Showing posts with label Sabra and Chatilla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sabra and Chatilla. Show all posts

10 October 2023

Yoav Gallant’s Statement that Palestinians are ‘Human Animals’ Echoes Hitler’s Description of Jews as ‘Human Cattle’

The Palestinian Uprising has Destroyed the Myth of Israeli Invincibility – Neither Hamas Nor Hezbollah are Terrorists –Israel Alone Deserves That Label


Register here

https://tinyurl.com/2s43ddzf


https://youtu.be/w6W17dFLBpA

Varoufakis statement on Gaza Uprising

I will be speaking this Wednesday at a meeting on the Gaza-Ghetto Uprising and the significance of the attack by the Palestinian resistance on Israel. What will be the political fall-out? What has changed? What does the reaction of the United States and the western powers signify? What are Israel’s intentions etc.

Socialists should be crystal clear. Palestinians have every right, after a siege of Gaza lasting over 17 years to resist their oppressors. Anyone who denies that is no supporter of the Palestinians.

We should also be under no doubt as to the dangers. Netanyahu has already promised, as if a Nazi General, to raze Gaza to the ground. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Defence Minister has already called the Palestinians ‘human animals’ thus betraying the racist nature of Zionism and its treatment of the Palestinians. This is not an emotional response of the moment. In 2015 Deputy Defence Minister Eli Dahan also called Palestinians ‘animals.’

To the more faint-hearted amongst us who recoil at some of the atrocities that the Palestinian guerillas are alleged to have committed I say this. There is no war yet when human rights crimes haven’t been committed by both sides. The mass rape of German women at the end of the last war, the undoubted war crimes committed by the British when they bombed Dresden and Nuremburg did not mean that we were neutral as between the Nazis and the Allies.

It is perfectly possible to condemn rape, the alleged parading of a naked Israeli woman in Gaza City and yet support the Palestinian Uprising. Because we all know that whatever war crimes have been committed by Palestinian fighters they pale into insignificance compared to the endless Israeli atrocities. The violence of the oppressed can never be compared with the violence of the oppressor. In today's Times of Israel I came upon this report of the killing of two Israelis:

At 8:20 a.m., terrorists entered Dvir’s home, he lunged at them with an axe, tried to protect my two kids who were with him, and was murdered in front of their eyes,” she posted. “His partner Stav also tried to protect them, but was murdered as well. The terrorist calmed down my Daria and Lavi, covered them in a blanket, took lipstick and wrote on the wall: ‘The al-Qassam [Brigades] people don’t murder children.

When has Israel ever spared Palestinian children?  Israel’s bombing of Palestinian homes is indiscriminate by definition. The death of Palestinian children does not disturb the average Israeli. So far this year 47 Palestinian children have been murdered in the West Bank yet this and the brutal military occupation didn’t figure once in the demands of Israelis in their mass demonstrations against the judicial reforms. Ex-Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked called Palestinian children ‘'little snakes'.

Let us also be clear that terrorism has a very specific meaning. It is the deliberate use of violence against civilians for political purposes. It is Israel which has been responsible throughout its existence for using terrorism as its weapon of choice – be it the bombing by the Zionist Irgun of the King David Hotel in 1946 when 92 people were killed and 46 injured  to the Sabra and Chatilla massacres in the refugee camps of Beirut in 1982 when around 2,000 unarmed Palestinians were murdered by the Lebanese Phalange as Israeli troops lit up the skyline for them.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are NOT terrorist organizations and they are only deemed as such by a Tory Home Secretary Savid Javid who bowed to the pressure of the Zionist Lobby. If interpreted literally the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 could be used to render illegal any meeting or action supporting the uprising in Gaza.

It is quite possible that a meeting where support is given to Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s attack on Israel could be deemed to ‘encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.’ under s.12 of the Act. Thus we see, once again, how Britain’s anti-terrorist legislation is there, not to prevent ISIS style terrorism, but to crack down on free speech that the government does not like.

In the explanation justifying the proscribing of Hamas the government said that the reason for this was that

This is an outrageous abuse of the law. In the same 2001 clash 67 Palestinian children were murdered by Israel. Is indiscriminate rocket attacks worse than Israel’s targeted attacks on civilians and its bombing of residential streets and peoples’ homes? This law is not about terrorism it is about the suppression of free speech.

Although I support the attack on Israel by Hamas and Islamic Jihad I am not a supporter of the two groups politically. They are Islamist groups whereas I believe that the liberation of the Palestinians has nothing to do with religion. It is a political struggle.

Of course the misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism has issued a typically dishonest, lying statement headed ‘We will do whatever it takes to defend the Jewish community’. If the CAA, which was formed in the summer of 2014 on the instigation of the Israeli state, in order to try and smear solidarity action with Palestinians under attack in Gaza with anti-Semitism, was seriously concerned with anti-Semitism, then they would disband tomorrow.

Because there is nothing more likely to increase anti-Semitism in Britain and attacks on Jews than those who do their best to associate British Jews with Israeli war crimes.  Even the Zionist Community Security Trust admitted this in its 2014 Anti-Semitic Incidents Report.

The single biggest contributing factor to the record number of antisemitic incidents recorded in 2014 was antisemitic reactions in the UK to the conflict in Israel and Gaza that began on 8 July 2014 and ended on 26 August 2014. CST recorded the highest-ever monthly total of 314 antisemitic incidents in July, and the third-highest ever monthly total of 228 incidents in August.

The CAA, which is no more than an extension of the Israeli state and which is directly funded by the Israeli para-state organization the Jewish National Fund does its best to equate Hamas attacks on Israel with the safety of British Jews.

In its statement the CAA accused Hamas and Islamic Jihad of supporting the ‘genocide of Jews.’ If anyone supports genocide it is people like Israel’s Police Minister Itamar Ben Gvir who had a poster of Baruch Goldstein on his living room wall. Goldstein entered the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and opened fire with an assault rifle killing 29 worshippers and injuring nearly a hundred. It is those in Israel who march to the chant of ‘Death to the Arabs’ who are the genociders but of these people the CAA has nothing to say.



When the CAA say

Those who glorify terrorism and delight in the massacre of Jews, and those who use the events still unfolding as cover for antisemitic acts should be under no misapprehension: we will pursue justice against you.

Note how the CAA conflates ‘terrorism’ i.e. support for Palestinian organisations with murder of Jews, which is the prerogative of the friends of the CAA – fascist groups like Britain First and people like Tommy Robinson – both of whom they keep company with.

Nonetheless we should treat seriously their legal threats. The reason is that Britain’s racist Home Secretary Suella Braverman combines her racism against refugees, with her talk of hurricanes, with putting political pressure on the police to arrest those who support the Palestinians.

Tory MP threatens use of Anti-Terrorism Act to suppress free speech

And just to make it clear to Braverman and her racist friends in the CAA, I support totally the right of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and others to launch attacks on Israel in response to the years of suffering and murder that they have experienced at the hands of the Israeli state and furthermore there is nothing you will ever be able to do about it.

Tony Greenstein

LLA statement on Israel/Palestine: Oppression inevitably feeds resistance

The situation in the Middle East is more volatile than it has been for many decades. We want to discuss what's going on - and if there is a solution. Join us on Wednesday October 11 at 7pm for an open discussion forum jointly sponsored by the LLA and the Republican Labour Education Forum, which will be introduced by Tony Greenstein. More details below, where you can also find the LLA's statement on the issue.

Hamas’ attack on Israel was certainly not ‘unprovoked’. The systematic and racist oppression of the Palestinians by the colonialist state of Israel has massively worsened with the introduction of the blockade 15 years ago and, more recently, with the state-sponsored extension of illegal settlements and pogroms on Palestinian land. These actions have created the horrific conditions which have led to this dramatic act of resistance. The aim of the Israeli state is simple: to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. It does not exploit the Palestinian people, as the apartheid regime in South Africa did – it simply wants to get rid of them. As a major ally of US-led imperialism in the otherwise unstable Middle East, Israel is supported politically, financially and militarily in this campaign by most ‘Western’ governments and receives more than 3 billion dollars a year from the US alone (over 150 billion since its foundation).

This attack however will be a long-awaited opportunity for the Israeli government to distract from its own problems, rally the divided population behind it, move to the right politically and expand its programme of ethnic cleansing. The US government on the other hand might well use this attack as a precursor to heat up its conflict with Iran.

The results for the Palestinian population remain the same: Further Israeli repression, particularly in the Gaza strip, is inevitable. Israel has no interest in getting rid of Hamas, otherwise it would have to govern Gaza directly, at great cost politically and financially. But they will want to destroy as much of Gaza as possible, in front of the TV cameras, before declaring ‘revenge’ has been served.

The attack has naturally been described as “anti-Semitic” – that is, after all, what the smear campaign in the Labour movement was all about, to prepare for a moment like this. Getting rid of Jeremy Corbyn was just a convenient side effect and it remains true that the failure of the official Left to stand up to the witch-hunt has helped to prepare the current ground. Any opposition to the programme of brutal ethnic cleansing and the coming expansion of military and financial support for the Israeli government is likely to be branded ‘racist’ and anti-Jewish.

All the more important that socialists continue to fight:

  • for an end to the occupation of Palestine
  • against the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
  • against any political, financial or military support for Israel
  • against war on Iran

27 February 2018

Sabra & Shatilla - Israeli State Archives Report on Cabinet Meeting

This was originally posted in March 2013 but an update has marked it as posted today - it is of historical interest only

Sharon in 1983: Israel could be accused of genocide

State Archives release protocols from dramatic cabinet meeting discussing Sabra and Shatila report on same day Emil Grunzweig was murdered at a Peace Now protest. 'They say we disregarded intelligence, that includes you Mr. Prime Minister,' Defense Minister Sharon says to PM Begin as news of murder breaks
Slaughtered by the Phalangists as the Israeli Military provided lighting via flares and searchlights

 
 Roi Mandel

Published:     02.21.13, 17:42 / Israel News

"If we adopt this report, our ill-wishers and naysayers will claim that what happened in the (Sabra and Shatila) camp was genocide,"  Defense Minister Ariel Sharon warned the cabinet in 1983 during a special meeting dealing with the findings of the Cohen Report on the Sabra and Shatila massacre in the First Lebanon War.
Yediot the day after the murder of left-wing protester Emil Grunzweig by Israeli fascists
Sharon refused to resign, as the external fact-finding mission's report had recommended, and repeatedly stressed that he and then Prime Minister Menachem Begin were in the same boat. Adopting the report, Sharon claimed, would "leave a mark of Cain on us for generations to come."
Peace Now Demonstration after massacre
Raful Eitan - commander-in-chief of Israel's army

Sharon - the Butcher of Beirut

Thirty years later, the State Archives on Thursday cleared for publication the protocols of cabinet meetings from the early 1980s, specifically those dealing with the outcome of Cohen Report and the death of Peace Now activist Emil Grunzweig. The main meeting held following the publication of the report by Chief High Court Justice Yitzhak Cohen took place on Febuary 10, 1983 - the day Grunzwieg was killed.

Sharon arrived late. Prime Minister Begin noted that Sharon had informed him of a Peace Now protest being held near his farm causing him to run late.

Sharon eventually arrived but not before all those present called for a full implementation of the report's recommendations, despite the price Sharon would have to pay - stepping down as defense minister.

Sharon, whose resignation was recommended in the report, as well as a desicion barring him from ever holding the Defense Ministry portfolio again, arrived very tense, and began lashing out.
Memorial in South Lebanese to the two thousand plus victims of the Lebanese fascists and Israeli army

"I am not keen on getting into personal reflections nor searching for victims and scapegoats. On the face of it there are parts of the report that could, and should be adopted. However, I found parts which in my opinion should not be accepted. The question is much broader than the personal question - of which people seem to focus on ceaselessly - of whether Sharon will go or not.
"The chapter regarding indirect responsibility is the most severe in my opinion. The committee determined that the State of Israel, not just the government of Israel, or the Israel Defense Forces are responsible. The committee determined that not only did the possibility of the massacre exist, it was also known to the political and military echelons, and they chose willingly and knowingly to ignore it.

"That includes all of us, including you Mr. Prime Minister, each and every one of us. I cannot stress this enough - knowingly ignored, all of us,"
he continued to stress.

Then came the warning: "If we adopt this report, all our ill-wishers and naysayers will claim that what happened in the camp was genocide. Not to mention the fact that the committee itself didn’t even seem to hesitate before drawing a line between Israel and its partners to the pogroms and the horrors Jews experienced. I personally refuse to accept even the slightest hint of such allegations.

"There are parts of the report which I believe we just cannot accept if we do no want this burden - this mark of Cain - to be imprinted onto our forehead for generations to come."
'What, did the prime minster lie?'

Sharon decided that he "refuses to accept indirect responsibility because there was always an eminent threat of bloodshed by the (Christian) Phalanges; regardless of whether or not they cooperated with the IDF or not. This was a premise known and accepted by all of us.

"During Operation Peace for Galilee (the original name for the First Lebanon War) when we cooperated with them, everything worked properly. However, the committee reached the conclusion that that successful attempt couldn't be indicative of future mutual endeavors.
"Every single member of the political and military echelon testified, under oath, that positive experience made the possibility of such a massacre unconceivable. Hence, I reject the report's findings that the entire respectable group of people was wrong, that we were all wrong, all the way from the Prime Minister down, bar no one."
 Sharon refused to accept the conclusion that it was of no importance that at the time the decision was made to allow the Phalanges to enter the camp there was no way to predict they would undertake a massacre.

The reason was that his testimony was geared at justifying inaction. "The prime minister said that, does the prime minister lie? Why are you in a rush, why the hurry?"

Justice Minster Yosef Burg responded: "Nobody is in any hurry, why are you scolding us?"

"I'm not scolding, I'm enjoying myself, believe me," Sharon sarcastically retorted.

 Sharon seems to be conscious of the fact that the discussion was one for the books of history. "Because the transcribers keep changing, I want every part to have this on record: I did not come here to refute all of the committee's findings, rather (to argue) that this issue can place the mark of Cain on all of us for generations."

Sharon quotes the report's findings which claim that he authorized the Phalanges' entry into the camp in order to avoid IDF casualties.

"Mr. Prime Minister this is the most serious accusation that has been attributed to me. They do not claim I joined their ranks, nor that I killed with my own hands, rather that I acted out of a desire to protect soldiers.

"If they came and said that taking into account the lives of our soldiers is not a legitimate consideration any longer, then I am willing to stand before each and every one of you, before they cut my head off, and tell you to your face that in my opinion the lives of our soldiers are, and must be, a central consideration."

As the meeting continues it shifts to the report's personal recommendations: "Mr. Prime Minister, I say this with the utmost humility, I truly do not believe I need to resign for this. And that is my major crime. I welcome them to search for others and look around. If that is my major crime I tell you Mr. Prime Minister I honestly do not believe that I need to resign.

"Those who think my resignation will solve everything are wrong. Those who believe that me taking one for the team will calm the beast are wrong. The very same day it will want fresh blood."


The tension between Sharon and Begin is felt, and the defense minister tries to alleviate it.

"I haven't blamed the prime minister! I want to declare that I did not blame the prime minister, not even for the smallest of details. Let the prime minister testify. I blamed the prime minister of something? Not the prime minster and not anyone."

 Begin: "The claim was that the report insinuated that everyone who testified…"

 Sharon: "….I request the protocol state that I did not blame."

Begin: "But that was the intention."

Sharon: "Even today we are blamed for genocide; the formulation of the indirect responsibility on the State of Israel must be stricken from the report. Either that or it cannot be accepted by the government or it wall cast an indelible stain".

Mr. Prime Minister

Begin categorically rejected Sharon's argument for the government's rejection of the report.

He quoted the report's findings that there was no collusion between the Israeli political and military echelons and those of the Phalanges, or that there was never any Israeli intention of civilian deaths, as well as the IDF's repeated refusal to give the Phalanges artillery and tanks.

 "In light of these things, can one say that the report directly blames someone specifically?"

Sharon: "I did not say it blames, I said it creates room for interpretation."

Begin: "Forgive me, I am not the attorney general nor a lawyer. I did study law, this is true, but that is far from being enough. Tell me, Mr. Justice Minister, is the only argument that I make correct? Am I right in saying that the argument in this report that blames the people of Israel for the crime of genocide and the assistance of such an act, is baseless? Someone conjured an idea which is unrealistic according to the report. The report states things so clearly, one cannot be skeptical about it."

In the end, the report's results were accepted and Sharon was forced to resign.

Peace Now protest

Suddenly, the meeting is cut short by the Prime Minister's Military Secretary, Maj. Azriel Nevo, who reports about a Peace Now protest taking place right outside the Prime Minister's Office, calling for the government to accept the report's recommendations.

"An explosive charge was set off among the protesters. Apparently there are casualties, they are checking it now," Nevo announces. Begin instructs him to go downstairs and check what happened.

 "It was either a charge or a grenade," he adds. "Among the Peace Now protesters, who were standing  next to the Bank of Israel, there is one or two wounded, I'm still not sure."

The discussion continues, Sharon and Burg are arguing, all the while Burg's son, Avraham, is among the protesters outside, and was himself wounded from the grenade. However, at this point, Burg (senior) knows nothing of this. 

A few minutes later, Begin cuts the conversation short, emotionally calling: "There is a causality! A Jewish causality! Azriel (Nevo), how do we assume this happened? Did one camp attack the other?"

Nevo responded: "We assume so, but we have no proof. Somebody thinks a grenade was thrown. We are currently searching for shrapnel."

Justice Minister Burg: "There was a protest, on one side the Peace Now people. They sang the Tikva and began dispersing. A grenade was apparently thrown. One person was killed, two seriously wounded and three officers were lightly wounded. The police chief is on his way."

Begin: "Did the other side disperse as well?"

Burg: "They are checking whether there were any Arabs there, but it seems there were none."