You can no more support Palestinians & Zionism than you could support Black Africans
& Apartheid or the Jews & the Nazis! @drrosena finds this ‘disgusting’
I guess my encounter with Dr Rosena Allin Khan MP must have been her
lucky break. She has garnered more
publicity from meeting me than anything else she has done during her campaign
for leadership.
Dr who you may ask?She is
running to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. As Lyndon Johnson, US
President once observed, Vice President isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
At the Brighton Kemptown nomination meeting 2 weeks ago she was the only
candidate to turn up. She needed the
nomination desperately because no union and virtually no CLPs had nominated her.
Knowing fully well that Brighton Kemptown was a left-wing CLP she was
determined to put on a left face. What she didn't mention was that the
organisers of her campaign are Tom Watson and former Labour General Secretary
'crooked' Iain McNicoll.
Still not sure what twitter love is? is it as real as fake antisemitism? either way she stuttered and mumbled
I was giving out leaflets for Rebecca Long-Bailey (v. reluctantly) and
Richard Burgon. She saw my Palestinian badge and came over and congratulated me
on wearing it. Clearly she was eager to please.
Rosena did have some support on Twitter even if it wasn't of the highest intellectual calibre
Dr Rosena introduced herself to me and no doubt expected I would be
bowled over and flattered. I wasn’t.I
knew who she was and wasn’t impressed after I’d already heard about her
opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ i.e. anti-racism in Labour. I responded that if
she supported the Palestinians why then did she sign up to the Board of
Deputies 10 Commandments.
She stuttered and mumbled and failed to give any coherent reply, as a
bundle of witnesses will confirm. She quickly moved on! I thought that it might be a good idea to give
some publicity to this hypocrite who runs with the foxes and hunts with the
hounds. So I sent out a tweet on Twitter, prompting a response from Rosena.
Unfortunately apart from the usual trolls, Dr Rosena didn't garner much sympathy on Twitter hence why she ran for comfort to the Zionist press
Now she was full of righteous thunder. People shouldn't associate with expelled
members (as the Board has instructed). Perhaps they/she thinks they will catch
something contagious (like fresh ideas?). Quarantining ideas is a particularly
fascist concept that it should not be necessary for me to elaborate. Dr Rosena
seemed oblivious to the fact that she had approached me!
I couldn't possibly comment!
Dr Rosena is not unique. In fact
she is extremely commonplace. Hypocrites
who pretend to support you and suggest they are on the left are two a penny in
the Labour Party. Dr R did not of course berate me that night because she
needed the nomination (which foolishly the CLP gave her out of a mixture of
kindness and pity).
Both the Jewish News and the Jewish Chronicle have seen to publicise our
encounter. I can only assume that in the wake of their massive loss in the
libel courts that the Jewish Chronicle is eager for any news that is cheap at
the price.
But at least the Jewish News's Jack Mendel, with whom I have clashed
before, had the decency to send me an email querying the facts, print much of
my response and check that what I had said was on the record.
It is a long time since the Jewish Chronicle has followed what is good
journalistic practice and actually contacted the person they are writing about.
I remember when the Jewish Chronicle was a decent paper that Bernard Joseph or Martin
Brighton or whoever would ring me up before going to print. Propaganda
newssheets don’t need to check their facts.
After all, if the JC’s Political Correspondent, 'Liar' Lee Harpin were
to contact his targets he wouldn't be able to lie so frequently. But then again
the Jewish Chronicle would not have to pay out so many libel damages either!
As for Dr Rosena?I harbour no
grudge against her.She needs all the
publicity she gets.That she is a
lightweight politically is obvious. Scoring points off her is like taking candy
from a kid.And as anyone with a sense
of decency will tell you, that is unsporting.
Tony Greenstein Interview with Redline – New Zealand Marxist
Blog on Zionism and latest developments in Palestine
Both of
these interview, one with a relatively unknown Marxist blog in New Zealand and
the other, an interview
with Asa Winstanley and Nora Barrows-Friedman of the Palestinian web site Electronic Intifada.
Both these
interviews concern the attacks on freedom of speech on Palestine. Abby Martin,
a well known photo journalist was interviewed first. Abby was invited to speak,
on an unrelated subject, to Georgia Southern University. Before being allowed
to do so she was told she had to sign a contract to get paid and part of this contract
was a provision in she had to undertake not to support or advocate for BDS.Abby refused and is now suing the state of Georgia
under Amendment 1 of the American constitution.
Asa’s
interview with me was wide ranging, concerning the attacks on free speech in
the Labour Party and related subjects. The witchhunt, and the concentration on Jewish
targets in the Labour Party, ironically given its supposed to be about ‘anti-Semitism’.
On episode 15 of The Electronic Intifada Podcast, filmmaker and
journalist Abby Martin discusses her recent free speech lawsuit against the
state of Georgia and its anti-BDS law.
Later in the episode, activist and writer Tony Greenstein explains the
state of anti-Zionist politics following the struggle over false allegations of
anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party.
Abby was invited to be the keynote speaker at a conference at Georgia
Southern University. But officials demanded she sign a contract which stated: “You
certify that you are not currently engaged in, and agree for the duration of
this agreement not to engage in, a boycott of Israel.”
These laws aren’t “even necessarily meant to be implemented,” Abby tells
The Electronic Intifada Podcast. “It’s meant to censor and control political speech
and scare people into not participating in the BDS movement, to not participate
in divestment campaigns, and to not participate in, let’s just say, street
actions.”
Abby is joined by her lawyer Gadeir Abbas, who is part of a team of
civil rights attorneys behind the lawsuit.
Later on in the episode, veteran left-wing Palestine solidarity activist
and Jewish anti-Zionist Tony Greenstein joins us to discuss the state of the UK
Labour Party.
He tells us, “Yes, Jews are undoubtedly disproportionately represented
amongst those who have been victimized” in the Labour Party witch hunt over
anti-Semitism.
Subscribe to The Electronic Intifada Podcast on Apple Podcasts (search
for The Electronic Intifada). Support our podcast by rating us, sharing and
leaving a review, and you can also donate to fund our work.
As Julian Assange's Hearing Continues Chelsea Manning Continues to
be held in Coercive Custody
Today I attended a noisy demonstration by a few hundred people outside the
combined institution of Belmarsh prison and magistrates court. Belmarsh court
is contained within Woolwich court.
Here is the strange thing. It was actually Westminster magistrates court,
which was where theproceedings were
originally brought, which is sitting. All the judges are from Westminster.Why then hold it at Belmarsh?Because it is an ‘anti-terrorist’ court
although Assange is not charged with terrorism.
To the State what Assange did, in leaking their secrets, was worse than
terrorism.It threatened the security
state with letting in some sunlight.
High steel railings surround the complex and the atmosphere isone of a siege. The demonstrators outside the
security ring and the Defendant inside.
There is an excellent report of what happened by Craig Murray, the former
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Your
Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 1. Murray
wrote of the presiding magistrate that:
Murray wrote of Horthy ‘Baraitser makes zero pretence of being anything other than in thrall to
the Crown, and by extension to the US Government.’
Roger Waters at demonstration
Baraitser’s intention is to
humiliate Assange, and to instill in the rest of us horror at the vast crushing
power of the state. The inexorable strength of the sentencing wing of the
nightmarish Belmarsh Prison must be maintained. If you are here, you are
guilty.
It’s the Lubyanka. You may only
be a remand prisoner. This may only be a hearing not a trial. You may have no
history of violence and not be accused of any violence. You may have three of
the country’s most eminent psychiatrists submitting reports of your history of
severe clinical depression and warning of suicide. But I, Vanessa Baraitser, am
still going to lock you up in a box designed for the most violent of terrorists.
To show what we can do to dissidents. And if you can’t then follow court
proceedings, all the better.
Murray described the Prosecutor James Lewis QC addressing the majority of
his remarks, not to the Court but to the Press. He even handed out copies of
the speech to the press.
James
Lewis QC made the opening statement for the prosecution. It consisted of two
parts. The first and longest part was truly remarkable for containing no legal
argument, and for being addressed not to the magistrate but to the media.
His
original statement was provided in cut and paste format to the media. His
contradiction of it would require a journalist to listen to what was said in
court, understand it and write it down. There is no significant percentage of
mainstream media journalists who command that elementary ability nowadays.
“Journalism” consists of cut and paste of approved sources only. Lewis could
have stabbed Assange to death in the courtroom, and it would not be reported
unless contained in a government press release.
In other words the average MSM journalist was too stupid to understand for
example that Baraitser had pointed out to Lewis that his statement that Assange’s
prosecution could mean any journalist could be extradited for having published
material covered by the Official Secrets Act or the American equivalent was
simply not reported.
Press prostitutes are not very good when confronted with such detail as
Lewis was forced to admit, contrary to his press release, that anyone
publishing US secrets concerning their war crimes could be extradited.
There were also about a dozen gilet jaune protesters who
had travelled from Paris overnight to join the demonstration.
According to the report in the Guardian the demonstration
was clearly heard in the court.However
Craig Murray suggests that was not true but that this was an excuse for that
the magistrate Baraitser used to explain why Assange couldn’t hear. The real
reason being the bullet proof cage he was held in.
Baraitser had previously refused to accede
to a request to postpone proceedings because Assange had had difficulty
preparing his case or even gaining access to his lawyers.
Prior to November the Judge in the case had been Lady Emma Arbuthnot,
the Westminster chief magistrate who is enmeshed in a conflict of interest. Her
husband Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, a former British
defense minister, “has financial links to
the British military establishment, including institutions and individuals
exposed by WikiLeaks.” Her ladyship had also received gifts “including from a military and cybersecurity
company exposed by WikiLeaks.”
In other words this was the British Establishment at its corrupt
worst.But although Baraitser has taken
over the case, according to the UK courts
service, the chief
magistrate is ‘responsible
for… supporting and guiding district judge colleagues.’”
However I want to focus not on Julian Assange but Chelsea Manning who isn’t
receiving the same attention. This incredibly brave woman has been locked up
for most of the past 2 years for refusing to testify before an institution known
as a Grand Jury.
In 2013, Chelsea Manning, a former US army intelligence analyst was convicted of violating America’s
Espionage Act and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. In January 2017 Barack
Obama commuted Manning’s sentence to end in May 2017.
Manning was responsible for leaking hundreds of thousands
of documents relating to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. These were
subsequently published by WikiLeaks,
Manning’s most infamous war crime exposé was the video of a US Army
helicopter in Baghdad firing on civilians, including a Reuters
photographer and his driver. The crew also fired on a van that stopped to
rescue one of the wounded men, killing a father and severely wounding two of
his children to the whoops of delight of the murderers, who of course were not
prosecuted.
In March 2019, Manning was compelled
to testify to the WikiLeaks grand jury. She refused to do so. It was as she later explained a matter of principle. Consequently,
she was imprisoned. She was released on May 9th, but re-arrested
a week later for refusing to testify before a new Grand Jury and returned to jail. She was fined $1,000 a day and gaoled
for the duration of the new Grand Jury’s term. Manning commented:
I have been separated from my loved ones, deprived
of sunlight, and could not even attend my mother’s funeral. It is easier to
endure these hardships now than to cooperate to win back some comfort, and live
the rest of my life knowing that I acted out of self-interest and not
principle.
The
Institution of the Grand Jury
The institution of the Grand Jury is unique to the United
States and Liberia. Countries that have abandoned it include England, Scotland,
Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, Belgium, Japan
and Sierra Leone.
On May 28 2019Chelsea Manning wrote
to the Judge who had imprisoned her about how:
Early grand juries acted independently... Now, the
grand jury process means the prosecutor decides what the grand jurors see – and
what they don’t see. The grand jury imagined by the drafters of the fifth
amendment – which did not involve a prosecutor – bears no resemblance to what
we see today, where more than 99.9% of indictments sought are granted.
Grand juries have been historically
used against activists, They are an institution that is used to undermine due
process ‘even when used as intended.’They have now become an
unbridled arm of the police and prosecution in ways
that run contrary to the grand jury’s originally intended purposes. ...
She described
them as institutions which ‘could indict
a ham sandwich.’
The second problem with grand juries
is that ‘they don’t indict law
enforcement.’ This was vividly demonstrated in November 2014 when a grand
jury refused
to indict police officer Darren Wilson for having killed Michael Brown, an unarmed
youth in Ferguson, Missouri, for the crime of being Black. Historically grand
juries
were used
to indict abolitionists, but not people capturing and re-enslaving people
seeking freedom from bondage. They were used to indict reconstructionists,
while actively protecting lynch mobs. Both the ‘ham sandwich’ statement and
selective indictment happen because of grand jury secrecy....
The
original grand jury was more than an investigator; they were supposed to
protect citizens not just from unjust indictments but from unjust laws. In
England, grand jurors who even allowed a prosecutor to come into the grand jury
room were seen as having violated their oath....
In 2019,
the federal grand jury exists as a mockery of the institution that once stood
against the whims of monarchs. It undermines the Fourth Amendment’s protections
against unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees
of due process.....
Even the
Department of Justice released a report acknowledging
that “grand juries are notorious for
being ‘rubber stamps’ for the prosecutor for virtually all routine criminal
matters.”
Manning
observed that ‘it is more than six times
as likely that you will be struck by lightning than that a federal grand jury
will decline to indict.’
in the Antebellum South, grand juries routinely
indicted anti-slavery activists for sedition, while those in the North
sometimes refused — but charges would re-presented to new grand juries until
they stuck.
Manning
wrote that the Grand Jury
bears far more resemblance to the Court of the Star
Chamber than to its intended role as a bulwark against arbitrary state power.
Apart from the fact that the grand jury itself does not impose punishments, the
biggest difference between the grand jury and the Court of the Star Chamber is
that Star Chamber proceedings were in fact largely open to the public...
The investigative grand jury as we know it was
developed in the wake of McCarthy, during the Nixon years. It was developed
purportedly to battle organized crime, but was promptly used to subpoena
members of anti-war groups, the women’s movement, and black liberation groups.
Chelsea Manning ended her
letter by saying that
I understand the idea that as a civil contemnor, I
hold the key to my cell – that I can free myself by talking to the grand jury.
While I may hold the key to my cell, it is held in the beating heart of all I
believe. To retrieve that key and do what you are asking of me, your honor, I
would have to cut the key out, which would mean killing everything that I hold
dear, and the beliefs that have defined my path.
Manning’s lawyers have issued a motion, arguing that their client is incoercible and so
should be released. Coercive confinement is considered a
violation of international law.
An investigation by Mark Curtis and Matt Kennard has revealed extensive links between former home secretary
Sajid Javid, who signed the US extradition request, and leading US political
figures who called for the murder of Assange.
It is the very definition
of torture to submit a person to physical and mental suffering in an effort to
force an action from them. Since May, Manning has been held in a Virginia jail
for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury...
On New Year’s Eve, as personal reflections on the
last decade flooded in, Chelsea Manning’s account tweeted
that she had spent 77.76 percent of her time since 2009 in jail. That same day,
the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer publicly released
a letter accusing the USA of submitting Manning to treatment that is tantamount
to torture.
It is the very
definition of torture to submit a person to physical and mental suffering in an
effort to force an action from them. Since May, Manning has been held in a
Virginia jail for refusing
to testify before a federal grand jury investigating WikiLeaks. Manning has
not been charged with or convicted of a crime. And her imprisonment on the
grounds of “civil contempt” is explicitly coercive: If she agrees to testify,
she can walk free. If she continues to remain silent, she can be held for the
18-month duration of the grand jury or, as the U.N. official noted, “indefinitely with the subsequent
establishment of successive grand juries.”
Each day she is
caged, Manning is also fined $1,000. Manning has made
clear, she would “rather starve to
death” than comply with the repressive grand jury system, a judicial black
box historically deployed against social justice movements.
“Such deprivation of liberty does not
constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offense, but an open-ended
progressively severe measure of coercion,”
Melzer’s
November letter stated that Manning’s imprisonment fulfills “all the constitutive elements of torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and “should be discontinued or abolished without
delay.” The letter asks that the U.S. government provide factual and legal
grounds for Manning’s ongoing imprisonment and fines, “especially after her categorical and persistent refusal to give
testimony demonstrates the lack of their coercive effect.”
Manning’s
supporters and legal team have long stressed that no such legal grounds exist.
Manning has proven again and again that her grand jury resistance is
unshakeable; the coercive grounds for imprisonment are thus undermined and her
jailing is revealed to be purely punitive. Federal Judge Anthony Trenga, who
ordered Manning’s torturous incarceration, should be compelled to release her
as a point of law, regardless of U.N. censure. This is not to say, however,
that coercive incarceration is defensible in cases where it works to compel
testimony — it is not. Manning’s resistance has highlighted the brutality of
the practice tout court.
In a statement
from jail, Manning said, “I am thrilled
to see the practice of coercive confinement called out for what it is:
incompatible with international human rights standards.” The grand jury
resister is, however, under no illusions about the U.S. government’s
willingness to flout its purported human rights obligations. As she put it, “even knowing I am very likely to stay in
jail for an even longer time, I’m never backing down.”
Indeed, as the
U.N. special rapporteur noted, his predecessor wrote a number of appeals
to the U.S. government from 2010 onwards regarding the cruel and torturous
treatment to which Manning was subjected prior to and during her confinement in
military prison. Yet her 35-year sentence was not commuted until 2017 by
President Barack Obama. Manning noted in her New Year’s Eve tweet that she
spent 11.05 percent of the last decade in solitary confinement and over half of
her years behind bars “fighting for
gender affirming care.” She attempted
to take her own life twice during her time at the military prison in Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas.
If Melzer’s
letter fails to sway the government, it should, at the very least, serve as a
public reminder to support a political prisoner. Though the last decade of
Manning’s life has been marked by torture, she has responded with fierce
resistance and struggle for liberatory social justice at every turn. In the
tweet tabulating her last 10 years, Manning ended by noting that she devoted
“0.00%” of her time “backing down.” The U.N. special rapporteur’s recognition
of her refusal to be coerced is welcome. Our solidarity
is more than deserved.
(This article has
been edited)
Natasha
Lennard is a contributing writer at The Intercept. Her work covers politics and
power and has appeared in Esquire, The Nation, and the New York Times opinion
section. Her book "Violence,"
with Brad Evans, will be released this year.
If you call Israel
a racist state for targeting Palestinian children then Jennie Formby, Laura
Murray and Jon Lansman will suspend you for ‘anti-Semitism’
The report below from Mondoweiss is about a boy 8 years old, Malek Issa,
who was shot last week in the face with a rubber-coated steel bullet by a policeman
whilst he was out buying a sandwich.
As the
video shows it was a normal bustling Saturday afternoon in Jerusalem when the
child was attacked by a psychopathic policeman.
Rather than
the officer being arrested and charged, as would be the case in a liberal
democratic state, which Israel pretends to be, the usual lies about ‘riot
control’ were provided by the Police PR department .
As the
video demonstrates there was no riot. Just an out of control Israeli animal.
The fact that the Police have already provided a series of lies as
justification guarantees that there will be no consequences or prosecution.After all the child is not Jewish so what
does it matter? Israel is a Jewish state and democratic rights, even for
children, only apply to Jews.
Let us be reasonable
and not make too much of a fuss. Otherwise you may find yourself accused by the
Jewish Labour Movement and its Siamese twin Labour Friends of Israel of ‘anti-Semitism’
for ‘singling out Israel’ and operating ‘double standards’ by only criticising Israel.
The IHRA definition
of ‘anti-Semitism’ which the Labour Party has adopted is quite clear:
‘Applying
double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or
demanded of any other democratic nation.
is anti-Semitic.
Have you
criticised The Netherlands because its police blinded a child with a rubber
bullet?No?Then you are anti-Semitic. It’s no use
protesting that Netherlands police don’t shoot children in the face. That is
irrelevant.You have to treat Israel in
exactly the same as a liberal democracy and if you don’t you are ‘anti-Semitic’.
And if you
are a Labour Party member then Jennie Formby and her familiar, Laura Murray,
backed up by Jon Lansman, will suspend you for ‘anti-Semitism’.Because it is naturally assumed that all Jews
in Britain will be offended by criticism of the Israeli Police.
You will probably
say at this point that associating British Jews with what Israel does is also anti-Semitic.
Well it is but so is criticising Israel, since it is a Jewish state.Since British Jews identify with Israel they
make ‘take offence’.And guess what? Being
offensive to Jews, even racist Jews, is also ‘anti-Semitic’!
Justifying the murder of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, on the pretext they are members of Hamas, an Islamic party, is perfectly acceptable in the party of Formby, Lansman and Laura Murray
Confused?Well of course you are because the Zionists
are allowed by the Right to have their cake and eat it. If you criticise Israel
in a way that is not the same as your criticism of other countries then that is
anti-Semitic.
Of course
defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic means Jews have an interest in Israeli
oppression. And that is certainy anti-Semitic! And just to confuse matters even
further the Board of Deputies, whose pledges the abysmal Long-Bailey has signed
up to, regularly issues statements supporting Israel’s latest war crime.
The death of Palestinian children is
not unusual. 56 were killed
in 2018. In 2019 33 were killed.
Although I don’t have the figures for children injured it must be in the
hundreds, perhaps over a thousand since on just one day in October, the 80th
Great Return march, 43 children were shot in Gaza.
As Nir
Hasson of Ha’aretz reported, in 2014, the police swapped their softer, blue
sponge-tipped bullets for the tougher black ones that cause more serious
injuries. Quite understandable as Palestinians are known to be thick-skinned.
Although Police regulations forbid officers from shooting at upper parts of the
body, and they are not permitted to shoot minors with these bullets, not a
single police officer has been charged with illegally shooting sponge-tipped
bullets.
The Justice
Department announced
that it has yet to decide whether to open an official investigation or summon
the officer in question just in case you were concerned.
The Labour
Right’s ‘anti-Semitism’ offensive and by Right, I include Lansman, Murray and
Formby, is designed precisely to prevent criticism of Israel as a racist state.
Because it is only a racist state that singles out the children of one ethnic group
for this special treatment.
I have
previously written to Jennie Formby asking why ex-NEC member Luke Akehurst,
Director of We Believe in Israel, a Zionist lobby group, has not been suspended
for supporting
Israeli snipers maiming and killing Palestinian demonstrators, children
included (over 70 have been killed in the Great Return demonstrations). Formby
has not responded which is not surprising since her position is indefensible.
However
although supporting the murder of Palestinian children is acceptable in today’s
Labour Party, posting a cartoon of a Palestinian being silenced by cries of ‘anti-Semitism’
is considered anti-Semitic. This is the reason that Mehmood Mirza, the
socialist candidate for a BAME position on the NEC, is the latest left
candidate to be suspended by the crooks and gerrymanders of Southside.
It is clear
that the witchhunt of socialists in the Labour Party is a racist one and it is
led by 3 racists – Formby, Lansman and Murray.
The story of a Palestinian boy who lost an eye after being shot in the
face by Israeli police has angered Palestinians across the occupied territories
who see the incident as another tragic example of Israel’s wrongful targeting
of Palestinians with excessive force.
Eight-year-old Malek Issa was on his way home from buying a sandwich on
Saturday afternoon in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Issawiya when
he was shot in the face with a rubber-coated steel bullet fired by an Israeli
police officer.
Issa’s family told local media that the boy had left a restaurant and
was headed home when he was shot by police, allegedly at point blank range.
While Israeli police claimed that their officers were engaging in “riot
control” measures in Issawiya, video footage of the moments before the
shooting, published by Haaretz, shows what appears to be normal activity
in the street.
Amid a number of unassuming pedestrians and vehicles, a child in a blue
hoodie, purportedly Issa, can be seen dashing across the street and
disappearing around the corner, out of sight of the camera.
Moments later, all the pedestrians in view of the camera suddenly duck
their heads, seemingly in response to the gunshots, and beginning running. A
group of young men are then seen rushing out from the side street where Issa
had entered, carrying his flailing body into a civilian car to be taken to the
hospital.
By Tuesday, the family of Issa reported that his condition had
stabilized, but that he had lost sight in his left eye, and would be needing
surgery likely to remove his eye and to stop internal bleeding.
In a video published by the Wadi Hilweh Information Center, a
Palestinian NGO in the neighboring town of Silwan, Issa’s father Wael says his
son “escaped death” and that there was likely no brain damage — something the
family feared would happen due to the severity of his injuries.
#العيسوية #اصابة الوالد: " اصابة مالك كانت قاتلة… نجا من الموت..
لكنه فقد بصره في العين اليسرى "آخر تطورات الحالة الصحية للطفل مالك عيسى
8سنوات والذي اصيب السبت بعيار مطاطي وهو في طريقه الى منزله عائدا من مدرسته ..
برفقة شقيقاته حاملا حقيبته المدرسية وبعض السكاكر!! #تفاصيل#Issawiya#InjuryThe
child's father: "Malek's injury was fatal … He survived … but he lost his
sight in the left eye."The latest development of the health condition of
the boy, Malek Issa, 8 years old, who was wounded with a rubber bullet on his
way home from school .. accompanied by his sisters, carrying his school bag and
some candy !! #details
Wael added that there was fear that if doctors could not control the
internal bleeding, the inflammation from Malek’s left eye could spread to his
right eye.
No stone throwing or ‘rioting’ preceded shot
Israeli police told the media that the officer in question claimed to
have fired his weapon at a wall for “calibration” purposes, and that he thought
Issa was hit by an alleged Palestinian stone-thrower.
In a report, Haaretzquoted eyewitnesses who said Israeli policemen were just “standing there”
in the neighborhood, and that no stone throwing or “rioting” was happening.
The witnesses said that the officer was knowingly aimed at the boy and
fired directly at him. One witness, a local bus driver, said that when he
confronted the officer over what he had done, “he told me to move on,” while
his fellow officers threatened to beat the bus driver up.
According to Haaretz, the Justice Ministry’s unit for
investigating police officers took statement from eyewitnesses, but was not yet
undertaking an official investigation, but rather a “probe” into the incident.
As of Wednesday, the policeman in question had not yet been summoned by
the ministry to give an official statement on the matter.
It remained unclear if the officer was still on active duty following
the shooting.
An all too common occurrence
The shooting of Issa struck a chord with Palestinians across the
occupied territory due to the chilling familiarity of the incident.
In each of the cases listed above, the Palestinian boys who were injured
were reportedly engaged in mundane activities, like Issa, and were still
targeted by Israeli forces. Additionally, in each case, no wrongdoing was found
on part of the soldiers or officers responsible.
Palestinians and human rights groups have long criticized Israel for its
excessive use of force against Palestinians and the lack of accountability for
the Israeli soldiers who commit such crimes.
In East Jerusalem, residents complain of over policing of their
neighborhoods by Israeli police, unnecessary stops and searches of minors and
young men, and frequent raids and arrests.
In June, a 21-year-old youth from the town was shot dead during
protests. Rights groups later said that he posed no direct threat to soldiers
at the time.
Locals alleged that the number of arrests in the last half of 2019 is as
high as 600, with child arrests in Issawiya making up 41 per cent of all child
detentions recorded in East Jerusalem.
