South African Government Considering Sanctions Against Israel

It Takes the Victims of Apartheid to Recognise Apartheid

As the architect of Apartheid, Dr Henry Verwoerd said: “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a 1000 years. In this I agree with them. Israel like South Africa is an apartheid- state.” Rand Daily Mail, 23.11.61.

It is therefore doubly gratifying that the South African ruling party, the African National Congress, is considering sanctions against the world’s other apartheid state – Israel. It is a fitting punishment, if only for all those years when Israel broke the arms embargo on South Africa, developed a joint nuclear weapon with it (perhaps if they introduce apartheid in Iran…)!!!

And the most enthusiastic proponents of co-operation with Apartheid were the left Zionists of Mapai and Mapam. And the Histadrut, which these days tries to pass itself off as a trade union but then also owned 25% of the Israeli economy, encouraged its enterprises such as Koor Industries to partner white South African ones, thus enabling much produce to be passed off as ‘Israeli’ – much the same as West Bank produce today is passed off as the product of Israel. In fact Koor Industries formed a joint holding company with the South African Steel Corporation, Iskoor. So let’s look forward to the first official Boycott of Israel by a State.

Tony Greenstein

South Africa mulls imposing sanctions on apartheid Israel

The New Age Newspaper: (02 February 2012)

South Africa's ruling party, the African National Congress, is a long-time partner of the Palestinian people. This was the case during the 1980s, during the the anti-apartheid struggle and isolation of the Pretoria regime, at the United Nations during the Palestinian statehood bid, and now in the peaceful and nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The South African Minister of Arts and Culture and a member of President Jacob Zuma's cabinet, Paul Mashatile, recently told the Johannesburg-based newspaper, The New Age:

"We want to step up our support of the Palestinians and are investigating a number of peaceful ways to upgrade this support. We have no problem with supporting the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel."

BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT AND SANCTIONS in SOUTH AFRICA (BDS SOUTH AFRICA)

W: www.bdssouthafrica.com | E: administrator@bdssouthafrica.com
www.facebook.com/bdssouthafrica | www.twitter.com/bdssouthafrica
BDS South Africa is a registered Non-Profit Organization. NPO NUMBER: 084 306 NPO
BDS South Africa is a registered Public Benefit Organisation with Section 18A tax-deductible status. PBO NUMBER: 930 037 446

SA Pledges Support for Palestinians

Mel Frykberg | The New Age Newspaper 02 February 2012

The South African government might consider supporting sanctions against Israel as it explores a variety of peaceful methods to step up support for the Palestinians' fight for freedom and independence.

"We want to step up our support of the Palestinians and are investigating a number of peaceful ways to upgrade this support. We have no problem with supporting the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel," Minister of Arts and Culture Paul Mashatile told The New Age.

Mashatile was addressing a press conference in Pretoria yesterday at the Department of Arts and Culture, during the signing of a cultural agreement between South Africa and Palestine.

During the signing Palestinian Arts and Culture Minister Siham Barghouti and Palestinian Deputy Minister of Arts and Culture Musa Abu Ghreibeh, exchanged gifts with their South African counterparts, Minister Mashatile and deputy minister Joe Pehle.

Later on in the year the Palestinians will host South Africa's Arts and Culture Week, where South African artists and cultural entrepreneurs will present cultural exhibitions from their country.

Mashatile's statement presents a considerable upping of the ante in South Africa's long-standing support for the Palestinians and the cementing of a relationship that goes back decades, to when the ANC was struggling against the former apartheid government.

"Your Excellency, we count the people of Palestine among those patriots who stood by us in our struggle for national liberation," Mashatile told the Palestinian delegation as he recalled former President Nelson Mandela's 1997 speech to honor the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

"Having achieved our freedom we can fall into the trap of washing our hands of difficulties that others face. Yet we would be less human if we do so," said Mandela in 1997.

BDS supporters argue that Israel's continued illegal occupation of the Palestinians territories and expropriation of Palestinians land, water and other resources can only be stopped when sanctions against Israel begin to bite economically.

"We are grateful for South Africa's support for our efforts to become members of the international community and look towards you for guidance in our continued struggle," said Barghouti.

The two delegations agreed that future cooperation would include language development, heritage preservation, literature exchanges and exhibitions.

www.bdssouthafrica.com/2012/02/sa-pledges-support-for-palestinians-mel.html
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/south-africa-mulls-bds-sanctions-israel

Apartheid agents not welcome on our campuses

Tuesday, August 9. 2011

This afternoon at a joint press conference held at the student centre of the University of the Witwatersrand, national representatives of the South African Union of Students, the South African Student Congress and the Young Communist League slammed the pending trip of "Israeli Apartheid agents" to South Africa.

The Israeli mission to South African campuses are expected to arrive in South Africa on the 11th of August 2011. Palestinian students have written to South African colleagues asking South Africans to challenge and boycott the Israeli delegation.

An extract of the press statement is produced below:

"We, students and youth of a post Apartheid South Africa, who bear the scars of a racist history and who continue to fight for complete liberation, have a duty and responsibility to stand in solidarity with those facing oppression worldwide. Israeli apartheid is one such form of oppression. "Israeli media boast that a mission of 150 Israeli propagandists will be sent to universities in 5 countries to fix Israel's "serious image problems". The Israeli mission will begin on South African campuses, with a delegation that includes at least two aides from the Israeli parliament. A delegation member was clear about the intention of their trip: "We have to create some doubt in their [South African students’] minds."

"Don’t patronize us! We lived apartheid, we suffered apartheid, we know what apartheid is, we recognise apartheid when we see it. And when we see Israel, we see a regime that practices apartheid. Israel’s image needs no changing; its policies do! We urge Israeli students to instead join the growing and inspiring internal resistance to their regime, particularly the boycott from within movement, rather than waste time and money on these propaganda trips to deceive us Black students, South Africans have no need for these Muldergate-like trips.

"A "major focus” of the Israeli trip will be the University of Johannesburg (UJ). On 1st April 2011 UJ's Senate, with the full backing of UJ's Student Representative Council, terminated its institutional relationship with Israel's Ben-Gurion University. Indeed, UJ set an academic boycott of Israel precedent that all other South African and international universities can follow.

"Following UJ’s decision, and in response to a letter sent to us by Palestinian students, we urge all SRCs, student groups and other youth structures to strategize and implement a boycott of Israel and its campaigns. We declare that all SA campuses must be Apartheid-Israel free zones.

"As with the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, international solidarity is key in overcoming Israeli Apartheid. In Nelson Mandela’s words: It behoves all South Africans, erstwhile beneficiaries of generous international support, to stand up and be counted among those contributing actively to the cause of freedom and justice….we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

"Issued by the South African Union of Student, the South African Student Congress and the Young Communist League of South Africa.

For the full statement visit

Israeli police remove worshipers from Al-Aqsa

Tuesday, August 9. 2011

Israeli police entered the Jerusalem compound housing Al-Aqsa Mosque on Sunday evening and forcibly removed worshipers, a Ma'an correspondent said.

Israeli police forces raided the Haram Ash-Sharif complex after the Tarawih, the additional extended prayers performed during the holy month of Ramadan after the last obligatory prayer, Ma'an's reporter said.

The police removed from the site a group of around 30 people, who were spending a special time of seclusion in the area where the mosque and Dome of the Rock stand, as part of Ramadan devotion.

They had at first refused to leave, the correspondent said, as they wanted to prevent further raids by right-wing Israelis on the compound, which is revered as the third holiest site in Islam.

On Friday night, a group of right-wing Israelis entered the Haram Ash-Sharif where they clashed with local youth.

An Israeli police spokesman could not be reached for comment.

During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast during daylight hours and spend extra time in devotion and charitable giving. Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza strive to enter East Jerusalem to pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque, where daily special prayers are held.

Source: Ma'an News

Jewish settlers storm the Aqsa Mosque

Posted by nakba in News Tuesday, August 9. 2011

Tension is running high in the holy Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem after Jewish settlers stormed and roamed the plazas of the holy site at the early morning hours on Monday.

The Aqsa guards said that Israeli occupation police escorted the groups of settlers who were roaming the mosque in provocative tours.

They said that the policemen were barricading the settlers in face of the angry Muslim worshipers, who were preparing to confront the settlers.

Israeli policemen and special forces broke into the holy site on Sunday night and forced out worshipers for the third straight night.

Source: International Solidarity Movement
Posted by nakba in News at 20:38

Check The Label - Boycott Israeli Dates

Tuesday, June 28. 2011

This Ramadan, don't break your fast with an Israeli date

Ramadan is a time of year when we remember those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It would be an affront if at such a time we helped support oppression

Every year, Israel exports millions of pounds worth of dates to the world, which many people unknowingly buy and use to break their fasts. These dates are grown in illegal settlements in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, on land that has been stolen from Palestinians. By buying these dates, we are in fact helping Israel to continue its occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.

For this reason, Friends of Al Aqsa will again be launching the ‘Check the Label’ Campaign.

Check The Label

Most of the major supermarkets will stock dates produced in Israel, West Bank and the Jordan Valley. Dates produced in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley are from Illegal Israeli Settlements and should also be boycotted.

Khader Adnan – 50 Days on Hunger Strike

Palestinians take the Irish Road to Freedom

The parallels between the Partition of Ireland in 1920 and Palestine are many. The establishment of Ulster, a Protestant State for a Protestant People, as Lord Brookborough, later Unionist Prime Minister remarked, and the establishment of the Palestine Mandate are remarkable, not least because it goes so often unremarked. Republicans have always supported the Palestinians just as the Unionists have identified with Israel.

When I was in Northern Ireland in the early 1980's, during the Hunger Strike I met, along with others in a Labour Party delegation, the leader of the Ulster Defence Association, Andy Tyrie and his main political spokesperson John MacMichael, later assassinated by the IRA. The UDS made its admiration for Israel very clear, even as the NF - who whom they were linked - purported to oppose Israel. Today of course all fascists openly identify with Israel as the number one opponent of 'Islam'.

Britain’s very presence in Ireland was a consequence of the Plantation of the 15th and 16th centuries. Not only is Ireland England’s oldest colony but it was the test bed for other colonial experiments, not least the very British art of massacre. In 1920, after the East Uprising and having unleashed the thugs and criminals of the Black and Tans, the Lloyd George government made a proposal to Sinn Fein, which in 1918 had overwhelmingly won elections in the whole of Ireland on the basis of independence for Ireland, that either they accept Partition or face an intensified civil war. Michael Collins went down in the hall of infamy for having accepted and there followed a civil war in Ireland.

Likewise in 1920 at San Remo, the major imperial powers carved up the Middle East and Palestine was established as a proto-Zionist settler state. Common to both countries was the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, an ardent Zionist, Unionist and colonial diehard, who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet in 1931 over its support for the Government of India Act. Churchill’s abiding passion in politics was the need to preserve the British Empire and he saw that as one of his major goals between 1939-49. He never forgave General Wavell for what he saw as the surrender of India under his Viceroyship. Both Palestine and Ireland in their own way were settler-colonial states, though in Ireland Partition was occasioned by the desire to keep the areas of major British investment in British hands, in particular the dockyards, ship building and heavy engineering factories of Belfast.

As Sir Ronald Storres, the first Military Govenor of Jerusalem wrote in his auto-biography of a Jewish settlement in Palestine: “It will form for England,” he said, “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” Today we see prominent Palestinians adopting the traditional weapon of the weak – the hunger strike. As many will recall, the hunger strike has been used repeatedly in Ireland against British intransigence and the Hunger Strikes of 1980 led to the death of 10 Irish prisoners and the eclipse of the SDLP, the ‘moderate’ nationalist party, as Bobby Sands was elected as a member of the British Parliament. So too in Palestine and we can see how Israel’s close collaborator, ‘Prime Minister’ Salam Fayyad, has been forced to give his support. And like the British, the Zionist state is stupid enough to let Palestinian prisoners die in order to preserve their right to torture them.

Thus, inevitably, Palestinian politics is increasingly taking up political and civil rights issues, of basic human dignity, as they oppose an occupation which accords no rights to the vanquished.

One of the great scandals of Israel's occupation is its use of 'administrative detention' to hold indefinitely some 7,000+ Palestinian prisoners. In Ireland this was called Internment and was another of Britain's historical mistakes. It may yet come to rebound on the 'only democracy in the Middle East' too.
Tony Greenstein

Otherwise Occupied / For the sake of his dignity

03:39 06.02.12

After over 50 days of hunger strike against what he terms humiliating Shin Bet interrogation techniques, Khader Adnan's health is deteriorating.

By Amira Hass

Khader Adnan has already broken a Palestinian record for the longest solo hunger strike. Yesterday he passed his 50th day as a hunger striker, protesting what he regards as humiliating practices exercised by Shin Bet security service interrogators. Posters displayed at support rallies have above his portrait the statement: “Dignity above food”, a statement repeated in a Facebook page titled “We are all Sheikh Khader Adnan.”

On January 8, 22 days after he was detained in his home in Arabeh in the northern West Bank, a four-month administrative arrest order was issued against him, owing to his “activity as a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which threatens the region's security.” Last Thursday, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad met with the hunger striker's father in Ramallah, and declared that the entire Palestinian people expresses solidarity with Adnan. A member of Adnan's organization warned about possible consequences, should he perish.

Khader Adnan has already broken a Palestinian record for the longest solo hunger strike.

On the night of December 17, masked soldiers raided his home, aiming their rifles at family members, elderly parents, a pregnant wife and two daughters. This account was provided in an affidavit submitted to an attorney engaged by the Physicians for Human Rights NGO. Adnan testified that his hands were tied behind his back, and that he was thrown onto the floor of an army jeep; during the journey in the vehicle, he says, soldiers kicked and slapped him. The jeep reached the Mevo Dotan settlement, where (he says ) he was held for several hours outside, in the cold, with his cuffed hands swelling. His lower lip was cut and bleeding.

The next day he was taken to the Kishon detention facility, for Shin Bet questioning. In his affidavit, Adnan testifies that he was tied to a chair and positioned in an excruciatingly painful way. Throughout the interrogation, he remained tied, his hands behind his back. Adnan says that Shin Bet questioners cursed him and threatened harm to his family. Was the moment he heard his wife and daughters being cursed when he decided to launch his hunger strike? Or was it when the interrogators forcibly yanked his beard? Or was it when one of the interrogators rubbed a finger on his shoes, and then smeared Adnan's moustache? Or was it when they did not allow him to pray?

Without any advance plan, he launched the hunger strike, and kept mum. Interrogators asked questions, pressured and tempted him, but he kept quiet. For days, he was interrogated twice a day. That is, the interrogators asked questions and spoke, while Adnan kept mum. And refused to eat.

He learned that he was an administrative detainee belatedly, on January 10, and this added a new motivation to his hunger strike: The protest is also against the fact of his detention without trial. Last Wednesday a third “judicial review” session was held at the military court for administrative matters, regarding the administrative arrest order. As in the preceding session, he was wheeled in a wheelchair into the caravan where the sessions are held. Military prosecutor Lt. Tamar Lejlem asked military judge Dalia Kaufmann to “authorize the administrative arrest order for the entirety of the requested period, owing to classified information which I will submit on a unilateral basis to the court. This is a senior member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who is involved in organizational activity, and who was imprisoned in the past and has returned to subversive activity.”

Five attorneys were on hand to represent Adnan: Jamil Khatib, Tamar Peleg, Mahmoud Halabi, Mahmoud Hassan, Jawad Boulos and Nivin Hassan. This proliferation of attorneys bears witness to concerns about his deteriorating health and the implications.

The process of opposing administrative arrest turns into a guessing game, or a game of tag in which one side is blindfolded while the other side has a full view of events. There is no indictment, nor is there evidence to dispute. Questions posed by defense attorneys have the aim of causing the military court judge to review critically the order to deny an individual's liberty without allowing him or her to stand trial.

Peleg turned to the prosecutor, saying: “I understand, and ask for confirmation, that the questions asked during the interrogation of my client by the Shin Bet express the main suspicions pending against him, suspicions which presumably are reinforced by the classified information.”

The prosecutor rejoined: “The secret materials are more expansive than what has been disclosed.”

Peleg: “I am talking about the type of suspicions, and not their amount.”

The prosecutor: “The suspicions are the same ones featured in the classified materials. There is more expansive information and additional details that are not reflected in the Shin Bet's interrogation. The classified materials relate to a wider range of activities, activities on an organizational level that threaten the security of the region.”

The game of ping-pong continued in this fashion. As it concluded, Peleg stated: “The conclusion is that there is no intelligence information that warrants the administrative arrest, and, in particular, that the security officials do not have the option, nor do they have a desire, to put the accused on trial.”

The detained man was given the right to speak. “I will begin with what happened just a few moments ago,” Adnan told those present in the courtroom. “You went out to eat, in rooms that are surely heated and comfortable. I went off to the waiting caravan for detainees, despite my condition, and it was very cold. The doctors tell me that perhaps because of the fluctuating heat and cold, I might quickly develop cardiac problems.”

Last Tuesday he was moved from the Israel Prison Service medical facility to a private hospital in Bnei Brak. His legs and arms were cuffed to his bed. Three wardens sat in his room round the clock, smoking and chatting. Adnan initiated his hunger strike in the name of dignity, but “the insults continue,” he told the judge. He added: “when the wardens come into my room, they reach under the pillow and joke about how I might be hiding food. I have a Koran which I read, holding it with a handcuffed hand. Yesterday I prayed in a chair, with my arms and legs bound.” The judge's decision concerning the future of the administrative arrest order is pending.

The Prison Service spokesman relays: On January 17, the ethics committee for the rights of a patient (an external committee ) spoke with the detainee and concluded that he does not want to die. Thus the committee decided to respect his wishes, and not force medical treatment upon him. At the end of the hunger strike's 44th day, and following the submission of a medical report saying that his health is in genuine danger, the committee convened anew, this time with a religious figure (a Kadi ) in attendance, and the religious delegate met privately with the detainee.

“After it was made clear to the detainee that the committee is considering the forcible administration of an infusion, he agreed to be taken to a hospital for an examination, and the condition that he meets with a doctor sent by Physicians for Human Rights. On the advice of this doctor, he agreed to take potassium tablets, and he returned to the Prison Service medical facility. After he announced that he would stop drinking water, the committee decided to allow a Prison Service physician to administer intravenously salt and sugar [this has not happened].

“Last Tuesday, at the Prison Service request, the detainee was taken to the Bnei Brak hospital. There, he once again drank water, and met with Red Cross representatives and also the kadi. On Thursday, he was taken to a Jerusalem hospital. That day, the Prison Service consented to the detainee's request, and furnished unusual authorization for him to meet with family members.” So ends the Prisons Service statement.

It should be noted that as of last night, his family has still not been allowed to visit him.

According to the military spokesperson's office, following the information relayed in Adnan's affidavit to Physicians for Human rights, the military prosecution has instructed the military division of investigations to investigate the circumstances of his arrest.

By press time last night, the Shin Bet had not responded to this report.

Tony Greenstein's New Book on Combatting Fascism

On July 2nd last year, I was invited by Brighton Labour History Workshop to do a talk on the fight against fascism in Brighton and on the South Coast. The invitation was extended to me because I have been prominent in the campaign against the fascists from the mid-1970's and have remained active ever since.

The talk, which was recorded, was written up into a book. I did, and am still doing, further research into fascism on the South Coast and it is extremely interesting. One fact which is virtually unknown was that it was the Daily Mirror which was most outspoken in support of Sir Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists with Viscount Rothermere advocating that they be given a ‘helping hand’.

Fascism of course hasn’t gone away and we have to remain vigilant. As the book makes clear, the fight against racism and fascism is indivisible – be it here in Britain or against Zionism and the Israeli state.

It is no surprise that today, the racists and fascists of the EDL see a role model in the actions of the Israeli state against Palestinians. We see it in the BNP style rhetoric about Muslims on far-right Zionist sites like Harry's Place.

Just as racists are coming together so must anti-fascists and anti-racists. The fascists have never gone away and neither have we.

Tony Greenstein

THE FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM IN BRIGHTON & THE SOUTH COAST

Speaker: Tony Greenstein
Tony has been active in the fight against fascism, both locally and nationally. Tony is also Secretary of Brighton & Hove Unemployed Workers Centre and a founding member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Tony's book The Fight Against Fascism in Brighton & the South Coast will be launched at a meeting on:

BRIGHTON BOOK LAUNCH

Saturday, 17 March 12 pm Friends Meeting House, Ship Street, Brighton BN1 1AF

contact Terry on terrylhm@virginmedia.com www.labourhistory.co.uk
Brighton History Workshop

Angry Arab asks: Is Atzmon a Sincere Anti-Semite or an Infiltrator?

The Angry Arab Interviewed by Asa Winstanley

A very interesting interview with the Angry Arab by Asa Winstanley, whose articles on the Zionist Community Security Trust I have already covered.

I share his impatience at the feeble response of Palestinians who have no answer to the question ‘does Israel have the right to exist.’ The PLO after Oslo recognised that Israel did have a right to exist and a fat lot of good that did them. Having garnered that particular surrender, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Zionists now demand recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, i.e. the rightfulness of their own dispossession and expulsion. But to Abbas and co., fawning over Israeli and US leaders has become an art form. Nonetheless I disagree with As'ad Abukhalil, the Anry Arab.

Firstly, just as a matter of fact, Israel does exist. The question is whether the Israeli state should exist.

Secondly, no state has a right to exist. It is an absurd proposition. Does the British monarchical state have a ‘right to exist’? And is a state human? Does it breathe, sing, walk? No a state is, ultimately, a body of armed men (& women) in Marx’s definition. The real question is, should a racist and apartheid state continue to exist? And to that I say an unequivocal no. Angry Arab says that ‘Since Oslo there is a trend in the pro-Palestinian community, particularly those with links to the PLO, to make the case for Palestine palatable with a case for Zionism’.

In fact it is worse than that. Saeeb Erekrat and the rest of the Palestinian negotiators have accepted the case of Zionism with their offers of a ‘bigger Yerushalayim.’ It is the first time that the leadership of an oppressed people have offered to sell the mess of potage that is their birthright.

Nor do I t agree that BDS is an extension of the Arab Boycott. The Arab Boycott came to an end with Oslo. The fact that the PLO agreed to relinquish the boycott and to recognise without preconditions Israel, without even obtaining an acceptance of a Palestinian state, speaks volumes about the Palestinian leadership. Oslo was, as I warned at the time, a severe defeat and disaster in the making. I hate to have been proved correct.

I can remember attending a UN NGO conference in Geneva about 1988, with Uri Davies and others from Return. There were all these ‘peacemakers’ there – 2 statists and conflict resolutionists – all vying for a piece of the cake. Zionism? Oh that was old hat. All that was necessary was to find a form of words that would be acceptable to all and hey presto the lamb and the lion would lie down with each other of course it didn’t and couldn’t last.

BDS is a grassroots thing. The economic boycott was top down and the reaction of an Arab elite to their humiliation In practice the Arab ruling class opposed Israel in rhetoric whilst meeting privately to secure each their own interests. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Saudi regime supported it unofficially as they also supported the Phalange. The collaboration of the Hashemites was legendary.

The real problem of BDS, which is quite unique since it focuses on companies that trade with Israel in their heartland and is part and parcel of an active political campaign, is that the solidarity movement is relatively strong. It is the Palestinians who are so weak. Contrast with the struggle in South Africa where BDS complemented the ANC’s own fight. In this case there is no fight on the official level and it is now an entirely grassroots struggle. A good thing of course but Israel has almost unlimited power to do what it does.

I understand what AA says on the personal and emotional level. My father would never go to Germany while he was alive and didn’t want any contact with Germans. But this is uncommon today among Jews. And such a reaction blamed all Germans regardless of their age or culpability. But I reject the suggestion that it is a form of racism.

If there is going to be any solution then clearly there has to be some form of rapprochment with Israelis and that means Israelis who have served in the IOF. The fact that Pappe has served is irrelevant to whether or not he has made a major contribution to the struggle for the right of return and much else. Israel is a state where it is compulsory for Jews to serve. Many don’t now but it is largely irrelevant, unless someone becomes a war criminal in so doing. It’s not ‘super BDS’ but a distraction from BDS.

Angry Arab does however make his anti-racist credentials extremely clear. Almost alone amongst prominent Arabs (Joseph Massad has refused to even respond to calls to declare his position, despite the article he wrote in Al Ahram in 2004 saying how anti-Semitism was a danger to the Palestinians, when his tenure was under threat) AA is very clear as to what thinks about Atzmon and anti-Semitism.

‘I have refused any contact with this guy and, you know me: I’m strict about many things… and one of them is refusing any association with anybody who has the slightest tinge of anti-Semitism. And he has more than a tinge of anti-Semitism… Call me paranoid... I know there are genuine anti-Semites who creep into our movement, but I do worry that there are some infiltrators who pose as anti-Semites to stigmatise the movement. I’m not sure which group he belongs to, but either way I don’t want him [around].’

Angry Arab has also put his finger on whether Atzmon is actually sincere in his anti-Semitism or an infiltrator who has been pointing the finger at others to avoid having to answer a few questions himself.

Tony Greenstein

Palestine is Still the Issue

In an in-depth and candid interview, academic and political commentator As'ad Abukhalil - a.k.a "The Angry Arab" - talks to Ceasefire columnist Asa Winstanley about Zionism, Hamas, Syria, Al Jazeera, BDS and much more.

By Asa Winstanley

Originally from Lebanon, As’ad AbuKhalil is professor of political science at California State University, a well known commentator on Arabic TV stations such as Al-Jazeera, and runs a popular blog, which he writes in English, called The Angry Arab News Service.

He is known for his radical leftist political stances and, in particular, his emphatic support for the Palestinian struggle. However, he has recently received criticism from readers and former fans for his stance on Syria (he is against both the Assad regime and the opposition’s Syrian National Council).

In January, AbuKhalil was in the UK for a speaking tour of university Palestine societies titled “The Case Against Israel”. The day before his first talk at Goldsmiths University, I sat down with the professor in an Edgware Road cafe to discuss his thoughts on the Palestine solidarity movement, the historical significance of the boycott divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign, the uprising in Syria, as well as other regional developments. I started off by asking him about his speaking tour.

As`ad AbuKhalil: I am going around to speak on making the case against Israel. I’m not going to be making any qualifications, or any disclaimers. I think I am of a generation who have seen too many Arab intellectuals, particularly in the United States, who used to get awkward and nervous whenever, after giving a long talk about the Palestinians, they are faced with a Zionist in the audience who would ask them: “But do you accept the existence of Israel?” And I’ve seen so many famous names dance around that question… I have become influenced by it in a way to be very categorical about it. When I started speaking publicly about Palestine in the United States, in the first few cases I was confronted by these same people who would stand up and say “But do you recognise the state of Israel?” And to that I would answer “Of course I wouldn’t!”

Asa Winstanley: So they don’t bother now?

AA: That never comes [up] anymore! And I felt like: that was so easy, why didn’t they all do that before? Since Oslo there is a trend in the pro-Palestinian community, particularly those with links to the PLO, to make the case for Palestine palatable with a case for Zionism. And that’s why I am here to oppose it.

AW: Why do you think Israel seems to be so sensitive to the boycott divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement?

AA: Since I left Lebanon in 1983, I have seen an erosion in the standing of Israel, especially in the eyes of Western liberals. When I left, these were the hardcore supporters… Public opinion in Europe has markedly changed over the last few decades. So much so that in almost all countries, even Germany, there is more support for Palestinians than for Israelis.

In Russia, after the rise of the supposed Islamic fundamentalist threat over there, there has been in fact a rise in the support for Israel, but if you talk about Scandinavian countries, or England, or France, and so on. I mean the public opinion is now, in England, more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli when they are asked that question. But now of course that does not translate into the political parties of the House of Commons or places like that.

In America, it has remained the same. It’s still 63 percent for Israel, versus [about] 12 or 13 percent for Palestinians. But what has changed even in America is that the bedrock of support for Israel has shifted from American liberals to hardcore Southern Baptists, Republicans, conservatives. So Israel is aware that they have an image problem, that they did not used to have a few decades ago, and they are particularly sensitive about college campuses… Why? Because they know this is their future generation of leaders, and if this bug gets to spread all around, it’s going to be hurting Israel in the long term. Assuming Israel’s going to be around by the time they reach power. In America, of course, there is such a big gap between college campus activism on Palestine (or any matter) and the very closed, conservative nature of Congress, that Israelis have less to worry about – and yet they seem to be worried.

AW: Why do you think BDS has taken off so much in the last five to six years?

AA: Israel does not do the just thing in the new world after the Cold War. Zionists still operate the way it did back in the 1880s, when they arrived in Palestine. They still use the same brazen and blatant racist resort to war crimes and massacres that they used all along, and I think they realise that it is much more shocking and horrific by the standards of today, and as a result there is an avalanche of reaction against Israel that has been generated in Western countries.

AW: What are the differences between the BDS movement in its modern form, and the more historical Arab boycott of Israel?

AA: The Arab boycott of Israel was much more strict… On the popular level it is [still] extremely strict: refusal of travel to Israel for any purposes – tourism of any form… There are disagreements about the visits, for example, some believe that if you go to Palestinian areas for activism and you can stay in Palestinian areas, spend money there and it’s fine, as long as you boycott any companies who trade with Israel.

The Arab boycott has been extremely effective – the loosening of it has been at the official level. When I was growing up, there was this simultaneous double boycott of Israel. There was the popular level that did not need any instruction, and then there was the official level, which was bad… So the BDS movement is a continuation, I think, of an Arab League official plan.

AW: What is your opinion of activists, quite often from Europe and America, who go to occupied Palestine?

AA: I have no problems with that whatsoever. I have a distinction made about Arabs who go there – those who have Arab citizenship, even if they have a passport from elsewhere. I am not against Palestinians who hold citizenship in America to go to Palestine, because that’s their home. But as long as Israel is occupying the land, and to abide by the Arab League boycott of Israel, I still believe we should adhere, and that all Arab citizens should not pass through Israeli soldiers’ checkpoints to enter into Palestine. If you do, it’s in areas where you do not have to go through them.

AW: So what’s the material difference there?

AA: That we have an Arab League boycott. The Arab League never did anything good! But they did [make] this plan of boycott of Israel, which I believe is something we should support.

AW: Many activists who go to Palestine are actually from Sweden, Norway, Scandinavian countries.

AA: Amazing. Those countries, when you go there, sometimes if you will stay for a week you will see a demonstration about Palestine somewhere – posters about Palestine everywhere – it’s amazing. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands – it’s advanced. Over there, being pro-Palestinian is becoming part of the definition of being a leftist. I mean it’s easy to be a leftist against war in general – the John Lennon version. The challenge is to be a leftist in a way that puts real challenge to the powers of government and the super powers around the world, because you can really expose the hypocrisy on the question on Palestine. This is why Palestine becomes more symbolic for many activists. It’s not only about Palestine, it’s about the hypocrisy of the Western world.

AW: I think I read in one interview a Scandinavian activist saying that Palestine had become the Vietnam of our time.

AA: Yes, absolutely. And I’m glad that Jane Fonda is not on our side. Who wants her?

AW: Western activists who go to Palestinian demonstrations in the West Bank will quite often come into contact with Israeli activists, some of whom are anti-Zionist. You’ve said on your blog that you’re against any contact with Israelis, basically. Is that a fair understanding of your position?

AA: This is not an easy position, but that is my position. I have taken that position for a while. [Once] I was giving a talk at SOAS here in London and my hosts were sitting with me, and one of them was a graduate student and it was clear that she is one of the activists on Palestine. So suddenly it occurred to me to ask her, based on her accent, I said: “Are you Israeli?” and she said “Yeah, I am”. I said “have you served in the army?” and then she told me yes, that she was an instructor in the Israeli army. And then I had to tell her, “Well, let me tell you my position: I cannot talk to you.” Everyone around her, even her teacher (and one of her teachers is a good friend of mine) are telling me that she’s a wonderful person, that she has made a radical transformation, and I said “But that’s my position.”

And it’s not because of ideological dogmatism that I take this position, at all. It’s really, like, emotional. I mean, I get bothered – I just get bothered. To be sitting and chatting with somebody, and then thinking that this person may have killed a brother or sister… You know, I just can’t do that. Even with Ilan Pappe – I was telling [my wife] Farah – I was with him on a panel once, I didn’t ask that question. He’s done great work, but he served, right?

AW: I read in his memoirs that he did.

AA: Yeah, and as a result I remember I made a conscious effort not to shake his hand. So it bothers me. There is one known Arab here, who has been an adviser to Yasser Arafat and I told him, I said: “Don’t you have a psychological barrier?” Because it’s huge in my case and I don’t want to cross it and he told me “I do, but I feel like I have to cross it for another purpose”… I mean it’s psychological and personal… and for me, I am not for the categorical rejection of anyone. I have elaborated a position which [laughs] which basically…

AW: You wrote on your blog you’re opposed to contact with any Israeli, except where they’ve taken armed resistance against Israel.

AA: … they are resistant against Israel, or if they leave the land. There’s this socialist, anarchist Israeli who keeps sending me email, and he wrote an open letter to me one time. I never responded to him, I couldn’t.

AW: So do you think Westerners who make contact with Israelis are breaking a boycott?

AA: Not necessarily. I’m not dogmatic about that. They have a different experience, and I know their motives are very good, and I’m sure [the activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer] Rachel Corrie, who paid with her life for the cause, had dealt with Israelis, and I’m not in any way going to to delegitimise what she does for that… But this is for me – I’m not in any way saying that this is national or international policy, you know, this is suitable for me, it may not be suitable for someone else. I know many Arabs who disagree with me. Farah disagrees with me on this…

AW: There is a difference between a personal opinion and a general boycott strategy.

AA: Yea, yea, of course. This is the suitable position for me. There are Arabs I know who are activists, who deal with Israelis and I don’t reject them in any way, I’m not judgemental like that. But for me, I cannot.

Farah Rowaysati: The BDS [movement] does not call for boycotts against Israelis as persons, it calls for the boycott of institutions.

AA: But I am for super-BDS.

FR: I’m against dealing with Israelis who are Zionists…

AA: One time I gave a talk in Berkley, and this guy came up to me and said, “I’m an Israeli and I really agree with everything you say, I’m going to go back and work for human rights after I finish my law degree for the Palestinians” and I was like “Well, you know I don’t speak to Israelis” and he said “Yeah I know, I understand: I just wanted you to know” [laughs].

I’m happier like this, you know what I’m saying? I have a huge psychological block… We come from South Lebanon, both of us, which is so directly affected. We both grew up in homes that are within a few miles from Palestinian refugee camps.

FR:We’ve experienced several wars.

AW: What do you make of Gilad Atzmon? He is an Israeli saxophonist – a jazz musician who expresses support for Palestinians.

AA: I have declared him an anti-Semitic person based on things I’ve read. And that upset many Western supporters of this guy, and Arabs. I have refused any contact with this guy and, you know me: I’m strict about many things… and one of them is refusing any association with anybody who has the slightest tinge of anti-Semitism. And he has more than a tinge of anti-Semitism – he basically, writes against –

AW: ‘Jewishness’ is what he calls it… He’s a strange character because he keeps cropping up every few years and there keeps being controversy about him. He lives here [in London] by the way.

AA: Oh really? Call me paranoid – I mean that, please do, call me conspiratorial – I know there are genuine anti-Semites who creep into our movement, but I do worry that there are some infiltrators who pose as anti-Semites to stigmatise the movement. I’m not sure which group he belongs to, but either way I don’t want him [around]. It would be funny if he was sitting here in the cafe, right now.

I have declared him an anti-Semitic person based on things I’ve read. ... I have refused any contact with this guy... I’m strict about many things… and one of them is refusing any association with anybody who has the slightest tinge of anti-Semitism. And he has more than a tinge of anti-Semitism

AW: [Laughs] With all this news about Israeli organisations that want to sabotage the “delegitimization” movement [like the Reut Institute], people are getting justifiably paranoid about spies or infiltrators. Especially in London.

AA: It’s legitimate to be paranoid. I have heard enough by people in the United States about their experiences in the 1960s and 70, and many of them tell me that the loudest big-mouths during the 60s and 70s were the ones who turned out to be turncoats, the ones who would say during meetings, you know: “Let’s go and bomb that building!”

AW: You recently commented on your blog about Hamas being “for sale”. What did you mean?

AA: Al-Quds al Arabi had this story on the front page in which [Hamas leader] Khalid Maashal was cited – he was under pressure by the Saudis, that they would not have any dealing with Hamas unless he cuts all ties with Iran. And he was quoted as saying something to the effect that “I would accept that, if Saudi Arabia was providing the same support that I’ve been getting from Iran.”

So to me that indicated that Hamas is up for sale. I have always been suspicious of this guy, and never liked him (I’ve always felt that he is leading the movement on the footsteps of Fatah)… Look how [Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza] Ismail Haniyeh, when he went for his tour recently, asked to stop in Saudi Arabia.

AW: So how do you think those comments are related to the wave of Arab uprising the previous year, and the rise to prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood?

AA: [Many Palestinians] are worried that the Arab uprisings are marginalising the coverage of the Palestinians, and I share that kind of worry. Ismail Haniyeh strikes me as much more sincere than Khalid Maashal despite my opposition to the ideology of the movement and its practices. On the other hand, I think they also want to take advantage of the rise of the horrible Muslim Brotherhood, and I think the lousy Muslim Brotherhood is one of the reasons why I find Hamas to be very problematic.

It is a by-product of the Muslim Brotherhood which has contributed really nothing to the struggle for Palestinians… Look at Rashid Ghanuchi [leader of Tunisia’s Ennahda party], who flies all the way to Washington DC to prostrate and speak before Zionist groups and offer to not include in the new [Tunisian] constitution an article that will ban normalisation with Israel — which tells you that they buy and sell.

AW: I put on Twitter that I was going to interview you, and I got several Syrians angrily Tweeting questions.

AA: On Facebook, if you read Arabic… both sides are very unhappy with me, and the Syrian regime side, they have a lot of supporters. And both sides are unhappy. What can I say? I have nothing to apologise for. If anything, I think the positions taken by the Syrian National Council have reinforced every single suspicion and doubt that I have harboured against them all along. I do believe there is a real conspiracy, and I believe there is an attempt to hijack a legitimate uprising against a repressive regime.

AW: One question on Twitter was: “How does it feel to be called a regime apologist?”

AA: If some intellectual goons of the Syrian National Council think that they can intimidate me or delegitimize what I do, by calling me a “regime stooge” or something like that, of course that’s not going to bother me, because I know myself. I mean, as long as I get a daily barrage of criticisms, and sometimes insults – not as obscene as the ones I get from the other side, but still from the side of the regime – I know where I stand.

When I was opposed to the Syrian regime in 1976 when they invaded Lebanon, to crush a great leftist movement at the time, these people who are criticising me now were not even born. So I don’t need any sermons about the stance against the Syrian regime. Their intellectual method is very clear. It’s quite funny, in fact – you may be opposed to the Syrian regime, you may call for its overthrow, you may support armed rebellion against the Syrian regime. But – if you don’t support the Syrian National Council, you are for the regime. What the fuck is that? It’s absurd. In other words, I want to reassure my enemies that their attacks on me and name-calling do not bother me in the least, and the more they come, the better. I want to make the life of my enemies miserable…

I don’t support the Free Syrian Army. Now I have received information that the Free Syrian Army of Riad al-Assad comes from the background of Hizb ut-Tahrir [a political-religious movement]. No, I don’t support that. I don’t support pawns of Turkish, Islamist intelligence. But the principle: I am in favour of the right of every Arab population to raise arms against its government. Absolutely, and I make no apologies about that.

AW: The Tunisian government as well?

AA: Absolutely!

AW: One of your criticisms of Al-Jazeera [the popular Arabic satellite TV channel owned by the royal family of Qatar] is that they now rely on anonymous sources a lot. Someone on Twitter wanted me to ask: “why then do you use anonymous sources on your blog?”

AA: I am not a newspaper. I am not a TV station. I am a blogger who is doing a very personal thing. I share whatever information I have, and even rumours. Sometimes I receive rumours and I share them with people. Sometimes they are true, sometimes they are not – and whenever I am given evidence that something I have put is wrong, I always say that I’m correcting it, and I don’t change it. I have a policy of never re-editing things I have posted after I’ve posted them.

On Al-Jazeera [Arabic], when they used to air Bin Laden’s tapes, they used to put the disclaimer every time: “We have not yet authenticated this statement” — even when it was very clear it’s Bin Laden! [But now] whenever they put various clips from YouTube, they never have any disclaimers…

AW: So don’t you think journalists might have reason to be using anonymous sources in Syria?

AA: I did not in any way oppose the use of anonymous sources in journalism. I was making the point about how Al-Jazeera is now comical. This is like a caricature of propaganda TV in the Arab world…

AW: What accounts for the shift? Is it purely [Qatari] reconciliation with Saudi Arabia?

AA: Absolutely… Basically, Al-Jazeera have become to me much more malleable, much more obedient in its service for the shifts in Qatari foreign policy than I’d expected. But it has become a campaign by Qatar and whatever Qatar represents… It has become so feverish, the campaign is so comical, it’s so lacking in credibility, and therefore lending an undeniable, unwitting hand to the Syrian regime.

AW: A final question on Palestine and Palestinian solidarity: what do you think is the main thing to focus on, strategically?

AA: Non-compromise on the total rejection of Israel. I believe the total rejection of Zionism in Palestine should be in the platform and the plan of every movement. I think all these attempts to reconcile Palestine and Israel, and “let’s live together as Israelis and Palestinians in two separate states” – all that is going to be at the expense of the lives and the cause of the Palestinians. And for me, any movement that does not reject – categorically – Zionism, is akin to a movement against apartheid South Africa that basically wants a reconciliation with apartheid, and there should be no doubt about that part. You know, we should insist on that part.

AW: Thanks for your time.

Asa Winstanley is a freelance journalist based in London who has lived in and reported from occupied Palestine. His first book “Corporate Complicity in Israel’s Occupation ” has been published by Pluto Press. His Palestine is Still the Issue column appears monthly. His website is

Israel's Boycott Law is Defended by Very Few

The Law that Outlawed Free Speech -
even for Israeli Jews

It is difficult, amongst all the reactionary legislation that the Knesset now passes under its far-right settler government, to decide which is the worst. What is certain is that even within Israel, the law that has had the most reaction to it has been the Boycott law. At first this might be surprising but the law effectively outlaws free speech in the whole area of campaigning and criminalises large sections of Israel’s Arab citizens. who have good reason to want Israel to be subject of a Boycott.

However one should hold out no illusions about Israel's Supreme Court striking down the Act. Like its US counterpart, the Israeli Supreme Court is now stuffed with far right appointees, the latest being a West Bank settler, Noam Sohlberg. Israel's supreme court has always been an upholder of all things to do with Zionist values.

For example the court has always refused to recognise the concept of an Israeli nationality. Because if there were such a thing then Israel would be a state of its own citizens, rather than a State of the 'Jewish People'.

In 1970 a legal suit brought by Tel Aviv psychologist, George Tamrin, failed. Shimon Agranat, the 'liberal' head of the supreme court ruled that:

“There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. … The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of diaspora Jewries.”

Today of course even Israeli Jews are subject to increasingly repressive laws if they step out of line. And with a Boycott Within movement, and Boycott seen as a challenge to Israel's legitimacy, Israel is dropping any pretence to be a democracy.

Tony Greenstein

Unenthusiastic defense of boycott law by reluctant Knesset legal advisor

More than six months after enactment of the "Boycott Law", the responseד of the Knesset and government to the Gush Shalom appeal against that law were at last presented to the Supreme Court.

In the response which he submitted to the court, the Knesset's legal adviser, Adv. Eyal Yinon, clearly distances himself from this law. He recalls that, prior to the final vote in the plenum, he had warned of constitutional difficulties inherent in considering a boycott on products made at settlements in the Occupied Territories ("an Area Under Israeli Control" as the law terms it) as being "a boycott of Israel", to be punished accordingly. He further notes that similar warnings had been made by the Deputy Attorney General and the Legal Advisor to the Knesset Judicial Committee.

Moreover, also the Foreign Ministry's legal experts – Advocates Ehud Keinan and Karin Dozortz - expressed reservations about the law and made clear their considered opinion that such a law would not help the struggle against boycott of Israel, and might actually harm it. Also the Ministry of Finance's legal adviser disapproved of this law, as did the Manufacturers' Association whose members' interests were supposed to be defended by its enactment.

The right-wing majority in the Knesset ignored, however, this advice from numerous legal experts, and insisted upon enacting the law. The Knesset's legal adviser was left duty bound to represent towards the Supreme Court the law they passed – but as he made abundantly clear, not out of his own personal conviction.

For example, the Knesset's Legal Adviser response to the Supreme Court includes extensive quotations from his own expert opinion submitted to the Knesset on the eve of its passage in the plenum: "This bill aims to change the legal standing of a call for a boycott – in case that such a call is designed to influence the political debate about the future of Judea and Samaria, an issue which is at the center of political controversy in Israel for more than forty years. (...) A call for boycott about one single issue, proceeding from one single political position, would become in law a tort, and those making such a call would become open to judicial proceedings and the payment of punitive damages.

At the same time, a boycott call proceeding from other ideological, social or religious motivations would continue to be a legitimate - even if controversial – act in the context of public debate. Such would be, for example, the case of boycott calls aimed at artists who did not serve in the IDF, at universities which do not play the National Anthem at their graduation ceremonies, at shops and restaurants which sell non-kosher food, or - to take the recent example – of consumer boycotts aimed at producers and retailers who sell their products at prices perceived as being too high. All of these would not constitute grounds for judicial sanctions of any kind, while calls for boycott in the context of the debate on the future of Judea and Samaria would become a legally unacceptable act, making those who commit it liable to be prosecuted and fined.

Under these circumstances, we believe that the bill's broad definition of 'a boycott on Israel' constitutes a fundamental violation of the Freedom of Speech in Israel. It brings these elements of the bill to the brink of unconstitutionality, and possible beyond that brink." So far, the considered opinion written by the Knesset's legal adviser on the eve of the vote in the plenum, and quoted by himself in the present defense, remarks also much like those of Adv. Sigal Kogut, the legal adviser to the Knesset Judicial Committee. For his part, Raz Nizri, Deputy Attorney General, had told the Knesset Members that this was "very much of a borderline piece of legislation", which would if enacted "raise great difficulties".

"We are appealing to the Supreme Court, asking the judges to determine that the Knesset's prohibition on a call for a boycott of the settlements is an anti-democratic gagging act, contravening the freedom of expression and of political activity. In this, we need to add very little to the arguments presented by the Knesset's own legal adviser" says Adam Keller, Spokesperson of Gush Shalom.

It should be noted that the state's response to the court reveals that, so far, there were no regulations made which would enable the Finance Minister to deny government funding to bodies which call for a boycott of the settlements - though the Boycott Law provided for such regulations to be made within ninety days of enactment, a deadline which is long past. In addition, to date not a (single) claim for tort was lodged by any settlers against those calling for a boycott of settlement products.

Based on this situation, the State Attorney's representatives asked The Supreme Court to reject the appeal on the grounds that the issue is "not yet ripe". Keller says that this argument is not serious. "The law created a situation where a sword is perpetually hanging over the heads of Israeli peace-seekers, so as to intimidate and deter them from struggling for the principles they believe in. The ability which this law gives to the settlers and their supporters, to strike a blow at any moment they choose, is having its anti-democratic effect even without their having to use it in practice. We will ask the Supreme Court to remove this hanging sword and see to it that the freedom of expression and freedom of political activity is restored in full".

In its appeal against "The Boycott Law", Gush Shalom is represented by lawyers Gaby Lasky and Neri Ramati - who intend to request that the Court shall appoint a broad panel of judges to hear the appeal, in light of the fundamental issues involved. "I hope the court will indeed determine this law to be unconstitutional. In their reactions, neither the Knesset nor the government have given a real response to the contention that this law violates fundamental civil rights in Israel, giving a precedence to the interests of those who benefit from the occupation and denying freedom of expression to opponents of the settlements" says Adv. Lasky. "It is unacceptable that the Knesset's response draws an analogy between this law and the French law which prohibits a boycott on the basis of race, nationality, religion or gender."
Besides Gush Shalom, appeals against the Boycott Law were also lodged by Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi and by a citizen group represented by Attorney Adi Barkai.

Contact: Adam Keller +972-(0)54-2340749, Attorney Gaby Lasky +972-(0)54-4418988

How to deal with Benefits medical examinations

A Useful Guide to Benefit Claimants when up against ATOS Doctors

How to deal with Benefits medical examinations

Doctors were hanged at Nuremburg for following Nazi party racial theories and participating in medical experiments. Unfortunately Dr Mengele, the most notorious of them all, escaped the noose.

I’m not suggesting that ATOS doctors deserve to be hanged but a dose of their own medicine would be apt. Hard work for peanuts down a mine might help them understand the effects of illness and the ability to work. But just like the doctors who approve of and participate in making inmates at Guantanamo ready for torture (a practice that Israel has also adopted via the Israeli Medical Association) so ATOS doctors abandon their Hippocratic Oath and owe their first loyalty to the state rather than of those they treat. In that sense ATOS doctors also share the same mentality that Nazi doctors operated under.

Below is an excellent guide from the Edinburgh Autonomous Centre for those undergoing medical examinations and the first lesson is never go in alone.

Tony Greenstein

NEVER FACE THEM ALONE

This leaflet describes how claimants for disability benefits can deal with the medical examinations by medical professionals, which for many claimants are central in deciding whether or not you are entitled to disability benefits.

BEFORE THE EXAMINATION

The examinations are run by Medical Services (MS) which is operated by the private company ATOS on behalf of the Benefits Agency. Before a MS examination your own GP sends info to the Benefits Agency. It is important that this info is as full as possible and states clearly whether or not in their medical opinion you are fit for work at that time and in the forseeable future (at least 6 months ahead).

It is frequently the case that people with a long-term illness gradually minimise in their own minds the effect of their illness on their everyday lives and develop survival strategies to cope on a daily basis in an attempt to lead as normal a life as possible.

This can cause a problem as this habit when taken into a medical examination does not present a true picture of the illness and could be misleading. It might be helpful to discuss the reality of your illness and the limitations it imposes on your life with someone who knows both the illness and yourself well. The reality of your illness is what must be presented to the ATOS medical professional and to the DSS.

If you have a Medical Services examination, either at the MS office or at your home, always have someone accompany you. This is your right. We have often done this. They cannot refuse you this right - if they try then just insist you need someone with you.

To obtain benefits you are legally required to attend this examination, and the information obtained at the examination is used, within a legal framework, to decide on your benefit entitlement - it is therefore vital to make sure your legal rights are protected.

If the date for the examination is not suitable, eg your accompanying person cannot make it on that date, you can get the date changed. If you are unable to travel to the examination you can ask for a home visit instead. If you change the arrangements over the phone write to confirm the changes. You have the right to be seen by a Doctor of the same sex.
Meet the accompanying person beforehand to discuss what's going to happen. Before the examination you should be clear that -

- the examination can be halted to allow you to go to the toilet, have a glass of water, take a pill, or if you feel faint or ill. The examination should only proceed if you feel happy to continue.

- you should refuse to do anything that hurts or distresses you.

The person accompanying you should take a pen and paper and also a watch. If possible, take a tape recorder. Peter Mathison, then Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, has stated that the taping of medical examinatons can be carried out. Take your medicines, and any aids you use, such as a walking stick or crutches.

You can claim travel expenses for going to the examination - but if you need to take a taxi you must contact the MS beforehand.

AT THE EXAMINATION
You should be aware that the examination begins on entry to the examination centre and does not end until you leave the centre. An evaluation of your medical condition does not only take place when you are in front of the examing medical professional, but also potentially on your way into the building, in the waiting room, and on your way out. They could note the length of time you can sit without apparent discomfort, how you pick up your bag, etc..

At the examination the medical professional should be:

courteous and considerate.

Spend some time explaining the purpose of the examination.
ASK if you are willing to be examined.

Ask you and give you time to explain YOUR OWN VIEW of how you are affected by your condition, including how it affects your ability to do day to day tasks like shopping, cooking, cleaning and so on.

The medical professional should not attempt to 'manipulate' parts of your body.

During the examination you should
Make sure the medical professional realises the full extent of your illness/ disability, including any other conditions/ illnesses you may have. Remember, unlike your GP, this medical professional does not know your medical history.

Describe how you feel on a "bad day", rather than on a "good day".

If you are accompanying a claimant, then you should

Write down the name of the medical professional, their qualification eg if they are a nurse, doctor or physiotherapist, the place of examination, the time of starting and finishing the examination.

Take notes on everything the Doctor and the claimant say, what the Doctor asks the claimant to do, what happens. Especially note any aggressive attitude or manner adopted by the Doctor. Note the exact words spoken.

Intervene and ask for the examination to be halted if the claimant becomes unwell or distressed. The claimant should have a break until they feel well enough to continue.
Object to and stop any attempt by the Doctor to have the claimant do exercises which could injure or distress them. You should have the examination stopped if the claimant is becoming ill or distressed for any reason. If the claimant is not fit to continue then the examination should be postponed until another day.

If the claimant's distress is due to mistreatment by the doctor, stop the interview, then say that you will be making a complaint with a request for an examination at a future date with a different medical professional.

Time the length of the examination and any breaks taken (some medical professionals have been known to exaggerate the length of time of the examination to make it appear more thorough than it was).

At the end of the examination ask the medical professional to read back their notes, to check they made an accurate record. If the medical professional refuses, then note that and what reason he/she gives for refusing. If there seem to be any inaccuracies in the notes, check with the claimant, then if necessary ask the Doctor to change their notes. If they refuse then make a note of that, writing down exactly what they said.

AFTER THE EXAMINATION
If the medical professional did anything wrong, then as soon as posible afterwards write a letter of complaint to BAMS and to the DSS - don't wait for the decision to come through. The letter should be signed by both the claimant and the accompanying person. There is more info on making a complaint in the Disability Rights Handbook (Disability Alliance), or contact us.

HOW YOU CAN BE FOUND INCAPABLE OF WORK EVEN IF YOU DON'T SCORE ENOUGH POINTS
Even if you don’t score enough points under the personal capability assessment – the medical test to decide if you’re incapable of work – you may still have a chance of being found incapable of work either at claim or appeal stage. This is because of the little known ‘exceptional circumstances’ rules.

There are a number of these, but probably the most important is regulation 27(b), which states that you will be found incapable of work if:
‘there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if he were found capable of work’’
This regulation could apply to you on physical health or on mental health grounds.
For example, if you experience severe anxiety attacks and might harm yourself or somebody else if placed in a situation you find threatening, then this might be grounds for applying regulation 27(b).

Or you may have a lung condition which is made much worse by stress and, in the past, such situations have led to a serious deterioration in your health and perhaps hospitalisation. If you would find being found capable of work, having to sign on for Jobseekers Allowance and take part in training or work experience very stressful, then that may be grounds for declaring you incapable of work under the exceptional circumstances regulations.

However, neither doctors nor decision makers are quick to identify people who might be covered by these clauses. And very few claimants even know they exist.

ATOS AND THE BIGGER PICTURE

ATOS are currently recruiting more staff to help meet Government targets to force more people off disability benefits to reduce the public debt problem caused by banks gambling in the financial markets. The process is driven by cost cutting not objective medical opinion. The most vulnerable in society are being made to pay for the greed of others and the inevitable booms and busts of capitalist economics.

Medical professionals, including physiotherapists, with no experience of mental health problems, for example, are only given a matter of days training before making assessments of claimants. They are paid substantially more than NHS doctors and nurses for leaving their ethical concerns at the door. ATOS claim that they do not make the decision as to whether someone can work and have their benefits reduced, but that the decision is made by the DWP from their report and that performance targets are based simply on the number of claimants seen in a day. However they admit that if a medical professional passes all claimants for disability benefits it will not go unnoticed.

We encourage and aid claimants organising together, and linking up with workers in employment, to oppose and take action against these government policies. Why should we put up with a system where everything is run for the profit of a rich elite? Why shouldn't society's resources belong to everyone, and be used for people's needs?

You can view or download the user instructions for the ATOS Lima computer assessment here:

EDINBURGH COALITION AGAINST POVERTY

is based at the Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh (ACE), an open campaign space, infoshop and wholefoods co-op, providing resources and solidarity. Resources available include computer/internet access, cheap copying, free leaflets, books, pamphlets and mags for sale, a small wholefoods shop, and a library.

Every tuesday from 12 noon till 3pm advice and solidarity is available for benefits and debt hassles, housing and other problems. Please contact us at Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty c/o ACE, 17 West Montgomery Place, Edinburgh EH7 5HA 0131 557 6242 ecap@lists.riseup.net We invite you to join our solidarity phone tree, and get involved.
ACE is also open every Saturday 11am-6pm and Thursday 6-8pm, and other times for particular events (but the advice sessions are only on Tuesdays).

Fair Rents – The Answer to the Housing Benefit Bill

How strange it is with all the recent talk of Housing Benefit cutbacks and benefit caps that no one has put their finger on the real problem. High rents as a result of a boom based on property price inflation which stoked a demand for imports that was unmatched by production of wealth.

When I first claimed supplementary benefit as it was then called (rent was also paid then by the SS) there were fair rents in unfurnished premises. Parasitic landlords couldn’t just hold people who need a roof over their heads to ransom, reaping vast rewards for no effort. But Thatcher abolished rent control for private tenants along with selling off council housing. Tony Blair at one time asked why rent controls weren’t being reimposed but when New Labour came into office, the free market was let rip and now we seen the consequences. If the Housing Benefit bill needs to be cut then landlords ability to increase rents beyond peoples’ ability to pay should be stripped away.

Better still, everyone should have a right to a home, squatting an empty property should be made specifically legal and there should be an end to a market in housing, the most essential of all things bar food that human beings need to live.

I have also added a contribution from Bernard Ready, who is associated with the ukhousingpolicy.com website, he kindly sent a response to Dave Parks who has asked me to include it. As Dave says: ‘He clearly knows more about the subject than I do - I think his comments greatly addd to an informed debate and he has given me permission to circulate his comments.’

Tony Greenstein

Reimpose Rent Control

There has been a lot of fuss recently about high level benefit payments. One major component of high benefit payments is costs in terms of Housing Benefit for the unfortunate people stuck in private sector housing.

I'm struck by the fact that you can often see "To Let" signs on the council estates around Exeter were I live. It strikes me that there must be a significant proportion of council houses that were purchased using "Right to Buy" that are now in the hands of the private sector profiteers - people who own numerous properties who let them at exorbitant rents.

New Labour has apparently bought into the feeding frenzy about the enormous cost of Housing Benefit on society. See for example:

I agree that it is an outrage that so much money is expended in making a small proportion of the population stinking rich by exploiting the low paid and the unemployed. There are a vast number of people who can't get housed by the Local Authority and who can't afford to buy their own home. They have no security of tenure and a vast proportion of their wages goes into making someone else wealthy.

Protected Tenancies prior to the 1986 Housing Act allowed tenants to have both security of tenure and the right to demand that the local Rent Office determine a Fair Rent. A Fair Rent was a legal maximum rent that a private landlord could charge. My personal experience of getting a Fair rent fixed in the early 80s was that my rent was more than halved. In a household of 5 people this saved the tax payer a lot of money in terms of housing benefit for those that were claiming housing benefit and for the rest of the tenants their living stand on a low pay increased substantially. These days private sector tenants pay a ridiculous proportion of their income towards rent and they don't even know whether they will have the right to remain where they live 6 months later - it is a disgrace!

I have some questions for which I would love to see some answers, does anyone know the facts and figures:

Around 2 million council houses were sold using "Right to Buy" between 1980 and 1998.

1. How many of these are Owner Occupied and how many now privately rented?

2. What is the additional cost to the tax payer of former council properties being privately rented in terms of increase to the housing benefit bill?

I know these look like simple questions and there may be more complicated pictures behind them. For example it may be more constructive to look at the total number of properties in 1980, those council owned, and those owner occupied and those privately rented and compare with the figures today and then take into account Housing Benefit costs.

Also how many people are in a poverty trap where they can't get council housing and can't exercise "freedom of choice" to buy their own home?

There is an ideological battle over the benefits bill. Part of this relates to Housing Benefit. I don't think we should defend the status quo. It is an outrage that so many people are super exploited by being damned to the private sector. It is a scandal that there is so little public housing. I wonder whether it would be true that a fraction of the cost to the state in Housing benefit and B&B costs for the homeless could actually economically buy back a lot of housing - I don't know the answer to that - but it is worth asking!

Dave Parks

Hi

Tim O passed your e-mail to me, hope my reply rings some bells.

I don't know the answer to your first question, but it is a distraction to scapegoat "evil private landlords" for our housing problems; the problems are entirely due to the last 30 years of housing policy, which uses housing benefit to subsidise our private rented consumer service.

Average house price of £237,000 in the S.E. is 10 to 16 times average local salaries [1]. Two and a half times income is considered a sensible limit for a loan, so too expensive to buy, for sure. By almost the same amount, it is also too expensive to rent. A 10% return on capital investment would require a rent of 23700/52 = £456/wk; actually more than the cost of a mortgage to buy. This is the reason that huge housing benefit subsidies are required (£16640 - 19300 per year [2]) and it is the consequence of a policy to enforce rents that conform to a private rented consumer service. In the days of council housing, there was an alternative. After an initial period of investment subsidy, the growth of equity in the 'public' housing stock was used to fund low rents on a cost balanced budget. In effect the investment subsidy matured and it created a low rent stock that no longer required subsidy; this occurred for most authorities towards the end of the 1960s.

But Conservative belief in the magical benefits of a property owning democracy, led them to pursue unrealistic and inconsistent housing policies. They believed that any type of low cost rented alternative would defeat their aim to achieve 100% home ownership, a belief that verged on the fanatical, by ignoring the reality that about a third of all incomes have remained below the level required to support a mortgage loan. In three major reforms (1953, 1972, 1980) they concentrated on the revival of the private rented sector, which was rapidly declining, largely due to council housing. The earlier reforms failed, until Mrs Thatcher struck at the heart of the problem by eliminating the low cost rented sector more directly. The right-to-buy law removed the low cost alternative to the private rented consumer service. First, by transferring them to the private ownership sector; selling them with the huge incentive of up to 70% discounts. Secondly, by using the discounts to eliminate the equity and the future growth of equity in the stock; thus enforcing the rise of rents necessary to support a stock stripped of equity and therefore equivalent to a rented consumer service.

The market responded badly to all of these reforms. To achieve their imaginary dream, the right wing 'free market' party lost the plot, they massively distorted the housing market with huge rent and property sale discounts. Currently, we have high unstable house prices, 46% of emerging households believe they will never be able to buy their own house, unsustainable housing benefit, the poverty trap of social housing and the increasingly isolated property-less poor.

Labour has no housing policy because it is trapped in a 30-year time warp by the alleged popularity of the right to buy. To recover some perspective it is best to remember that the production of housing is very cheap, when measured over the period of its consumption. Typically it takes us 25 years to buy them, but they can last for 200 years [3]. This makes the costing of a rented stock at least 6 times cheaper than a private rented consumer service. It is also well to remember that housing policy usually takes 25-30 years to mature.

For a mind-blowing graphical answer to question 2, scroll just over half way down the web page in footnote 3 and look for "Subsidy Comparison for Evolution to Mature Stock".
1. BBC 6.30 News 6th Dec 2011
2. Calculated from 'affordable' 30% of local salaries inferred by the BBC
announcement
3. http://www.ukhousingpolicy.com/

Bernard Ready