In the fist initiative of its kind for several years, the anti-Zionist Prisoner's Movement has planned a bold and coherent series of measures against the systematic, pervasive and persistent violation of prisoner rights within Israeli jails. The initiative, which comes from within the prisons themselves, consists of a progression of escalating non-violent 'battles' waged by thousands of prisoners being held in more than 10 Israeli prisons and three detention camps under the most appalling conditions.
Today marks the first of the planned protests which has been called 'the battle of empty intestines'; a hunger strike aimed at securing a list of basic prisoner demands. It comes in response to the ever tightening and repressive practices of the Israeli prison department.
Yesterday evening, the Centre for Prisoner Studies announced that representatives of more than one of the prisons in question had sat down with prisoner representatives to hear their key demands. These include;
•An end to the humiliating and degrading way in which family visitors are treated, including improper searches.
•To allow the families of captives from Gaza to visit their loved ones. This also applies to the hundreds of other families of captives from the West Bank, Jerusalem and other occupied regions.
•To allow access to suitable television channels such as al-Jazeera
•To allow family to bring in books during visits
•To allow prisoners to take general secondary school examinations
•General demands for the observation of prisoners' basic human rights
Not only do these daily practices contravene the official codes of the prison department itself, but the demands being made by prisoners are human rights safeguarded under various international conventions including the Third Geneva Convention, which relates specifically to prisoners, and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Israel's prisons are accused of a policy intentionally designed to inflict maximum levels of humiliation, degradation and insult upon those immediately under their control as well as their families. Daily violations range from the prevention of family visits, unnecessary and inappropriate strip searching, food rationing and the denial of medical treatment to mental and physical torture among other heinous practices.
Indeed, that prisoners from Gaza have been denied visits from their families for the past four years; since the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and as a penalty on all Gazans for what Shalitt's family suffers, this amounts to collective punishment, a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli prisons department are notorious for their persistent gross abuses. MEMO, along with a number of human rights bodies and organisation have written on this subject previously but without tangible improvement.
The Palestinian Authority, lead by President Mahmoud Abbas, as a partner in both peace negotiations and security coordination with Israel, has an obligation to prisoners held under such conditions within Israeli prisons. Nevertheless, they have failed to either secure for them conditions of captivity that conform to international standards or their release. On the contrary, the two have operated a 'revolving-door' of detention whereby prisoners released by Israel are immediately re-arrested by the PA and vice versa. In this way certain individuals are kept in continuous incarceration.
Instances of medical neglect, deprivation and severe human rights abuses have sparked the current initiative and there have been several appeals for the plight and efforts of these prisoners, to be publicised and supported. Within the region, Palestinians from all walks of life and regardless of political affiliations have been called upon to stand in support and solidarity with the prisoners' movement. This reflects the decision by the prisoners themselves to stand united in their cause. Indeed, the committee formulated to lead the strike is politically heterogeneous consisting of members of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and many other groups. Leaders of the initiative have said that they fully expect prison authorities to crack down on them even further; nevertheless, they have vowed not to back down whatever the cost.
Similarly, this initiative should be supported internationally by all organisations and individuals concerned with the alleviation of suffering and universal human rights. These prisoners have not chosen to strike because they are fans of suffering and pain, but because they have been compelled to their current course of action. And until they can be completely released from the jails that serve Israel's colonial, apartheid regime in occupied Palestine, at the very least, the conditions within them must be brought into conformity with international standards.
Source-More on This Story
Israel and the “De-legitimization” Oxymoron By Alan Hart
For readers who may not be intimately familiar with English terminology, an oxymoron is a figure of speech by which contradictory terms are combined to form an expressive phrase or epithet such as cruel kindness and falsely true. (It’s derived from the Greek word oxymoros meaning pointedly foolish).
For my contribution to the De-legitimizing Israel series, I’m going to confine myself to one question and answer.
April 05, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- The question is: How can you de-legitimize something (in this case the Zionist state) which it is NOT legitimate?
Leaving aside the fairy story of God’s promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who “returned” in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state’s assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly’s partition plan resolution of 1947.
The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British not possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognised by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.
Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.
In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal - meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.
The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine - after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away - was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.
As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”
The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.
It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what de-legitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.
Source
For my contribution to the De-legitimizing Israel series, I’m going to confine myself to one question and answer.
April 05, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- The question is: How can you de-legitimize something (in this case the Zionist state) which it is NOT legitimate?
Leaving aside the fairy story of God’s promise, (which even if true would have no bearing on the matter because the Jews who “returned” in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews), the Zionist state’s assertion of legitimacy rests on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UN General Assembly’s partition plan resolution of 1947.
The only real relevance of the Balfour Declaration is in the fact that it was an expression of both the willingness of a British government to use Jews for imperial purposes and the willingness of Zionist Jews to be used. The truth is that Britain had no right whatsoever to promise Zionism a place in Palestine, territory the British not possess. (Palestine at the time was controlled and effectively owned by Ottoman Turkey). The Balfour Declaration did allow Zionism to say that its claim to Palestine had been recognised by a major power, and then to assert that the Zionist enterprise was therefore a legitimate one. But the legitimacy Britain conveyed by implication was entirely spurious, meaning not genuine, false, a sham.
Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 29 November 1947 is pure propaganda nonsense, as demonstrated by an honest examination of the record of what actually happened.
In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a non-binding proposal - meaning that it could have no effect, would not become binding, until and unless it was approved by the Security Council.
The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, and because of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine - after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away - was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that Israel, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionist terrorism and pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved.
As it was put to me many years ago by Khalad al-Hassan, Fatah’s intellectual giant on the right, that legitimacy was “the only thing the Zionists could not take from us by force.”
The truth of history as summarised briefly above is the explanation of why, really, Zionism has always insisted that its absolute pre-condition for negotiations with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of a successful outcome (an acceptable measure of justice for the Palestinians and peace for all) is recognition of Israel’s right to exist. A right, it knows, it does not have and will never have unless the Palestinians grant it.
It can be said without fear of contradiction (except by Zionists) that what de-legitimizes Israel is the truth of history. And that is why Zionism has worked so hard, today with less success than in the past and therefore with increasing desperation, to have the truth suppressed.
Source
Protein called Lectin found in Bananas, Helps fight the HIV virus.
Scientists say a plant protein found in bananas could be a powerful weapon in the fight against HIV.
A research team at an American university says the lectin found in bananas proved as potent as two current anti-HIV drugs in laboratory tests.
The lectin effectively stops infections by outsmarting HIV and preventing it from becoming integrated in a target cell.
Scientists say new weapons in the fight against HIV are urgently needed, and these lectins are one of the most promising options.
The University of Michigan researchers believe that vaginal microbicides made with this plant protein could be a cheap and effective treatment, particularly in developing countries.
Source
A research team at an American university says the lectin found in bananas proved as potent as two current anti-HIV drugs in laboratory tests.
The lectin effectively stops infections by outsmarting HIV and preventing it from becoming integrated in a target cell.
Scientists say new weapons in the fight against HIV are urgently needed, and these lectins are one of the most promising options.
The University of Michigan researchers believe that vaginal microbicides made with this plant protein could be a cheap and effective treatment, particularly in developing countries.
Source
Schools allowed to ban face veils
Jack Straw's comments on veils have been good news for the owner of The Hijab Centre in the MP's constituency of Blackburn.
Nadeem Siddiqui tells me he is selling more veils than he did before his local MP made his controversial remarks.
Mr Siddiqui is the largest seller of veils in the area.
"I used to sell two or three a week but now I am selling five to six. They are mainly being bought by young, British-born Muslim women," he said.
"These women are experimenting with the wearing of the niqab. Their mothers often do not cover themselves but they seem to want to do it."
It is probably not the impact that Mr Straw intended when he wrote in his local newspapers that he felt uncomfortable when dealing face to face with veiled women.
Future fears
The majority of Muslims condemned Mr Straw over his comments. One month later, they are still upset.
The woman who covers her face is the most harmless individual in society. She ... does not cause society any problems
Na'ima B Roberts
"I voted for Mr Straw at the last election" says Mr Siddiqui.
"I'm now reconsidering my support for him. Most of the people around here are doing the same because of what he said about the veil".
British Muslims do not accept the argument that veiled women contribute to segregation or are a barrier to integration.
Instead they feel they are being deliberately stigmatised as a problem community and are fearful of the future.
The author Na'ima B Roberts has written about her experiences as a veiled woman in her book From My Sister's Lips.
"I fear that this could change everything in Britain and this country will become like France and ban the veil," she said.
"The woman who covers her face is the most harmless individual in society. She doesn't drink; she doesn't smoke and does not cause society any problems."
Muslim unity
The wearing of the veil has always been a controversial practice and there is no consensus amongst Islamic scholars.
Find out about different styles of Muslim headscarf
In graphics
There are roughly two schools of thought, one which says that it is obligatory and another that believes it is highly recommended but ultimately a matter of personal choice.
Mr Straw's intervention and the ensuing political storm have changed all that.
It now appears that British Muslims are less willing to publicly criticise those tiny minority of women who wear it.
A recent statement issued by nearly 30 Islamic groups, including one of the largest Muslim organisations - the Muslim Council of Britain, tells Muslims to "remain united, regardless of their differences of opinion in the wearing of the veil ... and to defend the veil with all their ability".
It also asks them to "avoid seeking to capitalise on this debate to further political or personal interests".
This statement has annoyed some Muslims but they are now choosing to remain silent.
They think it is open season on Muslims and do not want to be seen damaging the community anymore by offering support to the anti-veil lobby.
Veil encouragement
The case of Aishah Azmi, the Dewsbury teacher who was suspended after refusing to take her veil off in the classroom, resulted in an even more ambivalent response from British Muslims.
Mr Straw's comments seems to have reinforced support for the veil
Even if they disagree with Jack Straw they are unwilling to offer their wholehearted support to Mrs Azmi.
"If I couldn't wear the niqab and teach then I wouldn't do that job" says Na'ima B Roberts.
"I don't go into a line of work where I have to uncover. I wouldn't, for example go for the title of Miss Great Britain," she said.
At the Hijab Centre in Blackburn they recently had a visit from an eight-year-old girl, Mr Siddiqui recalls.
"She wanted to buy a veil and she was arguing with me for 15 minutes. I told her she was too young to be wearing one and in the end we convinced her to wear the hijab.
"The girl's mother didn't even wear a hijab and she told me that she had spent three days convincing her that she doesn't need one".
It seems that rather then discouraging women from wearing the veil Mr Straw has elevated its importance. We can probably expect to see more women in veils, not fewer.
Source
Nadeem Siddiqui tells me he is selling more veils than he did before his local MP made his controversial remarks.
Mr Siddiqui is the largest seller of veils in the area.
"I used to sell two or three a week but now I am selling five to six. They are mainly being bought by young, British-born Muslim women," he said.
"These women are experimenting with the wearing of the niqab. Their mothers often do not cover themselves but they seem to want to do it."
It is probably not the impact that Mr Straw intended when he wrote in his local newspapers that he felt uncomfortable when dealing face to face with veiled women.
Future fears
The majority of Muslims condemned Mr Straw over his comments. One month later, they are still upset.
The woman who covers her face is the most harmless individual in society. She ... does not cause society any problems
Na'ima B Roberts
"I voted for Mr Straw at the last election" says Mr Siddiqui.
"I'm now reconsidering my support for him. Most of the people around here are doing the same because of what he said about the veil".
British Muslims do not accept the argument that veiled women contribute to segregation or are a barrier to integration.
Instead they feel they are being deliberately stigmatised as a problem community and are fearful of the future.
The author Na'ima B Roberts has written about her experiences as a veiled woman in her book From My Sister's Lips.
"I fear that this could change everything in Britain and this country will become like France and ban the veil," she said.
"The woman who covers her face is the most harmless individual in society. She doesn't drink; she doesn't smoke and does not cause society any problems."
Muslim unity
The wearing of the veil has always been a controversial practice and there is no consensus amongst Islamic scholars.
Find out about different styles of Muslim headscarf
In graphics
There are roughly two schools of thought, one which says that it is obligatory and another that believes it is highly recommended but ultimately a matter of personal choice.
Mr Straw's intervention and the ensuing political storm have changed all that.
It now appears that British Muslims are less willing to publicly criticise those tiny minority of women who wear it.
A recent statement issued by nearly 30 Islamic groups, including one of the largest Muslim organisations - the Muslim Council of Britain, tells Muslims to "remain united, regardless of their differences of opinion in the wearing of the veil ... and to defend the veil with all their ability".
It also asks them to "avoid seeking to capitalise on this debate to further political or personal interests".
This statement has annoyed some Muslims but they are now choosing to remain silent.
They think it is open season on Muslims and do not want to be seen damaging the community anymore by offering support to the anti-veil lobby.
Veil encouragement
The case of Aishah Azmi, the Dewsbury teacher who was suspended after refusing to take her veil off in the classroom, resulted in an even more ambivalent response from British Muslims.
Mr Straw's comments seems to have reinforced support for the veil
Even if they disagree with Jack Straw they are unwilling to offer their wholehearted support to Mrs Azmi.
"If I couldn't wear the niqab and teach then I wouldn't do that job" says Na'ima B Roberts.
"I don't go into a line of work where I have to uncover. I wouldn't, for example go for the title of Miss Great Britain," she said.
At the Hijab Centre in Blackburn they recently had a visit from an eight-year-old girl, Mr Siddiqui recalls.
"She wanted to buy a veil and she was arguing with me for 15 minutes. I told her she was too young to be wearing one and in the end we convinced her to wear the hijab.
"The girl's mother didn't even wear a hijab and she told me that she had spent three days convincing her that she doesn't need one".
It seems that rather then discouraging women from wearing the veil Mr Straw has elevated its importance. We can probably expect to see more women in veils, not fewer.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)