Open Letter to Jewish Voice for Labour – Palestinian Resistance Is Not Criminal Nor Is the Taking of Israeli Captives

What is Criminal is the Incarceration of Thousands of Palestinians and the Hannibal Directive Under Which the Israel Army Killed Hundreds of its Own Citizens

Prison Breakout October 7

Dear JVL,

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of Jewish Voice for Labour. Nonetheless I consider myself a critical supporter. It is in that spirit that I view with dismay the motion that JVL’s Executive has proposed on the ‘Gaza War’ at your AGM this weekend.

Speaking with Haaretz, Israeli reserve pilot Col. Nof Erez describes Israeli army's response to Oct. 7 as "MASS HANNIBAL."

The Hannibal Directive orders the army to kill their own to prevent them being taken captive. pic.twitter.com/5IrERAAtVl

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) November 20, 2023

I know that it is a minor point but it is important to point out that in the language we use we don’t unwittingly lend support to the Zionist narrative. There is no war between the people of Gaza and the Zionist state. What has been taking place since October 7 is a one-sided slaughter in which thousands of non-combatants, including children, have been slaughtered in a campaign that has defied every tenet of international law.

Socialists have always supported unconditionally the right of people under occupation to resist their occupiers. That does not mean that that that support is uncritical but any criticism which we make is premised on our support.

Contrary to the lies of the mass media that babies had been beheaded, no baby died on October 7th, unlike the incubator babies that Israel killed in Al Shifa Hospital

I was therefore astounded that JVL’s Executive sought to characterise the attack on October as ‘criminal’. According to whose law? Israeli law? Of course the colonial occupier characterises resistance to its occupation as criminal but I am surprised that JVL should join them.

The right to resist is recognised in numerous resolutions of the UN General Assembly as well as the Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions (1977). Article 1(4), classifies conflicts in which peoples are fighting against alien occupation and racist regimes as armed conflicts in which individuals engaging in such “fighting,” if captured, should be afforded the status of prisoners of war.

Israeli forces shot their own civilians, kibbutz survivor says

It is not necessary however to resort to international law to understand that just as the French and Czech people had the right to resist the Nazis, just as the American colonists had the right to resist the British and the African slaves had the right to resist their overseers, so the Palestinians too have a right to resist Israel’s Apartheid regime.

Between 1791 and 1804 slaves in Haiti and Santo Domingo overthrew slavery, in the course of which they slaughtered every single French white person. I would hope that if the JVL Executive had been around at the time that you would have supported the slave uprising even if you had deplored much of the killing that resulted. The same is true of October 7 when the Palestinians of Gaza broke out of their prison.

Al-Qassam Brigades release letter of "Israeli" captive:

To the generals who have accompanied me in recent weeks, it seems that we will part tomorrow, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

For your unnatural humanity that you showed towards me and to my daughter Emilia,… pic.twitter.com/MstMv2BJF8

— AoR News 🇵🇸🇱🇧🇸🇾🇮🇶🇮🇷🇾🇪 (@AoR3138) November 27, 2023

As you are well aware Gaza has been occupied for over half a century. For the past 16 years Israel has imposed a starvation blockade and bombed the territory regularly (‘mowing the lawn’) causing thousands of deaths. What right have we to call an uprising of Gaza’s people ‘criminal’?

In 2018 when Palestinians in Gaza took part in the peaceful Great Return March over 300 were mowed down by Israeli snipers and thousands more were disabled by illegal Israeli ammunition. We all remember Razan al-Najjar, the 21 year old medic gunned down by Israel as she was tending to the wounded.

Great Return March

Israel holds approximately 8,000 Palestinian prisoners, 3,000 of whom have not even had the luxury of a ‘trial’ in a military court where the conviction rate is over 99%. By what feat of intellectual gymnastics are Palestinians forbidden to take Israelis prisoner when so many of them are imprisoned? This sounds very much like Jewish Exceptionalism. We support the Palestinians whilst they are nobly suffering but the moment they fight back we call them criminals.

The motion from the JVL Executive, which talks of ‘Hamas’s killing of up to 1,200 Israeli residents, mostly civilians’ is simply wrong. According to the Times of Israel approximately one-third of those killed were either soldiers or police.

It is an open question as to how many of the remaining 800 civilians were killed by Israel itself as part of the infamous Hannibal Directive which decrees that it is better to kill an Israeli captive than have them taken prisoner and later swapped for Palestinian prisoners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoEYFf1NYs8

Israelis in Tel Aviv 26 7 2014 There's no school tomorrow,there's no children l

We know for a fact that at Kibbutz Be’eri tanks were brought in to shell the houses where Israelis were being held captive with the result that those held hostage died along with their captors.

There is also considerable evidence that Apache helicopters strafed concert goers and cars indiscriminately. How then can the motion ascribe the deaths on October 7 solely to Hamas when Israel acknowledges it bombed its own bases when they fell under Hamas control?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-ESUGUUMk

Israeli forces shot their own civilians, kibbutz survivor says (Full with subtitles)

I also find the sentence ‘Israel’s military onslaught is no surgical operation targeting the militants responsible for October 7’ (my emphasis) very strange. It implies that if Israel had launched a surgical as opposed to a genocidal attack on Gaza then JVL would have supported it!

In the list of demands in the bullet points at the end of the resolution JVL calls for the release of the (Israeli) ‘hostages’ but refers to Palestinian ‘detainees’. Why the difference? Are you implying that Palestinian prisoners are lawfully detained? That they are not  hostages?

It is to be hoped that this resolution falls or is withdrawn. Israel’s siege and occupation of Gaza are unlawful and it is therefore the right of Hamas and any resistance group to resist that occupation.

Solidarity,

Tony Greenstein

See Israeli forces shot their own civilians, kibbutz survivor says

What really happened on 7th October?

Starmer’s Double Standards

Emergency motion on the Gaza War

This AGM rejects attempts by Israel and its Western backers to portray the death toll inflicted on Gazans since October 7 as justified by Israel’s claimed “right to defend itself”. Hamas’s killing of up to 1,200 Israeli residents, mostly civilians, and the taking of more than 200 hostages were criminal acts. But Israel’s military onslaught is no surgical operation targeting the militants responsible for October 7. It is a vengeful retaliation by a government openly bent on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

This ongoing catastrophe stems directly from the consistent policies of the Israeli settler-colonial state for decade after decade. It has stolen Palestinians’ land and their water. It has demolished their homes. It has imprisoned, tortured and murdered them and attempted to obliterate their culture. It has created a vast open-air prison in Gaza and now turned it into an open-air grave. Israel wants Palestinian land without Palestinians.  In closing off all forms of non-violent resistance to their apartheid policies the Israeli state has set the conditions for the current disaster.

We deplore the proliferating attempts to silence Palestinians and those who stand in solidarity with them by accusations that they are motivated by antisemitism. It is Israel, a state, not the Jewish people worldwide, that is carrying out the shamefully indiscriminate butchery in Gaza.

We reject the hypocritical arguments from politicians, Tory and Labour, who talk of international law while ignoring obvious war crimes, and who propose only temporary interruptions, so-called “humanitarian pauses”, in the genocide. We welcome the negotiated release of some hostages and detainees and any easing of the blockade. But only a permanent ceasefire can open the way for an end to decades of injustice. A lasting peace, bringing security, dignity, equality, justice and freedom for both to Palestinians and Israelis, requires: (Bold is my emphasis)

·          an end to the Israeli bombardment and siege of Gaza

·          release of the hostages

·          release of Palestinian detainees in Israeli gaols, many held without charge or trial

·          an end to Occupation and Apartheid

·          the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Moved JVL Executive Committee 

Sodastream Disinformation – More Lies From an Israeli Pirate Company

Join the Picket of Sodastream in Western Road, Brighton this Saturday

As Sodastream realise that their presence is going to cause protests, they have issued a Disinformation Sheet below to try and distract peoples’ attention from the fact that they are based in an industrial park Mishor Adumim, which is part of the Jewish only settlement Ma’ale Adumim on the outskirts of Jerusalem.


Anyone who thinks their poisonous product is ‘saving’ millions of barrels of oil needs their head examining.  If they didn’t produce it then there would be even less energy waste!  Apart from the fact that their soda is an acidic poison as one contributor pointed out.

The Kochav Hashachar quarry in the Jordan Valley. Photo: Keren Manor, activestills.org, 8 Feb. '11

Somewhat ironically  Sodastream complains of ‘the persistent harassment of the pro-Palestinian BDS movement’.  The Nazi Party and Goering also used to complain about the Jewish harassment they experienced from those who ‘deligitimised’ their peaceful national movement.  Little things like the Boycott of German Goods (which the Zionists helped break with their Ha'avara  trade agreement).

Sodastream would rather not like to be reminded that they operate in the occupied West Bank courtesy of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, an occupation which, as the UN Information Bulletin above demonstrates, deprives Palestinians of adequate water, demolishes their buildings (including 28 schools scheduled to be demolished) and of course inflicts daily violence.  All this is ‘political’ unlike the non-political support to the Jewish settlers.

We have never said that selling West Bank products is illegal per se, though trading in stolen goods is.  However an occupying power using the resources of an occupied territory for its own commercial benefit is illegal under International Law, in particular the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949.

Sodastream denies that they are based in occupied Palestine.  They say it is ‘disputed territory.’  Err yes.  The Sudetenland was disputed between Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany!  Indonesia disputed the territory of East Timor for many years.  Any aggressive and war-like state can conquer another country’s land and say it is ‘disputed’.  What is not disputed is that the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Territories is illegal, as the Opinion of the International Court of Justice below makes clear.  The fact that Israel refuses to recognise the Court’s jurisdiction matters confirms that fact.

The Oslo Accords, which were a disaster for Palestinians, have been abandoned by Israel, which seeks control of all of the West Bank and the eventual transfer of Palestinians from it to neighbouring states.  In any event they did not supercede international law but Netanyahu specifically opposed them at the time and has disregarded them ever since, except when convenient.  The fact that Sodastream is based in Area C doesn’t change International Law and permit exploitation of the natural resources of the Palestinians or the eviction of Bedouins to permit such exploitation, to say nothing about destruction of Palestinian buildings and theft of water.

Sodastream claims that their efforts benefit the Palestinians!  Presumably they are too stupid to recognise that fact.  In fact Israeli economic exploitation has been combined with the destruction of Palestinian industry and their economy in order to allow Israeli companies free reign.  This argument is reminiscent of the old Apartheid justification that Blacks were paid more in South Africa than elsewhere – true – since the Whites stole the most productive resources. Israel simply goes one better and prevents the development of Palestinian industry and agriculture by simple things like preventing their export through hold-ups at the hundreds of check-points and other forms of embargo.

Israeli thieves and pirates like Sodastream are effectively claiming that their thefts of lands and resources benefit the victim, who would otherwise not be able to survive unless allowed to work in the land they were born in.  Next time a burglar is up in court he can argue that without him, the insurance companies would not be able to survive because they would lose the opportunity to sell household contents insurance!  A wonderful argument.

So pathetic are Sodastream’s arguments that they claim that the 4th Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to Israel’s occupation.  Strange then that the International Court of Justice, on 9.7.04. disagreed, when ruling that the Separation Wall was illegal!  Presumably Israeli pirates like Sodastream understand international law better than the ICJ!!

SODASTREAM INFORMATION BULLETIN

SodaStream opened its first Ecostream Refill Store here in Brighton. The SodaStream brand is now present in 43 countries around the world with over 6 million active users, who are saving the planet from the waste of 1 billion plastic bottles every day as well as millions of barrels of oil.

Unfortunately SodaStream faces the persistent harassment of the pro-Palestinian BDS movement which tries to use false arguments to delegitimise Israel and further its own political agenda.

We want our customers to know the truth about some of the BDS claims;

BDS claim that selling products manufactured in the West-Bank is illegal:
FALSE, there is absolutely nothing illegal in selling our products, otherwise HM Customs and Excise and the EEC Authorities would have banned their import.

BDS claim that SodaStream is located in "occupied territory":
FALSE, SodaStream has a production facility in "Area C" of the disputed land, which according to the Oslo agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority remains under Israeli authority until a final agreement is signed by both parties.

BDS claim that boycotting our products will help the Palestinian people:
FALSE, it would actually harm them. SodaStream is the largest employer of Palestinians in a region that has a 20% unemployment rate. SodaStream pays its Palestinian employees wages that are on a par with Israeli ones and are 4-6 times the local wages. SodaStream also provides all their employees with medical, maternity, vacation and pension benefits. Approximately 3,000 people rely on these jobs for their food and health. Palestinians and Israelis work for SodaStream side by side, with equal treatment in front of the law.

BDS claim that manufacturing in the West-Bank is a violation  of the 4th Geneva Convention:
FALSE, both the text of that convention, and the post World War II circumstances under which it was drafted, clearly indicate that it was never intended to refer to situations like Israel's settlements. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Article 49 relates to situations where populations are coerced into being transferred. This is clearly not the case with the people working in our West-Bank factory.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT BDS IS A POLITICALLY-ORIENTATED MOVEMENT

The Opinion of the International Court of Justice  

Published 1 January 2011
On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, gave its advisory opinion on the question of the legality of the separation barrier being built by Israel. The opinion was given pursuant to the request of the UN General Assembly of 3 December 2004.

Israel refused to cooperate in the proceeding, contending that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. In a document that it submitted to the court, Israel argued that the question involved was political and not legal, and should be dealt with bilaterally, between it and the Palestinians. In a majority decision, the court denied Israel's argument. In a minority opinion, one of the judges held that the court did not have sufficient information to render an opinion on the question, and thus lacked the authority to hear it. Before dealing with the substantive matters, the court explained that its opinion related only to those sections of the separation barrier that were built, or will be built outside the Green Line [in the Occupied Territories].

The first main issue discussed in the opinion relates to the effects of the barrier on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The court "recorded" the promise made by Israel that the barrier was intended only as a temporary security measure. However, the court pointed out that there is a grave fear that the barrier's route would create "facts on the ground" that lead to the de facto annexation of the territory and determination of the future borders between Israel and a Palestinian state. The court believed that de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would violate the right to Palestinian self-determination.

The second major issue involved the legality of the barrier in light of international humanitarian law. The court rejected Israel's argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply in the Occupied Territories because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never part of a sovereign state. On this point, the court held that, insofar as the territories fell into Israel's hands as a result of war with two states that are party to the Convention, the state must exercise control over the said territory in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Specifically, the court found that the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The third major issue that the court dealt with involved the legality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

It should be mentioned that the opinion dealt briefly with Israel's argument that violation of these rights is justified under international law because they are intended for legitimate security purposes. The court stated that Israel has the right and duty to protect its citizens against violence, but its defensive actions must comply with international law. The brief discussion on the possible security justifications for the route of the barrier resulted, in part, from Israel's refusal to present its arguments to the court, and from its decision to suffice with a written statement contending the court lacked jurisdiction.

In its conclusion, the court stated that Israel must cease construction of the barrier, dismantle the parts of the barrier that were built inside the West Bank, revoke the orders issued relating to its construction, and compensate the Palestinians who suffered losses as a result of the barrier. The court also called on the international community to refrain from assisting in maintaining the unlawful situation that has arisen following construction of the barrier, and to take legal measures to cease Israel's violations and to ensure enforcement of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Even the BBC, hardly an unbiased source, admits:

The Geneva Convention

It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies."

Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

Almost the entire international community, including allies of Israel, have referred to the situation in these territories as occupation.

The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice.

Israel is a party to the Geneva Conventions, and bound by its obligations.

UNITED NATIONS

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory

Humanitarian Facts Sheet on Area C Of The West Bank
JULY 2011
DATA UPDATED THROUGH DECEMBER 2011
P. O. Box 38712 East Jerusalem 91386 l tel. +972 (0)2 582 9962 l fax +972 (0)2 582 5841 l ochaopt@un.org l www.ochaopt.org
AREA C FAST FACTS
� Over 60 percent of the West Bank is considered Area C, where Israel retains extensive control, including
over security, planning and zoning.
� An estimated 150,000 Palestinians live in Area C, including 27,500 Bedouin and other herders.
� More than 20% of communities in Area C have extremely limited access to health services.
� Water consumption dips to 20 litres/capita/day (l/c/d) in communities without water infrastructure, one
fifth of the World Health Organisation’s recommendation.
� Communities depending on tankered water pay up to 400% more for every liter than those connected to the water network.
� 70% of Area C is off-limits to Palestinian construction; 29% is heavily restricted.
� Less than 1% of Area C has been planned for Palestinian development by the Israeli Civil Administration.
� 560 Palestinian-owned structures, including 200 residential structures and 46 rainwater collection cisterns and pools, were demolished by the Israeli authorities in 2011.
� 1,006 people, including 565 children, lost their homes in 2011, over twice as many in 2010.
� Over 3,000 demolition orders are outstanding, including 18 targeting schools.
� The planned expansion area of the around 135 Israeli settlements in Area C is 9 times larger than their built-up area. (B’Tselem).
� Approximately 300,000 settlers currently live in Area C.

1. Most of Area C has been designated as military zones and for expansion of Israeli settlements, severely constraining the living space and development opportunities of Palestinian communities.  While it is virtually impossible for a Palestinian to obtain a permit for construction, Israeli settlements receive preferential treatment in terms of allocation of water and land, approval of development plans, and law enforcement.

2. There has been a marked increase in demolitions in Area C this year.  More Palestinians lost their homes in Area C in the first half of 2011 than in either of the past two years.

3. Most demolitions in 2011 affected livelihood structures, negatively affecting the sources of income and living standards of some 1,300 people.

4. In addition to restrictive planning policies, Palestinians living in Area C also have to contend with a range of other Israeli policies and practi policies and practices, including restrictions on movement and access, harassment from the Israeli military and settler attacks, making daily life a struggle.

5. Demolitions drive already poor families deeper into poverty. Most demolitions in 2011 have targeted already vulnerable Bedouin / herding communities, who live in very basic structures, with no infrastructure and very limited access to services.  Demolitions increase the dependency of these families on humanitarian assistance and have a range of negative psycho-social impacts, particularly on children. Many of these communities have suffered multiple waves of demolitions.

6. In some communities, families are being forced to move as a result of Israeli policies applied in Area C.  Ten out of 13 communities recently visited by OCHA reported that families are leaving because policies and practices implemented there make it difficult for residents to meet basic needs or maintain their presence on the land.

See Israeli SodaStream: Maybe Green, Definitely Not Clean and

The Italian Stop Sodastream campaign exposes the Israeli company's deceptions