U.S. Backing Has Given Israel License to Kill & Maim

[admin]

U.S. Complicit in “On-Air Genocide”: Palestinian Amb. Husam Zomlot Slams 12-Week Gaza Assault
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
December 29, 2023
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/29 ... transcript

Gaza health officials report the past 12 weeks of Israeli assault has killed more than 21,500 Palestinians as Israel admits to killing civilians in an attack on the Maghazi refugee camp on Christmas. We speak with Husam Zomlot, the head of the Palestinian Mission to the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says “too many civilians” have died in Gaza and has called for a sustainable ceasefire. “What Israel is doing is the first-ever on-air genocide,” says Zomlot, who warns that suppression of dissent and obstruction of international order by Israel and the U.S. will have wide-ranging effects on democratic rights around the world. “These millions of people here and worldwide have discovered that Israel is not just oppressing Palestinians. Israel is oppressing every one of them. Israel is oppressing humanity.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Another 187 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza over the past 24 hours as Israel continues to attack refugee camps and other areas across the Gaza Strip. Gaza health officials say the Israeli assault has killed more than 21,500 Palestinians over the past 12 weeks. In central Gaza, Israeli attacks killed at least 35 Palestinians in Nuseirat and Maghazi refugee camps. At least 20 more Palestinians died when Israel attacked a residential building near the Kuwaiti Hospital in Rafah, the southern Gaza city overflowing with displaced Palestinians.

In more news from Gaza, Israeli military officials have admitted it carried out a deadly strike on the Maghazi refugee camp on Christmas Eve that killed at least 86 Palestinians. The IDF said it “regrets the harm” caused to civilians, and claimed that Israeli troops had used the wrong type of bomb. An Israeli official said, quote, “The type of munition did not match the nature of the attack, causing extensive collateral damage which could have been avoided,” unquote. Despite the admission, Israel continues to attack the Maghazi refugee camp. On Thursday, at least five people were killed when Israel bombed a girls’ school housing displaced Palestinians.

Meanwhile, UNRWA, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, has renewed its call for a ceasefire in Gaza, saying the besieged territory is grappling with catastrophic hunger.

For more, we go to London, where we’re joined by Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Ambassador, welcome to Democracy Now! If you can just respond to this latest news, Israel’s admission that they said they were apologizing for causing unnecessary collateral damage, what this means, and, overall, if you can talk about what’s happening in Gaza — in fact, the place where you come from?

HUSAM ZOMLOT: Hello, Amy.

Well, killing 187 Palestinians, primarily children and women, in U.N. shelters, girls’ school, is not collateral damage. More than 21,000, as you reported, mostly, 70% of them, are women and children. And by the way, we have 8,000 unaccounted for under the rubble, so the numbers are going to be much higher. Rescue teams are unable to reach, let alone rescue, all these people under the rubble for days and weeks.

What Israel is doing is the first-ever on-air genocide. This is not just about how many they are killing, primarily families and civilians. It’s also about turning Gaza completely lifeless, unlivable. And you have all reported the targeting of the very infrastructure of Gaza, be it hospitals, be it schools, universities. And weaponizing food and water, starving 2.3 million people and displacing almost 2 million, most of them in Rafah, while still bombarding the very area they claim to be safe is a very classic design of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think Israel has been engaged since its establishment in one theory, one ideology, one idea: It wants the land, all of the land, without the people. Remember the mantra that, you know, “a land without a people for a people without a land.” And this explains much of the Israeli actions; otherwise, nothing justifies what has been happening over the last 12 weeks.

And here, the problem really, really is not Israel. Israel is committing crimes against humanity. Israel will have to be held accountable. Its generals, its politicians will have to be behind bars. And justice will have to be served. And we Palestinians must think about our right of self-defense. This is number one priority. And our priority now is a complete, comprehensive, permanent ceasefire, because we cannot even assess the situation unless the mass killings of Israel ends. And we want to see a massive humanitarian assistance immediately to Gaza from all sides, air-lifted, sea-lifted and what have you, because the level of catastrophe is unprecedented in recent human history. We have to prevent Israel’s actual real plan of pushing people out of Gaza toward Sinai, the ethnic cleansing, and we must assure that Israel does not take any part of Gaza, as they have been claiming.

But there, we must revisit all that happened, including the U.S. role, Amy. And here, we very much regret — you know, the U.S. has been losing its credibility, its standing over years and decades. But this time is different. This time is absolutely different, for many, many experts are — and lawyers are looking into the U.S.'s direct material participation, contribution to the genocide we're talking about. But we leave that to the lawyers. But definitely the U.S. could have prevented these atrocities that have really shocked humanity all over. But it did not, as you know. It did use the veto power to stop the Security Council from taking its own responsibility of enforcing law and order. And the Biden administration will be remembered by this. We will not forget.

The Biden administration is complicit. It has enabled Israel to do so. It has enabled Israel to drag the whole region into this instability. It has enabled Israel to drag the whole world. Look what is happening to the international order, the rules that we created together after the Second World War, the horrors of the Second World War, when we all said “never again.” The U.S. is there, going out of its way to shield a Netanyahu, a Netanyahu and a Smotrich and a Ben-Gvir, the most fanatical supremacist government in the history of mankind, not only Israel. And then the U.S. is there to shield this government?

And the U.S. knows that this is Netanyahu’s war. This is Netanyahu’s war of choice. Netanyahu is doing this only to save his political career. He’s not doing this for Israel’s security. He’s not doing this for any prospects for his people. He’s doing this because he knows the moment the guns — his guns — would stop, the moment the political guns will turn against him, and he might end up in court and in jail. And then the U.S. fails to be the grown-up in the room, is a moment to taint the U.S. for a long, long time to come, to taint Biden himself personally and every member of his administration.

AMY GOODMAN: What exactly do you think President Biden should be doing right now?

HUSAM ZOMLOT: To stop the carnage, first and foremost. A president of the United States of America, and given the Constitution, the making of the U.S., the Bill of Rights of the U.S., your history — a president sitting there seeing all these children, hearing the U.N. secretary-general saying Gaza has become graveyard of children — and I’m sure he sees all these footages — and allowing this, enabling this, spinning this, giving Israel the political, legal, material cover to do this?

You know, every bomb Israel is dropping on our children is American-made. These 2,000-pounds bombs that they have been dropping — and you’ve just quoted their spokespeople saying that, “Oops, these bombs killed many people, when we intended this bomb has more 'collateral damage'” — these are American bombs. So, who’s responsible here? So America would stop this now if they stopped providing Israel with weapons, with bombs, with these lethal weapons that have ended up in the bare bodies of our children. So America is responsible, Amy. It is responsible. And it must stop sending weapons to Israel immediately. And it must stop vetoing our efforts at the Security Council to stop this carnage, this madness.

And by the way, Amy, this madness is not going to stop only on the borders of Israel-Palestine. You are already seeing the region, and, you know, more than six arenas are engaged now, and Israel is bombarding Lebanon, Syria. Yemen is involved. And God knows what will happen next. But also, the effect of this on humanity, I mean, on liberal democracies. Look what is happening in the U.S. Look what is happening in the U.K. and everywhere. There are some politicians who are going out of their way to shield Israel, and, in the process, undermining the very foundation of liberal democracies, like people’s right to protest, to speak, to express, to boycott. In your country, in the U.S., you know, many states have used the power of the law, legislating so people will have to, in a way, sign a contract, if they are going to deal with the federal government or any public body, that they will never boycott anything to do with Israel, even the settlements. Here in the U.K., they’re using the power of the law to make sure that here people will not divest from the illegal settlements, the illegal colonial settlements, according to U.K. law, U.S. law and international law, of course.

So this is a moment when everybody — that’s why, by the way, Amy, you’ve seen the hundreds of thousands of people here — here, behind me, in London — a couple of weeks ago, and you will see many of them, because these millions of people, here and worldwide, have discovered that, actually, Israel is not just oppressing the Palestinians. Israel is oppressing every one of them. Israel is oppressing humanity. Israel is dragging the entire world into this immoral orbit of wars and oppression and suppression of an entire people. And in the process, the world is losing its own international system, i.e. the United Nations, the Security Council, all the rules we created after the Second World War.

What is the international order? What is the essence of the international order? It is that war should not be the first option. That’s the number one rule. That’s why we have Security Council, to prevent wars. Number two, should wars be an option, there are rules for these wars, the Geneva Conventions, one of which is don’t target civilians, and you must protect civilians as an occupier. And number three, there is accountability, should war crimes have been committed. The U.S. has completely destroyed, enabled Israel to destroy all these provisions and rules and premises of the international order.

And, Amy, if you’ll allow me — and this is for the Biden administration to think about very seriously, to think about the impact — the impact — that Israel has normalized the mass murder of children, the mass murder of families and civilians, the mass destruction of hospitals, schools, universities. Normalizing such scenes is going to have severe, severe consequences on our humanity, on how the world will function — not even about the U.S. role.

I think, I believe the U.S. has lost its role, not only in Israel-Palestine. The U.S. will not have standing in the South. The U.S. will not have standing in the East anymore. The U.S. has really made this all about Israel, for reasons beyond our discussion. It’s almost — for many people in the South and in the East, it feels it’s a cultural war waged by the U.S. And Israel is the — you know, that alliance, unbreakable, trumps anything. It trumps our laws. It trumps our humanity. It trumps our security. It trumps our children, trumps everything. And therefore —

AMY GOODMAN: Amba—

HUSAM ZOMLOT: — it’s a moment to pause —

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador, I wanted to ask you about Britain, about the tens of thousands of people who have protested, about Prime Minister Rishi Sunak firing the hard-right Home Secretary Suella Braverman, coming a month after she called Palestinian solidarity marches, quote, “hate marches.” This is what the Prime Minister Sunak said [sic].

SUELLA BRAVERMAN: We’ve seen now tens of thousands of people take to the streets, following the massacre of Jewish —

AMY GOODMAN: This is Suella Braverman.

SUELLA BRAVERMAN: — people, the single largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, chanting for the erasure of Israel from the map. To my mind, there’s only one way to describe those marches: They are hate marches.

AMY GOODMAN: “Hate marches,” Suella Braverman said. And then she was out. The significance of this?

HUSAM ZOMLOT: Very, very significant. The main message is that this country, the people of this country, the British people, will not allow for such divisive politicians and rhetoric and discourse. And the people have really delivered their verdict. I have participated in all these demos, in most of them. I spoke there, and I’ve seen. I’ve seen firsthand. I’ve seen every color, every background. I’ve seen the Christians and the Muslims and the Jewish brothers and sisters, who have been with us for a long time. I’ve seen a moment of unity of the British people delivering their message that “ceasefire now,” “not in our name,” that we have to end this once and for all.

And by the way, this is the power of the people. I must admit, Amy, the position of the U.K. government is very concerning, very regrettable, so far, until now, lagging behind yet the position of the people. The energy of the people is really inspiring and, I must say, very hopeful, because if we go back to history, it’s people who ended up illegalities and oppressions, including the apartheid regime of South Africa. It’s London here that the anti-apartheid movement emanated from. It’s the British people and the American people, the Europeans, the Africans, the Asians, that came together in that global movement and suffocated the apartheid regime, sucked oxygen out of the apartheid regime. And then we saw the end of that regime, and we saw the release of Nelson Mandela. So, the power of the people is important.

And as much as we despise governments’, Western governments’ position, that will be remembered in history, they will be judged through history. As much as we really are appalled by that, we are so inspired, empowered and certain about the power of their people, in the U.K., in the U.S. and everywhere. And I think this is different. Now it’s a moment of confliction. I believe this is a movement in the making that will go all the way to ending Israel’s illegality and occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about what they call the day after, the plan for afterwards. You have Netanyahu canceling the war cabinet meeting. And I was just reading an article in The Times of Israel that says, “In 2019, Yitzhak Ilan, a former deputy head of the Shin Bet” — that’s the Israeli intelligence agency — “who was running for Knesset with the centrist Blue and White party, told a political gathering that Smotrich was a 'Jewish terrorist' who planned to blow up cars on a major highway during the Gaza disengagement. Ilan claimed … he had personally interrogated Smotrich.

“Smotrich … denied any connection to any plan to destroy infrastructure or commit terror offenses.

“Dvir Kariv, who was a senior agent in the Shin Bet at the time, claimed earlier this month in an interview with Channel 12 news that Israeli authorities decided not to prosecute Smotrich and his alleged collaborators because the Shin Bet did not want to expose [its] sources.”

Now, I bring this up because, apparently, the finance minister, the far-right settler, Bezalel Smotrich, is the one who prevented the war cabinet meeting from going, or at least that Netanyahu caved to, afraid he’d lose his coalition, which could mean that he would no longer be prime minister, which could mean he could be going to jail for his own corruption cases. But if you can talk about the cancellation of this war cabinet meeting, and what you want to see happen afterwards?

HUSAM ZOMLOT: Well, the cancellation of the war meeting, whatever it is, is just another expression of how fanatical, how extreme, how supremacist, how dangerous these people are — not only Smotrich. By the way, Smotrich has published a plan — you can read it, it’s online — that he calls — already a few years ago, that he calls for the ethnic cleansing of the rest of Palestinians. He gives us three options: Either we stay as slaves in our own homeland, or we leave en masse — look what they’re doing in Gaza — or we are killed by the army. And he published this. So, this is a man who now handles Israel’s finance. He pays for the settlements. He pays for the army, etc.

But there is a sitting convicted terrorist in the Israeli Cabinet, including Ben-Gvir, who’s now handling the so-called national security, minister of Israel. It’s unbelievable. And, you know, one of the declared aims of war for Netanyahu is to deradicalize the Palestinian people. I mean, who needs to be deradicalized here? Ben-Gvir, who was convicted by an Israeli judge, Israeli court as a terrorist and as a racist.

And, you know, this is a moment when we don’t really waste our time. We should not discuss the day after. The day after is going to be up to the Palestinian people. We have our structures. We have our legitimacy. We have our umbrellas. And we will make sure that the day after would be one in a united people, like, and a united land. Gaza is a part of Palestine. And any day after will have to include Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in one unit. We will not accept Israel’s dreams, daydreaming that Gaza will be carved out, as they have been trying to do for many, many years now. Israel is a beloved part of our territory.

And the thing that we need to discuss, Amy, is the day before. And everybody now is wanting us to discuss the day after. No, the day before, the day before the 7th of October — the occupation, the colonization, the racism, the supremacy, the murders all over the West Bank, the provocations in Jerusalem, the rounding and arresting of our children without trial, without charge, without access to their parents or lawyers. This is what needs to be discussed, the decadeslong oppression, suppression of an entire nation. The denial, the bare, basic denial, of basic rights needs to be discussed. The whole idea that Israel could keep a permanent occupation, permanent colonization, permanent siege, permanent denial of refugees to go back to their homes, with the help of the U.S. administration and the rest of the West, to really bypass the Palestinian issue, that is what we are going to discuss soon, because, you know, for the last so many years, the West has enabled Israel to actually be convinced that it can bypass us, that the Biden — remember the Trump administration. I was the ambassador in Washington during the Trump time, if you remember, Amy. And, you know, the Trump administration —

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what happened.

HUSAM ZOMLOT: The Trump administration has simply, completely gave Israel the stamp of approval to undermine any prospect of a two-state solution and to actually keep believing that they could turn their occupation permanent. But then comes the Biden administration, who promised during the election otherwise, but they failed miserably. They did not reverse any of the Biden — of the Trump’s administration very lethal policies. And, actually, they doubled down on the psychology and on the mindset of bypassing the Palestinian issue. They pushed for further normalization between Israel and the nonconflicting parties, you know, Emirates, what have you, even Saudi Arabia. And the fact is, the Biden administration knows that Israel’s issue is with us, not far away.

So, there are two agendas here. There was one of Netanyahu and co., because successive Israeli governments, which is a nonsolution agenda, as basic as that. And there was the Palestinian and the international agenda, which is, so-called, the two-state solution, i.e. Israel has got to end its occupation.

The Biden administration has got — they did nothing whatsoever in the last three years or so to actually go in that direction. Everything they did was in the opposite direction. And now they are in this mood of trying to curb Israel, but they are failing to do so, because they will not be able to use the stick. They are unable to tell Israel, “We will stop arming you. We will stop funding you. We will stop protecting you in the Security Council.” So Israel is not listening. That’s the unfortunate situation.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador, I want to —

HUSAM ZOMLOT: And the onus will be on the U.S.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to get your response to a tweet posted Thursday by Secretary of State Tony Blinken. He said, “This has been an extraordinarily dangerous year for press around the world. Many killed, many more wounded, hundreds detained, attacked, threatened, injured — simply for doing their jobs. I am profoundly grateful to the press for getting accurate, timely information to people.” He wasn’t talking specifically about what’s happened in Gaza. But I’d like you to address this. You addressed a rally recently where you talked about the astounding number of journalists who have been killed in Gaza. The numbers are believed to be up to something like 105. And the significance of journalists being killed?

HUSAM ZOMLOT: It’s part of Israel’s deliberate targeting of journalists all over. And remember Shireen Abu Akleh. And Mr. Blinken was involved with the case of Shireen Abu Akleh. And yet again, America put its weight behind acquitting Israel of any responsibility about Shireen. And by the way, Shireen is both Palestinian citizen and American citizen. But now this whole —

AMY GOODMAN: The Al Jazeera reporter.

HUSAM ZOMLOT: — targeting — yeah, yeah, yeah, Al Jazeera, but a Palestinian icon, a beloved Palestinian voice of the Palestinian people, a Jerusalemite. And, you know, she’s a most prominent — a most prominent journalist, sniped, killed by an Israeli soldier in Jenin as she was covering live events. And, you know, Mr. Blinken was involved, the U.S. was involved, the FBI was involved, about their own citizen, and nothing came out. Israel is the exception. Everybody just — every U.S. administration has just simply looked the other way when Israel commits crimes. That’s the issue. Israel has been made so immune, above every law, above every single basic human value.

Now, back to your question, this is also part of the suicide — I’m sorry, the sociocide, sociocide of the Palestinian people, because if you kill their doctors, their professors, their journalists, etc., then if you kill their elites and the sectors that provide life, be it health, be it education, be it media — because media is an integral part of any society — then the society will be unable to survive. And go back. More than a hundred journalists have been killed in Gaza, and the count is still going on. So, this is part of making our society simply lifeless, unable to survive, unable to stay.

And let me say this. Maybe this will sound a bit emotional. But it’s not going to happen, because we have a very, very special society, very rooted, very tradition, and knows how to come together in these moments and knows how to survive. We have learned how to survive, since the Nakba of 1948. So, Israel can break all these laws. Israel can break the very basic human values. But it cannot break us. That’s a fact. And look at Gaza. You are following what is happening in Gaza. All what Israel is doing is just exposing the savagery, the barbarism this whole entity is about, and our need to end the idea that you can control things by military means. You can’t control things by military means. You can only control things when you end the illegalities and the occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Husam Zomlot, I want to thank you for being with us, Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, who himself lost family members in Gaza, where he is from.

***

“Utterly Illegal”: U.N. Special Rapporteur Slams Netanyahu’s “Voluntary Migration” Plan for Gazans
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
December 29, 2023
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/29 ... transcript

More United Nations workers have been killed in Israel’s ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip than in any other conflict in the organization’s history. As the death toll for U.N. workers ticks above 136, Israel has announced it will no longer grant automatic visas to U.N. workers, after accusing the organization of being “complicit partners” with Hamas after months of U.N. officials repeatedly calling for a ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, calls Israel’s accusations “baseless” and part of a long pattern of smearing and obstructing the U.N.’s operations in Israel and Palestine.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

As we continue to look at Israel’s assault on Gaza, we’re joined by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory. Earlier this week, she denounced reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed expelling all Palestinians from Gaza.

Israeli news outlets report Netanyahu told a group of Israeli lawmakers Monday, “Regarding voluntary immigration … this is the direction we are going in,” he said.

Palestinian leaders denounced Netanyahu for embracing what they describe as ethnic cleansing.

Earlier this week, Francesca Albanese tweeted, quote, “Voluntary migration? No matter how ISR gvt calls it, Forced Displacement is a CRIME, prosecutable under the Rome Statute. Its architects shall be investigated/prosecuted by @IntlCrimCourt.”

Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Francesca Albanese. Thank you for joining us. Talk about what has been reported as Netanyahu’s plan.

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Good morning, Amy.

Yeah, the plan becomes clearer and clearer. We have heard statements made by Israeli politicians, Israeli military commanders, referring to the need for the Palestinians from Gaza to move south, south first and then more and more south. But at the same time, we have seen soldiers entering the Gaza Strip, saying, quote-unquote, “We destructions to destroy this place and settle.” And the more the time passes, the more it becomes clear that there is a plan in certain corners of the government to repossess Gaza, to reconquest Gaza, and to convert it into an Israeli area. This is pure madness, and it’s utterly illegal.

Now, it’s not new, because forced displacement is the main trait that characterizes Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It has gone through 56 years, not to mention what has happened before.

But now this — I mean, it’s so cynical to call it “voluntary migration” and continue to evoke as the only possibility for the Palestinians in Gaza to survive to move somewhere else, to the Sinai or somewhere else in the Arab region, saying that the Palestinians are Arabs. This is like saying that Italians can go anywhere because they are European. This is so racist, the classic forced displacement. It’s a crime against humanity and cannot be [inaudible]. It should be stopped. It’s shocking to see the silence of the international community in the face of these unfathomable ideas.

AMY GOODMAN: In a post earlier this week, you compared the Israeli assault on Gaza to the genocidal massacres in Srebrenica and Rwanda. Can you explain?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah, actually, I didn’t necessarily compare the two. I’m saying that the international community has been silent and unable to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, to prevent the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Srebrenica, and in the same way it’s looking idle at what’s happening in the Gaza Strip. But it’s worse, because, as the Ambassador Zomlot was saying right before — I think it’s true — this is televised. If people had not realized what the Nakba is, this is ongoing under our eyes, but the genocidal element is more clear.

Here is not about just the displacing people, pushing them out. It’s the killing, the number of killing in the Gaza Strip, which has been turned into an assassination factory, to use an expression by journalists in +972, Israeli journalists in +972. But also, look at what’s going on in the West Bank, where there is no Hamas military control, military presence, and still this year 500 Palestinians have been killed.

So, there is a mass killing of Palestinians ongoing, accompanied by genocidal incitement. And this must be stopped. This triggers an obligation to prevent genocide among member states. But again, no one — no one — seems very preoccupied in the international community, other than human rights actors and, yeah, those concerned with real peace.

AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, you are the U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel has announced it’s going to stop automatically granting visas to employees of the United Nations, after it accused the U.N. of being complicit partners with Hamas. Your response?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Baseless, baseless accusations. I’m appalled onto how these attacks against the U.N. continue to escalate, because, on the one hand, you have two big failures here. And one is induced, and the other is inevitable. The induced one is the political failure of the U.N., because it’s paralyzed because of the political — sorry, of the U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council. They should — I mean, there was — they were close to a vote on the ceasefire, but there was the U.S. veto. And on the other hand, the other failure, which is inevitable, it’s the humanitarian machinery of the U.N. system, which is also under attack. The U.N. should be strengthened. The multilateral system is put — can drag us out and reestablish a minimum, a modicum of order here.

But, look, what Israel is doing is raising the attacks against the U.N. because the U.N. are being increasingly critical in the face of the crimes that Israel commits through and through. But the threatening U.N. staff of withdrawing visas, this is not new. I mean, we have to — for example, those in my position — this is not something about me particularly, but also the three special rapporteurs on the occupied Palestinian territory who have preceded me have not been able to enter the occupied Palestinian territory because of the Israeli decision not to cooperate with the mandate, which is a violation of U.N. member states’ obligation to comply with the U.N., including its investigative mechanisms. Israel behaves the same way with various commissions of inquiries, including the current commission of inquiry on Israel-Palestine.

And more seriously, Israel has basically kicked out, three years ago, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights — this has gone completely in silence — but withdrawing visa to all its international employees, who are operating now from Amman. Such a weird precedent.

Again, this is the thing. The U.N. has also accepted Israel’s hubris to become fatter and fatter. And this is the reality today, that you have Israeli ambassadors and political leaders smearing everyone, especially rapporteurs, committee, commission of inquiries, the U.N. secretary-general, everyone. Where shall we draw the line?

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about information new out this morning. UNRWA has posted on X that this year has been the deadliest year in the West Bank on record, with a total of 504 Palestinians killed this year. I mean, this is for the whole year. It was already the deadliest year before October 7th, when Hamas attacked Israel. Now more than 300, since October 7th, Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed by either Israeli soldiers or settlers.

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, primarily soldiers. And this is one — probably the only issue with an otherwise great report by the U.N. Human Rights Office. It has pointed to the disproportionate, unnecessary use of force through military means, which have resulted, yes, in the killing of 500 people, 500 Palestinians this year, mostly by Israeli soldiers. The emphasis on settler violence, though, while it’s true, shouldn’t distract from the fact that the settlers are there as part of an enterprise, the Israeli enterprise to colonize and annex occupied Palestinian territory, that Israel, as a state, should be held responsible also for the actions of the settlers, which are never prosecuted, by the way.

But again, you know, we have to think that, yes, this has been the deadliest year since 2005, when the U.N. started collecting the data outside of conflict against Gaza. But in Gaza, 4,000 people, including 1,000 children, had been killed in 16 years, during five wars occurred during 16 years of blockade. This is just for those who believe that everything started on the 7th of October. No, it didn’t. The situation was appalling before.

And we have — as special rapporteur, I belong to a community which includes Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations and many scholars who have called for the end of the oppression of the Palestinian people, because — and the end of the annexation and colonization of the occupied territory, because this was the only way to guarantee the security, the safety, the well-being of both Palestinians and Israelis. And we have gone unheard, unfortunately.

AMY GOODMAN: Last question: The role of the United States? In resolution after resolution, they vetoed any call for a ceasefire. The last one, they didn’t veto it, but they abstained once they got the U.N. Security Council not to include ceasefire in the language. Where do you see the U.N. going and the role of the United States in all of this? How powerful, how important is the United States, Francesca?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: The United States is very important, very powerful, very influential, is the only single state that can really change the dynamics between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, not only because the United States provides a lot of means and military aid to Israel, but also because it shelters Israel from its responsibilities, political and legal responsibilities.

Again, yes, the last resolution, I mean, the U.S. managed to water it down to a point that it makes no sense. The only thing that is needed now — and it’s already late — is a ceasefire. So, the fact that the U.S. is still sort of not considering this as an option, because it doesn’t, and it continues to engage with Israel as it was business as usual, shows profound disrespect toward the Palestinian people. And again, this is a level of dehumanization that I’ve never seen in other — I mean, it’s not new from Israel, but it’s new at this level, with this magnitude, like endorsed also in the U.S. but also in Europe. I mean, yeah, there is huge responsibilities, and the U.S. is leading the front of those who could change the reality on the ground and chose not to do so.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you see this ending, in the last minute we have, Francesca Albanese, U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory? As I was just discussing with the Palestinian ambassador in the United Kingdom, Netanyahu just canceled his war cabinet meeting under pressure from the even more far-right finance minister, Smotrich. Where is this headed?

FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I know it’s heading toward further madness, unless and until it’s stopped. And it’s going to be a very heavy, loaded, dark, grim future for both Palestinians and Israelis. So there should be a huge U-turn here and restore international law, basic respect, equality, human rights for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. And it starts with a ceasefire and with a protective presence that allows — that supervises the withdrawal of Israeli troops. This is the moment to end the occupation. And it cannot happen without, I think, a protective presence that guarantees for a while the safety and security of both.

AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, speaking to us from Italy.

[admin]

South Africa Files Case Against Israel at International Court of Justice over “Genocidal” War on Gaza
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 02, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/2/s ... transcript

South Africa has filed a case at the main judicial body for the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. “I believe South Africa will win an order against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinians,” says Francis Boyle, an international human rights lawyer who won two requests at the ICJ under the Genocide Convention of 1948 for provisional protection on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia. Boyle says Israel has a history of listening to the United States’ orders to stop its assaults on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. “We here in the United States of America have the power to stop this.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: As the death toll from Israel’s bombardment of Gaza since the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel now exceeds 22,000, South Africa has filed a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague accusing Israel of genocide and trying to, quote, “destroy Palestinians in Gaza.” This comes as the separate International Criminal Court is already investigating alleged war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas.

In its filing to the ICJ, the main judicial body for the United Nations, South Africa says, quote, “The acts and omissions by Israel complained of by South Africa are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group,” unquote. South Africa accused Israel of violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which Israel has signed on to.

Israel responded by calling the charge, quote, “without legal merit.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry accused South Africa of, quote, “collaborating with a terrorist group that calls for Israel’s annihilation,” unquote.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to racist system of apartheid in his own country which ended in 1994 after nearly half a century. In November, Ramaphosa responded to Israel’s assault on Gaza by recalling South Africa’s diplomats from Israel.

PRESIDENT CYRIL RAMAPHOSA: The collective punishment of Palestinian civilians through the unlawful use of force by Israel is a war crime. The deliberate denial of medicine, fuel, food and water to the residents of Gaza is tantamount to genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, in October, South African lawmaker and the grandson of Nelson Mandela, Nkosi [Zwelivelile] Mandela, joined a Palestinian solidarity protest in Cape Town.

NKOSI ZWELIVELILE MANDELA: Palestinians are counting on each and every one of us to stand and be counted, like they stood side by side with us in the trenches when we fought to liberate our country.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He previously applied the Genocide Convention for Bosnia and won two requests for provisional protection from the ICJ against Yugoslavia, and thinks the same could apply here. His books include The Bosnian People Charge Genocide, as well as Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law and World Politics, Human Rights, and International Law.

Professor Boyle, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s good to have you with us in this new year, but under very serious circumstances. If you can explain why it’s South Africa that’s bringing this charge, and what exactly is the International Court of Justice, where it fits into the world justice system? And talk about the charge of genocide.

FRANCIS BOYLE: Well, thank you very much for having me on, Amy. My best to your listening audience.

Not to toot my own horn here, but I was the first lawyers to win anything under the Genocide Convention from the International Court of Justice, that goes back to 1921. I single-handedly won two World Court orders for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide.

And based on my careful review of all the documents so far submitted by the Republic of South Africa, I believe South Africa will win an order against Israel to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Palestinians. And then we will have an official determination by the International Court of Justice itself, the highest legal authority in the United Nations system, that genocide is going on. And under Article I of the Genocide Convention, all contracting parties, 153 states, will then be obliged, quote, “to prevent,” unquote, the genocide by Israel against the Palestinians.

Second, when the World Court gives this cease-and-desist order against Israel, the Biden administration will stand condemned under Article III, paragraph (e), of the Genocide Convention, that criminalizes complicity in genocide. And clearly we know that the Biden administration has been aiding and abetting Israeli genocide against the Palestinians here for quite some time. This has also been raised by my friends in the Center for Constitutional Rights and in the National Lawyers Guild in a lawsuit against Biden, Blinken and Austin.

So, I believe we will be able to use the World Court order. Right now my sources tell me the hearing will be January 11, January 12. Based on my experience with the Bosnians, we can expect an order within a week.

I would also say, with respect to the Biden administration, they are currently in violation of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, that makes genocide a crime under United States law. And again, once we — South Africa wins this order, the Biden administration also will stand in violation of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act.

So, I believe this is where we will be going between now, I would say, and the end of this month. And it is up to all of us, as American citizens, to figure out and support what South Africa is doing at the International Court of Justice here.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Francis Boyle, what’s the difference between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, which is already considering allegations of war crimes by both Israel as well as the Palestinian militant groups?

FRANCIS BOYLE: Right, Juan. The International Court of Justice was originally established back in 1921, its predecessor, legal predecessor, in law. And that is where I filed the genocide case. I was the first lawyer ever to win two orders in one such case since the World Court was founded in 1921, and it was on the basis of the Genocide Convention. The International Criminal Court is a separate international organization, set up in 2000.

The problem, Juan, is this. Back in 2009, after Operation Cast Lead, I advised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court — of the International Criminal Court for Palestine, which he did. I regret to report that the International Criminal Court has not done one darn thing to help the Palestinians since 2009. The International Criminal Court has all the blood of the Palestinian people on its hands since 2009. And, Juan, that is why we set up a campaign to find a state willing to file a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice, the World Court.

The ICC basically operates at the behest of its funders and founders and masters, which is the U.S., the NATO states, the European states, etc. Until their expedited indictment of President Putin as U.S.-NATO lawfare against Russia, the International Criminal Court had not indicted one American, one European, one Brit, one NATO citizen and one Israeli, and one white person.

So, we’ve gone — we have a campaign now to support the Republic of South Africa at the International Court of Justice. And we are asking — we’re starting this campaign today. I’m part of a coalition. We’re starting this campaign today to get members of the Genocide Convention to file declarations of intervention at the World Court in support and solidarity with South Africa against Israel and in support of the Palestinians. That material hopefully will go out today.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Francis, I wanted to ask you, though — Joan Donoghue is the president of the International Court of Justice. She previously worked in the U.S. State Department. How do you think she will approach South Africa’s application? What power does she have to shape the proceedings?

FRANCIS BOYLE: That’s a good question, Juan. Yes, Donoghue is a lifelong, careerlong U.S. State Department legal apparatchik, which is how she got the job. And I am sure she’s in contact right now today with the U.S. State Department, giving them a heads-up on everything going on over there at The Hague behind the scenes. She will toe the State Department party line in these proceedings. I regret to report the president does have a lot of power there to shape these proceedings. I suspect she will use that power to shape the proceedings in favor of Israel.

However, I have also been advised that the Republic of South Africa is, as of now, nominating a judge ad hoc. That is their right under the statute of the International Court of Justice. I don’t have a name yet, but I would hope the South African judge ad hoc will do his or her best to try to keep Donoghue straight.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to South Africa, who has done this genocide filing. In 2008, I had the opportunity to speak with the South African anti-apartheid icon, the Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu. I caught up with him at the South African vice consul’s apartment in New York right before Archbishop Tutu received the Global Citizens Circle award. I asked him about Palestine.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you compare the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank to apartheid South Africa?

ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU: I have to speak about what I know. I mean, most people — a Jew will usually speak about their experiences and maybe compare whatever it is that is happening with what happened in the days of the Holocaust. For me, coming from South Africa and going — I mean, and looking at the checkpoints and the arrogance of those young soldiers, probably scared, maybe covering up their apprehension, there’s no way in which I couldn’t say — of course, that is a truth. It reminds me — it reminds me of the kind of experiences that we underwent.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Francis Boyle, talk about the significance of it being South Africa and what it means for one state to bring a charge against another state. Who are signatories here? And how binding is this? Explain what happened, for example, in Bosnia.

FRANCIS BOYLE: Sure. Well, first, the connection there with the late, great Archbishop Tutu, the current lead counsel now in the lawsuit for South Africa is professor John Dugard, a longtime friend of mine. Professor Dugard was one of the very few courageous white professors of international law who internationally opposed the criminal apartheid system in South Africa, at risk to his life. Second, later on, Professor Dugard became U.N. special rapporteur for Palestine. I read all of his reports. They are excellent. Professor Dugard’s heart and head are in the right place with the Palestinians, and he is one of the top professors of international law in the world.

So, there is a direct comparison between the Israeli apartheid system on all the Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, and what happened in apartheid South Africa. Indeed, Professor Dugard has written that the Israeli system of apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners applied to the Black people in South Africa.

I was involved in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and that is my assessment, too. Indeed, the parallels here then led me, in November 2000, to call for the establishment, in a speech — the establishment of the divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel, for the exact same reasons we had a divestment/disinvestment campaign against the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. And then, in 2005, Palestinian civil society contacted me to go in with them on establishing the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, against apartheid Israel, for the exact same reason we had a BDS campaign against the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa.

So, Tutu, Dugard, I and, I would — Ramaphosa, the foreign minister in South Africa, who’s made very compelling speeches, they all understand what’s going on here and what’s at stake.

AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of genocide in Bosnia, if you could explain, for people who are not familiar with what happened? And then what came of the charges at the International Court of Justice?

FRANCIS BOYLE: Yes. Well, Yugoslavia exterminated about 200,000 Bosnians, raped about 40,000 Bosnian women. I was the lawyer for all of them, arguing their case at the International Court of Justice. And I won these two orders on 8 April, 1993, and 13 September, 1993. Until I won that order, 8 April, 1993, everyone was denying that genocide was going on. And once I won that order, that was massive and overwhelming in favor of the Bosnians, no one could deny anymore that genocide was going on.

As for the effectiveness, when I walked out of the World Court on 8 April, 1993, and won that order, I walked into the foyer there outside the grand courtroom. The whole world news media were there. And I said at the time, “The World Court has just determined that genocide is going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under Article I, every state party to the Genocide Convention has an obligation to prevent genocide in Bosnia. And I hereby request direct military intervention by the United States and the NATO states to save the Bosnians from genocide.” Later that day, the United States and NATO announced that they were instituting a no-fly zone, enforcing a no-fly zone over Bosnia. So these orders by the World Court can have consequences.

And it will be up to us here in the United States to devise the strategy for consequences for the Biden administration, because we have to pressure the Biden administration to order Israel to stop the genocide. They will do what we Americans tell them to do. In Operation Cast Lead, that had been going on for a period of time under President Bush Jr., Obama — the Obama people were coming into power. Obama was about to be inaugurated. And in order not to spoil Obama’s inauguration, the United States government told Israel to stop Operation Cast Lead. So we have to understand we here in the United States of America have the power to stop this. But we have to figure out how to use the order that South Africa will win here in the United States of America.

This is exactly what happened in Nicaragua. You’ll remember, Amy, I was involved in advising almost every peace NGO and lawyer here in the United States on the legal issues with respect to Reagan’s war against Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala. My teacher, mentor and friend, the late, great Abe Chayes at Harvard Law School, won a World Court order against the Reagan administration in 1984, and then also a final judgment on the merits in 1986. We here in the United States used that World Court order and the final judgment to stop Reagan’s war against Nicaragua. Regretfully, 16,000 —

AMY GOODMAN: We have 20 seconds.

FRANCIS BOYLE: Regretfully, 16,000 Nicaraguans were killed, including U.S. citizen Ben Linder, but we did stop that. And I believe that with this World Court order that South Africa will win, we can stop what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. His books include The Bosnian People Charge Genocide, Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law, as well as World Politics, Human Rights, and International Law.

[admin]

From Plagiarism to Gaza: Khalil Gibran Muhammad on How a GOP Campaign Ousted Harvard’s Claudine Gay
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 03, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/3/h ... transcript

We look at the resignation of Harvard University President Claudine Gay, the first African American and second woman to lead the Ivy League school, after conservative-led allegations of plagiarism and backlash over her testimony at a congressional hearing on antisemitism that is part of a broader effort to censor pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses. “This is a terrible moment for higher education,” says Khalil Gibran Muhammad, professor of history, race and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He says plagiarism became a “pretext” to oust Gay, and discusses the larger right-wing war on education aimed at undoing progress on race, gender and addressing inequality.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

The first African American and second woman to lead Harvard University resigned Tuesday after allegations of plagiarism and backlash over her testimony at a congressional hearing on antisemitism last month that’s part of a broader effort to restrict pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses. Claudine Gay’s six-month tenure is the shortest of any Harvard president in history. Claudine Gay will remain at Harvard as a tenured professor of government and African and African American studies.

In a letter Tuesday, she wrote, quote, “It has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor — two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am — and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus,” she wrote.

The plagiarism allegations against President Gay were part of a campaign started last month, led in part by conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who cheered her resignation on X, writing in all capital letters, ”SCAPLED” [sic]. The conservative website The Washington Free Beacon published new plagiarism allegations against Gay Tuesday. One of the authors Rufo accused Gay of plagiarizing was her thesis adviser, Gary King, who has dismissed the allegations, telling The Daily Beast, quote, “There’s not a conceivable case that this is plagiarism. … Her dissertation and every draft I read of it met the highest academic standards,” he said.

The Harvard Corporation issued a statement Tuesday, saying Gay, quote, “acknowledged missteps” and showed, quote, “remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks,” unquote.

Claudine Gay’s resignation comes after the University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill also resigned, just days after the two appeared, along with MIT President Sally Kornbluth, at a congressional hearing led by right-wing Republican Congressmember Elise Stefanik. This is Stefanik questioning President Gay.

CLAUDINE GAY: … free speech extends —

REP. ELISE STEFANIK: It’s a yes-or-no question. Let me ask you this. You are president of Harvard, so I assume you’re familiar with the term “intifada,” correct?

CLAUDINE GAY: I have heard that term, yes.

REP. ELISE STEFANIK: And you understand that the use of the term “intifada” in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?

CLAUDINE GAY: That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me. …

REP. ELISE STEFANIK: Well, let me ask you this: Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say “from the river to the sea” or “intifada,” advocating for the murder of Jews.

CLAUDINE GAY: As I have said, that type of hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me.

AMY GOODMAN: That was last month. On Tuesday, Congressmember Stefanik celebrated Gay’s resignation on social media, writing in all caps, ”TWO DOWN.” Stefanik added this is, quote, “just the beginning of what will be the greatest scandal of any college or university in history,” and vowed to hold more hearings.

Congressmember Stefanik is a major Trump ally and a Harvard alumna who was removed from a Harvard advisory board in 2021 over her comments about voter fraud in the 2020 election that had, quote, “no basis in evidence.”

Meanwhile, the conservative activist Christopher Rufo announced Tuesday evening he was, quote, “contributing an initial $10,000 to a 'plagiarism hunting' fund.”

For more on all of this, we’re joined by Khalil Gibran Muhammad, professor of history, race and public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. He’s the author of The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America.

Professor, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. First, if you can respond to, and were you surprised by, the resignation of Claudine Gay yesterday?

KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD: Thanks, Amy, for having me on.

I have to admit I wasn’t surprised, but I was extremely disappointed. This is a terrible moment for higher education. Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania are just the beginning. The political attacks that you’ve just profiled by Elise Stefanik and most other members of the House committee that held those hearings on December 5th have actually declared war on the independence, on academic freedom, on the truth of American history and our present at all colleges and universities, just as Governor DeSantis has done in Florida and Greg Abbott has done in Texas and other governors and legislative bodies in many other states.

This is the next step in now a three-year-long campaign to destroy this country’s capacity to address its past and its present, to deal with the structural racism, the systemic inequalities that cause premature death amongst millions of Americans every year. And right now the Republicans and their allies are winning.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you can put Claudine Gay in context? The first Black president, the first Black woman president, the second woman to lead Harvard University, now her presidency is the shortest in Harvard’s history. And put it in the context of the whole attack on DEI, the whole attack on critical race theory. And if you can talk about this campaign by Stefanik, by Rufo, as they go from the congressional hearing, which didn’t succeed in taking her down, to this issue of plagiarism?

KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD: OK. Well, let me start with the fact that Harvard is the oldest, wealthiest, most prestigious university in this country and globally. So, for almost 400 years, Harvard has systematically excluded white women and people of color, by and large, from its hallowed corridors, from entering its gates. That’s just an absolute fact, a fact that the university, under the previous president, Larry Bacow, admitted to in a report called the Harvard Legacy of Slavery report, that was issued just over a year ago, a report that points out precisely how not only did the university exclude people of color from getting an education, but in fact collected the bodies of Indigenous people and enslaved people for scientific research, and led, into the 20th century, calls for scientific racism that helped to construct the racial hierarchies that we still live with in this country today. That’s Harvard’s own history as a leader.

So the very university that finally arrived at a moment where it not only reckoned with its own history, but also recognized the talent is universal and that the best of us actually have the ability to move this country and world forward, in a time when the planet is literally on fire and most people who will suffer most from that will be people of color, that is the context that brought Claudine Gay to the presidency. And she was ably and excellently qualified for that role. She had proven herself in previous administrative roles as a dean of the largest school on Harvard’s campus.

So, when we put that in context, the affirmative action decision last June was the first victory for the conservative right in this country to dismantle the very possibility that people like Claudine Gay would have the qualifications, the Harvard and Stanford degrees, necessary to take on such positions. And so, within that political context, the attack on affirmative action is one example of what’s been going on, which is 30 years old, a battle. But additionally, and more proximate to this moment, people like Christopher Rufo in late 2020, in response to George Floyd’s killing, have initiated an effort, what we would call a whitelash or a backlash, forms of misinformation to essentially define a body of knowledge known as critical race theory, that is the intellectual basis for understanding how systemic and structural racism work, as anti-American, as Marxist, as a threat to American civilization. And that led to 24 states criminalizing the teaching of history in all its truth about race, about racism, about sex, about gender. That led to the banning of DEI in places like Florida and, to some degree, in Texas.

And what we saw happen here with this campaign against Claudine Gay, where plagiarism became the pretext, kind of like a Black motorist with tinted windows being stopped only to look for drugs so that they could be incarcerated as part of a war on Black people during mass incarceration, that is the context where Christopher Rufo, who initiated the critical race theory, anti-woke campaign, has now culminated in yet another victory with taking down Claudine Gay over a very, very minor offense within academic context.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Khalil Gibran Muhammad, professor of history, race and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. I want to turn to an op-ed published in The Harvard Crimson by Bernie Steinberg. He was the executive — he was the executive director of Harvard Hillel from 1993 to 2010. It’s headlined “For the Safety of Jews and Palestinians, Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism.” In his essay, Steinberg supports President Gay.

He wrote, quote, “During my long career as a Jewish educator and leader — including thirteen years living in Jerusalem — I have seen and lived through my community’s struggles. Now, as an elder leader, with the benefit of hindsight, I feel compelled to speak to what I see as a disturbing trend gripping our campus, and many others: The cynical weaponization of antisemitism by powerful forces who seek to intimidate and ultimately silence legitimate criticism of Israel and of American policy on Israel.

“In most cases, it takes the form of bullying pro-Palestine organizers. In other [cases], these campaigns persecute anyone who simply doesn’t show due deference to the bullies.”

Steinberg continued, quote, “The recent effort to smear our new University President, Claudine Gay, is a case in point. I applaud the decision by the Harvard Corporation to stand by Dr. Gay amid the ludicrous charges that she somehow supports genocide against Jews, and I hope Harvard will continue to take a clear and strong stance against any further efforts by these powerful parties to meddle in university affairs, especially over personnel decisions.”

Now, again, those are the words of Bernie Steinberg, who was the executive director of Harvard Hillel from 1993 to 2010. Of course, this was before the resignation of Claudine Gay. And we can only assume that the Harvard Corporation, the kind of board of overseers of Harvard, made a deal with her, you know, helped to force her out. So, they had first supported her, and now, with tremendous pressure also from billionaire donors, she is out. If you can talk about the significance of Harvard Hillel — the former head of Harvard Hillel talking about the weaponization of antisemitism as a way to suppress dissent over what Israel is doing in Gaza right now, Professor Muhammad?

KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD: Well, I think that his comments and his testimony in the op-ed that he wrote from his vantage point speaks very clearly to the absence of a balanced discussion about Claudine Gay’s testimony, as was true of the two other presidents, Liz Magill and Kornbluth. The truth is that they all performed as they should have. They spoke clearly and directly to personally condemning expressions of antisemitism, of which “intifada,” by definition, is not necessarily, which we could talk about more. But putting that aside, they were following the instructions of general counsel and, likely, the board chairs of their various universities. In the case of Claudine Gay, for example, you can see Alan Garber, who is now the current president, the interim president, sitting behind her in glasses and a beard, almost mouthing her responses, because as second in charge of the university, they were both prepared to explain the current policies that deal with hate speech and academic freedom.

And so, what Mr. Steinberg is talking about is the context in which that entire hearing was a setup, where there was no correct answer to a lawful question, a legal question, about whether or not certain forms of speech violate the code of conduct. It always depends. And the weaponization of Jews in this case, as he described in his op-ed, suggested to me, in watching that hearing for five hours and 40 minutes, that people like Virginia Foxx had no intention of extending protections to Jews at Harvard or anywhere else. This was a setup to take down DEI and antiracism and all of the other things that the right has been going after, because that’s what she said when she opened the hearing. She described the hearing as a case of people like me teaching classes which she identified in her opening remarks as the real problem, as a prime example of antiracism and critical race theory creating institutional antisemitism. That’s a lie. It’s a form of fascist propaganda. I actually teach about antisemitism in that class.

And so, what Mr. Steinberg is describing is exactly what is happening here. Jews have been used as a wedge for the right to take down all the entire edifice that has been put in place to deal with structural racism in the society.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel a chill at the Kennedy School? What about other African American professors? Your response to Christopher Rufo cheering the resignation of Gay, writing the word “scalped”?

KHALIL GIBRAN MUHAMMAD: Well, listen, I mean, you know, speaking of history, in order to even understand that reference, one would have to understand the war against Indigenous people, the genocide committed against them and forms of settler colonialism that birthed this country. This is an evocation of that history in Christopher Rufo, who is leading the charge against people like me, against Claudine Gay, against everyone who works in a university who believes in truth and justice and a future that is better than our past.

It’s not an accident that in the same news week that ultimately brings us the resignation of Claudine Gay, Nikki Haley was on tape being a slavery denier. I mean, this is the debate we’re having in this country about whether you can actually be honest about the country in all of its complexity. No one is saying that is the whole story, that all the terrible things that happened in the past are the only thing that matters. But the truth is that in half the states — let me repeat — you can’t teach that. And the way things are going now, you won’t be able to teach it at private universities, either.

***

Assassination of Hamas Official in Lebanon Raises Risk of Israel’s War on Gaza Expanding Across Region
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 03, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/3/i ... transcript

A top Hamas official was assassinated in a suburb of Beirut on Tuesday amid growing fears that Israel’s war on Gaza could entangle Lebanon and other countries in the region. Hamas’s deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri was killed in a suspected Israeli drone strike that also killed six other members of Hamas, though Israel has not confirmed its involvement. “What many analysts in the region are concluding is that Israel clearly would like to see greater regional escalation,” says analyst Mouin Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya and host of the Connections podcast. He says that while it’s not certain that the war will expand, particularly because the U.S. is intent to contain the fighting, “the confidence Israel has that it can do as it pleases and not suffer any consequences for any of its actions is the key variable here.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

Fears of a regional war in the Middle East are growing after a top Hamas official was assassinated in a Beirut, Lebanon, suburb Tuesday. Hamas’s deputy leader, Saleh al-Arouri, was killed in a suspected Israeli drone strike that also killed, it’s believed, six other Hamas members. Al-Arouri was the chief of Hamas’s operations in the occupied West Bank, also credited with strengthening ties between Hamas and the Lebanese group Hezbollah.

While Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination, one prominent Israeli lawmaker congratulated the Mossad and Shin Bet on social media. An Israeli army spokesperson said the military is in a, quote, “very high state of readiness in all arenas, in defense and offense,” unquote.

At the United Nations, a spokesperson for the U.N. secretary-general urged nations to show restraint.

FLORENCIA SOTO NINO: Because of the escalating tensions and the fragility of the situation in the region, we are calling for maximum restraint from all parties. We don’t want any — any rash actions that could trigger further violence.

AMY GOODMAN: Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati condemned the drone strike, warning the attack, quote, “aims to draw Lebanon into a new phase of confrontations,” unquote.

The assassination came a day before the fourth anniversary of the U.S. assassination of the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike inside Iraq under the Trump administration January 3rd, 2020. Earlier today, at least 73 people were killed in a pair of bomb blasts in Iran near Soleimani’s tomb during an event marking his death. A hundred seventy-three, at least, were injured in the blast, which local officials describe as a terrorist act.

We’re joined right now by Mouin Rabbani. He is Middle East analyst, co-editor of Jadaliyya and host of the Connections podcast. He was previously a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group. His latest piece for Mondoweiss is headlined “The long history of Zionist proposals to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip.”

We’re going to begin with what’s happened in Lebanon and the significance of it. Thanks so much for being with us, Mouin Rabbani.

MOUIN RABBANI: Good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you can talk about the assassination of the Hamas leader and what exactly this means, who al-Arouri is — was?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, Saleh al-Arouri was a West Bank founder of the military wing of Hamas, the Qassam, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. He spent many years in Israeli prisons and was then deported, most recently was living in Beirut, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, effectively under Hezbollah protection. He was a key liaison between Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and also with the Iranian government. He’s said to have been close with Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif, respectively, the political and military leaders of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the architects of the Hamas attacks of October 7th.

So, I think this assassination is significant in two respects. First of all, that Israel has managed to assassinate the senior leader of Hamas, and measured against their failure to really achieve anything of military significance in the Gaza Strip over the course of the last three months, this can be considered a significant achievement for them, although I think its impact on Hamas as an organization, apart from a serious blow to their morale, I don’t think there will be much consequence.

The second and perhaps more important is that Hezbollah has clearly identified any such act by Israel on Lebanese territory, and particularly in the capital Beirut, as a redline to which Hezbollah will respond with a significant escalation. And although Hezbollah is known to be very strategic in its actions and not to be impulsive in its reactions, I think a response is inevitable. And the question people are asking now is whether it will respond in a way that maintains the kind of controlled escalatory ladder between Hezbollah and Israel or whether Israel’s assassination has now set in motion a process that will lead to full-scale war, not only between Israel and Lebanon, but perhaps also a wider regional conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you know about the others who were killed in this attack?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, seven people in all were assassinated yesterday. In addition to Arouri, there were two commanders of the Qassam Brigades, the Hamas military wing, in addition to four other Hamas cadres. It’s quite clear that Arouri was the key target.

And I think one thing that requires explanation from Hamas’s side is how these seven people were meeting in a Hamas office in Beirut at a time when it was very clear that Arouri was wanted, not only by Israel, but also by the United States, which approximately a decade ago put a price on his head, and why they didn’t take greater precautions in terms of operational security, that allowed Israel to book this achievement. And some are even, you know, describing it as an own goal by Hamas, at a time when it is denying Israel any significant military achievements in the Gaza Strip.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what does this mean for a wider regional, perhaps, war? I mean, you have, I think, privately, the U.S. has been reaching out to leadership in Lebanon. This then takes place, not clear what the U.S. knowledge of this was. You have — at the time of this broadcast, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, has not yet spoken, but he’s expected to give a major address. The significance of this attack, on the killing of the Hamas — some of the Hamas leadership?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, I think what many analysts in the region are concluding is that Israel clearly would like to see greater regional escalation, and that a key reason it would like to see this escalation is because it knows that it will enjoy the support and, eventually perhaps, the participation of the United States in that escalation. To be clear, Washington has indicated to Israel that one of its main priorities is to prevent precisely the kind of regional escalation that we may now be about to witness. But Israel, I think, also understands that although it is acting in contradiction to U.S. policy preferences, that it can essentially do as it pleases, because, apart from a potential verbal slap on the wrist, there will be no consequences from either the United States or from key European governments, and so, therefore, it can continue on this path.

And you mentioned the terrorist attack in Kerman, in Iran, today near the grave of Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, who was assassinated by the United States. And I think — ultimately, I think Israel’s ideal situation would be one in which it is able to draw the United States into a direct confrontation with Iran. I don’t think it’s a likely scenario at this point, but it’s one that’s becoming increasingly plausible as we see intensified genocide, not only in Gaza, but also these kinds of greater escalations in Lebanon, in the Red Sea, in Yemen, and in Iraq, in Syria, and now potentially elsewhere, as well. So, I think a regional war is very much on the cards. It’s by no means a certainty. But I do think the confidence Israel has that it can do as it pleases and not suffer any consequences for any of its actions is the key variable here.

***

“Voluntary Migration” or Ethnic Cleansing? Mouin Rabbani on Israel’s Push to Expel Residents of Gaza
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 03, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/3/i ... transcript

Dutch Palestinian policy analyst Mouin Rabbani says Israel is using the Hamas attack of October 7 as a pretext to carry out its “long-standing ambition” to push Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip. He notes Israeli officials started proposing mass displacement of civilians to Egypt and other countries almost immediately after fighting began, and that this reflects Zionist policy since even before the founding of the state of Israel. “Ethnic cleansing, or what Zionists would call transfer, is intrinsic to Zionist and later Israeli policy towards the Palestinians from the very outset,” says Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya and host of the Connections podcast. His latest piece for Mondoweiss is headlined “The long history of Zionist proposals to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Mouin Rabbani, I want to ask you about your new piece for Mondoweiss headlined “The long history of Zionist proposals to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip.” Israeli news outlets report that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told a group of Israeli lawmakers last week, quote, “Regarding voluntary immigration … this is the direction we are going in,” Netanyahu said. Israel’s minister of national security, the man who’s been convicted of terrorism, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has made similar comments.

ITAMAR BEN-GVIR: [translated] The solution of encouraging the residents of Gaza to emigrate is one that we must advance. It’s the right, just, moral and humane solution. I call on the prime minister and the new foreign minister, who I congratulate on his appointment: Now is the time to coordinate an emigration project, a project to encourage the residents of Gaza to emigrate to the countries of the world. Let’s be clear: We have partners around the world whose help we can use. There are people around the world with whom we can advance this idea. Encouraging their emigration will allow us to bring home the residents of the communities near the Gaza border and the residents of the Gush Katif settlements.

AMY GOODMAN: Those were the words of Israel’s minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir. On Tuesday, the U.S. State Department issued a statement rejecting Ben-Gvir’s comment, as well as those made by Bezalel Smotrich. Meanwhile, The Times of London reports Israeli officials have held secret talks with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and several other countries to take in Palestinians from Gaza. If you can talk about the history of this, Mouin? And also talk about when they refer to “voluntary migration” in Gaza. And also talk about Egypt and the pressure that’s being brought to bear on Egypt to open its borders to the Palestinians of Gaza.

MOUIN RABBANI: Yes, and voluntary immigration is now, referencing that article you mentioned, being marketed as humanitarian emigration. In other words, we’re doing these people a favor by ethnically cleansing them.

I think the problem here is that many people associate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians with the Israeli extreme right, with people like Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, Netanyahu and so on. But the point I was seeking to make in that article, which is actually a lengthy Twitter thread that I then posted on Mondoweiss, is that ethnic cleansing, or what Zionists would call transfer, is intrinsic to Zionist and later Israeli policy towards the Palestinians from the very outset.

So, as early as 1895, Theodor Herzl, the founder of the contemporary political Zionist movement, wrote that we need to “spirit the penniless population across the borders” and find employment for it in other lands. If you go to the period between the British Mandate and the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, you find that the Zionist movement set up a Transfer Committee, with very clear terms of reference, to ensure that refugees who were expelled would not be able to return to Palestine, to destroy their villages, and things of that sort. And the Gaza Strip, in fact, with a population that consists of more than three-quarters of Palestinian refugees who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, has, since the 1950s, been a key target for depopulation by Israel, because it doesn’t want all these refugees living within sight, so to speak, of their former homes on its borders. And it has produced a number of proposals and initiatives over the years to achieve that goal, including even one in the late 1960s to send over some 60,000 Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Paraguay, in return for which the Mossad would discover that it no longer had the resources to hunt Nazi fugitives being sheltered by the Stroessner regime.

So, my point was really to demonstrate that this is not a recent policy proposal by the extreme fringes of the Israeli political spectrum, but has been intrinsic to mainstream Zionism and later Israeli policy from the very outset.

AMY GOODMAN: You say at the end of your piece, Mouin Rabbani, “As importantly, the 1948 Nakba did not defeat the Palestinians, who initiated their struggle from the camps of exile, those in the Gaza Strip most prominently among them. It would take a Blinken level of foolishness to assume the expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip would produce a different outcome.” Talk about Netanyahu’s goal to de-Hamasify Gaza, and what exactly that means, and the effect of the killing, at this point, of over 22,000 Palestinians.

MOUIN RABBANI: Yes. Well, that takes me back to the second part of your previous question, which I had neglected to answer, which is that at the outset of the current war, Israel saw that it had unqualified, unconditional Western support from its U.S. and European sponsors, and resurrected this long-standing ambition to cleanse the Gaza Strip of Palestinians.

And the proposal that was put front and center, literally on October 7th and onwards, was to move the population of the Gaza Strip to the Sinai Desert, to Egypt. And this was an idea that was very enthusiastically embraced by the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And on his first trip to the region, he actually sought to market this to Washington’s Arab allies. And I think, you know, he is somewhat of a clueless airhead when it comes to the Middle East. And I think he was expecting to hear from U.S. allies, Arab allies, you know, “How can we help you help our Israeli friends?” And instead he was met with categorical refusal and rejection for this proposal, first and foremost by Egypt.

And the U.S. and European governments later came out with a position that they would oppose forced displacement from the Gaza Strip, leaving open the possibility of what we’re seeing now, an Israeli military campaign, a primary objective of which is to make the Gaza Strip unfit for human habitation, and then the encouragement of voluntary, or what is now even being called humanitarian, emigration in order to achieve the ethnic cleansing. And I think the genocide that we’re now seeing in the Gaza Strip — and this is something, of course, that’s going to be adjudicated by the International Court of Justice in The Hague after South Africa recently made an application under the Genocide Convention — you know, all these things put together making the Gaza Strip unfit for human habitation.

AMY GOODMAN: Mouin Rabbani, we’re going to have to leave it there. I thank you so much for being with us, Middle East analyst, co-editor of Jadaliyya. We’ll link to your piece, “The long history of Zionist proposals to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip.”

[admin]

Deadly Bombing in Iran Kills Dozens as Tensions Rise Across the Middle East
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 04, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/4/i ... transcript

Twin explosions in the Iranian province of Kerman killed dozens and injured hundreds Wednesday at a memorial for top Revolutionary Guards general Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in a U.S. drone strike four years ago in Iraq. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, but Iran has placed blame on Israel and the U.S, while U.S. officials and regional experts have suggested ISIS as the culprit. Our guest, Iranian historian Arash Azizi, discusses the potential sources of the attack, the scale of the tragedy — which occurred on Mother’s Day in Iran and may count among its victims civilians visiting their mothers’ graves — and fears of wider war in the midst of Israel’s ongoing violence in Gaza. Azizi, who has authored a book on Soleimani’s assassination, calls the double blast “one of the deadliest — if not the deadliest — attacks of its kind in recent history.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Iran is observing a national day of mourning as the death toll from twin explosions Wednesday has reached 84, with many others injured. The blasts in south-central Kerman province killed attendees to a memorial for top Revolutionary Guards General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in a U.S. drone strike four years ago in Iraq. This is a survivor who was being treated in a nearby hospital.

SURVIVOR: [translated] I suddenly felt a burn in my back. And then, when I tried to move, I couldn’t.

REPORTER: [translated] What happened?

SURVIVOR: [translated] I just remember hearing the sound of an explosion.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but Iran has placed blame on Israel and the U.S. The White House said the Islamic State could be behind the bloody bombings, and rejected claims Israel or the U.S. was involved.

The tragedy comes amid mounting fears that Israel’s war on Gaza could lead to a wider regional conflict. One day before the blasts, a senior Hamas leader and Iran ally, Saleh al-Arouri, was killed in a strike in southern Beirut, which Lebanese officials blamed on Israel. And earlier today, a drone strike killed four members of an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia in Baghdad. Iraqi authorities have blamed the U.S.-led international coalition for the attack.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Arash Azizi, Iranian historian and writer. His book is titled The Shadow Commander: Soleimani, the U.S., and Iran’s Global Ambitions. His recent piece in The National is headlined “Who are the likely suspects in the Kerman blasts, and what does this mean for Iran?” His forthcoming book, out next, is titled What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom.

Thanks so much for joining as, Arash Azizi. Can you start off by talking about the significance of these two attacks in Iran? No one has yet claimed responsibility, but what you think this looks like?

ARASH AZIZI: These are really terrible attacks if you look at the death toll, although the death toll is actually being readjusted, with lower now. Now it’s between eighties and nineties, but it still makes it one of the deadliest — if not the deadliest — attack of its kind in recent history, perhaps even in sort of modern Iranian history. So they’re truly terrible.

And, of course, they do come at a time when the region is very tense. There’s been a shadow war between Iran and Israel and the United States for many years now, but especially in the last few months. And the anniversary of Soleimani’s killing four years ago is already a very tense day, because, you know, it involves a lot of groups in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Iran and Israel, Syria. A lot of them are linked to Soleimani in one way or the other. So it’s a very tense time, and the attack comes at that time.

Now, it is true that we don’t really know who did the attack yet. No one has really claimed it yet. A lot of experts that I’ve spoken to, and myself looking at the existing evidence, believe that it’s sort of — the likely culprit, in my opinion, is to be the Islamic State, particularly its group, its regional group, based in Afghanistan, known as ISIS-Khorasan, in Khorasan province. And this is a group that because of the kind of attacks that it did, kind of a mass civilian killing, because of the — you know, putting the bombs in briefcases, and some of the more — you know, some of the more specific methods used and the targets that they’ve picked, this makes them to be the most likely culprit that have committed the attacks.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Arash, can you explain — I mean, you’ve written this book on Qassem Soleimani — the significance of this attack taking place on the day, the fourth anniversary of his death, as people were gathering in his burial place, where his body is? But why would the Islamic State, as you said, Islamic State-Khorasan — why would they — what would be the incentive for them to carry out an attack now in the midst, as you say, of the — what’s going on in Gaza, just — the attack now in Kerman taking place just a day after al-Arouri was assassinated in Beirut? Why Islamic State?

ARASH AZIZI: You know, it’s likely that they might have planned this attack long ago. It might have also been more recent, but certainly longer than al-Arouri’s assassination. So it might not be directly sort of related to that, so they probably planned it a while ago.

Now, this group has tried to gain power in Afghanistan in recent years. They are also an adversary of the Taliban regime there, which they see it as some sort of a — in some sort of a tacit alliance with Iran, although the Taliban regime and the Islamic Republic of Iran have a complicated relationship, but they’ve sometimes worked together in the last couple of years, although Iran doesn’t even officially recognize it as the government of Afghanistan. But this group has tried to raise its profile. That’s one thing. And also, they regard Soleimani as the leader of this Shia force that they consider as an enemy, as sort of a symbol of Shia Islam and a symbol of the Islamic Republic and also a sort of symbol of Iran in the sense they regard it as such.

So, it would make sense for them to attack it. Although I would say the fact that they haven’t taken responsibility yet does give me a bit of pause, because if they did it, you know, why wouldn’t they already take responsibility for it? And there’s possibility that there might be other groups and smaller groups. But again, if it’s them, why haven’t they taken responsibility? So, that’s one question that a lot of us are asking right now.

I should also say that the National Security Council of Iran met this morning Iranian time, and after the meeting, they issued a statement in which they’re also very clear that they also don’t know who committed the attacks yet and that they put sort of the first priority in finding out who did the attacks, who are behind it. So, while the Iranian officials, in broad terms, condemned Israel and the U.S. as sort of enemies that are behind troubles against Iran, as they always do, they haven’t actually sort of — the bodies, like the Supreme National Security Council, haven’t pointed direct fingers as who would be the perpetrator. And they have promised, of course, to act against whoever did the attacks.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Arash, the people who were killed, as we said, about 84 — you said somewhere between 80 and 90 people — none of those people were in any way associated with the government, the Revolutionary Guard? Because as you’ve said also, I mean, when there have been attacks perpetrated by either the U.S., Israel, as you say in your piece — has carried out many operations in Iran, but they tend to be targeted against specific people, I mean, most notably the series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. But in this case, who was among the dead?

ARASH AZIZI: That’s right. They usually target either IRGC officials, this militia that really rules things around, or the nuclear scientists, and do they have a specific attacks — specific targets, which in this case there doesn’t seem to have been any even sort of a mid-ranking IRGC official there. So that makes it, in my opinion, less likely that it was an attack by them, although not impossible, but much less likely.

So, in terms of who was the — who were the victims, from what we can see so far, you know, ordinary people, ordinary civilians. Yes, a lot of them might have been there to mourn Qassem Soleimani in some ways, but I should also say this is a big cemetery in Kerman. It’s my maternal city, and I’ve been to this cemetery many times. There are tons of ordinary people who are buried there. In fact, it was Mother’s Day in Iran, also Iran that day, so many people might have been just going to their mother’s grave, as is customary on such a day. We see a large number of children are among the killed and the injured, dozens, which really shows, you know, the kind of victims that this attack had, and also first responders who came, because this was a double blast, so the first responders who came to help with the victims of the first blast, unfortunately, were killed in the second blast, which is another sort of signature of ISIS and makes it more likely to be that, although, as I said, we really don’t know, and it’s a bit of a speculation at this point.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Arash Azizi, remind us how Qassem Soleimani died and his significance.

ARASH AZIZI: Soleimani was killed in a drone strike on January 3rd, 2020, ordered by President Trump at the time, which was a really shocking action. Just to give you an idea, a few years before, during the Bush administration, when the Bush administration was trying to kill a Hezbollah leader, they repeatedly — at least once — postponed the attack just to make sure they don’t hit Soleimani. And that’s why — that’s because he was easily one of the most powerful men in the Middle East. He was — you could easily say he was the most powerful military figure in Iran at the time. His official job title, he was the head of the Quds Force, or the Jerusalem Force, which is basically the external operations wings of the IRGC. What he really did was that he controlled a very large multinational army of Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese all around the region and had really commanded and directed Islamic Republic’s interventions in countries of the region. So he was of a big significance, and also he was a ranking official of a nation-state called the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, it was sort of highly unusual to assassinate a figure like that in a strike. Some people would say, not since the Second World War, when the United States helped killed a Japanese admiral, had such a figure of another country been targeted like that.

Of course, the official sort of explanations for it was that there were — you know, there have been tons of attacks by forces directed by Soleimani, these groups based in Iraq, on U.S. forces, and this has been going on. Even in the last few months, we’ve seen more than a hundred attacks by these forces on — by these sort of Iraqi forces aligned with Tehran on U.S. forces. So, that was — you know, that was one official reason, the other being that the IRGC was put on the terror group list by the Trump administration, so they regarded Soleimani as having a double role, as on one side being a sort of a uniformed official of Iran, but at the same time they saw it as a leading figure in what they considered a terror organization. So —

AMY GOODMAN: And let me —

ARASH AZIZI: — that’s why they did the attack here.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Sayyed Razi Mousavi, who — right around Christmas, an Israeli airstrike outside the Syrian capital Damascus killed a senior adviser of the Iran Revolutionary Guard. The sources told Reuters the adviser was responsible for coordinating the military alliance between Syria and Iran, and apparently he was with — right? — Qassem Soleimani when Soleimani was killed. Now he has been killed.

ARASH AZIZI: That’s right. Sayyed Razi Mousavi was perhaps, I would say, easily the most important, definitely one of the top three IRGC officials, the sort of Iranian militia officials, in Syria. And he had been in Syria a very long time. You know, people would know him in Damascus. He had played an important role in the Syrian civil war. Effectively, this is when the government of Syria of Bashar al-Assad helped kill hundreds of thousands of his own civilians, and Iran and the IRGC were helping him. So, Sayyed Razi had an important role there, but really even years before. He had effectively been based in Syria since the 1990s, late 1990s, I would say, for sure. He would go back and forth. But at some point he was entirely based there. His wife taught at the Iranian school in Damascus. So he was an old-timer. When the Iranian intervention really increased in the aftermath of the Syrian revolution, followed by the civil war that’s in 2011 and ’12, Sayyed Razi became this old guy who — you know, who could help everybody else there, because he had just been there such a long time.

So, his assassination, which just happened recently, was very important, since, you know, it signaled Israel and the U.S. probably sort of targeting a really high-value Iranian target in Damascus, and which really escalates things, given the conditions that we are in. And it also possibly points out to Israel having something like what it did in the aftermath in the 1970s of the Munich attacks, which — you know, in the aftermath of that in the 1970s, Israel started an operation known as Operation Wrath of God, in which it went to Iran and then killed a lot of leaders of groups that were in some way or the other linked to the terror Munich attacks. So, the killing of al-Arouri, Sayyed Razi and others might show that Israel has a similar quest.

AMY GOODMAN: Arash Azizi, we want to thank you so much for being with us, Iranian historian and writer. His book, The Shadow Commander: Soleimani, the U.S., and Iran’s Global Ambitions. We’ll link to your piece in The National, “Who are the likely suspects in the Kerman blasts, and what does this mean for Iran?” His forthcoming book, out next month, What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom. He’s speaking to us from Charlotte, North Carolina.

[admin]

“My Heart Is Still in Gaza”: Palestinian Scientist Flees Israeli Bombs, Begs World to Stop Genocide
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 05, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/5/m ... transcript

In Gaza, the death toll from Israel’s 90-day bombardment has topped 22,600, with another 7,000 people reported missing and presumed dead. As the IDF intensifies its attacks on refugee camps in central and south Gaza — areas deemed by Israel to be safe zones — we speak with Mohammed Ghalayini, an air quality scientist and co-founder of Amplify Gaza Stories, who made the “impossible choice” to flee from Gaza to Britain, where he has dual citizenship. “It was really hard to imagine things getting any worse on any particular day, but they did keep getting worse,” says Ghalayini. “I’m fearful for everyone I know that’s in Gaza, from either meeting an explosive death or a death by trigger-happy genocidal soldiers who are like drunk, obviously, on the power that they are wielding.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Gaza, where the death toll from Israel’s 90-day bombardment has topped 22,600, with another 7,000 people reported missing and presumed dead. Health officials in Gaza say Israel killed at least 162 Palestinians over the last 24 hours as the IDF intensifies its attacks on refugee camps in central and south Gaza — areas deemed by Israel to be safe zones. Doctors in Gaza describe horrific conditions inside the few hospitals still open.

In a minute, we’ll be joined by a Palestinian man who just arrived in Britain after fleeing Gaza. Mohammed Ghalayini is an air quality scientist who spent nearly three months in Gaza, where he had been visiting family. He just returned to Manchester, England, Wednesday, where he has dual citizenship. This is Ghalayini speaking at the airport after his arrival in Britain.

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: After spending 65 days under Israel’s brutal bombing, I made what was to me an impossible choice, one that I’d been fearing since the beginning of the attacks, and that was to use the privilege of my British passport to leave Gaza. It’s a choice not available to the majority of Palestinians in Gaza, people who are currently suffering from malnutrition, severe dehydration and an overwhelming public health crisis, as Israel relentlessly and openly pursues a campaign to force all the people out of Gaza, be it by death or forced relocation to Egypt. I actually fear that I may never — we may never see our home again.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed Ghalayini, speaking after landing in Manchester Wednesday, joining us now from Manchester, also the co-founder of Amplify Gaza Stories, which works to share voices from Gaza.

Mohammed Ghalayini, you were in Gaza with your family. You fled first to Egypt on December 10th, and now you’re home in Manchester. Can you lay out what you saw? Can you talk about Israel’s bombardment of Gaza?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Hi, Amy. Thank you for having me on. Goodness, that’s quite a — quite a difficult question to answer comprehensively, but I’ll try. I guess — sorry, I just need to take a moment.

It’s — it was really hard to imagine things getting any worse on any particular day, but they did keep getting worse. I think that’s probably like one way to look at it. You know, I think we —

AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by telling us where you were? We’ll just go through some of the facts.

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Yeah, of course.

AMY GOODMAN: You had gone to Gaza to see your family. When did you go?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: I traveled to Gaza on the 18th of September for an extended visit, both to see my family but also to look at moving back there for work. I’ve been out of Gaza for almost 20 years now. And, you know, the trip was going, I guess, as planned. On the morning of the 7th of October, I had got up quite early to go harvest olives with my cousins, and as I woke up, I saw rocket trails. That gave me the first tipoff that something was off. I guess as the rocket fire lasted into more than an hour, then it started becoming apparent how significant the day was. Then there was a bombing, an Israeli aerial bombardment, 50 meters from our apartment, that shattered all the glass there. And we, at that point, started taking the decision to leave the apartment, because it’s actually quite close to the beach, so not a great place to be.

And then began a succession of displacements, first to an apartment about a kilometer away, then to my father’s home and IVF center, then to a hotel in north Gaza that was supposedly a safe haven because of its — you know, shelters journalists and aid workers. I’ve since learned that that’s been destroyed, as has my father’s IVF center and home.

On the 13th of October, you know, with bombing happening all around us, we saw tower blocks, that housed thousands of people, being bombarded for 36 hours, and eventually they were brought down after this one-ton bombardment. There was, I mean, destruction everywhere that you looked, wherever you went.

And, yeah, on the 13th of October, Israel issued an order to the population of Gaza — an illegal order, I might add — telling people to leave, to go south of Wadi Gaza, the Gaza River. And, you know, it set a lot of people into a panic. And anyone that had an ability to leave, a lot of people left, and we were among them. It was a very, very difficult choice then, because it’s like an impossible choice or a false choice between, I guess, your safety and your home. And then, you know, if you consider the headlines that you were — you know, the headline about the bombardment in areas of Khan Younis in the south that were deemed as, in quote, “safe zones,” we found out, as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, that nowhere was actually safe in Gaza.

And I think that’s all part of this strategy of terrorizing Palestinians, sowing deliberate confusion, until people, like, at the end of their tether, because they have no access to water, scarce food and no access to healthcare. And people eventually are going to be asking themselves, “Well, where should we go?”

And, you know, I truly am of the belief, and I think there is — like, evidence suggests that Israel is trying to push Palestinians into the Sinai. They’ll deny it, and their supporters will deny it, but, ultimately, Israel is a master of creating facts on the ground and plausible deniability, I guess. And I can carry on, if you want, recounting our journey.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me ask you something. You’re an air quality scientist. Can you talk about the air quality in Gaza with this massive level of bombardment?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Excuse me. So, I’ve got a cough now. And I think throughout my time in Gaza, I had a cough, and I think that coughs are quite common right now. And part of that is because of the number of respiratory irritants that are in the air because of the bombardment, so starting with the rubble from buildings that, when it’s bombed, are pulverized into fine particles, that every time there’s a gust of wind spread in the air and create an elevated level of particulate matter.

But then, it doesn’t stop at rubble from buildings and other explosive residue and what have you, because you also have — because of the lack of power right now, people are relying on alternative fuels to — so, for example, solid fuel for cooking is so common. So, you walk down any street, and it’s thick with smoke from countless fires that are being lit just to substitute for gas. And then add to that, because of the lack of transport fuel, people are fueling their cars with cooking oil, that, again, is not a good substitute for diesel, because it has like a higher — a worse emission profile that, again, causes untold public health harms. And I think those are the key air quality —

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed, can you —

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: — issues right now. Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the Israeli so-called fire belts, the name of the rapid-succession strikes that destroy whole Gaza city blocks?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Yeah. It’s really something horrific to behold, because, you know, you just — you hear the whoosh of a jet, and then you hear the explosion, the results from, say, a one-ton bomb that’s laid down. And then you think, “OK, is that it?” And then you hear 10 more in quick succession that just, like, surround or saturate a neighborhood with bombardment. And people have nowhere to go.

So, for example, as I was saying, we were in this location in north Gaza next to the Mukhabarat towers in north Gaza by the beach, and these towers were subject to an almost 24-hour successive fire belt. Some people came to us — they came to seek shelter where we were. And they said, you know, “We couldn’t leave. We were pinned down by bombing all around us.”

And, you know, it’s this massive, indiscriminate use of explosive power in densely populated areas without any regard for civilian lives in those areas. And, you know, it’s very — it’s very cynical, because, you know, they — and I think, initially, an Israeli military spokesperson says, “We are seeking damage, not accuracy,” in their bombing. But then, at the same time, they keep saying, “Our strikes are very targeted, and our strikes are only focused on terrorist structure,” like, you know, that kind of tired terminology of terrorism that they use. And then, later on, we find out that more than 50% of the munitions dropped on Gaza were not smart, targeted bombs, but rather just — yeah, so it’s really hard, I mean, being in it, but also just being around it and hearing, knowing that every explosion is another family being killed and displaced and losing their home.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed —

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: It’s really —

AMY GOODMAN: On an Instagram post in early November, you said, “Really sad to hear that my dear Cousin Laila El-Haddad’s uncle’s family have been killed by the Israeli bombing of their home in Gaza city. I didn’t know them but feel your pain Laila!” you write. You said you “acknowledged their murder on an interview with BBC 5 Live just now and the presenter tried to mince words that they needed to verify.” Your response?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Again, the ultimate slight or cynical denial of the suffering of Palestinians. You know, on the one hand, we are expected to mourn and kind of acknowledge the death of Israelis — and, you know, as humanitarians, we do — and expected to accept the Israeli government’s narrative of that. But on the other hand, Palestinian suffering, Palestinian deaths, that are much more documented, are — each one is dissected and analyzed ad infinitum to deny, deny this, deny the genocide that is going on. And I will call it a genocide. I mean, it’s very — it’s just — it’s the ultimate in dehumanization, I’m sorry. Every time I report someone that I know or a relative that’s been killed by Israel, I’ll be asked, “But do you have proof that it was Israel? Do you have” — you know, we can’t verify that, surely, so we can’t mention it. It’s horrible.

AMY GOODMAN: Eighty members of your extended family have died in Gaza?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Yes. So, 15 of my mother’s cousins were killed in their home in Khan Younis in early October. Later in October, another 10 of my mother’s cousins, 20 of my father’s cousins, and others that I’ve almost, like, lost track or lost count. And it’s just, we — I mean, my coping strategy is, in some way, to try and not know. But obviously you can’t avoid it.

I think one of the most horrific incidents that really stood with us, though, was in late December. Well, on the 19th of December, we got the news that six of my cousins, along with their in-laws from the Hanan family, so the Ghalayini family and the Hanan family, who were sheltering in the home of the Hanan family in Gaza City, they had been surrounded by the IDF for a couple of days, and then the Israeli army went into the house. They separated the men from the women. So, like, in that process in itself, in being able to separate men from women, it is telling. It is telling in terms of the level of respect, or lack thereof. And then, 15 of the men in the home were shot by the Israeli army. And then they also threw explosives into the rooms that the women were sheltering in, and many of them were injured, as well. This has been documented by the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. It’s also been — a press statement was issued by the U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

And the Israeli army has form when it comes to summary executions. They executed their hostages as they were walking towards them barechested, waving white flags. And, you know, I’m fearful for everyone I know that’s in Gaza, from either meeting an explosive death or a death by trigger-happy genocidal soldiers who are like drunk, obviously, on the power that they are wielding. And also —

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed, I wanted to get your response —

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: — kind of — yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — to Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, where you have dual citizenship, Tzipi Hotovely, who has openly embraced destroying the whole of Gaza. She made the comment during an interview on the London radio station LBC.

TZIPI HOTOVELY: One of the things we realized, that every school, every mosque, every second house has an access to tunnel. So, this is — and, of course, ammunition.

IAIN DALE: But that’s an argument for destroying the whole of Gaza, every single building in it.

TZIPI HOTOVELY: So, do you have another solution how to destroy the underground tunnel city, that this is the place where the terrorists hide?

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the Israeli ambassador to the U.K. Can you first respond to Tzipi Hotovely?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: Of course. Tzipi Hotovely needs to be expelled from the United Kingdom. She is a purveyor of fake news that is a way of manufacturing consent for Israel’s genocidal actions. And the U.K. government needs to expel her as a diplomat. She is a propagandist, not a diplomat. And, you know, she is someone that is, you know, making the case for Israel to continue with this impunity in its war crimes. And it’s all fake news, with no proof. But, like, in the end, if you have a position of power and access to the media, then it doesn’t — you’re often unchecked and unquestioned.

Unfortunately, not all media — I mean, I’m glad the presenter challenged her, but I don’t think — I don’t know how far the challenge went in that piece. And ultimately, ultimately, there’s a lot of bad, bad journalism going on. And I guess this is like one of the reasons why this is so important to have like independent media like Democracy Now! and also like independent voices on social media kind of making sure that the checks and balances when it comes to political statements and propaganda are in place.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed, I want to ask you a last question. If you could talk about your decision — when you left Gaza, you stayed in Cairo to try to readjust, almost afraid to come home to Manchester. Can you talk about that transition, what you face now, what you’re calling for?

MOHAMMED GHALAYINI: I mean, so, my heart is still in Gaza. I did not want to leave Gaza, because I knew — when I was in Gaza, I knew that I could — I was there, I was present in the moment, and the only struggle that I was facing was that of surviving and telling our story. And now, I guess, outside Gaza, it’s a much — in some ways, it’s, obviously, I’m glad to be physically safe, but at the same time, I have like a very, very heavy weight of responsibility to keep honoring and amplifying the voices of, like, my country, people in Gaza, and making sure that we keep up the political pressure to make sure, you know, that, first of all, there’s a ceasefire and that Israel and its allies are held accountable. And so, I’m so glad that South Africa has brought this case at the International Court for Justice. And, you know, I think this would not have been possible without the voices of millions of supporters of Palestine protesting, and protesting in very, very difficult conditions, like a political climate that is so hostile, that accuses you of antisemitism, even though it’s the last thing that people are doing by criticizing Israel. And I think it’s so important to keep up that pressure, and I’m adding my voice to that.

And if I may, maybe just for a moment, speak of Amplify Gaza Stories, an initiative that I set up with friends and campaigners in Manchester, where, you know, we, like, ultimately wanted to — obviously, you know that there’s a narrative that’s predominant in terms of putting the Israeli narrative in front of the Palestinian narrative. And we felt there was always space for getting more Palestinian voices out there. And so we did this by — I took testimony. I interviewed people in Gaza. And we translated it and got it either published on social media or on — pushed it to other platforms. And it’s something that we’re continuing, along with like a network of contacts in Gaza, to make sure that the Palestinian voices are heard. And it’s a two-way thing, as well, because we’re also working on practical solidarity. So, for example, we have a — at the moment we’re raising money on a crowdfunder to support families cooking hot meals for their immediate communities. So it’s kind of about ensuring that they have the means for resilience, because I think right now one part of Israel’s strategy is battering down the resilience of Palestinians, so that people are so battered and broken that they can’t, like, resist through their existence. And that’s what we’re trying to do to help them with that.

AMY GOODMAN: There’s so much more to talk about, Mohammed, but we have to end here. Mohammed Ghalayini is a British Palestinian air quality scientist, spent nearly three months in Gaza, has just recently returned to Manchester, England. He returned on Wednesday, co-founder of Amplify Gaza Stories.

***

“The IDF Should Not Exist”: Meet Meital Yaniv, Former Israeli Soldier Turned Anti-Zionist Organizer
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 05, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/5/t ... transcript

We speak with anti-Zionist organizer and former IDF soldier from Tel Aviv Meital Yaniv, who joined hundreds of Jewish activists and their allies to shut down the California state Capitol in Sacramento Wednesday to demand a ceasefire in Gaza and condemn the roughly $600 million in California taxes that is used annually for U.S. military aid to Israel. Yaniv recalls how they were raised “extremely Zionistic,” their experience in the Israeli Air Force and eventual turn to fight for Palestinian rights. “What Israel is doing right now has nothing to do with antisemitism. What Israel is doing right now is a genocide. What Israel has been doing for the past 75 years is apartheid, is occupation,” Yaniv says. “There is no need for any one of us to serve in the IDF. The IDF should not exist. The state of Israel should not exist.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

We continue our coverage of Gaza as we turn now to California, where hundreds of Jewish activists and their allies shut down the California state Capitol in Sacramento Wednesday during its first floor session of the new year, to demand a ceasefire in Gaza.

PROTESTER: [echoed by the people’s mic] Repeat after me: We shut down the first session of the California state Legislature today.

AMY GOODMAN: As chants rang out, the activists dropped banners that read “No U.S. Funding for Israel’s Genocide in Palestine.” Another banner noted California taxpayers contribute some $600 million to U.S. military aid to Israel each year. The direct action was organized by Jewish Voices for Peace, IfNotNow and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, among others.

One of the protesters was a former Israeli IDF soldier, an Israeli Defense Force soldier, who will join us in a minute from San Francisco. This is Meital Yaniv addressing their fellow demonstrators.

MEITAL YANIV: My elders, state, family had meticulously taught me how to recognize genocide from infancy, how naked bodies get rounded up for torture and execution, how mass graves smell, how starvation and hate shakes a body, how ethnic cleansing martyred entire lineages and buries the wisdom of the land caretakers. The black-and-white images are now in color. The stories are live. And in this cycle we don’t need gas chambers, because we have U.S.-made bombs.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Meital Yaniv addressing Wednesday’s protest that shut down the California state Assembly, an organizer organizer with Shoresh, a new Israeli anti-Zionist group based in the U.S. They were born in Tel Aviv. They’re a former IDF soldier, which they write about in their new book, bloodlines.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Meital. Can you talk about why you’ve decided to take this stand? And talk about what you did as an Israeli soldier, and your change of heart.

MEITAL YANIV: Yes. Thank you, Amy, for having me, and thank you for the work that you do.

So, I was raised in a very, I would say, extremely Zionist family, but also very common way of being raised in Israel. I have a lot of war heroes in my family, fallen soldiers, Lehi quarters, Air Force commanders and the like, Mossad agents. And as the child of my father, I was recruited into the Air Force.

And after six months of serving, my base was moved from Tel Aviv to the south. This was 2002. And I was asked to send planes to fuel planes that were going into Gaza to bomb Gaza. At that time, I didn’t have the language to understand exactly what’s happening. But as we returned to the base, I had my first panic attack and couldn’t enter the base, and the next day had to come and stand trial, and I was grounded to the base for three weeks. And in those three weeks, I understand that I have to leave the army, and that knowing in that moment made me want to take my life, because it was so against everything I was taught.

And that started a process that I will be in for the rest of my life, which is the undoing of that indoctrination and that brainwashing and the way that the Israeli identity has been merged with the Zionist identity. And what I’m doing with bloodlines and the prayer that is bloodlines is to really bring the Israeli identity and Israeli state to a loving and caring death for the liberation of the land of Palestine.

AMY GOODMAN: What year was that? What year did you bomb Gaza?

MEITAL YANIV: 2002.

AMY GOODMAN: So, 2002, we’re talking about 20 years. And you were in a very elite group, the Israeli Air Force. Talk about that. There are actually a number of dissenters within that, for example, the well-known resister Yonatan Shapira, and others. And what it means for you now to speak out, and how much support you have publicly in Israel, and maybe privately, people who are afraid to speak out?

MEITAL YANIV: Yeah. My need to leave the army at the time really came from — like, my body said no. And it was an elite situation. Like, we all want to be in the Air Force, for different reasons. We’re also 18-year-olds that, at the time, you know, we feel like that the Air Force has better conditions. And it is considered a perk. And leaving the army was — at that time felt an impossible decision, and also there was no other decision in my body, so I had to follow that.

And in terms of being heard, I am trying to be heard as loudly as I can, because I do think that the only thing that is really unique about my experience is that I was raised extremely Zionistic and have walked here to the very other shore. And I remember each step. And from that place, I can compassionately relate to where everyone is at. But to reach voices inside Israel is extremely hard. I’m grateful to be a member of Shoresh. And that is kind of like the work that we’re trying to do here, is really find ways to be heard here and there. Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: I should be more specific. As a former IDF soldier, you were responsible for assigning planes that the Israeli Air Force sent to refuel the other planes that were bombing Gaza?

MEITAL YANIV: Yes. So, I was —

AMY GOODMAN: That was your job.

MEITAL YANIV: Yeah, my job was to send, basically, fuel planes —

AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t actually fly those planes.

MEITAL YANIV: — that were fueling the F-16, I’m assuming. No, no, I was on the ground.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you can talk about the equation that some critics, pro-Israel advocates make of being anti-Zionist with being antisemitic?

MEITAL YANIV: Yeah. I think the issue here, you know, I was raised extremely Israeli, which also meant that I wasn’t raised very Jewish, which is also a very common thing. The way that the assimilation into Israeli identity happened within my lineages was to really, like, remove the Jewishness and really become this like tzabar heroic IDF soldier identity. And from that place, it — it’s almost impossible from that place to — sorry, Amy, can you repeat your question?

AMY GOODMAN: I was just saying the — if you can comment on those who say to be anti-Zionist is to be antisemitic?

MEITAL YANIV: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. Yeah, from that merging, you know, the Zionist identity, a part of that propaganda is to really hold it within the cage of antisemitism. Like, every time that we criticize Israel, someone can say you’re antisemitic. But in reality, there’s nothing antisemitic about criticizing Israel. The merging of Israel with Judaism is something that Israel would like us to hold as a way to protect itself. But in reality, antisemitism is a very specific thing, that we are not causing it, and we will not undo it. And the only thing we can do is to continue to resist it.

And at the same time, what Israel is doing right now has nothing to do with antisemitism. What Israel is doing right now is a genocide. What Israel has been doing for the past 75 years is apartheid, is occupation. The techniques that are being used in the West Bank are clearly apartheid techniques that have nothing to do with antisemitism. So, criticizing that, walking in streets that are only for Israelis, that Palestinians are not able to walk on, in Hebron, there’s nothing antisemitic about criticizing that. Like, that is something that we are doing as Israelis.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about how you are informed by your — by the fact that you’re a descendant of Holocaust survivors?

MEITAL YANIV: Yeah, and that is really something that I think has really formed my identity. And that is something also that I think really helps with the undoing of it all, because I really feel that that trauma seed really started there. And that is something that I’m also trying to do in bloodline, where I start with the story of my great-grandma, telling their story of survival, because in that story of survival, there’s also the need to escape and, in that need, the need to assimilate into a new identity of a colonizer of a settler colony. And in the doing of that, there wasn’t a moment of care, to take care of what just happened in their bodies. And that became a need to arm ourselves. I mean, I feel like I see it as a fear of annihilation, also an extreme form of victimhood, that is in our bodies. And from that place, it’s always been very, very hard when I see my elders to release the arms and to really tend to that original trauma and seed of the Holocaust.

AMY GOODMAN: Meital, as we wrap up, I wanted to ask you what message you have for young people, like Tal Mitnick, who is a refusenik, who’s refusing to be an Israeli soldier in the Occupied Territories, to these young people. And here you are in the United States shutting down the California Legislature. To the United States, your message?

MEITAL YANIV: My message is, first of all, for everyone who can, to just find their heart and to liberate themselves from this identity that we call an Israeli identity. And there is no need for any one of us to serve in the IDF. The IDF should not exist. The state of Israel should not exist. We can be free without it. We can have a true connection to our heart without that identity.

To the U.S. legislators in California, you know, the fact that we were even able to take a break while there’s a genocide happening is an impossible idea to hold. And in this moment, when you’re back from the break, we shut it down on one day, but now you really need to make decisions. And, you know, in the federal level, we are not being heard. So, please, ,I beg of you, make this stop, in whatever way you can.

AMY GOODMAN: Meital Yaniv, organizer with Shoresh, a new U.S.-based Israeli anti-Zionist group, born in Tel Aviv, former IDF soldier, descendant of Holocaust survivors. Their new book is titled bloodlines.

***

Ralph Nader on Gaza Ceasefire & Why Suppression of Palestine Advocacy Is the Real Problem on Campus
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 05, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/5/r ... transcript

Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic and four-time former presidential candidate, joins Democracy Now! to discuss Americans pushing the government to end “this genocidal war in Gaza,” large donors influencing free speech and curriculum at universities, and his new book, The Rebellious CEO: 12 Leaders Who Did It Right.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman.

We end today’s show with Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time former presidential candidate. We’ll talk to him about several topics, including his new book, The Rebellious CEO: 12 Leaders Who Did It Right. He’s also the founder of Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper, has been named by Time and Life magazines one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century.

But, Ralph, let’s begin with U.S. policy in Gaza. Amidst the protests nationwide calling for a ceasefire, senior Biden education official Tariq Habash resigned this week — he’s the first Biden appointee — over what he called Biden’s, quote, “complete unwillingness to demand an immediate and permanent cease-fire” in Gaza. Biden is facing reelection amidst a broader Middle East conflict. Ralph, you said, quote, “Biden and Congress are vigorously enabling the annihilations” in Gaza. What do you mean? And what do you feel needs to happen?

RALPH NADER: Well, the important thing in the U.S. here is to focus on Congress and the White House, because they are waist deep in this genocidal war in Gaza. The Congress is basically a rubber stamp and doesn’t even have public hearings as it shovels billions of dollars to Israel. And it’s about to pass, unless Bernie Sanders and others who are opposed, a $14.3 billion — with a “B” — appropriation for Israel, military arms and other aspects of the Israeli right-wing regime’s priorities.

And $14.3 billion is larger than the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s 20 times the budget of the Occupational Safety and Health Agency. It’s four times the budget of the National Park Service, which has 300 million visitors. So there is rising opposition to it in the Congress, mostly among Democrats, but not enough. And I think the Jewish Voice for Peace and other valiant people who are resisting should focus more on the Congress.

As far as Biden is concerned, it really gives a new meaning to hypocrisy. He keeps saying publicly that Israel should reduce its impact on civilian casualties and let humanitarian trucks in. At the same time, he’s sending ships full of munitions and cargo planes full of munitions to Netanyahu. You cannot have humanitarian trucks coming in — and there needs to be about 700, at least, a day — if you don’t have a ceasefire, because who’s going to go in? The roads are torn up. They can’t get to their destination. The hospitals and clinics have been destroyed or disabled. There’s no markets. There’s no ability to receive these materials. And the Israelis are letting in maybe 10, 20 trucks a day, but they’re delaying hundreds and hundreds of trucks ready to come in, which Biden has already paid for. So, Biden is playing Netanyahu’s game, but he’s trying to get away with highfalutin adherence to international law.

We don’t hear enough about the violation of international law, U.S. treaties, Geneva Conventions. It’s as if the U.S. can do anything it wants in Syria and Iraq, and Israel can continue to bomb repeatedly in Syria and do other violent acts, and the press never raises the issue of law. Without law, you have anarchy. You have what you’re seeing now.

And the U.S. is very much involved. And people are very concerned about a wider conflict here. The Israelis already struck in Beirut. And you have the Red Sea situation with the Houthi boats. And the U.S. is all over the place, aircraft carriers. They have 24/7 drones over Gaza. So, that’ll be a very good record when the reckoning comes after this war is over.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, you are Lebanese American, Ralph, is that right, your family from Lebanon?

RALPH NADER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you a question that relates to this. You know, the protests around Gaza on college campuses around the country ultimately have led to the ouster of two college presidents, Liz Magill at UPenn, and now you have Claudine Gay. And I wanted to ask you about the protest yesterday led by Al Sharpton outside the New York office of the billionaire investor Bill Ackman, who helped lead a campaign that led to this week’s ouster of the Harvard University president, the first Black president of Harvard, Claudine Gay. Ackman, a Harvard alum, major donor to the university, has publicly railed against Harvard and other schools for supporting DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — programs. Al Sharpton vowed to keep protesting outside Ackman’s office. This is what he said.

REV. AL SHARPTON: We have started these weekly one-hour protests in front of Mr. Ackman’s office. He has said that the resignation of Dr. Gay at Harvard is not the end of it. They are going to keep fighting 'til they end DEI, which is diversity, equity and inclusion. That's declaring a war on all of us — Blacks, women, gays. DEI was designed to bring fairness and equality to people that had been historically marginalized and eliminated.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Al Sharpton. As part of his campaign to oust Gay as Harvard president, Bill Ackman helped amplify allegations that Gay had committed plagiarism in her academic work, but now Ackman’s wife, the MIT professor Neri Oxman, is facing a plagiarism scandal of her own. Business Insider has revealed Oxman plagiarized parts of her doctoral dissertation at MIT. On Thursday, she apologized and admitted making mistakes. Of course, there was no plagiarism panel that was set up — that’s the process at Harvard — that would evaluate President Gay before she was, ultimately, I guess you could probably say, pushed out by Harvard Corporation, with a lot of pressure from these major donors, like Bill Ackman. Your response, before we move into your book on corporate executives who did it right?

RALPH NADER: What’s been revealed is the big donors to these universities, especially private universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, have been exercising their baleful influence for many years over the curriculum. You know, it’s not surprising that Harvard Law School, for decades, never had a course on corporate law — corporate crime, rather. So, these large donors now have been revealed to have enormous power over the board of overseers over Harvard University. And that’s the next investigation for good student newspapers like The Harvard Crimson.

The stuff on plagiarism, it could be serious, but not in this case, given the review of the president’s past writings. The big issue is the slaughter, is the suppression of speech on college campuses dealing with the slaughter over there in Gaza.

And the fatality count is grossly undercounted, Amy. I know you refer to the official Hamas health authority count, where they only count people whose names they know who died, and so it’s over 22,000, 58,000 injuries. This is a massive undercount.

As the head of the global health department at University of Edinburgh said in an article in The Guardian the other day, there’s going to be half a million Gazans who are going to die before the end of this year, not only from the bombing, but from the effect of the bombing in terms of the destruction of the healthcare system, infectious diseases, polluted water, diarrhea, which little children — which is often a high rate of fatality, and very quickly — lack of any food, no shelter, 85% of the 2.3 million people homeless. They have no connection to sanitation, food, protection, the winter elements. My estimate now is at least 100,000 have died. And more will die every day because of the effects that I’ve just described.

The World Health Organization said they’ve never seen a situation like this in decades. The amount of — number of children being killed, in November, it was 150 a day from the Israeli bombing, and that’s compared to two a day in Afghanistan and less than one a day in Ukraine. So, that’s the main issue.

And the campus controversy talking about slurs and ethnic slurs and so forth, what’s behind it all is to repress the academic world from speaking out and acting on what our government is doing to make all this possible.

And then, we also have to focus on these corporations, for a lot of this aid to Israel bounces back into contracts for missiles. Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, they’re raking it in. And people talk about the lobby in this country supporting any Israeli government can do no wrong, no matter how extreme. We have to talk about the military-industrial complex here on Capitol Hill pushing for more and more of these immense sales and profits.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph, you just wrote a book. You are deeply critical right now of the corporations you just mentioned. But your book is The Rebellious CEO: 12 Leaders Who Did It Right. Some may be surprised to see you, this corporate critic, writing this book, famous for Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, among other things. But in this last minute — and then we’ll do a post-show interview — talk about why you wrote it.

RALPH NADER: Because there are not enough good yardsticks to evaluate the misbehavior of giant CEOs of these multinational corporations, who distort markets, control markets, but they tell you, when you take — you criticize them for their munitions production, for opiates, for fossil fuels, for high drug prices, “Oh, we’re just meeting market demand.” Well, these 12 CEOs, they made profit, but they reversed the business model, focusing on protecting and treating workers right, consumer right, and the environment. And they spoke out against war. They spoke out against — Anita Roddick of The Body Shop spoke out against the cosmetic industry’s harm on young customers. Ray Anderson changed his entire —

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph, we have to leave it there, but we’re going to do Part 2 and post it at democracynow.org. Ralph Nader, author of The Rebellious CEO: 12 Leaders Who Did It Right. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.

[admin]

“Huge Miscalculation”: Biden’s Refusal to Push for Gaza Ceasefire Could Drag U.S. into Middle East War
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 08, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/8/g ... transcript

Middle East policy expert Trita Parsi says President Biden’s reluctance to press Israel for a ceasefire in Gaza has the potential to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran and its allies in the region. On Monday, Israel reportedly killed a Hezbollah commander in southern Lebanon, just days after an airstrike killed a senior Hamas leader in the capital Beirut. Meanwhile, the U.S. has exchanged fire with Yemen’s Houthi forces, who have attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea to pressure Israel to stop its war. “The Biden administration clearly do not want an escalation,” says Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. But the longer Israel’s war on Gaza continues with full U.S. support, the less likely regional actors are to continue showing restraint, he says. “This is not going to work in the long run.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Secretary of State Antony Blinken is back in the Middle East to meet with leaders across the region. During a stop in Qatar, Blinken warned the war in Gaza could, quote, “easily metastasize into a regional war.” While Blinken is publicly calling for deescalation, the Biden administration continues to face criticism for sending more weapons to Israel while carrying out its own attacks in Iraq and Syria, as well as targeting Houthi forces in Yemen. This comes as Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has entered its fourth month, as the U.N. top humanitarian official warns the relentless assault has left Gaza “uninhabitable.” According to Palestinian health officials, the death toll in Gaza is nearing 23,000, including almost 10,000 children.

Israel’s attacks continue to take a devastating toll on Palestinian journalists. By one count, at least 100 Palestinian journalists have been killed so far since October 7th. On Sunday, an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza killed two journalists: Mustafa Thuraya of Agence France-Presse and Hamza al-Dahdouh of Al Jazeera. Hamza was the eldest son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief Wael al-Dahdouh, who had already lost his wife, daughter, another son and a grandson in an Israeli airstrike in October, and then was wounded in another strike that killed his cameraman, Samer Abudaqa. On Sunday, the BBC’s Julian Marshall interviewed Israeli spokesperson Eylon Levy.

JULIAN MARSHALL: Are Al Jazeera operating in Gaza legitimate journalists, as far as Israel is concerned?

EYLON LEVY: I’m not sure what standard we’re using to measure legitimate journalists. We have intense criticism of Al Jazeera in the way that they have been fueling a lot of violence in this conflict with their incorrect reporting.

JULIAN MARSHALL: OK. So, Israel, the Israeli government —

EYLON LEVY: But this is not a relevant question.

JULIAN MARSHALL: The Israeli government is not a fan of Al Jazeera. Is that what you’re saying to me?

EYLON LEVY: Correct.

JULIAN MARSHALL: Right.

EYLON LEVY: We are not big fans of Al Jazeera, that is correct. We much prefer the BBC.

JULIAN MARSHALL: Right. But so, you would possibly prefer Al Jazeera not to have a presence in Gaza?

EYLON LEVY: We’d prefer for Hamas not to have a presence in Gaza, and that is what we’re talking about now.

JULIAN MARSHALL: Well, I’m talking about — I’m talking about Al Jazeera. You would prefer Al Jazeera not to have a presence in Gaza?

EYLON LEVY: We would prefer that all media reporting about this conflict be accurate and not spread lies and disinformation in the way that Al Jazeera has been doing.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined in Washington, D.C., by Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His piece for The Nation is headlined “Will Israel Drag the US Into Another Ruinous War?”

Trita, welcome back to Democracy Now! So, we’re talking to you —

TRITA PARSI: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: — on the Blinken trip through the Middle East, something like the fifth time he’ll be going back to Israel and the West Bank. And when he was in Qatar this weekend and held a news conference the day he arrived in Qatar, Al Jazeera’s reporter Hamza al-Dahdouh, the son of the Gaza bureau chief of Al Jazeera, Wael al-Dahdouh, was killed in a U.S. airstrike on a car that also killed an AFP reporter. Can you talk about the significance of this?

TRITA PARSI: Well, this is the conflict in which we have seen more journalists being killed than in any other recent conflict. And it increasingly appears as if those are not accidents but actually targeted, particularly in the case of this journalist. As you mentioned in your program, his family has been targeted, he has been targeted, and now his son has been killed, as well. It increasingly looks as if Israel is desiring to make sure that Al Jazeera no longer can operate in Gaza. And it is largely thanks to Al Jazeera that we know so much about what has been happening in Gaza, because they had a presence there from before the war began, so they were already there once the war started. This is a tremendous danger, because with what the South Africans are accusing Israel of when it comes to genocide, not having eyes and ears on the ground there completely changes the pictures in terms of what the Israelis can and cannot do.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what this means in terms of an escalation — not a deescalation, although Tony Blinken keeps talking about deescalation — of a wider war in the Middle East, why he’s in the Middle East, having gone from Turkey and Greece to Qatar — he’s going to Saudi Arabia today — to Israel and to the West Bank and beyond.

TRITA PARSI: I think the Biden administration clearly do not want an escalation. They do not want to see a widening of the war. But the approach that they have pursued is one in which they’re trying to maximize Israel’s ability to continue to bomb Gaza, while putting pressure on other actors in the region for them not to escalate, while the administration itself admits that there is no desire in Hezbollah, in Iran for a wider war. So, it’s not as if they want that war, when it comes to Hezbollah, yet the pressure is supposed to be on them, while not putting pressure on the Israelis. This is not going to work in the long run. We’ve already seen that day by day we’re getting closer and closer towards a military confrontation that is much larger than just Gaza. Unless the Biden administration is willing to also put material support on Israel, we will most likely move further into that escalation.

And this is what is so perplexing about the Biden administration’s position. The fastest and easiest way to actually get a deescalation is most likely a ceasefire in Gaza. The groups such as Iraqi militias, the Houthis have made it clear that if there is a ceasefire, they will cease their attacks. Now, we have evidence of that, as well, because when there was a ceasefire in the end of November of last year for six days, there were no attacks whatsoever from the Iraqi militias. They completely stopped their attacks. There were six attacks the day before the ceasefire. But once there was a ceasefire, they were completely stopped. When it comes to the Houthis, there’s only one attack during that period that we can attribute to them, instead of daily attacks. So we have some clear evidence that if there is a ceasefire, there will be a deescalation. Yet that is the option that the Biden administration is unwilling to pursue. Instead, it is going around the region asking other countries to put more pressure on Iran, no Hezbollah, on other actors. Some of that pressure is probably quite needed. But in the absence of a ceasefire, it will probably not be effective.

AMY GOODMAN: As Tony Blinken, as President Biden calls for a deescalation, they continue to provide weapons, circumventing Congress twice, providing artillery shells for Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. You quote in your Nation piece retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brick, who conceded in November, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S.” Can you talk further about this, this contradiction between what the U.S. is saying and actually how much power it has? Give us a history lesson in the past, going back to President Reagan and Lebanon, when the U.S. says, “Stop.”

TRITA PARSI: The Biden administration, I think, has been pushing a narrative that essentially says that Biden doesn’t have the leverage, the U.S. doesn’t have the leverage to be able to stop this. It doesn’t seem to be compatible with reality, because, as you pointed out, the Israeli major general himself admits that all of these weapons are coming from the United States, and if the U.S. were to put a stop to these shipments, then the Israelis would not be able to continue this fight for much longer.

So, a question is not whether the U.S. has leverage — it clearly does. The question is whether Biden is willing to use it. And so far he has not been willing to use it, because he’s actually buying into supporting the Israeli objective of completely defeating Hamas. He seems to want to see Israel do to Hamas what the U.S. couldn’t do to the Taliban.

But we have historical examples. In 1982, when Israel went into Lebanon, and the Reagan administration started to become increasingly concerned about this and viewed it as being detrimental to U.S. interests, eventually Ronald Reagan, both publicly and a private conversation with Menachem Begin, essentially told him, “You have to stop; otherwise, I’m going to freeze the shipments of F-16 airplanes to Israel.” Within 20 minutes, Menachem Begin called back and ordered a retreat of the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have clear examples in the past in which pressure, particularly public pressure, actually has been effective. The reason why Biden is not using it is because he’s bought into the Israeli objective.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, all the polls in the United States show the overwhelming number of young voters are opposed to his position right now when it comes to Israel and the West Bank — people of color, as well. Can you explain, as a person who understands a lot about what goes on inside the Beltway, why Biden is refusing to, in any way, stand up, not just signal on the outside calling for deescalation, but actually making those calls, since he’s had, to say the least, so many with Netanyahu?

TRITA PARSI: I think the Biden administration made a huge miscalculation from the outset. They did not think that there would be this type of a backlash amongst the American public, including his own supporters, against the Israeli campaign. Now when it has happened, it appears that the conclusion in the White House is that they have already lost these votes, they will not be able to gain them back if they shift their position, but if they shift their position, they will likely lose some of the voters that are in support of Israel’s campaign. That calculation, however, seems to leave out a very important component, which is that there’s also another bloc of voters, a bloc of voters that have not yet given up on Biden, but if this war continues, as it now appears that it will, and particularly if it enlargens and drags the U.S. into it, then Biden also risks losing that bloc. And if that bloc is larger than the bloc of voters who support Israel’s campaign, then Biden is compounding his initial miscalculation by further undermining his own ability to get reelected.

AMY GOODMAN: The Iraqi government is blasting the United States after a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killed a top commander in an Iran-backed militia in Iraq. On Friday, the Iraqi government announced plans to expel U.S.-led forces from Iraq. Can you talk about the significance of this, Trita?

TRITA PARSI: This is very important, because this is highly problematic for the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has tried to walk a fine balancing act. They wanted to keep a certain degree of a U.S. military presence in Iraq, at least for the next few years, while at the same time balancing that against the pressure from Iraqi militias and others who want to see the U.S. leave.

Once the U.S. is now actually assassinating leaders of those militias inside of Iraq — in the previous weeks, those attacks were taking place in Syria. Now they’ve also started to take place in Iraq itself. This is highly problematic. It’s a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, according to the Iraqi government, and it further increases the pressure on the Iraqi government to ask the U.S. to leave, which I believe will happen relatively — you know, in the next years or so, it will happen. It’s not sustainable to have the U.S. troops there.

Ultimately, from a U.S. perspective, I think that’s actually a good thing. Those troops in Iraq are essentially sitting ducks, and they’re targets of these Iraqi militias. You take those troops out, and the Iraqi militias don’t have targets to shoot at — and as a result, a tripwire for the U.S. to get dragged into war. At least that one will be removed.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you, as we wrap up: A suspected Israeli strike in southern Lebanon has killed a senior commander in an elite unit of Hezbollah earlier today in a move that further escalates tension in the region; the significance of this, from Iraq to southern Lebanon, Trita?

TRITA PARSI: So, you have three major fronts in which the risk of escalation is significant. Of course, you have the Red Sea, with the Houthis attacking ships. You have the Iraqi militias and Syrian militias targeting U.S. troops. And then you have the desire of the Israelis to expand the war into Lebanon and try to take out Hezbollah, as well. The last one is getting really heated up right now. The attack this morning is yet another one. There has already been a bit of a shooting war, but it’s at lower level, between Israel and Hezbollah ever since the start of the war after October 7th, but it is escalating, and it’s getting deeper into both Israeli and Lebanese territory.

One of the things that I think is highly problematic in the way that the mainstream media has covered this is that it talks about how Biden is grappling with how to avoid an escalation of this war. And I genuinely believe that the Biden administration doesn’t want that. But these reports don’t seem to mention that the demand of some of these groups is a ceasefire. And if there is a ceasefire, they would also then deescalate their attacks on U.S. troops, etc. Now, the reporting doesn’t have to say that this is what is going to happen. It should be scrutinizing these statements by the Houthis and the Iraqi militias. But at a minimum, it needs to mention that that is their demand, so that the American public is aware that there appears to exist an option for deescalation through a ceasefire. The fact that it is not mentioned in most mainstream media is highly problematic, because it leaves the public with the wrong impression, that the only way Biden can deescalate is by further escalating the situation by increasing the deterrence and attacking, whether it’s the Houthis or the Iraqi militias. The option of actually going for a ceasefire to deescalate doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the mainstream media, and that’s a major mistake, I think.

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi, we want to thank you for being with us, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. We’ll link to your piece in The Nation, “Will Israel Drag the US Into Another Ruinous War?”

We were just talking about Lebanon. The Reuters reporter Issam Abdallah was also killed there. Reuters did an investigation saying it was an Israeli artillery strike that killed him. More than 100 Palestinian journalists have died since October 7th.

***

Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate: Israel Is Targeting Media in Gaza to Hide Its Atrocities from the World
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 08, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/8/p ... transcript

More than 100 journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 7, when Israel unleashed a ferocious attack on the territory from land, sea and air. On Sunday, an Israeli airstrike on a vehicle killed two more journalists, including Hamza Dahdouh, the eldest son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh, who had already lost his wife and other family to Israeli airstrikes. Palestinian journalist Anan Quzmar says media workers are being targeted in order to “shut down the coverage” of Israeli atrocities. Quzmar, a volunteer at the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, says the union has evidence that at least 96 of the 109 journalists whose deaths it has documented “were deliberately and specifically targeted by surgical Israeli strikes against them.” The PJS has filed an amicus brief in support of the Center for Constitutional Rights genocide lawsuit against Israel, citing the unprecedented number of Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza, saying they have been deliberately targeted for assassination by the Israeli military.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

As we’ve reported, two more journalists in Gaza were killed in an Israeli airstrike this weekend, among the victims, the eldest son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief, Wael al-Dahdouh. Just a few months ago, in October, he also lost 12 family members, including his wife, his 15-year-old son, his 7-year-old daughter and his infant grandson in an Israeli airstrike.

Like his father, Hamza al-Dahdouh worked for Al Jazeera. He was 27 years old. Hamza was reportedly driving in a car with other journalists on a road in Khan Younis when the vehicle was hit. The freelance journalist Mustafa Thuraya, who was a stringer for Agence France-Presse, AFP, was also killed, while a third, Hazem Rajab, was seriously injured. A video showed Wael al-Dahdouh crying next to his son’s body, holding his hand. Wael spoke on Sunday.

WAEL DAHDOUH: [translated] How can someone receive the death of their oldest son and everything in my life after I lost some of my family members, my wife, son Mahmoud and Sham and Adam? How can I receive this? … The world must see with their own eyes, and not with Israel’s eyes. It must listen and watch all that is happening to the Palestinian people. What has Hamza done to them? And what has my family done to them? What have civilians in the Gaza Strip done to them? They have not done anything. The world is blinded by what is going on in Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: Just last month, Wael al-Dahdouh was injured in an Israeli drone attack while covering the aftermath of an Israeli strike on a U.N. school sheltering displaced people in Khan Younis. His cameraman, Al Jazeera photojournalist Samer Abudaqa, bled to death over the course of more than five hours, as Israeli forces reportedly prevented rescue workers and ambulances from reaching Samer.

The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate says Israel has killed at least 102 journalists in Gaza since October 7th.

For more, we go to the West Bank. We’re joined by Anan Quzmar, a Palestinian journalist, volunteer at the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, which has filed an amicus brief in support of the Center for Constitutional Rights genocide lawsuit against Israel, citing the unprecedented number of Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza, saying they’ve been deliberately targeted for assassination by the Israeli military.

Anan, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the journalists who were killed this weekend, Al Jazeera’s Hamza al-Dahdouh, amazingly, killed on the day that Blinken arrived in Qatar — Qatar owns Al Jazeera — and Mustafa Thuraya of Agence France-Presse? And then put them in the broader context of how many Palestinians — we’ve not seen this anytime in war, more than a hundred Palestinian journalists, estimates from 70 to over a hundred, dead since October 7th.

ANAN QUZMAR: Yeah. Thank you very much for having me to speak about this, for us, very, very important issue.

Hamza al-Dahdouh and Mustafa Abu Thuraya are just the latest victims of Israel’s calculated and deliberate assassination campaign against Palestinian journalists that has been going on for the last three months. Unfortunately, every time we release a number, we have to update it, within hours sometimes.

Our indications so far, of the 109 journalists, up to this moment, that have been killed by Israel’s genocidal military campaign, indicates that at least 96 of those were deliberately and specifically targeted by surgical Israeli strikes against them, at home or in the line of duty. Twenty-two of those were killed in the line of duty, using sniper fire, drones and surgical airstrikes, similar to the one that took place yesterday that took the life of the two journalists. They were targeted in their car. The munition that was used was big enough to damage the car and kill everybody inside, but it didn’t hurt anybody around, and they were targeted at a moment where there was nobody close to the vehicle at the time. So it’s clearly indicating that they were specifically targeted.

Other than this, there is at least 74 cases of journalists that were killed at home in strikes that specifically hit their flats. Some are in big apartment blocks, where they are on the fifth or sixth floor, and their flat is targeted, and no damage to any or limited damage to other nearby flats or homes.

And in the remaining 13 cases, we were just not able to determine who exactly was the person targeted in the strike. So, for example, we excluded any cases where more than 10 people were killed. We excluded cases where people who were not at the flat or at the location with the journalists, so there is an element of, you know, what Israel likes to call collateral damage.

We’ve also excluded from the 96 that we suggest were — at least 96 specifically targeted, cases like Akram Al-Shafe’i, who a couple of days ago passed away because he was not allowed or he had no access to adequate healthcare — excuse me. And at least at the moment, there is 25 of our journalists are in similar life-threatening situations because of lack of access to medical healthcare.

Also, the wider context of what’s happening now is an indication that these journalists are being targeted. As the previous guest alluded to, Israel’s interest is to shut down the coverage. And our journalists are a main portal and play a key role in uncovering the ongoing military campaign by Israel.

Other than this, many of our journalists received direct and indirect threats and incitement against them that they had personally reported, either publicly or privately, to us, due to fear that the publication of such reports or threats would actually escalate the situation and put them higher up in the bank of targets for Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve said —

ANAN QUZMAR: There is also —

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve said that 9% of all Palestinian journalists in the Gaza Strip have been killed since October 7th, and that you feel that press freedom organizations around the world have let Palestinian journalists down. How?

ANAN QUZMAR: After 109 journalists have been killed, we are still hearing the same statements that are calling for investigations. There are clear patterns. Yes, we haven’t been able to establish every single case, but — I am sorry, but three months into a genocidal campaign that has made Palestinian journalists a primary target for them, 9% of our journalists in Gaza have been killed. This is eight points higher than the average across the Gaza Strip. I talked about the threats and the specific targeting, and we are still hearing the same thing. I think if press freedom organizations are satisfied at the level of reaction and outrage that they’ve shown, let alone the action that would actually save the lives of Palestinian journalists, then we should question even the very purpose of their existence, if that’s the best they can do and say.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, can you explain the lawsuit of the Center for Constitutional Rights that you have filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Palestinian journalists, the significance of this, and what this would mean?

ANAN QUZMAR: This lawsuit aims to block any further diplomatic and military support to Israel. It’s just one step, one of many things that we are trying.

But, unfortunately, this assassination campaign has continued. And we’ve seen it as part of a wider escalation of use of violence against Palestinian journalists also in the West Bank — not only journalists, also medics. We have, since the last three months, 47 Palestinian journalists in the West Bank have been arrested. Thirty-three of them are still in prison, 18 of them under administrative detention, and the rest haven’t been faced with any charges at all. This level of escalation of use of force is seen also in regular incursions where the Israeli army targets medical staff and journalists. For example, there has been, where I am, in Tulkarem, regular incursions that have an emerging pattern of trying to maintain a continued presence and curfew over Palestinian cities, almost as a practice in order for the eventuality of needing to control such cities for extended period of times, like I explained. And the focus of these attacks is collective punishment, digging down — digging out, for example, in Tulkarem, the water pipes to cut the water from the locals, shooting at the electricity grid to cut the electricity.

And also, all of this comes with a huge price on our local institutions, that Israel is trying to destroy. And this also goes back to the attack on Palestinian journalists in Gaza. If you look at the profiles of those who are targeted, you see that they are not just targeted for being journalists. They’re being targeted for being an important part of the social fabric. Our famous journalists in Gaza are not what you would expect from an elite journalist sitting outside. These are humble people who have been the foundations of our society for a long time. And alongside our journalists, there’s been lecturers, for example, most media lecturers and journalism lecturers, who are also reported as journalists being killed, but there are actually media lecturers, as well. And we’ve had heads of universities targeted, poets, and you name it. So, one needs to look at the Israeli bank of targets seriously and the deliberate nature of this.

And I would like to end with — I think one of the most striking things is, when you speak to Palestinian journalists in Gaza, they never complain about their own suffering or what they’ve been going through as journalists. They literally want to continue to do their work, to the last drop of their blood, in order to bring an end to this, to stop the genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Anan Quzmar, I want to thank you so much for being with us, a Palestinian journalist with the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, speaking to us from Tulkarem in the occupied West Bank.

[admin]

“Complete Hypocrisy”: Activist Bree Newsome Bass on Biden Fighting Racism While Funding Gaza Genocide
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 09, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/9/b ... transcript

President Biden delivered his second campaign speech of the year Monday at the historic Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where a white supremacist gunman killed nine people in 2015. Biden remembered the victims, spoke of the “poison of white supremacy” and assailed his Republican rivals for not taking racism seriously, but Biden’s speech was interrupted at one point by protesters demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, where Israel’s U.S.-backed war has killed over 23,000 people. “There’s no way we’re fighting white supremacy … in the midst of genocide,” says artist and activist Bree Newsome Bass, who criticizes Biden for using the Black church as a political prop. “The last thing that we need is to carry on business as usual.” In 2015, Newsome Bass climbed a 30-foot flagpole outside the South Carolina Capitol to remove the Confederate flag following the church massacre.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

We turn now to South Carolina, where President Biden delivered his second campaign speech of the year at the historic Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where in 2015 eight Black parishioners and their pastor were shot dead by a white supremacist. Biden remembered the victims.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: On June 17th, 2015, the beautiful souls, five survivors — and five survivors invited a stranger into this church to pray with them. The word of God was pierced by bullets in hate, of rage, propelled by not just gunpowder but by a poison, a poison that’s for too long haunted this nation. What is that poison? White supremacy. Oh, it is. It’s a poison. Throughout our history, it’s ripped this nation apart. This has no place in America, not today, tomorrow or ever.

PROTESTERS: Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now!

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: That’s all right. That’s all right.

PROTESTERS: Ceasefire now!

AMY GOODMAN: As he spoke, Biden was disrupted by activists demanding a Gaza ceasefire.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Without light, there’s no path from this darkness.

PROTESTER: If you really care about the lives lost here, then you should honor the lives lost and call for a ceasefire in Palestine!

PROTESTERS: Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now!

AMY GOODMAN: As the protesters were removed from the church, supporters of President Biden began chanting “four more years.” He addressed the protesters.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I understand their passion. And I’ve been quietly working — I’ve been quietly working with the Israeli government to get them to reduce and significantly get out of Gaza. I’ve been using all that I can to do that.

AMY GOODMAN: Without naming Donald Trump, Biden blasted the former president and leading 2024 Republican candidate as a loser who tried to overthrow the 2020 election results by urging his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. A number carried Confederate flags and wore white supremacist and far-right symbols.

Following the massacre at the Emanuel AME Church in 2015, following the mass funeral at the University of Charleston arena that thousands came out for, our next guest, Bree Newsome Bass, scaled the 30-foot flagpole at the South Carolina state Capitol and removed the Confederate flag. As police officers shouted at her to come down, she shimmied to the top of the flagpole, took the flag in her hand and said, “You come against me with hatred. I come against you in the name of God. This flag comes down today.”

BREE NEWSOME BASS: You come against me with hatred and oppression and violence. I come against you in the name of God. This flag comes down today!

AMY GOODMAN: While Bree Newsome was arrested, along with an ally, it was only after this action that the Confederate flag was formally removed from the South Carolina Statehouse grounds. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley was governor of South Carolina at the time. She has faced fresh backlash after she didn’t mention slavery when asked about the cause of the U.S. Civil War during a recent town hall in New Hampshire.

Well, for more, we’re joined in Raleigh, North Carolina, by Bree Newsome Bass, artist, antiracist activist.

Bree, welcome back to Democracy Now! This certainly does take us back. As people debate whether it was Nikki Haley who ultimately forced the flag to come down, we’re going to the woman who actually took it down and risked your freedom to do it. Talk about why you did that then — ultimately, the Legislature would vote to take it down — and how you feel about what’s happening today.

BREE NEWSOME BASS: Yes. And thank you again so much for having me on.

You know, and I want to make it clear: Yes, I did scale the pole and take the Confederate flag down; this was an issue that people had been protesting for years and years and years. And that’s part of what made it so egregious in 2015, when we had the massacre at Emanuel AME and South Carolina refused to lower the flag, because part of the reason why they were refusing to lower the flag is that they had passed a law in the year 2000 saying that it couldn’t be lowered for any reason, after they moved it from the Capitol dome to the flagpole on the lawn, where it was at the time that I took it down. So this had been going on for years and years and years.

And Nikki Haley actually opposed taking the flag down, right up until those massacres occurred and the mounting political protest and, you know, the pressure made it where she basically had to, at that point, support the flag coming down. So, ideologically, she has never really had the stance of being opposed to either the Confederacy or — excuse me — symbols of the Confederacy, and certainly not opposed to racist policies. She went right from the governorship to serving in the Trump administration. And she’s had a number of incidents over the years, where the things that she says or the things that she does directly contradict with her claim of having led the way on taking the Confederate flag down. At one of her recent rallies, she played that song “Find Out in a Small Town,” you know, the song that people really raised a lot of concern about because it was obviously alluding to sundown towns and the racial violence that Black people have experienced here for decades and decades and decades. So this is not new for Nikki Haley. It just shows that she does not really represent antiracism in any real way.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bree, I’d like to ask you — in response to President Biden’s speech, you posted on social media, quote, “How the Black church is used as a prop for white politicians actually proves the point that racism is alive & well & strong.” Could you expand on that?

BREE NEWSOME BASS: Yeah, absolutely. Well, I mean, I think that the whole way that the incidents in 2015, both the massacre at Emanuel AME, the refocus on the Confederate flag there in South Carolina, the formal ceremony around taking the flag down, and the way that American politics returns to those moments again and again and again speaks to how relevant it still is, the fact that Black churches are frequently used as, you know, political campaign stops for politicians.

In this case with Joe Biden, you know, he is clearly trying to make an appeal not just to Black voters, but really trying to fend off criticism that he is racist, that he is sponsoring a genocide. And that criticism is completely well founded, because he is sponsoring a genocide, and genocide is the most extreme form of racial violence that there is. And so, to use the pulpit at Emanuel AME in this manner, to make it a prop, essentially, for Joe Biden’s reelection bid, to me, is the greatest assault on truth. I know Joe Biden stood there in the pulpit and said that there is an assault on truth that’s happening right now. Joe Biden is, in many ways, leading that assault. And I know that he’s running against Donald Trump, who we know is also a serial liar, but Donald Trump is not the one who is currently in office right now. It is Joe Biden.

And this effort to use the church, not just the Black church, but the site of racial violence, of a mass murder, to deflect from the fact that Joe Biden himself is bombing churches, bombing mosques, bombing places of worship and murdering many civilians, people who have sought shelter in those places, it just exposes the complete hypocrisy of this entire situation and the vacuum of moral leadership at the top. And that’s why I took offense to it. I think that’s why many people who watched it took offense to it. I’m very glad that the young people stood up and protested, because even though they were few in that audience, they represented the majority of people worldwide.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, Bree. The polls that have just come out today indicate that Nikki Haley is surging in the polls in New Hampshire. You referenced where she stood on the Confederate flag. I wanted to go back to 2014, when then-South Carolina Republican Governor Nikki Haley suggested South Carolina had resolved its image problem and that having the Confederate flag at the Statehouse was fine because not a single CEO had complained. She was speaking at a gubernatorial debate.

GOV. NIKKI HALEY: You know, the Confederate flag is a very sensitive issue. And what I can tell you is, over the last three-and-a-half years I spend a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state. I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag. What is important here is that we look at the fact that, yes, perception of South Carolina matters. That’s why we have everybody answering the phones, “It’s a great day in South Carolina.” That’s why we’re being named the friendliest state, the most patriotic state, and getting all these great accolades. But we really kind of fixed all that when you elected the first Indian American female governor, when we appointed the first African American U.S. senator.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Nikki Haley back in 2014. Bree Newsome Bass, your final comment?

BREE NEWSOME BASS: I mean, I think that says it all, right? So, first of all, she’s saying that it’s OK, the optics are OK. Right? We’re not talking about the substance. We’re not talking about the experience. We’re not talking about whether people are actually experiencing equal treatment under the law. Just the optics. So the optics are fine, because it’s not disrupting business, right? And then the other thing that she offers as evidence that everything is OK is the fact that she’s nonwhite, she is an Indian American woman, and then she points to other people in the administration — excuse me — who are nonwhite.

Well, that’s the entire problem right there. The idea is that so long as we can keep business going as usual, it doesn’t matter that there’s violence, it doesn’t matter that there’s racism. All that matters is the optics. And that is what Nikki Haley’s campaign represents in her falsely claiming that she led the way on taking the Confederate flag down. That’s what Joe Biden’s campaign represents in terms of thinking that all that matters is giving a speech at a church, and ignoring all of the churches that are being blown up and all of the Palestinians that are being killed, ignored the fact that young people are demanding a future, and we have people who are older who don’t seem to care at all that this assault in Palestine is disproportionately affecting children or killing children.

And then, in the case of Nikki Haley, again, she does not truly represent any of the things that she is claiming when it comes to being antiracist. You can say whatever words you want to say, you can put together whatever kind of events you want to put together, but the fact is that the truth is going to be the truth. We see what is actually happening.

And I support all of the disruptions, because the last thing that we need is to carry on business as usual when our democracy is absolutely under attack. Democracy is under attack worldwide. And genocide is the most extreme — the most extreme form of racial violence that there is. So there’s no way that we are fighting white supremacy simply by taking down a flag or having an event at Emanuel AME in the midst of genocide, in the midst of doing away with affirmative action, voting rights, the attack on abortion rights. This is where we are at. It’s a very dangerous place. And I hope that people look beyond the optics and support those people who are disrupting, because the last thing that we need is to carry on with business as usual.

AMY GOODMAN: Bree Newsome Bass, artist, antiracist activist. In 2015, following the massacre of the eight African American parishioners and their pastor by a white supremacist at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, Bree scaled the 30-foot flagpole at the South Carolina state Capitol and removed the Confederate flag.

[admin]

Why I Resigned: Meet Tariq Habash, First Biden Appointee to Quit over U.S.-Backed Israeli War on Gaza
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 10, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/10/ ... transcript

As the Biden administration faces mounting public and internal criticism for supporting and arming Israel’s 96-day assault on Gaza, we speak with Tariq Habash, who last week became the first Biden appointee to publicly resign from the government to protest Biden’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza. “It was untenable to work for and represent an administration and president that put conditions on my own humanity, that didn’t believe that Palestinian lives were equal to the lives of other people,” says Habash, a Palestinian American Christian who worked as a senior official at the U.S. Department of Education. He details how Biden employees “across the board” are frustrated with the president’s policy on Gaza. “The White House doesn’t even know the level of dissent within its own ranks.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at Gaza, where the death toll from Israel’s assault has topped 23,300. On Tuesday, during a trip to Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the civilian death toll in Gaza is, quote, “far too high,” but he refused to call for a ceasefire.

SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: Facing an enemy that embeds itself among civilians, who hides in and fires from schools, from hospitals, makes this incredibly challenging. But the daily toll on civilians in Gaza, particularly on children, is far too high. … We want this war to end as soon as possible. There’s been far too much loss of life, far too much suffering. But it’s vital that Israel achieve its very legitimate objectives of ensuring that October 7th can never happen again.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Tony Blinken speaking in Tel Aviv after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Blinken met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas today in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. During Tuesday’s press conference, Blinken went on to say Israel must not press Palestinians to leave Gaza and that the region needs to find a “pathway to a Palestinian state.”

SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN: We continue to discuss how to build a more durable peace and security for Israel within the region. As I told the prime minister, every partner that I met on this trip said that they’re ready to support a lasting solution that ends the long-running cycle of violence and ensures Israel’s security. But they underscored that this can only come through a regional approach that includes a pathway to a Palestinian state.

AMY GOODMAN: Blinken’s trip to Israel and the Middle East comes as the Biden administration faces mounting criticism for supporting and arming Israel’s assault on Gaza.

We begin today’s show with Tariq Habash. Last week, he became the first Biden appointee, and just the second administration official overall, to publicly resign from the Biden administration to protest Biden’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza. Tariq Habash is a Palestinian American Christian who worked as a senior official at the U.S. Department of Education.

In his resignation letter, he wrote, quote, “I cannot stay silent as this administration turns a blind eye to the atrocities committed against innocent Palestinian lives, in what leading human rights experts have called a genocidal campaign by the Israeli government,” unquote.

Tariq Habash, welcome to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us. Can you talk about your decision-making, at what point you decided you had to leave the Biden administration, how long you’ve worked for him, and what you think of what’s happening right now?

TARIQ HABASH: Thank you so much, Amy. And thanks, Juan.

You know, for me, this was an incredibly difficult decision. In a lot of ways, I was working my dream job. I was working for a president who for years touted himself as an individual of empathy, an individual, a president, a leader who cared about our education system, about labor rights, about healthcare, about the environment. In a lot of ways, I was extremely aligned with the entire domestic policy agenda of President Biden. And I was able to work on issues that I truly cared about. You know, I was part of the administration from the very beginning, coming up on three full years working in this administration. And even before that, I volunteered my time as someone who assisted the campaign on the policy development of that agenda with respect to higher education and student debt.

But it was really difficult, as someone who both cared deeply about American democracy and cared deeply about improving the lives of millions of Americans, to also feel like it was untenable to work for and represent an administration and a president that put conditions on my own humanity, that didn’t believe that Palestinian lives were equal to the lives of other people. And, you know, that’s just a really, really hard thing to deal with. And so, for me, it wasn’t a particular moment in time. I think it was a culmination of near daily dehumanization of Palestinian lives in Gaza and the West Bank, and policy and rhetoric that never really shifted over the last three months. And I think we even heard that yesterday from the secretary of state, unfortunately.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Tariq, I’m wondering: Did you try to express your perspective or your viewpoints to people in the administration? And I’m wondering also what the response was of your direct boss, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, when you decided to resign.

TARIQ HABASH: Yeah, I mean, I used every avenue available to me to be able to express my concerns both about the language that the administration, the White House, was using, to express concerns about the policies and how it undermines the president’s message on protecting democracy, on how it undermines our stature across the international community with respect to, like, being humanitarians and caring about human life. And yeah, I spoke with the secretary on numerous occasions about this issue. I spoke with the assistant secretaries. I spoke with the secretary’s chief of staff. They were all extremely understanding of my personal plight and my personal frustration, and, you know, they were very supportive of me on a personal level, emotionally understanding, checking on me to make sure that I was doing OK.

And even in circumstances where the White House did listening sessions and had policy briefings for staff in particular, you know, I was there. I tried to raise concerns, as did many of my peers and colleagues. I think there was a different tone in the reception from the White House than, say, the Department of Education, in particular, but I think the outcomes, unfortunately, didn’t change anything. I think we continued to see a doubling down on the current policies that have led us to where we are today, which is the unconditional support of military funding and resources to an extremist Israeli regime that continues to both indiscriminately bomb Palestinians in Gaza and starve millions of people.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, and you mentioned that you had participated in President Biden’s original campaign. What do you sense is the implication for his reelection campaign of the deep dissatisfaction not only among employees in his administration, but of young, progressive and liberal Americans across the spectrum?

TARIQ HABASH: Yeah, I mean, I think that there are huge implications. I think we’re already seeing those implications. The president is now really gearing up for the 2024 election. We’re months away. And we’re seeing his poll numbers really hitting real lows, particularly in communities that are predominantly minority, predominantly younger. We’re seeing a backlash, I think, in part to these policies and to our response.

And it feels like it’s out of touch with the president’s message around protecting democracy from authoritarianism. I think the president has spoken very directly to the American people about how important 2024 is in terms of protecting our democracy. I think that is absolutely true, but it’s also just not in line with the foreign policy approach to the region, and to Gaza in particular, as we are seeing the president and the administration provide unconditional support to an authoritarian Israeli government.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Habash, what has been the response of your colleagues to quitting? And you talked about the difference between the response of the Department of Education and the White House. Have you gotten word from the White House?

TARIQ HABASH: I haven’t heard from the White House. I have heard from countless colleagues across the federal government, people who I’ve worked very closely with, people who I didn’t have the opportunity to work with, and people who we had numerous touchpoints across the three years that I was at the Department of Education. And that response has been incredibly supportive. I couldn’t imagine the level of understanding and support and alignment with so many people.

I think we’ve heard a lot about the level of dissent across the federal government with the administration’s current policies. I think we’ve seen numerous dissent cables from the State Department be leaked. We’ve seen letters from USAID, from dozens of federal agencies, from interns, dissent within the White House. I mean, it is across the board.

But I think there’s also so much more that we don’t even realize, because there are limitations to how people can share that information and use the channels that are available to them. For me at the Department of Education and other domestic agencies, there aren’t the same types of private channels that State Department has for dissent cables for Foreign Service officers and other employees. I was fortunate because I had leadership that cared about me on a personal level, that wanted to check on me, and told me that if there were things that I wanted to communicate to the White House, to the highest levels of the White House, those messages would be communicated. The vast majority of people don’t have that level of access and support from their leadership, from their agencies, and they don’t have those structures in place. So, I think, in a lot of ways, the White House doesn’t even know the level of dissent within its own ranks. And I think that’s concerning.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, President Biden spoke at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. That’s where the white supremacist Dylann Roof shot dead eight Black parishioners and their pastor in 2015, Clementa Pinckney. Biden’s speech was disrupted when a group of activists started chanting “Ceasefire now!”

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Without light, there’s no path from this darkness.

PROTESTER: If you really care about the lives lost here, then you should honor the lives lost and call for a ceasefire in Palestine!

PROTESTERS: Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now! Ceasefire now!

AMY GOODMAN: As the protesters called for a ceasefire and were removed from the church, supporters of Biden started chanting “Four more years.” President Biden then addressed the protest.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I understand their passion. And I’ve been quietly working — I’ve been quietly working with the Israeli government to get them to reduce and significantly get out of Gaza. I’ve been using all that I can to do that.

AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering, Tariq, if you think President Biden’s line has changed at all. I mean, reports are he’s called his top aides to the White House, absolutely furious why his poll numbers are so low, when the poll figures show people are so dismayed at what’s happening now. I wanted to quote a retired Israeli major general, Yitzhak Brick, who conceded in November, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S.” He said, “The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability. … Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.” Talk about what you think Biden understands and what he needs to do right now.

TARIQ HABASH: I think it’s really important to recognize that, you know, American voters see this as a domestic policy issue just as much as a foreign policy issue. It is affecting what is going to happen in the upcoming election. I think people are really dissatisfied with the response of the administration. I think that we’re seeing that in the church a couple days ago with the protest. We’re seeing it with protests across the country. We’re seeing city councilmembers and local legislators and policymakers take stances to support an immediate ceasefire.

That disconnect from the people is really concerning for American democracy, but it’s concerning because it feels like digging into the current position means that it’s not as valuable to listen to the people and that our policymakers are going to make the decisions that they’re going to make. And I think when we see an administration circumvent Congress by issuing hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons to a foreign government and circumventing the processes that are in place, ignoring really important laws to protect both Americans but also abide by international humanitarian law, I think there are significant implications for what that means for America more broadly.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Tariq, I wanted to ask you — in your work at the Education Department, you were focused particularly on higher education. I’m wondering: What’s your response to what’s been happening on so many campuses across the country and the politicians in — or some politicians in Congress trying to support and build up the retaliation and targeting campaign faced by Palestinian rights advocates at the university campuses?

TARIQ HABASH: I’m so glad you asked that question. I feel like — so, I already mentioned a little bit how, like, Americans don’t feel like this is just an issue away from home, this is also a domestic policy issue. I think that is extremely clear on college campuses, that have for decades been the grounds for public dissent, for protests, for being able to have a free exchange of ideas and communicate on issues that are really difficult. I think American higher education is meant to be a place to allow free speech in all of its forms. I think that’s really important. I think the Department of Education recognizes that.

But I think there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. I think it’s very clear, the overcorrection that we’ve seen by institutions of higher education and their response to the weaponization of language, in particular, on college campuses and by political officials and right-wing extremists. I think, at the end of the day, we need to ensure that students are safe, but we need to provide safe learning environments that do not infringe on their rights to be able to have those difficult conversations, to learn about issues that matter in the world right now. And this particular conflict is the forefront of those conversations in so many ways.

I think when we see students on college campuses show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, when we see students on college campuses condemn the daily atrocities that we see that are starving millions of Palestinians, and decades of oppression and occupation that have led to unequal rights for Palestinians, I think that it’s really important that we separate that from actual hate speech, that is real and dangerous and growing across the country. And I think that, you know, we’ve seen politicians rely on the weaponization of language in order to minimize students’ ability to organize and to speak about some really difficult issues. And we’ve seen that really affect the independence and the integrity of American higher education.

And the risks to academic freedom are very real. And that is a responsibility for the Department of Education. And I think that was one reason for me why it took so long to really take this position, because I did feel an obligation, on the issues that I worked directly on, to be able to help move the ball forward and provide as much support as possible to students across the country.

AMY GOODMAN: I’m wondering — you were still there, Tariq, at the Department of Education when the three Palestinian students were shot in Burlington, one from Trinity, one from Haverford and one from Brown, Hisham Awartani, who is paralyzed from the chest down. And I was wondering your response there and within the department, and also if you feel you face a different future than someone like Josh Paul, longtime State Department official who quit over Biden administration policy. You’re a Biden appointee. But if you face something different as a Palestinian American?

TARIQ HABASH: Yeah, absolutely. Just to quickly touch on what happened in Vermont, which is absolutely horrific, I think part of the problem is the constant dehumanization of Palestinians. And what we’ve seen both in the language that the White House has used and in what we have seen in terms of coverage here across the United States in the media, making it seem like Palestinians — and, in particular, Palestinian men — are less deserving of support, of humanity, of emotion, that allows people to feel like attacking them is acceptable. And that’s just — that’s a horrifying thing to realize, is that as a Palestinian, as a Palestinian man, as a Palestinian Christian, so may aspects of my own identity are erased on a daily basis. And it’s truly horrifying that we allow that type of dehumanization to exist in our country today. For me, it’s very personal. And, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about your background, Tariq, your family’s background, your history.

TARIQ HABASH: Yeah. You know, I’m an American. I was born and raised here in the United States. But I descend from generations of Palestinians. I am a Palestinian American. Like I said, I’m a Palestinian Christian. My family has been Christians for as far back as we know.

And in 1948, my grandparents and many of my aunts and uncles who were alive at the time were forcibly displaced from their homes in Yaffa. And for those who don’t know, it’s on the water, essentially where Tel Aviv is today. And they had to leave everything. They left their homes. They left their businesses. They left their friends. They saw a huge migration, a forced migration of their peers, and massive levels of death. And for them, it was about self-preservation, about preserving future generations of their family. And they walked for miles to find somewhere safe.

And I think it was happenstance that, you know, someone told them, “Oh, we think it’s safe toward the east. Let’s walk that direction.” And as a Palestinian living in America, as a Palestinian living in the broader diaspora, not being able to return, there’s a level of guilt that you have, knowing that a decision that was made 75 years ago to walk east instead of south, toward Gaza, changed the entire trajectory of your life, changed the trajectory of your family’s lives, because, you know, my family has been here in the States for a long time, but I could have very easily been in Gaza. My family could have been in Gaza. It’s extremely emotional. And you feel guilty because you are safe and you can’t do enough to protect lives that are being taken indiscriminately.

AMY GOODMAN: What are your plans now, Tariq?

TARIQ HABASH: I don’t know. You know, I think this is such an important issue. I’m doing everything I can just to use whatever channels that I have to communicate about how important it is to end the violence immediately, to preserve as many lives as possible. I think we’ve heard the White House and the secretary of state talk repeatedly about minimizing civilian casualties. We can do a lot better than minimizing them. We can end civilian casualties in Gaza and in the West Bank. I think it’s up to us to make that decision, to do a little bit of introspection on our own policies and positions and recognize that it’s been over three months, the military route has been an epic failure, and the only path to peace, as the secretary of state talked about just yesterday, is a diplomatic one.

And when we talk about providing humanitarian aid and increasing the level of aid that’s getting to people in Gaza who are starving, it’s really hard to do that if there is continuous bombing of all of the safe regions. There’s nowhere safe left. There hasn’t been anywhere safe left for weeks and weeks. It’s really important that you end the violence, so that you can provide the level of support that’s needed, if we want to seriously contemplate a future for Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Habash, we want to thank you for being with us, former Biden administration political appointee who resigned last week from the Department of Education in response to President Biden’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza. He was the department’s only Palestinian American appointee. He was the first Biden appointee to quit.

***

“Israel Is Starving Gaza”: Israeli Rights Group B’Tselem Says IDF Is Using Hunger as a Weapon of War
STORYJANUARY 10, 2024Watch Full Show
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 10, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/10/ ... transcript

Human rights groups say Israel is using starvation as a weapon in the Gaza Strip as Israel severely restricts the delivery of humanitarian aid, medicine and food supplies to millions inside the besieged and bombed territory. In a new report,” Israeli human rights group B’Tselem lays out how Israel’s decision to cut off electricity, water and international humanitarian aid to Gaza after a 17-year blockade against the territory has led to a very quick collapse of infrastructure. “The things that impede this provision of food for people who are starving is a declared policy by Israel,” says Sarit Michaeli, B’Tselem international advocacy lead. “The Israeli government is at fault, is responsible for this, and this should lead to immediate international action.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

Several United Nations agencies, including the World Food Programme, say Israel’s bombardment of Gaza could lead to a famine throughout the entire Gaza Strip within six months, unless immediate action is taken. Hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians are now in Rafah, and many are waiting in line for hours for small amounts of food, as aid agencies struggle to meet the demand.

MARIAM AL-AHMAD: [translated] I came here to get food. I’ve been here since 9 a.m. just to get a plate full of food, because the situation is very difficult. We are from Gaza City, and we came to Rafah. The people of Rafah received us and welcomed us, but the numbers are large, and the situation is very difficult. … There is no money to buy food, and there’s no flour. We have no money to buy anything at home. There is no gas or anything that would help us to cook even a plate of lentils. We come here to get this plate of food, and it is not enough.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as hundreds of trucks trying to bring aid to Gaza are backed up for miles in Egypt at the Rafah border crossing and have been forced to wait for weeks to enter. On Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron urged Israel to lift barriers on delivering humanitarian aid into Gaza, citing, quote, “real widespread hunger.” Cameron was cross-examined by the Scottish MP Brendan O’Hara.

BRENDAN O’HARA: Two or three minutes ago, in answer, a reply to the chair, you said — and I quote — “One of the things we’d like the Israelis to do is switch the water back on.” Now, that says that they turned it off. It says that you recognize they have the power to turn it on. Therefore, isn’t turning water off and having the ability to turn it back on but choosing not to — isn’t that a breach of international humanitarian law?

DAVID CAMERON: It’s just something they ought to do, in my opinion.

BRENDAN O’HARA: No. Of course they should do it. Every human being would say you don’t cut people’s water supply off. But I’m asking you, in your position as foreign secretary —

DAVID CAMERON: Well, I don’t know. I mean —

BRENDAN O’HARA: — around a point of international humanitarian law. If Israel have the power to turn the water back on that they turned off, surely, that is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law.

DAVID CAMERON: Well, I’m not a lawyer. My view is they ought to switch it on, because the north of Gaza, the conflict is now effectively over there, and so getting more water and power into northern Gaza would be a very good thing to do. You don’t have to be a lawyer to make a judgment about that. You just have to be a human being.

AMY GOODMAN: Last month, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution to immediately increase aid deliveries in Gaza, and Human Rights Watch accused Israel of using starvation as a method of warfare, which violates international humanitarian law.

Well, for more, we’re going to Tel Aviv. We’re joined by Sarit Michaeli, international advocacy lead for the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, which has just published a new report, “Israel is starving Gaza,” that says starvation is, quote, “not a byproduct of war, but a direct result of Israel’s declared policy.”

Sarit, welcome to Democracy Now! Lay out exactly what you found and what you feel can be done about it.

SARIT MICHAELI: Well, in very basic terms, almost everyone in Gaza is hungry almost all of the time. Two-point-three million people are surviving mostly on sometimes one meal a day, people skipping meals in order to feed their children, people busy constantly looking for the next meal, for the next source of food for them and their families and children.

And all of this is happening in a place that is pretty much an hour’s drive from here — right? — where supplying humanitarian assistance and food and all the necessities, like water and other things that people rely on, should not be a difficult problem. We’re not talking about some sort of remote region internationally. We’re talking about an area that is accessible, where the things that impede this provision of food for people who are starving is a declared policy by Israel — the fact that Israel isn’t allowing enough trucks in, the fact that Israel isn’t providing the ability, the logistical infrastructure to actually drive this food into Gaza through places where it’s possible to do, and many other decisions taken by the Israeli government that are impacting this, that are making it — making the amount of assistance that is coming into Gaza simply a fraction of what the population need.

And, Amy, you quoted the international experts on this issue. Within a month, they expect almost all of the residents of the Gaza Strip to be up to what is phase three of this scale of horror of hunger. And this is simply unacceptable when it’s very clearly preventable. And the things that were said in the British Parliament by Minister Cameron are very clearly a clarification that this is the result of Israeli policies and actions. This is not just some sort of coincidence or just some unfortunate byproduct of war.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Sarit, I wanted to ask you: How is Israel controlling the food supply, especially in Rafah, where Rafah leads into Egypt? So, how exactly does it manage to continue to —

SARIT MICHAELI: Right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: — prevent trucks from getting in?

SARIT MICHAELI: So, Juan, let’s even look at the past situation. I mean, Gaza was on the brink of collapse even before this war began with the horrific October 7th attack by Hamas against Israelis, right? So, this has been a situation of food insecurity since the beginning of the Israeli blockade on Gaza almost 17 years ago. But the Israeli decisions to cut off electricity, to cut off the water supply, that Israel sells Gaza, to not allow all of the movement of the international humanitarian provision of supplies, those decisions made it almost impossible, from the start, for even bakeries to operate and provide for the people. And now what we — so, the collapse was very quick and based on a very long period of deprivation.

But now the issue really is that there needs to be hundreds of trucks entering Gaza every day, and just a fraction of that is entering. This is happening because the Rafah crossing is just not equipped for the movement of goods. Goods should be entering Gaza through other border crossings, that are generally with Israel, not with Egypt. Israel is also prohibiting the provision of food purchased on the Israeli market, so the aid agencies have to bring it from Egypt, which is even more difficult. Plus, there are also many restrictions on the ability to distribute it once it actually gets into the Gaza Strip. And then we see these awful images of desperate people charging these provision convoys that are coming in, and taking what they can, because they are simply so desperate, and the food isn’t reaching some areas of Gaza. So you have a situation where in some areas of Gaza things are only just bad, whereas in others things are just absolutely atrocious. And this is not a very large area.

So, certainly — and I think it’s recognized now by the international community — the Israeli government is at fault, is responsible for this. And this should lead to immediate international action, not simply conversations with Israeli policymakers, but actually clear clarifications that Israel is violating both its legal obligations — i.e. this is a war crime — and also that this is simply an immoral way to treat a civilian population.

AMY GOODMAN: After a visit to the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, U.S. Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen blasted the Israeli process for screening the aid. Senator Van Hollen spoke to CBS Face the Nation. This is what he said.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Many items that should be allowed to go into Gaza — water sort of filtration systems, other systems like that — were in a warehouse of rejected items that we visited. While we were there, we saw a truck turned away that had a big box from UNICEF, which is, of course, the U.N. organization that helps children. It was a unit to help with water desalinization. It was rejected. And when one item on a truck is rejected, the entire truck is rejected. The other big issue is within Gaza, the so-called deconfliction process, which is just a fancy name for those who are providing humanitarian assistance to have the confidence that they can deliver it without being killed.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk more about this, Sarit? Again, the senator, Van Hollen, is the one who has also called for the release of more information about the Israeli sniper who murdered Shirin Abu Akleh on May 11th, 2022, in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank.

SARIT MICHAELI: Yeah, absolutely, Amy. Well, we certainly appreciate the leadership that Senator Van Hollen and, actually, Senator Merkley are showing on this issue. And it is absolutely crucial that U.S. lawmakers, both from the more progressive part of the Democratic Party but also from the mainstream, security-oriented, kind of more established part of the Democratic Party, are engaging with President Biden to demand action on this issue — simply an unconscionable situation that is unfolding in front of us.

Now, I’d like to refer to the second part of Senator Hollen’s discussion of the dangers inside of Gaza. Yes,, absolutely, there’s been another update by the office of — the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs discussing an additional rejection by the Israeli authorities of another attempt to coordinate the transfer of medical goods into hospitals in the northern Gaza Strip. This was only the day before yesterday, apparently. So, we’re seeing that there are simply so many difficulties in trying to bring the aid, deliver the aid, with safety for the aid providers, obviously, in this area that is bombed.

And this brings us to the essential issue, which is that there needs to be a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. There needs to be a halt to Israeli airstrikes and bombardments in order for this food and aid and assistance — and not only food; medical supplies and other necessities have to be provided. And this is one — the continuation of the hostilities is making this provision far too dangerous and impossible currently. This is one other reason why we need this to stop.

B’Tselem has called for a ceasefire. But, of course, the most important reason for this to stop is to stop the killing of civilians, of women and children and human beings in the Gaza Strip, in a way that absolutely is disproportionate to what is facing Israel right now, and to the policies of, basically, airstrikes bombing residential homes. All of this is one — you know, and the huge death toll, 23,000 Gazans and counting, as a result, you know, that can only be described as a revenge attack after the horrific death toll that Israelis have suffered. But we simply cannot accept. You know, it’s certainly not moral, and it’s certainly not legal, that we inflict such a degree of suffering on Gazans — we Israelis — regardless of how much we have suffered and how horrific we have been affected by this. There is simply no justification for the continuation of this Israeli attack on Gaza, and it has to stop. There has to be a ceasefire.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Sarit, I wanted to ask you — you’re talking to us from Tel Aviv. How aware are Israelis of the catastrophic situation so close to where most of them live? And is there any significant portion of the population that cares?

SARIT MICHAELI: Well, unfortunately, Juan, the situation is very, very depressing and just painful when we look at the responses of many Israelis, possibly even the majority of Israelis, to what we see now in Gaza. I think the majority of Israelis still support what we are doing there. There is very little protest or very little rejection of the methods that Israel is employing in its attack against the civilian population of Gaza. The Israeli media doesn’t really broadcast much information about the suffering of Gazans, the devastation, the utter devastation, of infrastructure and the loss of homes, and human beings being killed on a daily basis, on an hourly basis.

But one of the saddest aspects of this is that even when people are aware of it, there are so many politicians and influencers and people who are simply rejecting any need to respect the humanity of people in Gaza. And unfortunately, some of the people who are aware of the huge price, the horrific toll that Gazans are paying, are not — you know, are simply OK with it. And this is one of the most depressing aspects of what is going on now in terms of the total dehumanization of Gazans among many people in Israel.

There are — I should mention there are Israelis who are opposed to this situation. There are Israelis who are calling to recognize the humanity of Gazans. But we are in the minority, unfortunately.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, we have less than a minute left, but I wanted to ask you, quickly — you’ve also been monitoring the violence in the West Bank, that has gotten far less attention. Could you talk about what you’ve chronicled?

SARIT MICHAELI: Absolutely, yes. So, since October 7th, there has also been a massive increase in the violence by Israeli soldiers and also security forces and Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank. It has led to a really large number of Palestinians killed by soldiers and by Israeli settlers. It has led to takeovers of land by settlers, to the removal, to the forcible transfer of Palestinian herding communities from very large parts of the West Bank. It’s led to, you know, the total destruction of the olive harvest, for example, as a coordinated campaign by settlers to damage the Palestinian economy. And all of these things are happening with very little international attention.

And again, this has got to end. There has to be a recognition of what is going on throughout the West Bank, of Israeli actions there. And as we call when it comes to the situation in the Gaza Strip, there has to be international action to hold Israeli policymakers accountable for their decisions that have led to these horrific results, horrific outcomes.

AMY GOODMAN: Sarit Michaeli, we have to leave it there. We thank you so much for being with us, with the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

[admin]

“Nowhere Is Safe in Gaza”: South Africa Lays Out Genocide Case vs. Israel at World Court in The Hague
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 11, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/11/ ... transcript

South Africa began to make its case Thursday at the International Court of Justice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In their opening statements, South Africa’s lawyers argued that the sheer scale of Israel’s violence, which has so far killed more than 23,000 people since October 7, is part of a political and military strategy aimed at the destruction of Palestinian life, using statements from top Israeli leaders to show genocidal intent. Israel and the United States have both vehemently rejected the charges. South Africa is seeking a provisional measure from the top U.N. court to stop Israel’s military campaign, though a final ruling could take years. We feature highlights from the first day of proceedings at The Hague.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: South Africa has accused Israel of acts of genocide against Palestinians in opening remarks today at a historic hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. At the hearing, South Africa demanded an emergency suspension of Israel’s aerial and ground assault on Gaza, which it said was intended at bringing about, quote, “the destruction of the population of the territory.” In a detailed 84-page document launching the case late last year, South Africa alleged that Israel has demonstrated that intent. The International Court of Justice is hearing South Africa’s arguments today, and we’ll hear Israel’s response to the allegations on Friday. South Africa’s Justice Minister Ronald Lamola addressed the court at the opening of the hearing.

RONALD LAMOLA: Madam President and distinguished members of the court, it is an honor for me to stand here in front of you on behalf of the Republic of South Africa on this exceptional case. “In extending our hands across the miles to the people of Palestine, we do so in the full knowledge that we are part of a humanity that is at one.” These were the words of our founding president, Nelson Mandela. This is the spirit in which South Africa acceded to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide in 1998. This is the spirit in which we approach this court as a contracting party to the convention. This is a commitment we owe to the people of Palestine and Israelis alike.

As previously mentioned, the violence and the destruction in Palestine and Israel did not begin on the 7th of October, 2023. The Palestinians have experienced systematic oppression and violence for the last 76 years.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was South Africa’s Justice Minister Ronald Lamola addressing the court at the opening of the hearing. South Africa lawyer Adila Hassim was next. She began by citing Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza in her opening argument.

ADILA HASSIM: For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare. Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable.

AMY GOODMAN: South African lawyer Adila Hassim continued by laying out what South Africa says was a series of genocidal acts, including mass killing, displacement, denial of humanitarian aid, and more. She began on the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza.

ADILA HASSIM: The first genocidal act committed by Israel is the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, in violation of Article II (a) of the Genocide Convention. As the U.N. secretary-general explained five weeks ago, the level of Israel’s killing is so extensive that nowhere is safe in Gaza. As I stand before you today, 23,210 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces during the sustained attacks over the last three months, at least 70% of whom are believed to be women and children. Some 7,000 Palestinians are still missing, presumed dead under the rubble.

Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing wherever they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they failed to evacuate, in the places to which they have fled, and even while they attempted to flee along Israeli-declared safe routes. The level of killing is so extensive that those whose bodies are found are buried in mass graves, often unidentified.

In the first three weeks alone following 7 October, Israel deployed 6,000 bombs per week. At least 200 times, it has deployed 2,000-pound bombs in southern areas of Palestine designated as safe. These bombs have also decimated the north, including refugee camps. Two-thousand-pound bombs are some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available. They are dropped by lethal fighter jets that are used to strike targets on the ground by one of the world’s most resourced armies.

AMY GOODMAN: South African lawyer Adila Hassim concluded her remarks by outlining the need for an emergency suspension of Israel’s assault on Gaza.

ADILA HASSIM: All of these acts, individually and collectively, form a calculated pattern of conduct by Israel indicating a genocidal intent. This intent is evident from Israel’s conduct in specially targeting Palestinians living in Gaza; using weaponry that causes large-scale homicidal destruction, as well as targeting — targeted sniping of civilians; designating safe zones for Palestinians to seek refuge and then bombing these; depriving Palestinians in Gaza of basic needs — food, water, healthcare, fuel, sanitation and communications; destroying social infrastructure — homes, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals; and killing, seriously injuring and leaving large numbers of children orphaned.

Genocides are never declared in advance. But this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts.

In the Gambian Myanmar case, this court did not hesitate to impose provisional measures in relation to allegations that Myanmar was committing genocidal acts against the Rohingya within the Rakhine state. The facts before the court today are, sadly, even more stark and, like the Gambian Myanmar case, deserve and demand this court’s intervention.

Every day there is mounting, irreparable loss of life, property, dignity and humanity for the Palestinian people. Our newsfeeds show graphic images of suffering that has become unbearable to watch. Nothing will stop the suffering except an order from this court. Without an indication of provisional measures, the atrocities will continue, with the Israeli Defense Force indicating that it intends pursuing this course of action for at least a year.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: South African lawyer Adila Hassim. She was followed by attorney Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who outlined what South Africa said was clear evidence of genocidal intent by Israel.

TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI: The intentional failure of the government of Israel to condemn, prevent and punish such genocidal incitement constitutes, in itself, a grave violation of the Genocide Convention. We should recall, Madam President, that in Article I of the convention, Israel confirmed that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law, and it undertook to prevent and to punish it as such. This failure to prevent, condemn and punish such speech by the government has served to normalize genocidal rhetoric and extreme danger for Palestinians within Israeli society.

As MK Moshe Saada from the Likud party has said, the government’s own attorneys shares his views that Palestinians in Gaza must be destroyed. I quote: “You go anywhere, and they tell you to destroy them. In the kibbutz, they tell you to destroy them. My friends at the state attorney’s office, who fought with me on political issues in debates, said to me, 'It is clear that we need to destroy all Gazans.'” “Destroy all Gazans.”

Israel is aware of its destruction of Palestinian life and infrastructure. Despite this knowledge, it has maintained — and indeed intensified — its military activity in Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: Excerpts from South Africa’s arguments at the historic hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague accusing Israel of acts of genocide. When we come back, we go to Johannesburg and Jerusalem for response.

***

Palestinian Genocide Scholar & South African Lawyer on “Extreme Urgency” of World Court Case
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 11, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/11/ ... transcript

We speak with guests in Johannesburg and Jerusalem about South Africa’s landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, where judges are being asked to intervene to stop a genocide. “What essentially South Africa is calling for is a ceasefire in Gaza,” says South African human rights lawyer Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh. We also speak with Palestinian genocide scholar Maha Abdallah, who says there is “extreme urgency” for the world to stop the bloodshed. “The court must immediately act,” Abdallah says.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We’re joined now by two guests to discuss South Africa’s historic genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Today marked the first hearing out of two days of arguments, with South Africa outlining its case that Israel has violated the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, saying its three-month assault on Gaza is being conducted with the intent to bring about the destruction of Palestinians as a group.

AMY GOODMAN: In Jerusalem, Maha Abdallah is a Palestinian genocide scholar, a graduate teaching assistant and Ph.D. researcher at the Faculty of Law at the University of Antwerp. And joining us from Johannesburg, South Africa, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, South African human rights lawyer, directs the Africa program of the International Commission of Jurists, which is dedicated to defending human rights and the rule of law worldwide.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin in South Africa with Kaajal. If you could start off by talking about the significance of today’s hearing, that finished just before we went to air? What is the International Court of Justice? How unusual is it to bring a kind of case like this? If you could take it from there?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-KEOGH: Yes, sure. Hi, everybody.

So, to talk about the hearing and the International Court of Justice, the International Court of Justice is a world court which adjudicates issues and cases between states. So it is different from the International Criminal Court in that way. Where the ICJ — where the ICC would prosecute individuals on international criminal concerns, the International Court of Justice only deals with issues between state parties. And this is the reason why South Africa has filed this case before the International Court of Justice.

And it was a pretty remarkable hearing. You’ve said already about the historical significance of this hearing. There have been previous cases at the International Court of Justice dealing with genocide, but those previous cases have not attracted as much attention and interest as this particular case.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Kaajal, could you explain how often it’s been the case that a case has been brought to the ICJ by a country that is not one of the parties involved in the conflict? Because one thinks most recently of the case of Russia and Ukraine, which Ukraine brought, or, in fact, the first genocide case that was heard at the International Court of Justice, which, of course, had to do with Srebrenica, the genocide of Bosnians in the Yugoslavia War.

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-KEOGH: Yes. So, the court can deal with any issues. Issues of genocide, of course, have — there have not been many cases of genocide brought before the court. In this particular case, however, both South Africa and Israel are members of the U.N. They’ve both signed on to the Genocide Convention, and, as a result of their membership of the U.N. and signature of the Genocide Convention, may be held responsible and have responsibilities under this convention. And this is the reason which established South Africa’s grounds for filing the case.

There have been other cases brought against member states who are not — who have not signed the Genocide Convention. Those cases are more difficult. It is more difficult, in particular, to try and enforce any findings or to establish jurisdiction of the court in order to look into those cases. But the court may still make preliminary findings, may make other findings which are and can be very useful in trying to protect individuals who are being affected by genocide and actions connected to genocide.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And so, if you could begin, Kaajal, just by explaining — of course, the decision, as everyone has said, is likely to take years on the case itself, on the merits — what are the provisional measures that South Africa is calling for in the interim?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-KEOGH: Yes. So, essentially what South Africa is calling for is a ceasefire in Gaza. They’ve set this out in a number of ways. They’re asking for the blockade in Gaza to cease immediately. They’re asking for the cease of the bombings and the actions which are causing the death of — killing of Palestinians, destruction of their homes, expulsion, displacement, blockade on food, water, medical assistance, as well as the imposition of measures preventing Palestinian births by destroying essential health services which are crucial for the survival of pregnant women and babies. And these are all listed as genocidal actions in the suit. So, there’s a whole range of actions which they’re calling for an immediate cease on. And these are the provisional measures which South Africa seeks at the current time.

AMY GOODMAN: Maha Abdallah, you are a Palestinian genocide scholar. Can you explain the significance of this going to the International Court of Justice, and how people are responding in Israel and Palestine?

MAHA ABDALLAH: Thank you for having me.

This is a historic moment for the Palestinian people in their pursuit for justice and accountability, decades after the imposition of a settler-colonial and apartheid regime against the Palestinian people that has dispossessed and fragmented the Palestinians without accountability and with near-total impunity. So, the fact that Israel today stands on trial is very significant, very important. But, of course, we recognize the possibilities and the different scenarios that are forthcoming.

And the fact that Israel is on trial for the crime of genocide is also significant because, as the application of the South Africa before the International Court of Justice states, that the crime of genocide and the alleged genocidal acts and omissions by the state of Israel are part of a continuum. They do not happen in a vacuum. They’re part and parcel of the ongoing Nakba imposed on the Palestinian people. And for that, there needs to be accountability.

As for the reactions, unfortunately, I have not yet been able to interact with many people. The hearing session just finished. But I know that most of us Palestinians, whether in Palestine or in diaspora or in exile, we have been waiting for this moment, and all eyes have been on the ICJ, on The Hague today. And we have been thinking about the Palestinians in Gaza and how they perceive the current hearing sessions more than 90 days after complete devastation, more than 90 days after significant and extreme and severe loss, destruction and pain inflicted on the Palestinians there for the purpose of the destruction of the group. And, of course, we think of Palestinians in exile who have been also mentioned by the South African ambassador in his introductory remarks, when he spoke about the denial, the deliberate denial, of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, which includes the right of return for Palestinians in refugee camps across the neighboring countries.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, let me just turn — Maha, thank you for that — to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spoke Wednesday, one day before today’s hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, responding to the hearing.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I want to make a few points absolutely clear. Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. Israel is fighting Hamas terrorists, not the Palestinian population. And we are doing so in full compliance with international law. The IDF is doing its utmost to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas is doing its utmost to maximize them by using Palestinian civilians as human shields. The IDF urges Palestinian civilians to leave war zones by disseminating leaflets, making phone calls, providing safe passage corridors, while Hamas prevents Palestinians from leaving at gunpoint, and often with gunfire. Our goal is to rid Gaza of Hamas terrorists and free our hostages. Once this is achieved, Gaza can be demilitarized and deradicalized, thereby creating a possibility for a better future for Israel and Palestinians alike.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, that was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Maha, if you could respond to what he said regarding the case that is now ongoing at the International Court of Justice?

MAHA ABDALLAH: I think this is a baseless statement. And the statements over the past 13 weeks-plus, and even prior to the 7th of October, have been genocidal in intent, have, you know, showcased how Israeli political leaders, Israeli military leaders have the specific intent for — aiming for the destruction of the Palestinian people, using different means and methods, through different policies, practices, laws, military orders. And the fact that there has been an apartheid regime imposed for 75 years, along with a belligerent occupation for 56 years, a blockade and closure on the Gaza Strip, and the incarceration of an entire people, as well, these are all precursors and drivers of genocide. And the genocidal statements that we’ve been hearing since 13 weeks now cannot be simply put aside or disregarded by a simple statement the night before the hearing sessions start at the ICJ.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Maha, could you explain — you know, what do you hope will come out of this, knowing that, of course, a decision may take several years, but there could be these provisional measures that are put in place, even though they’re not, in fact, enforceable, the court does not have the capacity to enforce the measures?

MAHA ABDALLAH: The most and foremost important thing to come out of this, from this application and these proceedings at the moment, is for the court to order Israel to stop its aggression, to stop its hostilities, to stop its military operations against the Gaza Strip. And this is particularly important considering the severity, the scale and the gravity of the situation in the Gaza Strip, but also the failure of the international system, of the international community, to come to a consensus and to order Israel at the U.N. Security Council, but also in other spheres, to push it to put an end to this genocidal aggression against the Palestinians.

And as you said, the merits of the case, the actual decision of whether there is genocide or not by the court, will take years. But for the moment, what is mostly important is a need to stop this genocidal aggression, to safeguard and to protect whatever is possible to save at this moment of Palestinian life, of Palestinian dignity and of Palestinian rights.

AMY GOODMAN: Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, I wanted to ask you about Hamas. It is a nonstate player here. How does it fit into this decision? And also, because there isn’t enforcement, what is the role particularly of the United States, since it sits on the U.N. Security Council, which, of course, is related to the International Court of Justice as a U.N. body?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-KEOGH: Yes. The South African legal team set out very clearly the position of Hamas in this particular matter. And what they said in their submissions was that the International Court of Justice is there to adjudicate matters and cases between states. Hamas is not a state, and therefore Hamas is not part of this application. No claims have been brought against Hamas, and no claims can be brought against Hamas at this particular tribunal. There are other tribunals in which Hamas can be — crimes against Hamas can be brought, but this is not the appropriate tribunal for that particular issue. So, that deals with the issue of Hamas.

Talking about the U.S. and their involvement in this case, the U.S., as we know, are longtime friends with Israel. If there is — in the event that there is a final decision made by the court and the court makes findings on genocide and genocidal intent against Israel, of course, there is no immediate obligation on Israel to act on these findings, and we don’t expect Israel to comply with these findings, which will then lead to the matter being presented to the U.N. Security Council to try and enforce this compliance. And at that point, with the U.S. being a permanent member of the Security Council, they could, of course, use their veto powers to block any actions against Israel. So that would be a very serious challenge related to compliance of any findings of this court.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Kaajal, apart from the U.N. Security Council, of course, the person who leads the International Court of Justice, of the 15 judges, the president is an American, Joan Donoghue, and the vice president is a Russian, Kirill Gevorgian. So, if you could say — I mean, ostensibly, the judges are supposed to be impartial, but in the most recent case last year with Russia and Ukraine, the only countries to abstain from the vote, which was otherwise 13 people voted for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine, the provisional measure, China and Russia were the only two who did not. So, if you could say, just in terms of precedents, do judges, more or less, make decisions that coincide with the policies of their countries, or is it the case that this is an exception?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-KEOGH: Yeah, yes. So, judges are supposed to be independent. We expect judges to be independent. Judicial independence is the cornerstone of all democracies. We require judicial independence to be able to support us, and support us to claim our rights and to claim our democracies. It’s a means — it’s a hugely important means of protection.

We’ve seen previously at the ICJ, in the Ukraine v. Russia case, both the Russian and the Chinese judges offer dissenting opinions. I would hope — I would very much hope that the American judge, the president of the court, does feel an obligation to be independent, properly independent, in this matter. There is, of course, no guarantee of this. There is very little which can be done in the event of the American judge dissenting, making findings which are not in line with the majority of the court. And this is essentially the problem of the International Court of Justice, in that it can take on a relatively political slant in the decisions which it issues.

AMY GOODMAN: And now their terms are up — the American, she has had a number of positions at the State Department before, Joan Donoghue — are up in February, so they could be up before this decision is released. Is that right, Kaajal?

KAAJAL RAMJATHAN-KEOGH: I’m not aware of when her term is up, so I can’t really comment on that. But the fact that she’s sitting on the issue of provisional measures means that she will have some impact on what happens as the court makes findings on provisional measures. And if, however, the court decides to go into the merits of the case and proceeds with the matter, then she will no longer sit on the case going forward, but we don’t know who will replace her. So that’s an unknown, but it’s not guaranteed that there won’t be U.S. influence on the case going forward.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Maha Abdallah, just as we wrap up, if you could just give us your final thoughts, your assessment of what the situation is right now in Gaza, what you hope will come out of this?

MAHA ABDALLAH: Again, as I mentioned, I hope that this — that following the hearing sessions and on the basis of precedent by the very same court, where it has issued provisional measures within days’ or weeks’ time on, let’s say, similar cases, but not entirely alike, that the court will order the state of Israel to stop its aggression, to stop its military operations against the Gaza Strip and its people.

The Gaza Strip, as we have seen, there is the large-scale destruction, extensive killings taking place, ongoing and relentless bombardment and killings that are taking place. The catastrophe is so immense that we’re unable to understand or comprehend. Between the starvation, the dehydration, the lack of medical facilities and accessibility to medical supplies, to the most basic necessities for life and dignity, and for life and survival even, together with the fact that it’s under a total siege, blockade and closure that has intensified since the 7th of October, the mass displacement and forcible displacement and transfer of more than 1.9 million Palestinians into areas that are also being targeted and bombed by Israel and its military, all of these require immediate action, and immediate action that should not have taken place today or yesterday, but three months ago.

So, this is — we don’t have time. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and in the entirety of Palestine, we do not have the privilege of time. So this is why the court — the proceedings before the court, as rightly stated by South Africa in its application, they are of extreme urgency. So the court must immediately act and respond to the urgent situation, again, against the backdrop of the failure of the international system and the international justice mechanisms, as well as the complicity, the open-ended complicity, and support emboldening Israel’s action, emboldening Israel’s atrocities and recurrence and intensification of these violations and grave breaches and international crimes being committed against the Palestinian people.

AMY GOODMAN: Maha Abdallah, I want to thank you for being with us, Palestinian genocide scholar, speaking to us from Jerusalem, and Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, South African human rights lawyer, speaking to us from Johannesburg.

***

Gaza War Fuels Climate Crisis: “Massive” Carbon Emissions from Israeli Bombing
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 11, 2024

Israel’s military assault on Gaza is not just a humanitarian disaster but also generating massive amounts of planet-heating emissions and exacerbating the climate crisis. The carbon emissions from Israel’s bombs, tanks, fighter jets and other military activity in the first two months of the war were higher than the annual carbon footprints of 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations, according to researchers in the United States and United Kingdom. That is “a really conservative estimate,” says Guardian reporter Nina Lakhani, who reported on the new study. We also speak with Hadeel Ikhmais, head of the climate change office at the Palestinian Environmental Quality Authority, who says the climate impacts of the war are in keeping with Israel’s destruction of Palestinian land, water and other natural resources over many decades.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In an exclusive story this week, The Guardian's climate justice reporter Nina Lakhani revealed that, quote, “The planet-warming emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza were greater than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world's most climate-vulnerable nations,” end-quote.

The report is based on new work by researchers in the U.S. and the U.K., and they say even this impact is likely an underestimate. The analysis includes carbon emissions from fuel for aircraft, tanks and other vehicles, as well as emissions from making and exploding bombs, artillery and rockets. It also showed that U.S. cargo planes flying military supplies to Israel accounted for nearly half of all the carbon emissions.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined in New York by Nina Lakhani, senior climate justice reporter for The Guardian. Her story is headlined “Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have 'immense' effect on climate catastrophe.” Also with us, in Bethlehem, in the occupied West Bank, is Hadeel Ikhmais, who’s featured in the report, is the head of the climate change office at the Palestinian Environmental Quality Authority, their office based in Ramallah.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Nina Lakhani, lay out exactly what you found.

NINA LAKHANI: So, the researchers in the U.K. and U.S., what they did is, it’s the first attempt to calculate the carbon impact, the greenhouse gas impact, of the war in Gaza. And so, information about militaries and about war is very hard to come by, because governments don’t release this data themselves. So, what they did is, for the first 60 days, they looked at all the publicly available information that they could corroborate, including Hamas rockets, the air missions, the ground attacks in Gaza by Israel. And what they calculated is like a really conservative estimate of the carbon dioxide emissions just in the first 60 days.

What they also did is they looked at sort of — you know, gave us a snapshot of the occupation. So they looked at the carbon impact of the Hamas tunnels, which have been constructed since 2007, 2008, and Israel’s iron wall, and they also provided an estimate of the reconstruction costs. So, the conservative estimate they’ve used is that 100,000 buildings have been destroyed in Gaza so far, and the amount of carbon dioxide that will be generated through the reconstruction of those buildings, if that is allowed to go ahead in the coming years.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Hadeel Ikhmais, you spoke to Nina for this Guardian report, and you told her — and I’m quoting — “Among all the problems facing the state of Palestine in the coming decades, climate change is the most immediate and certain — and this has been amplified by the occupation and war on Gaza since the 7 October.” So, Hadeel, if you could lay out what were the climate crises that Gaza was confronted with, that Palestine was confronted with, that have now been exacerbated by this now almost three-month-long war?

HADEEL IKHMAIS: Well, we’ve done, through the last years — before even becoming a party to UNFCCC in 2016, we’ve made a lot of research and a lot of studies to find the climate scenarios. And after joining the UNFCCC and ratifying and signing Paris Agreement, Palestine had three very worst — we call them the bad, the worse and the worst scenarios of climate action in Palestine, regarding the heat waves, the droughts, the high unprecedented temperature, the dryness in the rainy season, and also all this fluctuality of fluctuations in the rainfall, in the temperatures, in the increasing of the heat and warm periods, and the decreasing in the colder periods. All of this will make a transformation to the way of life of the Palestinians, from securing the water and also the food security, because Palestine is an agricultural country which relies on the agriculture sector, mainly the olive and livestock, as the first income.

So, all these fluctuations and all these climate scenarios will negatively impacted the livelihood and the basic needs of livelihood in Palestinians in both West Bank and Gaza. And we’ve done assessment to both the high-priority sectors that are vulnerable to the climate action in both West Bank and Gaza. And those are — these are 12 sectors, among them the water and the food security. With occupation, line by line, on the land, in the West Bank and Gaza, will exacerbate the problem by making it very difficult for the Palestinians to adapt and to be vulnerable to these changes — for example, the land confiscation, the water resources restriction, the extraction from the groundwater, the zero shares from the surface waters to the Palestinians —also restrictions —

AMY GOODMAN: Hadeel, Hadeel, I wanted to —

HADEEL IKHMAIS: — also restrictions —

AMY GOODMAN: Hadeel, I wanted to ask you about the impact that comes from Israel’s destruction of renewable energy projects in Gaza. Can you explain what they are?

HADEEL IKHMAIS: Yeah, this is true. And this is very — we’ve been working through the last 10 years on finding energy security resources and water resources from unconventional ways — for example, wastewater treatment, desalination in Gaza, a lot of renewable energy, solar panels — in order to find other resources to Palestinians in Gaza. But with all these — and they are in different shapes. For example, there are big projects, small projects, some entrepreneurship, some small projects for small villages or neighborhoods.

All of these, or basically most of them, were being destructed from the airstrikes and from the war and the last bombardments, among them one big project from the world-funded — from the World Bank and also from the Ministry of Finance in Palestine. Most of these solar panels were destructed. And also, we have another project with the Green Climate Fund, which is the financial arm to the UNFCCC, which is called the water banking, in north Gaza. Also, we don’t know how is the exact damage of this facility, because there is a lack of communication between the technical team in West Bank and Gaza because of the war under, because technical persons and colleagues are under war. So we don’t know how much is the real damage to these facilities. But all the reports from different organizations, from the WHO, from the UNICEF, from a lot of international organizations, show that there are a lot of facilities that have been extremely and mostly damaged because of the airstrikes in different places, regarding to water facilities, water pipelines, energy units, desalination units, wastewater treatment plants, treatment units. All of them were basically partially or completely destructed by the airstrikes.

And all of these things make it very challenging against combating climate change, because we need those infrastructure to be able to have this adaptive capacity, to have water from unconventional resources, energy security, also the health sector that’s been targeted by targeting the hospitals and all the main facilities for treatment, which —

AMY GOODMAN: Hadeel, I wanted to bring Nina in for the last minute and ask you — we just talked about the International Court of Justice and the case that’s been brought before them today. Your recent article on Israel’s intent to flood Gaza tunnels was cited by South Africa in their case today. We just have a minute. Can you talk about this?

NINA LAKHANI: I mean, I think the targeting, it’s been cited as sort of evidence of the collective punishment. You know, there is no life without water and food. And any targeting of water and food resources and supplies, as argued by South Africa, is evidence of genocidal intent.

And, you know, I think just that article and that work and also the work that we’re talking about here regarding the climate impact, you know, it shows that in this situation, the human suffering, the environmental destruction, immediate environmental destruction, and the long-term climate impacts are all interrelated. You know, the carbon emissions may seem very small compared to the global emissions, but they will have a direct impact and an indirect impact on Palestine, on Israel and all of us globally.

And I think that the climate — sort of the carbon analysis of war is something that really hasn’t been thought about. It’s sort of an evolving science and evolving area. But I think, as well as the immediate environmental destruction regarding, you know, what Hadeel has talked about, the sort of targeting of water and food supplies, has to be thought, as — you know, the impact on the global climate is something that we should be thinking about alongside that.

AMY GOODMAN: Nina, we have to leave it there, Nina Lakhani with The Guardian, and Hadeel Ikhmais, head of the climate change office at the Palestinian Environmental Quality Authority.

[admin]

“Gaslighting and Cherry-Picking”: How Israel Is Defending Itself at World Court on Charges of Genocide
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 12, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/12/ ... transcript

The second day of South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice at The Hague saw Israel take the stand, defending against accusations that its government is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. South Africa is demanding an emergency suspension of Israel’s aerial and ground assault on Gaza in front of the United Nations’ highest court. From The Hague, we hear from Diala Shamas, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, the organization that sued President Biden in November, accusing him of failing to prevent genocide in Gaza. Shamas recaps the two days of hearings and discusses other avenues for holding Israel accountable. “Whether it’s at the ICJ or whether it’s in federal court in the United States, we’re really looking to government to do everything that they can to uphold their duty to prevent an unfolding genocide,” says Shamas.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

Today, Israel defended itself against accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In one of the biggest cases ever to come before the United Nations’ high court, South Africa accused Israel of acts of genocide against Palestinians and demanded an emergency suspension of Israel’s aerial and ground assault on Gaza. A decision on that request will probably take weeks, though the full case will likely last years. Israel often boycotts international tribunals and U.N. investigations, calling them unfair and biased, but this time, for the first time, they attended the hearing, sent a high-level legal team to defend against the accusations of genocide.

The two-day hearings at what’s called the Peace Palace in The Hague began Thursday with South Africa laying out its case against Israel, saying its three-month assault on Gaza is being conducted with the intent to bring about the destruction of Palestinians as a group. Israel defended itself today against the accusations. At the hearing, Israeli legal adviser Tal Becker criticized South Africa for accusing Israel of genocide.

TAL BECKER: The applicant has now sought to invoke this term in the context of Israel’s conduct in a war it did not start and did not want, a war in which Israel is defending itself against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations whose brutality knows no bounds. …

The applicant has regrettably put before the court a profoundly distorted factual and legal picture. The entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated, decontextualized and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities.

South Africa purports to come to this court in the lofty position of a guardian of the interest of humanity. But in delegitimizing Israel’s 75-year existence in its opening presentation yesterday, that broad commitment to humanity rang hollow. And in its sweeping counterfactual description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seemed to erase both Jewish history and any Palestinian agency or responsibility.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to another clip of the Israeli legal adviser Tal Becker, who talked about the October 7th attack by Hamas, saying Israel had a right to defend itself.

TAL BECKER: First, that if there have been acts that may be characterized as genocidal, then they have been perpetrated against Israel. If there is a concern about the obligations of states under the Genocide Convention, then it is in relation to their responsibilities to act against Hamas’s proudly declared agenda of annihilation, which is not a secret and is not in doubt. …

Astonishingly, the court has been requested to indicate a provisional measure calling on Israel to suspend its military operations. But this amounts to an attempt to deny Israel its ability to meet its obligations to the defense of its citizens, to the hostages and to over 110,000 internally displaced Israelis unable to safely return to their homes. …

Madam President, members of the court, the hostilities between Israel and Hamas have exacted a terrible toll on both Israelis and Palestinians. But any genuine effort to understand the cause of this toll must take account of the horrendous reality created by Hamas within the Gaza Strip. …

Madam President, members of the court, the nightmarish environment created by Hamas has been concealed by the applicant, but it is the environment in which Israel is compelled to operate. Israel is committed, as it must be, to comply with the law, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter contempt for the law. It is committed, as it must be, to demonstrate humanity, but it does so in the face of Hamas’s utter inhumanity. …

It is respectfully submitted that the application and request should be dismissed for what they are: a libel, designed to deny Israel the right to defend itself according to the law from the unprecedented terrorist onslaught it continues to face, and to free the 136 hostages Hamas still holds.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now at The Hague by Diala Shamas. She’s a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. In November, CCR sued President Biden, accusing him of failing to prevent genocide.

Diala, thank you so much for being with us. I know it’s very noisy outside. There’s a major pro-Palestinian rally outside the International Court of Justice. This is historic, this two days. Yesterday South Africa accused Israel of genocide. Today Israel defended itself. Can you talk about their major arguments, saying this is an existential battle, they are simply engaging in self-defense?

DIALA SHAMAS: Thank you for having me.

Yes, it really is a historical moment. And I would have preferred to start with yesterday’s argument and just the significance of what we heard yesterday and what we saw yesterday and what all of these people that are here now, even over an hour after the hearings concluded, still chanting and protesting and thanking South Africa, the significance that South Africa brought this petition and started, at the outset of the hearing yesterday, reminding the world and the court that the context is 75 years of apartheid. And, of course, we all know South Africa and the South African people have emerged from a horrific battle against apartheid. They know what abandonment by the international community looks like and feels like. And it is in that spirit that they have come to this court and also were very clear in their statement that they have come to the court out of their legal and moral obligation, but their legal obligation to do something to prevent the unfolding genocide against the Palestinian people.

Today we heard predictable arguments in response, nothing that we haven’t already heard over the course of the last three months, and in many ways of what we’ve heard from the Israeli legal wing for the last 20 years, leaning heavily on self-defense — although South Africa, clearly, yesterday, and then today in a brief statement at the steps right here in front of me, reminded the world that self-defense is never a justification for genocide or any atrocity, really.

The other arguments, we heard a lot of more sort of factual disputes and gaslighting and cherry-picking and a lot of complaints that everything is sort of one-sided. And the two other main legal arguments that they leveraged were, essentially, first, that the court shouldn’t have jurisdiction in the first place, that South Africa hadn’t followed the proper procedures, that they hadn’t followed the appropriate protocols of notice to be in the court in the first place. And the second is that South Africa — the relief that South Africa is seeking, the provisional measures, are not something that the court is essentially permitted to grant, you know, citing various arguments to make that point.

So, you can’t be here, and then you can’t do anything about it, and, in the middle, everything we do is self-defense — and complete deflection, and never, at any point, addressing the incredibly powerful arguments laid out yesterday at a hearing for three hours by the South African legal team, the really compelling factual and legal arguments on intent, laying out, you know, the litany of statements by Israeli officials in the highest level of government all the way down to the foot soldiers, showing an environment and showing intent to commit genocide in Gaza, and everything else that was laid out.

So, it was really stark to sit today and listen to the arguments, after a day, yesterday, where, frankly, for the first time in the last three months, we’ve been able to hear, from beginning to end, uninterrupted, a compelling case of what we’ve sort of all seen play out over the course of the last three months. The South African legal team noted that we’ve been watching this on — atrocities on our phones. We have been seeing Palestinians broadcast their killing and the genocidal acts live. And the South African legal team put that out to the world and to the court very compellingly.

AMY GOODMAN: Diala, I want to turn to another clip from today’s hearing. This is Deputy Attorney General of Israel Gilad Noam calling on the court to dismiss the charges.

GILAD NOAM: This case concerns a large-scale armed conflict with tragic consequences for civilians on both sides. Yes, there is a heart-wrenching armed conflict, but the attempt to classify it as genocide and trigger provisional measures is not just unfounded in law, it has far-reaching and negative implications that extend well beyond the case before you.

Ultimately, entertaining the applicant’s request will not strengthen the commitment to prevent and punish genocide, but weaken it. It will turn an instrument adopted by the international community to prevent horrors of the kind that shocked the conscience of humanity during the Holocaust into a weapon in the hands of terrorist groups who have no regard for humanity or for the law. …

For us, provisional measures would lead to a perverse situation. It would effectively allow Hamas to continue attacking the citizens of Israel, to hold 136 hostages in unbearable conditions, to keep tens of thousands of displaced Israelis from returning to their homes, and, essentially, to promote its plan to massacre as many Israelis and Jews as it can.

AMY GOODMAN: Diala Shamas, you’re standing outside The Hague. You watched this argument inside The Hague. It just concluded. Senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, your response?

DIALA SHAMAS: Everything we expected. There were no new arguments raised by the Israeli legal team. Essentially, it amounted to them telling the court, “Trust us. Don’t believe what we’ve been telling the world, what we have been putting out in all of our statements, the statements that have circulated, clearly, you know, with genocidal intent, just saying we want to wipe out the population of Gaza, making comparisons, the famous Amalek quote.” And now they’re just saying, “Well, we were not serious there. Just trust us, that we are a, again, democracy with the rule of law” — this is something that — this is a public image that the Israeli government has, you know, done a lot of work to cultivate over decades, and that they do everything by the book. “And just don’t look at the evidence. Don’t look at everything the South Africans laid out plainly yesterday. Don’t look at everything the world has been seeing. And just trust us that we have procedures that we are following here, and, you know, we’re doing our best.”

And plenty of, you know, sort of concerns — and it’s hard to really figure out where to start picking, but a few really concerning statements about civilians, essentially making the argument that civilians have become targets because the legal team repeatedly stated over the course of their arguments that — you know, that because Hamas is operating in Gaza, Israel has to do what it has to do, and that includes the targeting of civilians.

But again, fundamentally, the claim that’s brought by South Africa here is the claim of genocide, which you can’t — there’s simply no argument that self-defense is a justification for genocide. The South African team has laid out the argument showing intent and also the underlying acts, and everything else is essentially a distraction.

AMY GOODMAN: Diala, the Biden administration is due in federal court later this month. While Israel faces charges of genocide at The Hague yesterday and today, in a case you’re working on with CCR, you’re taking it right to President Biden. Explain the theory of your case and what exactly you expect to happen. And is there any connection between that case in a U.S. federal court and what we’re seeing right now at the U.N.’s highest court, the World Court?

DIALA SHAMAS: Yeah, I couldn’t hear the full question, but I think you’re asking us about the case that the Center for Constitutional Rights has brought against Biden, President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and Austin, and Secretary of Defense Austin, in California federal court, raising failure in their duty to prevent a genocide and complicity in genocide arguments. And that case has a hearing coming up on February — I’m sorry, January 26th, where our team will be standing up in court arguing for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order the end of military assistance and other forms of assistance, political and diplomatic assistance, to Israel in light of the unfolding genocide.

The relationship is, you know, having to stand up in court and defend that a few weeks after this hearing, and possibly also after the ICJ has issued preliminary measures, is going to put this administration in a — I think it will be one of the first tests that we’ll have of how the U.S. government is responding to the ICJ — an ICJ decision and to the arguments raised here and the arguments that we’re also raising in the U.S. case. I think we’re all going to be looking to how the world responds to any preliminary measures issued by the Court of Justice.

As the South African attorney yesterday said, this is really, ultimately, a test of the very legitimacy of international law and the international legal order. If we can’t stop an unfolding genocide, then what is any of it for? She made a compelling closing argument, citing to a Palestinian, Munther Isaac, who spoke his sort of Christmas sermons, asking the world where — you know, “What will you say where you were when a genocide was unfolding?” And so, whether it’s at the ICJ or whether it’s in federal court in the United States, we’re really looking to government to do everything that they can to uphold their duty to prevent an unfolding genocide.

And having our case in the U.S. is, of course, incredibly important because the U.S. is the biggest supporter of Israel. There’s been investigative reporting showing how much military aid and military support has been indispensable to Israel’s assault and war on Gaza. And yet we’ve also seen repeated statements of unconditional support from the U.S. administration to the Israeli government, despite almost — you know, despite three months of daily attacks on civilians and daily statements showing an intent to destroy the civilian population of Gaza, in whole or in part, the Palestinian population.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Diala Shamas, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. Again, in November, CCR sued President Biden, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, accusing them of failing to prevent a genocide. For those who missed yesterday’s show, it was just after South Africa made its case at the International Court of Justice. We wanted to bring you South Africa lawyer Adila Hassim, who helped to lay out South Africa’s case at The Hague.

ADILA HASSIM: For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare. Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s South African lawyer Adila Hassim speaking yesterday before the International Court of Justice, laying out South Africa’s case against Israel, saying it’s engaged in genocide in Gaza. To see excerpts of yesterday, you can go to democracynow.org.

***

“They Want to Silence Us”: Knesset Member Ofer Cassif Faces Expulsion for Backing South Africa Genocide Case
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
January 12, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/12/ ... transcript

Israeli Knesset member Ofer Cassif is being threatened with expulsion from Israel’s legislature after he signed a petition supporting South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing it of acts of genocide. Cassif says the impeachment is based on an antidemocratic law that suppresses free speech. “They want me and my friends to shut up,” he says of the government’s persecution of dissenting legislators. “We’ve been against the war from the beginning because we are against bloodshed.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue to bring you response to the two days of the International Court of Justice, the historic hearing. Yesterday, South Africa presented its case against Israel, saying what it’s engaged in in Gaza is genocide. Today, Israel defended itself and said they are simply engaging in self-defense.

We’re going to turn right now to Ronald Lamola, who is the minister of justice and correctional services of South Africa. He’s part of the South African legal delegation. He responded to what Israel said.

RONALD LAMOLA: The state of Israel today has failed to disprove South Africa’s compelling case that was presented before the court yesterday. We stand by the facts, the law and all the evidence we have submitted yesterday. And we believe, and stand very confident, that those facts, the law, still are in violation of the Genocide Convention. …

Under the Genocide Convention, nothing justify genocidal acts currently being committed by Israel. Self-defense is no answer to genocide. Nothing can ever justify genocide. There is no balancing exercise, as Israel has sought to suggest. The prohibition is absolute. It is [inaudible] rule of law. No matter what some individual within the group of Palestine in Gaza may have done, and no matter how great the threat to Israel’s citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified at all.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Ronald Lamola, minister of justice of South Africa, speaking outside The Hague.

We end today’s show with an Israeli lawmaker who is backing South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, even as he faces expulsion from the Israeli Knesset. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is reporting 70 lawmakers in the Knesset have signed a motion to expel Ofer Cassif from the legislative body, after he signed a petition supporting the case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

Ofer Cassif is a Jewish lawmaker for the Arab-Jewish Hadash-Ta’al coalition. He denounced the move to expel him, pointing out no action has been taken against lawmakers who have called for the complete destruction of Gaza or backed the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza. He has also been critical of the potential criminal negligence of the Israeli government on October 7th, he says.

Ofer Cassif, welcome back to Democracy Now! Thank you for joining us from Jerusalem. Can you talk about what’s happening to you in the Israeli Knesset, where you serve?

OFER CASSIF: Yeah, sure. Thanks for having me.

And it’s very important for me, first of all, to emphasize that I am not against Israel or anti-Israeli. I’m against the government of Israel, because the government of Israel is at the moment the most dangerous to the Israeli society and to the Israelis. So my signature in support of this South African appeal to the ICJ is not against Israel. It’s for Israel and against the Israeli government and its policies. I have been saying that.

First of all, already 85 members of the Knesset signed on this. Allow me just very, very briefly to explain the process of expulsion, of impeachment of members of the Knesset. It is based on a law that was enacted on 2016, which is an undemocratic law because, of course, it allows tyranny of the majority. It allows the majority to persecute and suppress not only the freedom of speech, but the very existence of a member of the Knesset as such that belongs to the minority, and one’s, you know, ideas are not exactly acceptable, popular.

Now, the process of impeachment goes as follows. There’s a need of a minimum of 70 members of the Knesset, out of 120, to sign a motion that requests to expel a member of the Knesset. Then, if there is that number, if that number is achieved, it goes to the Knesset committee in which 75% of the members are needed to vote for the impeachment in order to go through to the assembly. And once it goes to the assembly, of 90 out of 120 vote for it, then the member of the Knesset after 14 days is expelled, with the option, of course, to appeal to the Supreme Court.

And we are now on between the first and the second stage. Eighty-five signatures were already collected. And not in the coming week, the week after, next Monday, 22nd of January, I’m about to face the Knesset committee towards my impeachment.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about their arguments, what — some have said your support for the South Africa case indirectly aligns with goals of Hamas and the attack on October 7th. There were allegations by the Israeli members in The Hague today that South Africa is serving as the political wing of Hamas. Your response to all of this, and what it means to you to talk as a Jewish member, an Israeli member of Knesset, being critical of the Israeli government and what they’re doing right now and Gaza, calling it a genocide?

OFER CASSIF: First of all, I’m very proud of my views and beliefs and of my friends’ and comrades’ views and beliefs and our activities, because we are the only ones who totally reject any kind of violence. Accusing us in supporting, implicitly or otherwise, the terrible carnage committed by Hamas on 7th of October is not only a sheer lie — that they are aware of — but it is also incitement, because they know perfectly well — I, personally, and my colleagues, we published time and again in the last 100 days since the massacre committed by Hamas took place, we published everywhere — I think that I said that to you also in one of our former interviews — that we are totally against, we totally condemn the terrible crime against humanity and war crime, this massacre, and the atrocities committed by Hamas. We are totally against it. Accusing me in supporting it, one way or another, this is a sheer lie, incitement, that has nothing to do with reality.

But they want to silent us. They want me and my friends to shut up. They don’t want us to raise our voice against any kind of violence, because, as I said a million times, as someone who continuously for years object and oppose the Israeli occupation and siege against the Palestinian people, we said, I said, explicitly, that even the crimes of the siege and the occupation cannot and will never justify the massacre committed by Hamas. We added that the massacre, the criminal massacre by Hamas, cannot justify the massacre and assault of Israel on Gaza, in which around 30,000 people are already dead, were killed. The vast majority, more than 70%, are innocent civilians, around 10,000 children.

So, raising voice against those things, supporting investigation of those things — and please bear in mind that in the petition that I signed on, there’s no categorical statement, let alone by me, that Israel is guilty in genocide. It does say that it deserves an investigation, impartial investigation. And the government of Israel, one way or another, branches of the government of Israel, cannot pursue an impartial investigation. It’s as if we were asking a thief to investigate oneself if it did steal something or not. That doesn’t make any sense. That’s one of the main things in supporting the appeal by South Africa: to investigate.

On top of that, we’ve been against the war from the beginning because we are against bloodshed. We know that the bloodshed and the terrible assault on Gaza, apart from being in itself criminal and deadly, by definition, it won’t bring security to no one, especially not to the Israelis. We want the bloodshed to stop. We want the war to end for the sake of lives of Palestinians and Israelis alike.

AMY GOODMAN: Ofer Cassif —

OFER CASSIF: The thousands and thousands of Palestinians — just one sentence, please. It’s not only the vast — the so many Palestinians, thousands of Palestinians, who are killed. Israeli soldiers are killed. The hostages are at risk, because the government doesn’t do anything to release them.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, because our show is ending.

OFER CASSIF: This appeal can help them.

AMY GOODMAN: Ofer Cassif, Jewish member of the Israeli Knesset, facing expulsion.