In the
coming session of Parliament the Government intends to introduce a new Public
Order Bill which will effectively abolish the right to all except ineffective protests
and demonstrations.
Interfering with ‘onshore oil and gas exploration and
production facilities’ i.e. fracking will now be a specific offence in itself.
Because ‘onshore oil and gas exploration’
will now be defined as ‘key national infrastructure’. And oh yes, there is no more
important infrastructure than Rupert Murdoch’s printing press. Blocking them
will also be an offence. Locking on to a gate or person will also be a new
offence.
A whole range of forms
of direct action will be criminalised. The right to protest under the European
Convention of Human Rights will be abolished. The recent Supreme Court decision
in Ziegler
will be overturned. In other words the
owners of big business and capital can go about their way, harming however many
people they chose to hurt and it will be a criminal offence to get in their
way. It is the dictatorship of capital.
This is the
first Parliamentary
Petition that I have initiated. It couldn’t be more important that you sign
it. If the Bill is passed it will be a milestone on the road to a Police State.
You can only sign it if you are a British Citizen. Just as importantly share, share and share again on
social media and place it on your site(s).
This Bill
represents a major threat to those most basic of rights in any society that calls
itself democratic - the Right to Freedom of Expressionand Freedom of Assembly
and Association. These rights
are enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the European
Convention of Human RightsIt is little wonder that the Government intends to replace
the Human Rights Act 1998 which implements the ECHR.
I confess to having a personal interest in since I am
currently on bail for having participated last March 2021 in an action against Israel’s
arms factory, Elbit. This Bill targets and seeks to penalise Palestine Action,
Extinction Rebellion, Climate Action, Insulate Britain and similar direct
action protest groups.
In June 2021 the Supreme Court in DPP v Zieglerupheld
previous decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that
‘the protection of articles 10 and 11 ECHR
extends to a protest which takes the form of intentional disruption obstructing
others. However, the extent of the disruption and whether it is intentional are
relevant factors in the assessment of proportionality’.
The
Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of protesters at Stratford Magistrates Court
who had locked on to an access road at the Arms Fair at the Excel Centre in
East London in 2017. This Bill effectively reverses Ziegler as well as conflicting with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.
If this
petition gets 100,000 signatures then the
Petitions Committee will consider whether it should be debated in Parliament.
As
the Government openly admits
(below) the provisions of the Bill are aimed at the right to protest with
measures that can only be called draconian.
The Bill
would bring in three major changes to the way protests are policed in England
and Wales.
·Expanding protest related offences: the Bill
would introduce four new criminal offences related to disruptive protest
including “locking-on”; being equipped to “lock-on”; obstructing major
transport works; and interfering with key national infrastructure.
·Extending police stop and search powers: the Bill
would provide the police with new powers to stop and search people for items
related to specified protest-related offences.
·Introducing a new preventative court order: the Bill
would create Serious Disruption Prevention Orders aimed at people who
repeatedly engage in disruptive protest activity. The orders would be issued with
conditions to prevent individuals from being in particular places or with
particular people or from participating in certain activities
The
Network for Police Monitoring has produced below an explainer
detailing the proposals in the Bill and their implications, especially for
direct action groups. Some of these offences like the Serious Disruption Orders
can be used against trade unions and strikers. They have massive implications
for our democratic rights.
New ‘locking on’ offences
The Bill proposes that if a person locks themselves onto
another person, an object or to land and subsequently causes (or could cause)
serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation, then an
offence is committed. For ‘organisation’, read corporate interest. The maximum
penalty is six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
It also proposes another new offence of “going equipped
for locking on”. This is defined as having an item “in a place other
than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in
connection with” an attempt to lock on. This could mean a bicycle D-lock
or a tube of superglue. The proposed maximum penalty is an unlimited fine.
New stop and search powers
The Bill also seeks to amend section 1 of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) to provide the police with wide-ranging new
grounds for using stop and search powers.
These include suspicion that someone is going to commit the
offence of obstructing the highway (under section 137 Highways Act 1980),
public nuisance (section 78 of the PCSC Act) or all the new offences proposed
by the Public Order Bill (see below).
If that was not alarming enough, the Bill would also
introduce a new blanket stop and search power that does not require “reasonable
grounds”. This is essentially a version of existing section
60 powers (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) that are authorised
when there is an alleged threat of serious violence or the use of weapons.
If passed, this would put obstructing the highway, public
nuisance and the other offences in the Bill on the same footing as an imminent
threat of violent disorder.
It also means that if a senior officer believes these protest
offences are likely to take place in an area, they can approve far-reaching new
stop and search powers for a 24-hour period.
Blanket search powers are already hugely controversial, as
they excuse the police from needing to show reasonable suspicion when stopping
someone and have largely been used for racist harassment.
Black people are 40
times more likely to be stopped under Section 60 powers than their white
counterparts, and less
than 2% of searches result in any further police action. In May 2021, the
Criminal Justice Alliance made a super-complaint calling for the repeal of Section
60.
These powers are likely to be used by the police to harass
anyone they think is on the way to a protest and is part of a movement whose
very legitimacy they question. However, they are particularly worrying for
marginalised communities that already bear the brunt of racist policing.
Interference with ‘key infrastructure’
The Bill proposes an offence of interfering with “the use
or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales” (or
intending to). So, what does this include? Although the Bill gives the Home
Secretary the power to add to the following list, it says infrastructure
includes:
road transport
rail
air transport
harbour
downstream (refining) of crude oil
downstream (processing and purification)
of natural gas
onshore oil and gas exploration and
production
onshore electricity generation, or
newspaper printing infrastructure.
Had these proposed offences been in place over the last
decade, they would have severely restricted sustained and ultimately successful
local opposition to fracking sites and other environmentally destructive fossil
fuel extraction. The inclusion of newspaper production appears to result from
ministers’ anger at Extinction
Rebellion’s blockade in September 2020 of sites belonging to the
government’s close friends at News Corp.
The maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine in Magistrates’ Court or 12 months imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine on indictment at the Crown Court.
Obstruction of major transport works
For anyone wanting to take action against large-scale and
damaging transport projects such as HS2, an airport expansion or a new
motorway, there is a proposed new offence of obstructing major transport works,
by blocking or interfering with equipment or blockading, for example,
construction work.
However, like so much of the Bill, this is vaguely worded and
open to very broad interpretation: obstructing construction staff from “taking
any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in
connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works”
is also an offence and could mean almost any activity.
The maximum penalty is six months imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine.
Serious Disruption Prevention Orders
This is one of the most disturbing elements of the new Bill.
These orders can either be made following a protester’s conviction or on
application to a Magistrates’ Court from a Chief Constable of a local police
force.
Crucially – because you do not need to be
convicted of an offence to be issued with one – Serious
Disruption Prevention Orders actively encourage the expansion of police
intelligence gathering on a range of social and political movements.
This is because they will be used to seek out and target
people whom the police perceive as key organisers and to potentially ban them from
attending, organising, or promoting protests seen as “disruptive to two or more
individuals or to an organisation” for two years or more, even if they have
never been convicted of a crime.
Furthermore, the state may decide they become guilty
of a crime if they break the rules of the order in any way – or even fail to
notify the police that they are staying somewhere else.
As Serious Disruption Prevention Orders are civil orders, the
government may allow courts to decide, on the balance of probabilities (the
civil standard of proof), that an individual is likely to cause disruption
based solely on intelligence from the police.
In March 2021, a review on the policing of protests by the
inspectorate body HMICFRS gave a green light for increased surveillance on so-called
“aggravated activists”. Serious Disruption Prevention Orders provide a
renewed impetus for police to seek out this new classification of campaigner.
Two of the following conditions need to be met for a Serious
Disruption Prevention Order:
·A person has committed a protest-related offence.
·A person has committed a breach of an injunction leading to a
conviction for contempt of court.
·A person has “carried out activities related to a protest
that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or
more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales”.
·A person has “caused or contributed to the commission by any
other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an
injunction”
·A person has “caused or contributed to the carrying out by
any other person of activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were
likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an
organisation, in England and Wales “.
Modelled on the draconian Knife Crime Prevention Orders that
systematically criminalise Black youth, conditions of Serious Disruption
Prevention Orders can include:
·Not associating with named people
·Not going to certain areas
·Banning people from attending protests
·Reporting to a police station at certain times
·Not participating in certain activities
·Not using the internet to commit a protest-related offence or to “carry
out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in,
serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in
England and Wales”.
There is also a provision in the bill for electronic
monitoring (wearing an ankle tag) of those subject to orders, for up to a year.
The version of the
Public Order Bill that has received its first reading in the House of Commons
is available here
- electronic tagging of people who intend to attend demonstrations
- orders not to use the internet in certain ways
- expanded stop and search powers
- new offences for "locking on" to others, objects or
buildings
We believe the measures proposed
are another step in the creation of a police state in this country, and
represent a fundamental attack on our civil liberties.
Last week
the first trial of Palestine Action activists trying to close down Elbit
arms factories in Britain ended with the acquittal of all 3 activists. This is
the first of a series of such trials. Unlike the defendants at Newcastle, those
on trial will be able to appeal to juries and argue that the very existence of
such companies, dedicated as they are to the murder and maiming of civilians,
is contrary to both British and International Law. Below is a summary of the
main points of law that led to the acquittals by John Nicholson, a former
barrister and himself a Palestine solidarity activist.
In January three activists threw bottles of red paint and locked
themselves across the entrance gates, closing down UAV Systems in Shenstone as
part of Palestine Action’s campaign against Elbit Systems. UAV is a subsidiary of
Elbit which manufactures drones used against Palestinians in the occupied
territories.
Eleven months later, they appeared at Newcastle-Under-Lyme
magistrates court accused of committing criminal damage. On Monday, at the end
of a two-day trial, Judge Waites found them not guilty.
For nearly 18 months there have been a series of sustained protests at many of Elbit’s offices and factories around the country which police claim have caused a total of around £15
million of damage. While activists gave evidence in open court the Elbit
witness gave their evidence hidden behind a screen.
The Judge ruled that the Crown Prosecution Service had not
proved that convicting the defendants would be proportionate to their right to
protest, adding that Palestine and the arms trade were important issues and the
activists had specifically targeted the drone manufacturer in accordance with
their strongly-held beliefs.
UK police have offered 24 hour rapid-response at Elbit sites and
have regularly raided and arrested activists in an attempt to disrupt the
campaign. See UK's
Palestine Action wins Israel protest court battle. This contrasts with their virtual decriminalisation of rape as they plead 'lack of resources'.
Legal Summary
The judge found that:
1.This was an important issue. Palestine and the arms trade were serious concerns. In Ziegler the Supreme
Court said that the court cannot judge on the merit of the protest, but the
right to protest is important and this particular protest was on serious and
important issues.
2.The defendants believed in what
they were doing. Defendants’ views came across
clearly (time in Palestine, campaigning and friendship with a Palestinian
family [most of whom had been killed by a drone attack]) and they were serious
people who were strongly motivated.
3.The location was deliberately
chosen – UAV Engines. There were a
number of aims, educating, stopping production, symbolic blood, all linked to
the location.
4.The duration was limited. 7 hours (4.30-11.30 am). One gate. The second part of the protest was
not said to be criminal, the CPS only charged on criminal damage, throwing the
red paint and although it was not just the time taken to throw the paint (a few
minutes) but the time to clear it up, the fact that Elbit took two days and
charged £900 was not realistic. It was just that they hadn’t got round to it –
really it was an hour or so as only 5-6 car parking spaces were affected.
5.The disruption was limited. And there was no evidence the paint/bottles went near the dog handler
or his dog. He gave evidence that he felt “not
happy” but made it clear that there was no violence. There was no especial
trauma caused to him. The CPS mentioned private houses opposite – but there was
no evidence that anyone was upset. They might have been out or even
sympathetic. The nature of the area was otherwise commercial. Extent of
obstruction was broken glass, limited to a few bottles, not all were broken,
and one of the defendants graphically described how it was swept up! No
obstruction to members of the public.
6.No danger to public order. It could have been different if it had been during
the day.
The judge then summarised – important issues, limited duration, focused
on objectives, limited impact on workers or public, no significant danger. They
did however commit a criminal offence. But... the legal authorities make clear
that judgment requires more than just consideration of blocking the highways
(Ziegler). There is also Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR) and that this could include cases involving criminal damage (one
such included red paint on a statue). The degree of damage is part of the
balancing act – at one end cutting off a petal, at the other bulldozing a
building. This was in between. Symbolic use of paint (not disputed it was water
based and washed off easily – if it had been done more quickly by Elbit that
is). It was at the upper end of the scale of proportionality and the judge was
therefore not sure that the interference (by the CPS) with the right to protest
was justified. Not guilty!!
The Judge emphasised that there are consequences to this. It is not a
precedent (i.e. don’t do it again and expect to get away with it and don’t
expect other cases to be able to say “we won here so we can win again”). Every
case depends on the individual facts.
This was a legal judgment based on Ziegler, the Supreme Court case
(which is binding on all courts). Ziegler is about proportionality, which the
court agreed is not limited to blocking the roads. This was much more likely to
succeed than other defences (which were also put), such as necessity, because the
action taken here may not so easily be linked to the desired outcome there,
that is, it may not be effective enough to stop bombing of Gaza and the link
between the two may be too remote.
The judge was absolutely insistent that this was not a precedent.
Legally that is correct. The barristers made clear that the judge could and
should find in our favour here, irrespective of any other possible future
cases. One of the defendants made it pretty clear that she would be going back
to protest every day she could – and that everyone in the court had a moral
duty to go and do the same! So the judge was trying to say we can’t do that and
expect to get away with it. But – in all human and political terms – this is a
precedent. If we had lost, the CPS would be using it the other way. Maybe (just
maybe) the CPS will have to rethink some of the other charges in the light of
this.
An EXTRA artillery rocket system developed and manufactured by Israel Military Industries.Credit: Elbit
The CPS didn’t charge for anything other than throwing the red paint
(and criminal damage resulting). This meant they artificially separated the
aspects of the action, and the defendants did well to say that all of the bits
of the action were part and parcel of the one action. It did not seem to be
clear to the judge why the CPS didn’t go for other charges, such as
preventing workers going to work or other trade union related “offences”. I
think that all the other PA protesters have had charges dropped when they just
blocked the road or locked on, while this one was “lock-on plus”, ie they threw
red paint (soluble, symbolic, red paint to represent the blood of the
Palestinians killed by Elbit). So the CPS fought this on the “plus”. [Doesn’t
anyone know about the suffragists??]
There is a tension between our arguments – on the one hand the actions
do aim to maximise the stopping of production at Elbit and/or damage; on the
other hand, in court our arguments are that it was limited and didn’t do very
much. No way of getting round this, other than the more “political” defences of
necessity and crime prevention. Elbit’s crime is far worse than ours,
international law is on our side etc.
Support in the court is essential. It hopefully did help the defendants,
to feel they had an audience, and they were very well prepared and “performed”
brilliantly. END
Israel – A Military With A State
In 2020 Israel spent $22bn on its military, $2,508 per capita
and some 12% of total government spending. This is the highest in the world.
Compare this to Israel’s treatment of its holocaust survivors.
When it comes to defending Israeli apartheid Israel’s propagandists never fail
to use the holocaust as a justification for Israel’s crimes. Yet what is the
reality of Israel’s treatment of the survivors?
According to the Times
of Israel over half of Israel’s holocaust survivors require food handouts, ‘with many saying they don’t have the funds
to pay for essentials such as eyeglasses and hearing aids’.
In a poll conducted by the Holocaust Survivors’ Welfare Fund,
51% said they relied on food given to them by various charities, with a third
saying they were in “dire need” of assistance.
According to the poll, many Holocaust survivors
say they are forced to give up essentials in order to have enough money for
food. Forty-three percent of respondents said they didn’t have enough money for
spectacles, 33% said they couldn’t afford dental care and 27% said they
couldn’t pay for hearing aids.
The reality is that the holocaust survivors have subsidised
the Israeli state ever since its foundation. The reparations that Germany paid
to Israel did not go to the survivors but to the Israeli state and the Jewish Claims
Conference, where much of it was embezzled away.
But if Israel is generous to its military and arms industry
it is parsimonious to those who survived the holocaust. Below is a graph of Israeli
spending compared to other countries.
Israel is a key global supplier of advanced weaponry,
including drones, missiles, radar technology and other systems. In 2020, it was
the 12th-biggest arms supplier with more than $345m in weapons sales to 16
countries, according to the SIPRI database.
It’s been nearly five months since
the last scandal involving the cyber offense firm NSO Group. In the time since,
it has become abundantly clear that it was one scandal too many.
An international inquiry has produced
a long list of journalists, social activists and politicians, including VIPs,
all of whom were ostensibly targeted by NSO’s Pegasus software.
At the top of the list is French President Emmanuel Macron.
'If we did not collaborate with this or the other
dictatorial regime we would not have the defense that we do have'
The list also sheds light on the
states that are evidently in possession of Pegasus, and its suspicious
correspondence with the states that Israel’s government has identified as
geopolitical targets. From there, it’s a short road to the assertion that not
only does NSO have a light trigger finger when it comes to providing services
to controversial regimes around the world, but that Pegasus virtually serves as
a down payment on the establishment of unofficial diplomatic relations between
these countries and Israel. These revelations led to a procession of apologies
and clarifications from high-ranking Israelis.
These efforts did nothing to keep the
United States from placing NSO on a blacklist –
a death blow to the company. Moreover, on Saturday Reuters published a report
claiming that the mobile devices of at least nine U.S. State Department serving
in Africa were hacked using Pegasus, driving a final nail into the company’s
coffin.
Eli Pinko, the first director of the Defense Export Control Agency.Credit: Linkedin
Throughout this entire period, official Israeli sources have failed to
offer any response to the NSO affair, even when the debate focused on
theoretical issues, such as the role of Israeli defense exports in a changing world.
Given all this, interest ran high when Eli Pinko – who had been the first
director of the Defense Export Control Agency, appointed in 2006 – addressed a
closed conference at a Ramat Gan law firm last week dealing with Israeli defense exports. According to
materials obtained by The Marker, Pinko didn’t disappoint the attendees, who
were drawn from the ranks of the defense export industry.
“The Defense Ministry should have
come out in defense of NSO,” Pinko said, “rather than caving
to the Americans and the French and sending [Defense Minister Benny Gantz to
France] to explain what did and didn’t happen.” As such, Pinko was
expressing the prevailing mood in the ministry, even though he is no longer a
civil servant.
“Did NSO receive a license? Were they working in accordance with that
license? If so, then defend them!” Pinko admonished the audience.
‘Those
arrogant Israelis’
Behind closed doors, NSO is claiming that their sales received government
approval. The company has appealed to the Foreign Ministry and the Prime
Minister’s Office with a plea for help. At the gathering in Ramat Gan, the
company’s narrative was practically taken for granted.
“This whole ordeal is a match-up
between the U.S. National Security Agency and NSO,” one participant said,
insinuating that NSO had “stepped on the
toes” of the NSA. “Those arrogant
Israelis eliminated the technological edge that the Americans had been building
up over 20 years, ever since 9/11 – and began selling this know-how to every
good-for-nothing leader in Africa,” he explained. “I’m convinced that NSO has no idea why they ended up on the list over
anyone else,” another participant said.
Office
buildings in Ramat Gan, central Israel. Credit:
Tomer Appelbaum
The gathering was held at the offices of the Meitar law firm. Along with
the Association of Corporate Counsel, the meeting was chaired by Yuval Sasson,
a partner at Meitar and one of the most senior attorneys in the world of
defense exports. The audience included the legal counsels of Israeli defense
contractors. Through his questions, Sasson adeptly zeroed in on the state of
distress his colleagues find themselves in.
“Everyone in this room has fielded
a request of some sort from a state agency, or someone serving a state agency.
Doesn’t that imply some obligation toward us?” Sasson wondered aloud.
“If a company that has aided a state agency, as a
result of that action, finds itself on the American watch list – or is hit with
a civil suit in Europe – isn’t the State of Israel obligated to stand by its
side, to protect it, to handle the situation?”
Pinko
responded authoritatively: “There are
quite a few examples of times Israel stood behind companies and these sort of
activities – not only through legal defense, but even by paying fees that the
defense contractors were compelled to pay in the face of various sanctions –
without asking for repayment.”
“In Turkey, for example, Israel
defended the interests of two large Israeli companies,” Pinko recalled (possibly referring
to the canceled export permits of Elbit and Israel Aerospace Industries in
2011, which caused the loss of contracts with the Turkish air force valued at
$140 million).
“What we have here is a matter of
reasonable expectations,” Sasson contended, likening the situation to the
approval of a prospectus by the Israel Securities Authority. “Anyone working in a regulated area, assuming
he abides by the regulations, can reasonably expect that if he suffers damages
as a result of those activities, then the state should enter the fray and not
shirk its responsibility.”
Yuval
Sasson, a partner at Meitar and one of the most senior attorneys in the world
of defense exports. Credit: Tomer Yaakobson
‘We were silent until their release’
The conference was called “Considerations of Ethics, Morality and Human
Rights in Defense Exports.” An oxymoron, one might say. On the other hand, it
indicates the increasingly critical global discourse regarding defense exports
and the increasing accessibility to no-less-dangerous technological weaponry.
“Are weapons exports ethical at all?
If you’re asking in a utopian world, then the answer is no,” Pinko said. “But we live in a different reality – globally and regionally.”
In his view, the Defense Ministry’s behavior as it pertains to the
protection of human rights – vis-a-vis serving the political interests of
Israel – is “complex,” but with a
clear inference as to which way the balance should skew.
“Human rights [in the target
countries of the exports] are on the agenda – both at the Defense Export
Control Agency and the Foreign Ministry – but rights do not always take top
billing,” he
admitted. “There are state interests that
need to be taken into account, and more than once the decision regarding the
dilemma has been left to the highest political echelons,” said Pinko.
“The defense of the state depends on
many systems. If we did not collaborate with this or the other dictatorial
regime we would not have the defense that we do have,” said Pinko, likely hinting at the
useful relationships that Israel has developed with Iran’s neighbor Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan.
The
SPYDER, an Israeli short and medium range mobile air defence system developed
by Rafael.Credit: Rafael
According to foreign reports, these relations include the export
of sensitive weaponry in exchange for an additional layer of protection for
Israel. As such, based on the most recent report by the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute, Israel is the source of 70 percent of Azerbaijani
weapons imports.
“We are facing a unique situation.
Nothing will change that. There is no other possibility. Take this into
account: It’s either the civil rights in some country or Israel’s right to
exist. I would like to see each of you face this dilemma and say: ‘No, we will
champion human rights in the other country.’ Gentlemen, it doesn’t work.”
“If we were Sweden or France, perhaps
we’d be in a different position, but take, for example, the recent incident in
Turkey,” Pinko said,
referring to the arrest of Mordi and Natalie Oknin. “We avoided saying a single word about the involvement of Hamas-Turkey
in the recently exposed terror activities in the territories, even though it
originated from there – until after the couple was released. So to sit here and
spin theories about what should be done and optics – that’s fine, but you
constantly have to see the other side of the coin, as well,” Pink said.
‘Even
Merkel offered the Saudis a submarine fleet’
Pinko repeatedly expressed his contentions regarding the world’s double
standard and hypocrisy in its attitude toward Israel.
“I have yet to see publications
referencing American attacks in Afghanistan where women and children were
killed, nor any reference to massacres committed by French forces in Africa.
The world accepts those incidents with equanimity. But when it comes to NSO,
which sold a system in accordance with government permits? Suddenly there’s a
global outcry. Guys, this is the duplicitous nature of the world.”
“The French company Thales is the
number one exporter of cyber technology in Europe. Who don’t they sell to? Just
name it, they’re already there. Places we wouldn’t dare touch. So they have an
ethical code, or so they say. Very nice,” Pinko said.
“The only
state that upholds the human rights issue is Germany. Germany will not sell to
Saudi Arabia or other such countries, out of considerations of human rights and
the character of the regime in these countries. But still, that didn’t prevent
[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel from offering the Saudis a fleet of
submarines. The fact that they didn’t buy it is a different matter, but the
world is hypocritical.”
Pinko further demonstrated his point, referring to
Microsoft’s withdrawal last March from purchasing the Israeli startup AnyVision
(now called Oosto). AnyVision developed facial-recognition tracking technology.
According to reports in foreign media outlets, Israeli security forces have
made use of this system to surveil Palestinians. “Pressure from the Palestinian lobby on the Democratic Party is what
stopped the sale,” said Pinko. “Microsoft
did not withdraw because it did not want the company. It wanted it. But at the
same time it was under pressure.”
Pinko insinuated that some of the negative publicity
surrounding the Israeli industry results from commercial competition in the
export markets among three blocs: the United States, Europe and China. As such,
he alluded to another role for the Defense Ministry as a sales agent of the
local defense industry.
None
other than lawyer Eitay Mack was asked to give his seal of approval at the
gathering. Credit: Emil Salman
“The
regimes in Beijing and Moscow have not changed, and will not change. Wherever
we exit, they will enter, and wherever the Americans and the French exit, they
will enter,” Pinko said. “Does that
still mean that we should leave? I’m conflicted. What is certain is that we
have to be more deliberate and to do a better job of taking these things into
account.”
Pinko, it should be noted, bears the scars of the
drones that Israel sold to China in the 1990s, provoking American ire. In
general, regarding recent U.S. pressure on its allies to cut commercial ties
with China, Pinko was critical of the Israeli course of action: “Being in the middle of the West’s demands
and what the Asian bloc is doing is a very difficult task. The regime is
proceeding cautiously, and trying to cover its ass. Nowadays, there’s no
imagination, there’s no long term vision. It’s all short term.”
‘You’re
alone in the fray’
New European Union regulations that took effect in
September require that human rights be considered in all defense export
transactions. Meanwhile, in early November, the United States released a draft
of its own regulations for preliminary public discussion. These included
specific supervision of cyber exports.
The rules of the game are changing, all of the
speakers at the session agreed. Legal threats are not the only new factor under
consideration when export companies make more vigorous efforts to assess
whether a sale is worthwhile.
“Investments in problematic places bring bad
PR,” noted Sasson. “People want to
work in companies with a good reputation, and some companies are having a hard
time recruiting personnel due to the publicity about their actions.”
None other than lawyer Eitay Mack was asked to give
his seal of approval at the gathering. Mack is one of the most prominent
individuals in the human rights niche. In recent years, he has (voluntarily)
taken it upon himself to engage in public supervision of Israel’s defense
exports.
“You’ve been left alone in the fray,”
Mack informed the legal counsels of the defense contractors. “It seems to me, that even though you’re
inundated by the bureaucracy of the defense and foreign ministries, at the end
of the day, they’re incapable of defending you. The Defense Export Control
Agency is not an insurance policy either. Obtaining a permit from them isn’t
like getting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”
Mack did not spare his criticism for Israeli
administration officials. The Foreign Ministry, he contended, has been caught
making mistakes more than once and “doesn’t
always know what is going on.” The Defense Ministry consistently foils
parliamentary supervision of defense exports out of its fear of leaks.
The two ministries, Mack contends, oppose amending the
Defense Export Control Law, as it would impose restrictions on the export of
arms – even to countries that are not subject to UN Security Council embargo.
He no longer holds out much hope for the courts either.
A
smartphone with the website of Israel's NSO Group.Credit: JOEL SAGET - AFP
The High Court of Justice recently ruled that
public criticism of the Defense Export Control Agency decisions is inadmissible
to the court (Mack: “That track has
ended, which I feel very sorry about.”) Ultimately, Mack says, after the
government refused to recognize its obligation to the defense contractors, the
Knesset and the courts followed suit. “From
here on out, the responsibility you bear has grown very heavy,” he told his
colleagues, “even before you get into
questions of ethics.”
Sasson posed a scenario to Mack.
“Let’s say I sold a rifle. I told the customer
that he must not enter opposition territory with it. But what can I do? A few
months later, you see five soldiers entering a village and massacring people
with my rifle. What can I do? Sue my customer? What am I expected to do, aside
from not selling to him anymore?”
Mack responded:
“When you’re talking about low-tech,
there isn’t really much you can do. Even when Israel decided to stop exports –
it couldn’t simply round up the weapons. But when it comes to high-tech
technologies, such a possibility must exist. If the exporter has implemented
all means of prevention, kept its finger on the trigger and stopped its use at
the right moment, then, maybe, it has fulfilled its legal obligation.”
The
offices of NSO Group in Sapir, a community settlement in southern Israel.Credit: Sebastian Scheiner/AP“It is true that the world is
hypocritical and politics plays into it, but everyone has to take
responsibility for their own square on the chess board. Defense companies have
to look after their own interests – and we can all agree that there are enough
extreme instances in which the legal counsels are the ones that should be
hitting the off switch,”
Mack concluded.
Another speaker at the gathering was Matan Gutman,
founder of CybeRighTech, and the advisor to former state comptroller Joseph
Shapira. “Each company should look at
itself first of all, at its own obligation to loyalty. And at the minimum
requirements that it must comply with in order to prepare for a moment of
crisis,” he said.
“Even if
the company is scrupulous about preliminary actions that will respond [in the
event of an entanglement] – that may not be enough, because the world is moving
ahead too quickly,” said Gutman.
Pinko concluded the technical discussion of the issue
of arms exports – we are, after all, speaking of a professional gathering –
with a tip for the defense contractors: “I am familiar with the license granted
by the Defense Ministry. If any change needs to be made – it is in the clauses
of this license. It is by means of these clauses that the ministry frees itself
from all responsibility for the licensing process.”
