of the Shin Bet and police investigations and it never occurred to them that they could refuse. But the truth is that even prisoners with a high level of political awareness have agreed in the past to be interviewed by Israeli researchers and journalists.

An oxymoron

The combination of “ethics” and “Israeli” in any case sounds like an oxymoron to them, so they assumed the investigators would not understand their opposition to being interviewed. Maybe they wanted to break their prison routine, maybe they were flattered that they were being listened to, or maybe they were promised lenient treatment. Maybe they hoped that this time they would succeed in convincing an establishment researcher that the problem is in him and the regime he represents.

From the press reports on the findings of the research, it appears that the investigator-warders ignored the fact that all Palestinians are prisoners in one type of Israeli prison or another - Ofer and Nafha, the giant concentration camp that is the Gaza Strip, the enclaves of the West Bank, intentionally neglected neighborhoods in Jerusalem, unrecognized villages. What is certain is that the researchers do not recognize that they are jailers.

And according to the reports in the press, the investigators avoided the reason of all reasons. Yes, the occupation. Fathers smack their sons in every society, but the young man who lives in choked-off and crowded Isawiyah and passes through the green, spacious French Hill receives a daily slap in the face from the Israeli authorities, who tell him he is inferior.

True, the family is falling apart as a source of authority. Which is not surprising, given that Israel steals the land, water and homes of Palestinian families, puts limitations on movement that cause fathers to lose their jobs, hits and arrests adults in front of their children. Ideological shallowness is common these days. But the steadfastness in the face of oppression, banishment and humiliation enriches the observational and cognitive abilities of every Palestinian. Their words are not polished and their thoughts are phrased as slogans, but the depth is there, and there is wisdom in the depths of desperation. Whoever embarked on such applied research, knowing in advance that the essence could not be touched, is a prisoner and not just a jailer.

Israelis in official and unofficial institutions are obsessed with gathering information on Palestinians. It is bureaucratic voyeurism, the goal of which is to enhance and perpetuate domination over the Palestinians. The investigators enjoying the wide knowledge they have accumulated on the Palestinians are prisoners of their salaries, careers and ranks; of ‘what the family will say’ and their lovely suburban villas; or they are captives of the ideology of Jewish superiority and security mythology - or of all of them together. We need applied psychological and sociological research on them, to explain why the bleeding snowball continues to roll.

Facebook is banning gun sales on its network, which had become a way for private dealers to elude background checks

Facebook is banning gun sales on its network, which had become a way for private dealers to elude background checks

Friday, January 29, 2016 6:19 PM EST

Facebook is banning private sales of guns on its flagship social network and on its Instagram photo-sharing service, the company said late Friday.

President Obama, state attorneys general and gun safety groups had increased pressure on the company to stop the flow of Facebook posts and Instagram messages offering guns for sale, often without background checks

Read more »

The Pied Piper of Zion

Uri Avnery

January 30, 2016

                       The Pied Piper of Zion

HAMELIN, A small town in Germany (not so far from where I was born), was infested with rats. In their despair, the burghers called upon a rat-catcher and promised him a thousand guilders for liberating them from this plague.

The rat-catcher took his pipe and played such a sweet melody that all the rats came out of their holes and joined him. He marched them to the Weser river, where they all drowned.

Once freed from this plague, the burghers saw no reason to pay. So the piper took out his pipe again and produced an even sweeter melody. The enchanted children of the town gathered around him and he marched them straight down to the river, where they all drowned.  

Binyamin Netanyahu is our pied piper. Enchanted by his melodies, the people of Israel are marching behind him towards the river.

Those burghers who are aware of what is happening are looking on. They don't know what to do.  How to save the children?

THE ISRAELI Peace Camp is in despair. No savior is in sight. Many just sit in front of their TV set and wring their hands.

Among the rest a debate is going on. Will redemption come from within Israel or from outside?

The latest contributor to this debate is Amos Schocken, the owner of the "Haaretz" newspaper. He has written one of his rare articles, arguing that only outside forces can save us now.

Let me first say that I admire Schocken. "Haaretz" ("The Land") is one of the last bastions of Israeli democracy. Cursed and detested by the entire rightist majority, it leads the intellectual battle for democracy and peace, All this while the written media are in dire financial straits, in Israel and around the world. From my own experience as a magazine owner and editor – who lost this battle – I know just how heroic and heartbreaking this job is.

In his article Schocken says that the battle to save Israel from within is hopeless, and that we must therefore support the pressures coming from outside: the growing worldwide movement for boycotting Israel politically, economically and academically.

Another prominent Israeli who supports this view is Alon Liel, a former ambassador to South Africa and current university lecturer. Based on his own experience, Liel asserts that it was the worldwide boycott that brought the apartheid regime to its knees.

Far be it from me to contest the testimony of such a towering expert. I never went to South Africa to see for myself. But I have talked to many participants, black and white, and my impression is a bit different.

IT IS very tempting to compare present-day Israel with apartheid South Africa. Indeed, the comparison is almost unavoidable. But what does it tell us?

The accepted view in the West is that it was the international boycott of the atrocious Apartheid regime that broke its spine. This is a comforting view. The conscience of the world woke up and crushed the villains.

But this is a view from the outside. The view from the inside seems to be quite different. The inside view appreciates the help of the international community, but it attributes the victory to the fight of the black population itself, its readiness to suffer, its heroism, its tenacity. Using many different methods, including terrorism and strikes, it finally made Apartheid impossible.

The international pressure helped by making the whites increasingly aware of their isolation. Some measures, such as the international boycott on South African sports teams, were especially painful. But without the fight of the black population itself, international pressure would have been ineffective.

The highest respect is due to the white South Africans who actively supported the black struggle, including terrorism, at great personal risk. Many of them were Jews. Some escaped to Israel. One was my friend and neighbor, Arthur Goldreich. Strange as it seemed to some, the Israeli government supported the apartheid regime.  

Even a superficial comparison between the two cases shows that the Israeli apartheid regime enjoys major assets which did not exist in South Africa.

The South African white rulers were universally detested because they quite openly supported the Nazis in World War II. The Jews were the victims of the Nazis. The Holocaust is a huge asset of Israeli propaganda. So is the labeling of all critics of Israel as anti-Semites – a very effective weapon these days.

(My latest contribution: "Who is an anti-Semite? Someone who tells the truth about the occupation.")

The uncritical support of the powerful Jewish communities throughout the world for the Israeli government is something the South African whites could not even have dreamed of.

And, of course, there is no Nelson Mandela in sight. Not after Arafat's isolation and murder, at least.

Paradoxically, there is a little bit of racism in the view that it was the whites in the Western world that delivered the blacks in South Africa, and not the black South Africans themselves.

There is another big difference between the two situations. Hardened by centuries of persecution in the Christian world, Jewish Israelis can react to outside pressure differently than expected. Outside pressure can turn out to be counterproductive. It may re-confirm the old Jewish belief that Jews are persecuted not for what they do, but for who they are. That is one of Netanyahu's main selling points.

Years ago, an army entertainment group sang and danced to the joyful tune of a song that started with the words: "The whole world is against us /But we don't give a damn…"

This also concerns the BDS campaign. 18 years ago, my friends and I were the first to declare a boycott on the products of the settlements. We wanted to drive a wedge between Israelis and settlers. Therefore we did not declare a boycott of Israel proper, which would drive ordinary Israelis into the arms of the settlers. Only direct support of the settlements should be rejected.

That is still my opinion. But everyone abroad should make up his/her own mind. Always remembering that the main objective is to influence public opinion in Israel proper.

THE "INSIDE – OUTSIDE" debate may sound purely theoretical, but it is not. It has very practical implications.

The Israeli peace camp is in a state of despair. The size and power of the right wing is growing. Almost daily, obnoxious new laws are proposed and enacted, some of them with an unmistakable fascist flavor. The Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has surrounded himself with a bunch of male and female rowdies mainly from his Likud party, compared to whom he is a liberal. The main opposition party, the "Zionist Camp" (alias Labor), could be called Likud B.  

Apart from some dozens of fringe groups who brave this wave and do admirable work, each in its chosen niche, the peace camp is paralyzed by its own despair.  Its slogan could well be "Nothing can be done anymore. No point doing anything".  

(Jewish-Arab cooperation in the common fight inside Israel – now sadly lacking - is also essential.)

In this climate, the idea that only outside pressure can save Israel from itself is comforting. Somebody out there will do the job for us. So let's enjoy the pleasures of democracy while it lasts.

I know that nothing is further from the thoughts of Schocken, Liel and all the others, who fight the daily fight. But I am afraid that this may be the consequence of their views.

SO who is right: those who believe that only the fight inside Israel can save us, or those who put their trust entirely in outside pressure?

My answer is: neither.

Or, rather, both.

Those who fight inside need all the outside help they can get. All the moral people in all the countries of the world should see it as their duty to help those groups and persons inside Israel who continue to fight for democracy, justice and equality.

If Israel is dear to them, they should come to the aid of these brave groups, morally, politically and materially.

But for outside pressure to be effective, they must be able to connect with the fight inside, publicize it and gain support for it. They can give new hope to those who are despairing. Nothing is more vital.

The government realizes this. Therefore it is enacting all kinds of laws to cut Israeli peace groups off from foreign help.  

So let the good fight go on – inside, outside, everywhere.

David Koch Resigns From Natural History Museum Board Amidst Protests by Scientists

David Koch Resigns From Natural History Museum Board Amidst Protests by Scientists
Walter Einenkel
January 22, 2016
Daily Kos

David Koch is resigning from his post on the board at the American Museum of Natural History. For 23 years, everyone’s favorite “evil-twin” brother wowed the other board members with cash. That’s basically the only reason he was on the board and in his defense, it’s frequently the reason many people are on “boards” of anything.

The Koch family has spent millions funding climate-change denier groups and disinformation campaigns, and scientists around the country have called for Koch to be removed from the museum board. Well, they finally got what they wanted — the American Museum of Natural History announced Koch’s resignation this week.

David Koch’s people want you to know this had nothing to do with the recent protests—of which the Daily Kos helped organize a petition that garnered around 350,000 signatures—on Koch’s position on the board.

For example, 23 scientists came together to write a letter protesting David Koch being allowed to be near anything remotely attributed to ‘science':

"We are concerned that the integrity of these institutions is compromised by association with special interests who obfuscate climate science, fight environmental regulation, oppose clean energy legislation, and seek to ease limits on industrial pollution.

"For example, David Koch is a major donor, exhibit sponsor and trustee on the Board of Directors at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and the American Museum of Natural History. David Koch’s oil and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Mr. Koch also funds a large network of climate-change-denying organizations, spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science."

The reach of the Koch brothers’ money into our national museums has come to light in more and more perturbing ways the past few years.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a joint program of the Smithsonian Institution and Harvard University, is harboring a polluter-funded climate denier. Documents uncovered by Greenpeace reveal that Dr. Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon has taken money from the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, coal giant Southern Company, and others to produce "deliverables" that push the long-debunked claim that solar activity, not fossil fuel pollution, drives global warming.

The good news is that Koch has stood down and while this is predominantly a cosmetic victory, on some level we all know this probably sticks in David Koch’s craw—and that’s something to feel good about. Of course, eyes of newts, finches’ wings and the dreams of children are also stuck in his craw so he might not even feel it.

http://portside.org/2016-01-29/david-koch-resigns-natural-history-museum-board-amidst-protests-scientists

[Israel] Drunk on Hate and Mad at the World

Drunk on Hate and Mad at the World

Israel’s Diplomatic Wars of Aggression

By Richard Edmondson | Fig Trees and Vineyards | January 29, 2016

Israel these days seems to be increasingly at odds with a good portion of the rest of the world. In just the past few months it has quarreled with:

• Spain over arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and six other Israeli officials for the 2010 attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla;
• Sweden over comments by its foreign minister who has called for an investigation into extrajudicial executions of Palestinians;
• college campus student groups supporting the BDS movement;
• academic associations who have issued calls for academic boycotts of Israeli universities;
• Brazil over its refusal to recognize an Israeli ambassador who hails from the right-wing Israeli settler movement;
• The EU over labeling of products from Israeli settlements.
• The UN over Ban Ki-moon’s recent criticism of the settlements

And really, if truth be known, Israel is probably not too happy just now with Italy either, which recently received Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on a state visit, resulting in a number of agreements between the two countries’ energy sectors as well as cooperation on a future high-speed rail project. Naor Gilon, the Israeli ambassador to Italy, complained that Rouhani was being treated like “the king of the world.”

Zvi Zameret accuses Wallström of ‘ignorance and arrogance’,
and suggests she might meet a violent end

War with Sweden
All in all, Gilon’s comments would have to be viewed as rather tame, however–at least by comparison. For some of the statements issuing from Israelis now, particularly those aimed at Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström, are positively chilling in their level of malice expressed, and frankly it might behoove the Swedish official to consider hiring a bodyguard at this point, if she hasn’t already done so.
As I noted in an article five days ago, Wallström is now regarded in Israel as “public enemy number 1” (the Jerusalem Post’s words, not mine) because of remarks she has made critical of Israel, including a recent call for an investigation into extrajudicial killings of Palestinians.
Now it seems there may be those in Israel hankering for the foreign minister’s blood–literally. If you haven’t read my article, Swedish Media Target Country’s Foreign Minister Following Her Remarks on Israel, I suggest you do so as it will place what follows into greater perspective. One day after posting that article, I became aware of two other articles, one by blogger Richard Silverstein and the other by Jonathan Ofir and posted at Mondoweiss, both of which discuss what appears to have been a scarcely veiled threat on Wallström’s life by a former Israeli official.
The comment was made by Zvi Zameret, a former official in the Israeli Ministry of Education, in an op-ed piece he wrote for an Israeli newspaper owned by Nevada casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. In the article, Zameret waxes lyrical on the 1948 assassination of Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte, and then goes on to suggest that Wallström might meet a similar fate. Here is a bit from Silverstein’s commentary on the matter:

Zvi Zameret, the former director for instruction for the Israeli education ministry has written an op-ed in Makor Rishon, Sheldon Adelson’s pro-settler newspaper, praising the 1948 assassination of UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte by Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi gang. Zameret accuses Bernadotte of being an anti-Semite and claims that his views originated in a Swedish society that was suffused with this perspective. He claims that ridding the world of the Swedish Count was necessary to protect Israel’s new existence.
He wends his way through a long historical discourse involving material already well-known related to Bernadotte’s proposals, which were rejected by Arabs and Jews alike. Then he brings us up to the present day by alleging that remarks of the current Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallstrom, demanding that Israel be held accountable for the 160 Palestinians killed over the past two months in the latest Intifada, stem from the same well of Swedish anti-Semitism.

Silverstein says Zameret “hints that Wallström herself should share a similar fate to Bernadotte” and then gives us a direct quote from his article as per its English translation:

“What do the things I have mentioned attest about Bernadotte? [They indicate] covert anti-Semitism, ignorance and arrogance, collaboration with senior elements in Israel [Hebrew University President Judah Magnes] and interests that play a decisive role. Has anything changed in the Swedish DNA in the decades following Bernadotte’s death? Nothing has changed.
The Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallstrom, in the covert anti-Semitism which characterizes her, along with her ignorance and arrogance, and anticipation of the interests of her future Muslim voters–she too is attempting to battle against the basic foundation of the State of Israel. I am certain that her intentions will be defeated, just as were those of the disreputable Count Bernadotte.

Count Folke Bernadotte

Bernadotte was assassinated by Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, the same Jewish terrorist group that carried out the Deir Yassin massacre. Zameret’s glorification of his murder doesn’t seem entirely lucid or rational–during World War II Bernadotte negotiated the release of 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps, including a large number of Jews. After the war, he became the UN Security Council’s unanimous choice, in a vote on May 20, 1948, to try and mediate a settlement in the Palestine-Israeli conflict.
His murder took place September 17, 1948, carried out by a four-man team of assassins. The Stern Gang had been around since 1940. Its stated goal was to terminate the British mandate in Palestine and set up a “new totalitarian Hebrew republic,” and one of its members, Yithak Shamir, ended up becoming an Israeli prime minister. It was Shamir, in fact, who ordered Bernadotte’s assassination. The man who actually pulled the trigger, Yehoshau Cohen, later became a close confidante of David Ben Gurion and was never charged in the case.

Margot Wallström

In October of 2014, shortly after Wallström took over as foreign minister, Sweden became one of the first Western countries to recognize Palestinian statehood. Wallström called it “an important step that confirms the Palestinians’ right to self-determination”  and added that “We hope that this will show the way for others.”
In November of last year, shortly after the Paris terror attacks, Wallström suggested that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians could be helping to fuel terrorism. She followed that up with a comment in December about Israeli “extrajudicial executions,” and this month called for an investigation of Israel.
“Whether Zameret advocates Wallstrom’s demise explicitly or implicitly is hardly important,” comments Silverstein. “Even if you accept the argument that he isn’t explicit, clearly the reason Bernadotte failed in his mission is that Jewish terrorists assassinated him. When you say you wish her intentions to be defeated just as his were, the line between murder and political defeat becomes exceedingly murky.”
Boycott Sweden! say Israeli Mayors
But of course it isn’t just Zameret. Lots of people in Israel despise Wallström and have “vociferously attacked her contentious words,” as an article here puts it. And this apparently applies to a good many Israeli officials. The same article goes on to give us the low-down on a “boycott movement” launched by 15 Israeli mayors and aimed at Sweden. The mayors were planning to attend a conference in the Scandinavian country in March, but recently announced they have cancelled, while former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has also called for a boycott of Ikea.
War With Spain
In November of last year, a Spanish judge issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and six other officials in connection with Israel’s 2010 raid on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a violent episode in international waters which resulted in the deaths of 10 people.
The warrants were issued by Judge Jose de la Mata, and in  effect meant that should any of the seven officials set foot on Spanish soil they would be subject to arrest.
“Spain is just the latest member of the international community to accuse Israel of war crimes and pursue Israeli officials over the affair,” the Jerusalem Post reported at the time. And that is indeed correct. Both South Africa and Turkey had previously issued similar warrants.
Predictably, the Israeli government expressed hostility and outrage.
“We consider it to be a provocation,” said an Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson. “We are working with the Spanish authorities to get it cancelled. We hope it will be over soon.”
What do you suppose the words “working with Spanish authorities” might imply? Did it include issuing threats? Whatever it was, it took only two months to accomplish. The arrest warrants were in fact cancelled, according to a report published January 13 by the Adelson-owned Israel Hayom newspaper.
War with Brazil
Brazil, on the other hand, seems to be showing a little more resilience. According to a report here, “Israel and Brazil remain at loggerheads five months after Brazil refused to recognize Israel’s appointment of a right-wing settler as its next envoy to the South American country.”
“Settlers are Zionist agents that the world cannot accept, they steal others’ land, they are an insult to Brazil, to the government, and to millions of Brazilians with roots in the Arab world,” said Brazilian parliament member Carlos Maron.
Maron isn’t alone. A group of 40 retired Brazilian diplomats signed a statement against the appointment of Dani Dayan, who lives in the Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Shomron, in the Occupied West Bank. Dayan is an advocate of the settler movement and has made no secret of his views, having widely published articles in the mainstream media, including the New York Times.
“We consider it unacceptable that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has publicly announced the name of the person he intended to appoint as his country’s new Ambassador to Brazil before submitting it, in accordance to the norm, to our Government,” said the diplomats. The announcement of Dayan’s appointment was reportedly posted initially on Twitter rather than being communicated directly to the Brazilian government.
The statement continues:

This rupture with a diplomatic practice seems to have been on purpose, an attempt to establish facts, since the appointed, Dani Dayan, between 2007 and 2013, was the President of the Yesha Council, responsible for the settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal by the international community, and has already declared himself contrary to the creation of the Palestinian State, which counts on the support of the Brazilian Government and was already recognized by over 70% of the UN member States.

Reportedly a group of 200 Brazilian academics have also endorsed a boycott of Israel. Netanyahu has refused to withdraw Dayan’s nomination or to appoint someone more acceptable to the Brazilians. If the Brazilian government stands its ground, it will mean a de facto end to diplomatic relations between the two countries.
War with the EU
On January 18, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council reaffirmed requirements that export products from the Israeli settlements be labeled as such. More or less as with Sweden, Spain, and Brazil, the EU’s action has prompted cries of Israeli outrage. Netanyahu pronounced his unwillingness to “accept the fact that the EU labels the side being attacked by terror,” while ‘Justice’ Minister Ayelet Shaked called the EU measure “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.”
Likewise, opposition party leader Isaac Herzog (supposedly a liberal) compared it to the “Zionism equals Racism” resolution passed by the UN in 1974, while Yair Lapid, another opposition party member, denounced the EU for “capitulating to the worse elements of jihad.”
War Against the BDS Movement
In summer of 2015, ‘Justice’ minister Shaked announced she was preparing lawsuits against BDS activists. The announcement was reported at the time by the Times of Israel in a story which also mentions that Shaked has expanded one of the departments within her ministry in order to “push ahead with the program as soon as possible.”
Ministry officials believe that legal circumstances present the option of suing activists for damaging Israeli trade, and for discrimination and racism, based upon laws as they currently exist in various countries, the report said.
So far as I’m aware, no lawsuits have been filed against individual activists, however Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home Party, seems to be generally in support of the idea of striking back in some manner at the BDS movement.
“Let it be clear to any company or organization that’s considering boycotting us: We will hit back. We will attack our attackers. We will boycott our boycotters,” Bennett said.
“The boycott weapon is a double-edged sword,” he added. “If you’re thinking of boycotting Israel, keep in mind that there are tens of millions of Israel supporters around the world — Jews and non-Jews — with considerable buying power and boycott power. Whoever boycotts Israel will be boycotted. Whoever hits Israel, will be hit back. We will no longer remain silent.”
Bennett’s comments about the “tens of millions of Israel supporters around the world” are perhaps salient. Also last summer, Adelson hosted an anti-BDS summit in Las Vegas with the aim of establishing and funding “successful strategies for countering the wave of anti-Israel activity on college campuses.” Held at the billionaire’s Venetian hotel on the Vegas strip, the conference was attended by a number of wealthy Jews, including Haim Saban.
“The key decision reached at the conference was that there would be a concerted effort to curtail BDS,” reported the Jerusalem Post.
Though Netanyahu did not attend, a letter from him was read aloud to the conference participants. “De-legitimization of Israel must be fought, and you are on the front lines. It’s not about this or that Israeli policy. It’s about our right to exist here as a free people,” the letter stated.
Reportedly the Israeli government intends to allocate NIS 100 million, or roughly $25.2 million, to the anti-BDS effort.
War Against Academic Associations
At a business meeting held in November, members of the American Anthropological Association voted overwhelmingly (88.4 percent) in favor of a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. A similar measure was passed that same month by the National Women’s Studies Association Executive Committee. These aren’t the first boycott actions taken by academic organizations in the US. The American Studies Association, The Association for Asian American Studies, and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association have all passed academic boycott measures against Israel. And this is just in the US.
Measures have also been passed by academic organizations in Brazil, South Africa, Canada, the UK, and, of course, in Palestine, and probably elsewhere. And perhaps most recently a group of 71 British doctors have called upon the World Medical Association to expel the Israeli Medical Association. The physicians have accused Israeli doctors of “medical torture” on Palestinian patients and want to see a ban on joint projects with Israeli universities.
On January 20, the Science and Technology Committee of the Israeli Knesset held a meeting to discuss the issue (H/T Helvena). A press release on the discussion which took place can be found here on the Knessett’s website. One of those who gave input at the meeting was Peretz Lavie, president of Technion, or the Israeli Institute of Technology.
“We have no complaints against the global academic leadership; our problem is the campuses,” Lavie said. “Initially it was insignificant campuses, but it quickly spread to leading campuses in the United States.”
When Lavie says he has “no complaints against the global academic leadership” he is probably referring to the Association of American Universities, which on January 14, in response to the vote by the Anthropological Association, re-issued an earlier statement in opposition to academic boycotts. The AAU is an organization whose leadership consists of the presidents and chancellors of the 60 universities (in both the US and Canada) that are its members. Membership is by invitation only. The group’s statement opposing boycotts was initially released in 2013 in response to the boycott actions taken by the American Studies and Native American and Indigenous Studies associations.
The group’s re-release of that canned statement from more than two years ago was described by the Jerusalem Post as “a blow to the BDS movement.”
“Students who are exposed to this activity will be the next generation’s senators, and therein lies the great danger in the long term,” Lavie went on in his testimony before the Science and Technology Committee.
“In its report, the American Anthropological Association referred to us as universities of apartheid and decided to conduct a survey on whether the Israeli academia should be boycotted. We have to reach all 12,000 members of the Association. It is a symptom, and if we do not act now, it will spread. There must be one entity that will concentrate all the efforts related to this issue,” he added.
Another person who gave testimony was Ze’ev Feldman of the Israel Medical Association. It was Feldman who informed the committee of the recent statement by the 71 British doctors.
”The sword of the boycott is being raised on the Israeli scientific-medical community,” he said.
Ariel University Chancellor Yigal-Cohen Orgad asserted that Israel has “a real problem with governments, including western governments that encourage boycotts,” while Professor Zvi Ziegler warned, “We are unable to stop anyone with our meager resources.”
Several committee members are also quoted, including Chairman Uri Maklev:

“There is no doubt that the academic boycott phenomenon is expanding and is connected to the financial and consumer boycotts on Israel. Economic and commercial boycotts are associated with politics, but an academic boycott by educated and moderate people has a very strong effect.”

But rather than calling for an end to the settlements, most of the committee members seemed to be of the opinion that the Israeli government needed to devote more resources to fighting the boycott movement. The one exception to this was Arab Knesset member Basel Ghattas:

The world considers the settlements to be illegitimate. You can think differently from the entire world, it is your right, but it is also the world’s right to take measures in order to force you to establish two states.

War with the UN
On October 1, 2015, Netanyahu gave a speech before the United Nations General Assembly that was marked by a 45-second segment during which he paused and projected hostile glares out at those present:

On January 26, 2016, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon broke the UN’s “deafening silence” and, in a rare display of courage, issued a scathing criticism of Israel’s settlement policies.

Progress towards peace requires a freeze of Israel’s settlement enterprise.
Continued settlement activities are an affront to the Palestinian people and to the international community. They rightly raise fundamental questions about Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution.
I am deeply troubled by reports today that the Israeli Government has approved plans for over 150 new homes in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
This is combined with its announcement last week declaring 370 acres in the West Bank, south of Jericho, as so-called “state land”. These provocative acts are bound to increase the growth of settler populations, further heighten tensions and undermine any prospects for a political road ahead.

The inevitable furious response came quickly, with Netanyahu excoriating the UN chief for helping to “stoke terror.”
“There is no justification for terrorism,” he said. “The Palestinian terrorists don’t want to build a state; they want to destroy a state, and they say that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don’t murder for peace and they don’t murder for human rights.”
He went on to assert that the UN has “lost its neutrality and its moral force, and these statements by the Secretary-General do nothing to improve its situation.”
It seems Israel is now at war with the UN as well.
A Lack of Imagination?

Perhaps most striking in all this is the Israeli lack of imagination–or at least that is one way of looking at it. Nowhere in his hostile comments aimed at his various enemies on the global stage does Netanyahu give the slightest indication of having once thought about halting the settlements and pulling back to Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders. Ditto with the other Israeli officials quoted above, with the lone exception of the Arab Knessett member. It is almost as if the idea has never even occurred to them.
If that  is the case, one could perhaps ascribe all of this to a lack of imagination. Certainly at this point, after 68 years of oppression, it probably does indeed require considerable imagination to conceive of how the two peoples could live at peace. But of course it wasn’t always so. And had Israel, starting in 1967, respected the people of the West Bank, and above all else respected their space rather than crowding them in with settlements and walls and soldiers, a peaceful resolution to the conflict probably could have and would have been achieved by this time.
Yet even now, it isn’t too late. Though it would be politically difficult, Israel could dismantle its settlements (anything is possible when the national will is present) and pull back to the pre-1967 borders–basically the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative proposed back in 2002. If necessary, and it probably would be for a lengthy period of time, UN peacekeeping troops could be deployed along the border.
But Israel’s response to the Arab Peace Initiative was to call it a “non-starter,” and that seems to be its position today as well. And not only is there little prospect of dismantling of presently-existing settlements, but we see even a refusal to halt the construction of new ones. All of which would suggest that Ban Ki-moon is correct and that the settlement enterprise raises “fundamental questions about Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution.”
Or in other words, Israel has no intentions of making peace.
Certainly it’s possible that things could change, and that a new slate of leaders could arise in Israel with the imagination necessary to see the wisdom of complying with international norms of conduct. And that is what its more liberal Jewish supporters in America seem to be hoping for. But failing this, Israel’s wars with the rest of the world are likely to grow in stridency and ferociousness, and at some point could expand from the realms of diplomacy and/or covert operations fully outright into the military arena.

The Government lost £1.1m on its commercial venture to run the Saudi Arabian prison system

The Government lost £1.1m on its commercial venture to run the Saudi Arabian prison system

Shared by
The Independent

independent.co.uk - The Government lost over a million pounds on a Ministry of Justice commercial venture that was due to run the Saudi Arabian prison system, an investigation has found. The National Audit Office, the...

Did the Catholic Church Ever Apologize to Galileo?

In 1992, the Catholic Church admitted Galileo was correct about the Earth
orbiting the Sun, 350 years after his death.

One could say, "Better late than never" about the Catholic Church and
Galileo Galilei. In 1633, the famed Italian astronomer was forced by
Catholic officials to recant his confirmation of Copernicus' theory that
the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo had originally incurred the
Church's ire by refusing to side with then-prevailing Ptolemaic theory,
which stated that the Sun and all heavenly bodies revolved around the
Earth. In 1992, the Catholic Church officially closed its 13-year
investigation into Galileo's trial and house arrest, confirming that
Copernicus was correct, while Ptolemy and the Catholic Church were wrong.

Read More: http://www.wisegeek.com/did-the-catholic-church-ever-apologize-to-galileo.htm?m

Police Leaders Unveil Principles Intended to Shift Policing Practices Nationwide

Police Leaders Unveil Principles Intended to Shift Policing Practices Nationwide

By AL BAKER

The recommendations include ways to defuse volatile encounters and sidestep violence, document and track the use of force, and, ultimately, restore trust in communities.

Oregon Town Torn Apart by Protest at Wildlife Refuge

Oregon Town Torn Apart by Protest at Wildlife Refuge

By JULIE TURKEWITZ and KIRK JOHNSON

The events of the rebellion at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge have left scars and divisions in Burns, Ore., that residents say will not soon heal.

German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too

German Forest Ranger Finds That Trees Have Social Networks, Too

By SALLY McGRANE

Peter Wohlleben, a career ranger, has topped best-seller lists with "The Hidden Life of Trees," describing trees as social beings that communicate on the "Wood Wide Web."

Israel, Mired in Ideological Battles, Fights on Cultural Fronts

Israel, Mired in Ideological Battles, Fights on Cultural Fronts

By STEVEN ERLANGER

A "Loyalty in Culture" initiative, included as an amendment to a budget bill, proposes denying state funds to institutions that do not express "loyalty" to the state.

Marshall Islands sue Britain, India and Pakistan over nuclear weapons

Archipelago where notorious Bikini Atoll test took place tells international court that nuclear powers have not lived up to disarmament obligations

 

Bravo Crater at Bikini Atoll site of 1954 hydrogen explosion. The Marshall Islands says ‘it has a particular awareness of the dire consequences of nuclear weapons’. Photograph: Alamy

Agence France-Presse in The Hague

Saturday 30 January 2016 00.47 GMT Last modified on Saturday 30 January 2016 09.53 GMT

The tiny Marshall Islands will seek to persuade the UN’s highest court to take up a lawsuit against India, Pakistan and Britain, which it accuses of failing to halt the nuclear arms race.

The international court of justice – founded in 1945 to rule on legal disputes between nations – announced late on Friday dates for separate hearings for the three cases between March 7 and March 16.
In the cases brought against India and Pakistan, the court will examine whether the tribunal based in The Hague is competent to hear the lawsuits.
The hearing involving Britain will be devoted to “preliminary objections” raised by London.
A decision will be made at a later date as to whether the cases can proceed.
In 2014, the Marshall Islands – a Pacific Ocean territory with 55,000 people – accused nine countries of “not fulfilling their obligations with respect to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”.
They included China, Britain, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.

Julie Bishop chided for 'joke' about rising seas flooding Marshall Islands

 

The government, based in the Marshall Islands capital of Majuro, said by not stopping the nuclear arms race, the countries continued to breach their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – even if the treaty has not been signed by countries such as India and Pakistan.
The Marshall Islands had decided to sue the world’s nuclear heavyweights as “it has a particular awareness of the dire consequences of nuclear weapons”, it said.
Between 1946 and 1958 the United States conducted repeated nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands, Majuro’s representatives said in papers filed in court.
But the court only admitted three cases brought against Britain, India and Pakistan because they already recognised the ICJ’s authority.
In March 2014 the Marshall Islands marked 60 years since the devastating hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll that laid waste the island and exposed thousands in the surrounding area to radioactive fallout.
The 15-megatonne test on 1 March, 1954 was part of the intense cold war nuclear arms race and 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Bikini Islanders have lived in exile since they were moved for the first weapons tests in 1946.
When US government scientists declared Bikini safe for resettlement some residents were allowed to return in the early 1970s. But they were removed again in 1978 after ingesting high levels of radiation from eating local foods grown on the former test site.
The Marshall Islands nuclear claims tribunal had awarded more than US$2bn in personal injury and land damage claims arising form the nuclear tests, but stopped paying after a US$150m US compensation fund was exhausted.
Eight of the nine countries originally targeted in the lawsuits have officially admitted to possessing a nuclear weapon. Israel has never acknowledged having one, though observers believe it is the sole nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East.

Israel has no excuse to refrain from ratifying CTBT

Israel has no excuse to refrain from ratifying CTBT: UN

Press TV – January 29, 2016

A senior UN official says Israel is now left without an excuse to evade ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) after a nuclear deal between Iran and the West.
Lassina Zerbo, the executive secretary of the CTBT Organization, said with the implementation of the nuclear deal, Israel’s biggest pretext for refraining from ratifying the CTBT has been taken away.
He made the remarks to a week-long conference marking the 20th anniversary of the treaty being opened for signing in the Austrian capital, Vienna.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has 196 members but the treaty has not entered into force because it still needs ratification by nuclear-armed signatories such as the US, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
Zerbo said Israel is “the closest” of the signatories to ratifying the treaty and assuring the world it will never conduct a nuclear test explosion.
That is because “the biggest threat for Israel is gone and over” after Iran reached a nuclear agreement with the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany in July, he said.
An open secret for decades, the Israeli atomic stockpile is estimated at some 200-400 warheads, though Israel refuses to confirm or deny its existence under a policy of deliberate ambiguity.
Israel is also refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and denying international access to its atomic arsenal.
Zerbo said he is hoping to visit Israel and talk to its leaders although he doesn’t expect immediate results on ratification.
“I think that they’re the ones who can unlock what is stopping the CTBT from moving,” he said.
Zerbo is also hoping to visit Iran, which signed CTBT in 1996, to convince the country to ratify the treaty.
The Islamic Republic says its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. The country is an NPT signatory and its nuclear facilities are open to regular UN inspections which have not found any diversion.
Zerbo, however, said if both Iran and Israel signed CTBT, it would “provide momentum — first for Egypt to ratify the CTBT and then to start negotiations for a nuclear test-free zone in the Middle East.”
“You can’t jump and get a weapon-free zone in the Middle East if the CTBT isn’t ratified,” he said.
Israel’s arsenal is the only obstacle to a Middle East free of nuclear weapons because no country possesses a nuclear arsenal in the region other than the Tel Aviv regime.
Zerbo also said China won’t ratify the CTBT before the US, India won’t ratify before China, and Pakistan won’t ratify before India. He also emphasized that US action is crucial in this regard.
He said North Korea is the least likely country to ratify the CTBT.
The UN official said the international community needs to change the way it engages with North Korea.
“What they need at this point in time is… maybe a bit of respect and dignity in the dialogue we have with them.”

Attacking churches in Palestine: An Israeli policy since 1948

Attacking churches in Palestine: An Israeli policy since 1948

 

Israeli documents have revealed that the Israeli army deliberately adopted a policy based on the destruction, vandalism and harm of the sanctity of churches in Palestine, during and after the 1948 war. An Israeli book, which will be published next month, explains how the Israeli army carried out seizure and destruction operations against churches located in the Palestinian cities, towns and villages the army took control off after expelling their people.
  

• Palestinian Christians attacked for challenging Christian Zionism
•  The myth of Israel’s favorable treatment of Palestinian Christians

The book, which will be published by the Moshe Sharett Heritage Society, is based on the statements and testimonies of former Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Moshe Sharett, regarding the brutal attacks on Palestinian churches.

According to the book, which Haaretz newspaper published excerpts from, Sharett, in his capacity as foreign minister, strongly criticised the policy of destruction and looting adopted by the Israeli army during the meeting held by the government under the presidency of David Ben-Gurion on 5 July 1949.

The author of the book mentions that Sharett’s description of the actions committed by the Israeli army against the churches was not only limited to his participations in government meetings. Instead, he took advantage of every partisan meeting with the representatives of this political party, Mapai, to describe what he considered “heinous acts” committed against churches.

The book reveals the text of the protocol of the meeting held on 5 July 1949, although the Israel State Archive prohibits the revelation of the full original text due to the fact that it includes Sharett’s testimony regarding the atrocities committed against the churches.

According to the protocol, Sharett described the army’s violations of the church saying, “the officers and soldiers deliberately harmed the Christian sanctities; their behaviour is that of beasts, not human beings.” Sharett also said, “The attacks suffered by the churches at the hands of the soldiers and officers are a shameful page in Israel’s history.”

This book also revealed that Sharett compared Israel, which allowed such acts, to “an evil and brutal Caesar that promotes nothing but destruction.” He added: “The soldiers and officers turned the churches to toilets where they would tend to their needs.”

The book also goes on to reveal that Sharett told members of the Mapai party, in a meeting in July 1949, that Israel deliberately declared the areas containing churches as military zones in order to justify its refusal to allow foreign visitors and tourists to enter these areas and churches in an attempt to prevent them from witnessing the army’s heinous violations.

Sharett also said that the soldiers stole a very valuable crown made of precious stones from one of the churches. He also noted another incident where the soldiers broke the hand off a sculpture of Jesus in one of the churches in order to steal the gold bracelets that were on it, as an example of the systematic looting and stealing from the churches which lasted for months.

He stressed that the Israeli officers and soldiers also intentionally harmed the sanctity of the churches and tore holy books, mentioning that the acts of destruction committed against the churches were not only committed by the officers and soldiers, but also by many settlers, especially those who newly immigrated.

Haaretz newspaper reported that the Israel State Archive revealed the archives from the government meeting on 5 July 1949 after omitting 30 sentences said by Sharett during the meeting in which he described the atrocities committed against the churches. The revelation of the Israeli army’s acts against the churches has gained great attention in light of some Jewish religious figures expressing their support for the burning of churches committed by Jewish terrorist groups.

According to these religious figures, Christians should not be allowed to perform their religious rituals, as they consider Christianity “a form of paganism”. Large groups of religious Israeli youths have adopted these convictions, and this is cited by the fact that the Hilltop Youth Jewish terrorist organisation graffitied the walls of a church in occupied Jerusalem early last week with phrases threatening the killing of Christians in the city.
Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 27 January 2016.

http://www.ziombieland.net/2016/01/attacking-churches-in-palestine-israeli.html

‘Hares boys’ sentenced to 15 years after families pay fines [for throwing stones........]

‘Hares boys’ sentenced to 15 years after families pay fines

Ma’an – January 29, 2016

RAMALLAH – After a nearly three-year long battle in Israeli military courts, five Palestinian teens from the occupied West Bank village of Hares accused of manslaughter after reportedly throwing stones were on Thursday issued sentences of 15 years, a prisoners’ rights group said.
The case has been disputed in the past by relatives and rights groups, who say that insufficient evidence was provided to prove that the five had any involvement in the death of an Israeli toddler who passed away two years after the teens were accused of throwing stones at her mother’s vehicle, causing it to crash.
A lawyer from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society, Iyad Mahamid, told Ma’an that the military court issued the sentences to Muhammad Suleiman, Tamer Souf, Ammar Souf, Ali Shamlawi, and Muhammad Kleib.
Relatives of the detainees told Ma’an following a court hearing in December 2015 that the teens would be sentenced to prison terms of 15 years on the grounds that their families pay fines of 30,000 shekels ($7,700) by Jan. 28.
“Hares Boys,” an activist blog dedicated to raising awareness of the teens’ case, posted on their Facebook page “Free the Hares Boys” on Thursday that the families were able to pay the fines in full with the assistance of outside donations.
Failure to pay the fines could have resulted in prolonged sentencing to at least 25 years in prison, according to the Hares Boys blog.
Thursday sentencing marks a poor end to a drawn-out court battle that began after the five were detained by Israeli forces on March 15, 2013. All were 16 and 17 years old at the time of their detention.
Their arrest followed the hospitalization of a three-year-old Israeli girl, Adele Biton, who suffered severe head injuries when her mother’s car collided with a truck near the Israeli mega-settlement of Ariel. The toddler died two years later after suffering complications from pneumonia.
The family believes that while the child died of pneumonia, the severity of her complications was due to injuries sustained after the vehicle accident, according to Israeli media.
The Israeli vehicle had reportedly lost control after being hit by a stone, and the five teens were later accused of throwing stones that day at vehicles driving on Route 5, a highway leading to several nearby Israeli settlements.
Twenty Israeli drivers afterwards filed insurance claims stating that stones hit their cars, but the incidents lacked eyewitness testimony and the police received no calls at the time the teens were throwing stones.
All five denied the allegations, but later signed confessions “after being repeatedly abused in prison and during interrogations,” according to the Hares Boys blog.
The mother of the toddler told Israeli media following Thursday’s sentencing: “It is not much consolation, we would have preferred [the] death [penalty] or life-sentencing. The state did not properly tend to the matter and it didn’t fully enforce the punishment to the fullest.”
The British Parliament on Thursday in response to an online public forum inquiry said an official from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv had met with Chief Military Prosecutor Maurice Hirsch in November to express its concern over the case of the Hares boys, adding that the government would continue to raise the case to Israeli authorities.
The teens’ families as well as rights groups have repeatedly argued over the past three years that the youth were being held without evidence and unjustly prosecuted in a military court system that convicts over 99 percent of Palestinians.
The Hares Boys blog wrote in their defense in 2013: “If the boys are convicted, this case would set a legal precedent which would allow the Israeli military to convict any Palestinian child or youngster for attempted murder in cases of stone-throwing.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September declared a “war on stone throwing,” establishing a minimum prison sentence for adults who throw stones as well as allowing Israeli forces to use sniper fire against stone throwers in circumstances that pose mortal danger.
The PM said at the time that there would be “significant fines” for minors who commit such offences, as well as for their parents.
The Knesset had already passed a law in July making penalties for stone-throwing more severe. The new law allowed for stone-throwers to receive a 20-year prison sentence where intent to harm could be proven, and 10 years where it could not.
At the time the bill was passed, Palestinian MK Jamal Zahalka said: “Who will the judge send to prison? He who demolished the home, seized the land, killed the brother, or the boy who threw a stone?”

Palestinian parliamentarians arrested, imprisoned without charge or trial

Palestinian parliamentarians arrested, imprisoned without charge or trial by samidoun

Israeli occupation forces issued a four-month administrative detention order against Hatem Qufeisha, 56, Palestinian parliamentarian, only five days after arresting him, invading his home in Al-Khalil on 24 January.

He is held in Ofer prison, with no charge or trial. He has spent over 143 months in administrative detention in the past and has been repeatedly imprisoned.

Meanwhile, on 28 January, Israeli occupation forces arrested and imprisoned Palestinian parliamentarian Mohammed Abu Teir - and at least 22 other Palestinians in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem - in early-morning raids.

Abu Teir has spent 32 years in Israeli prison under numerous arrests; he is a Palestinian Jerusalemite whose residency was stripped on 8 October 2010 by the Israeli occupation, forced into the West Nank from his home city, on the basis of "betrayal of loyalty to Israel" because he ran in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections on the Change and Reform Slate, associated with the Hamas movement.

He was last released in July 2015 after 25 months in administrative detention.

Abu Teir and Qufeisha join five more imprisoned members of the Palestinian Legislative Council: prominent leftist, feminist and prisoner advocate Khalida Jarrar, serving 15 months in Israeli prison; Palestinian political leader and general secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Ahmad Sa'adat, serving 30 years in Israeli occupation prisons; Palestinian political leader and member of the Fateh Central Council, Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences; Mohammed Jamal Natsheh of al-Khalil, of the Change and Reform Bloc, held in administrative detention without charge or trial since March 2013; and Hassan Yousef of Beitunia, a senior Hamas leader and member of the PLC, held in administrative detention without charge or trial since 20 October 2015.

Dozens of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council have been imprisoned by the Israeli occupation, many serving lengthy periods held in administrative detention without charge or trial. The Inter-Parliamentary Union, a global alliance of parliamentarians, has called for the freedom of imprisoned Palestinian parliamentarians.

samidoun | January 29, 2016

Emails Show Flint Govt Bought Clean Water for Themselves While Residents Drank Poison for a Year

Emails Show Flint Govt Bought Clean Water for Themselves While Residents Drank Poison for a Year

By Matt Agorist | Activist Post | January 28, 2016

As the water crisis in Flint shows no signs of coming to an end anytime soon, one thing is clear — not one government official has yet to be held accountable for causing it.
As details emerge about how officials have known about the tainted water and simply allowed the public to consume it without taking action, newly released documents reveal that the state wasn’t entirely without action — for themselves.
A series of emails released Thursday, obtained through a FOIA request shows that not only did officials know the water was tainted, but they took action and began trucking in water to state buildings so they would no longer have to drink it.
The emails show that after concerns were raised about the levels of TTHM in Flint water, the Snyder administration chose not to wait for the results to come back in March of 2015, and instead took action in January.
“TTHM” is “total trihalomethanes,” a group of chemical compounds that form during drinking water treatment. The compounds are produced when organic matter in natural water reacts chemically with chlorine disinfectants.
In an email from the District Engineer of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance, Michael Prysby sent out a notice to several members of Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality.
“Appears certain state departments are concerned with Flint’s WQ [Water Quality]. I will return the call….” read the email.
Instead of immediately notifying the citizens of the tainted water, the Snyder administration used taxpayer dollars to protect government officials only.
In a memo dated two days prior to the email mentioned above, which highlights the fact that officials knew about the water crisis well before now, the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) informed Flint officials that they would be protected from the dangers of the city water.
According to the memo, titled “Facility Notification: Flint Water Advisory,”

The City of Flint recently sent out the attached notice regarding violations to the drinking water standards. While the City of Flint states that corrective actions are not necessary, DTMB is in the process of providing a water cooler on each occupied floor, positioned near the water fountain, so you can choose which water to drink. The coolers will arrive today and will be provided as long as the public water does not meet treatment requirements.

Had the residents of Flint been afforded the same courtesy, of which their tax dollars supplied, the poisoning of countless children and adults alike could have been prevented. As the government officials were allowed to ‘choose’ which water source they wanted to drink, the poor residents were being systematically and knowingly poisoned.
“It appears the state wasn’t as slow as we first thought in responding the Flint Water Crisis. Sadly, the only response was to protect the Snyder administration from future liability and not to protect the children of Flint from lead poisoning,” said Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan in a press release on Thursday. “While residents were being told to relax and not worry about the water, the Snyder administration was taking steps to limit exposure in its own building.”