This is a very brief background to the confusing border between Israel and the occupied West Bank. It differentiates between the planned but never to be ‘Partition’ and the Green Line, and emphasises the impact of the 1967 war and the subsequent Israel’s militarisation of the Green Line after the first intifada, 1987-1991.

Up to 1948 Palestine was a relatively thriving area between Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan, cultivated, well educated, cultured, with good transport links between for example, Jaffa, Haifa and Lebanon. It was not as some zionists like to suggest ‘a land with no people’.

Since the First World War it was under the governance of Britain which had been mandated to be the governing body by the European International Powers.

Even well before the Second World War European zionists planned to colonise Palestine and turn it into a Jewish state called Israel. In the 1940s, even during the Second World War, Zionist terrorist groups were destroying Palestine’s infrastructure, terrorising the civilian population and attempting to drive the British, and then the Arabs, out, all achieved with, especially, USA Zionist support. (Suarez’ “State of Terror” provides a detailed account)

The Partition was a plan to divide Palestine according to Resolution 181 in November 1947 of the UN General Assembly. It was suggested by USA/Europe a) as a way for Britain to wash its hands of Palestine and its Palestinian inhabitants, to turn its back, and b) for Israel to achieve statehood – a status that transformed its army from being regarded as terrorists into a national ‘state’ army and enabled rapid expansion of settler colonisation with impunity. It provided Israel with a beachhead – a military front from which the rest of Palestine could be conquered.

Of course the partition was never going to be enough for the zionists. And in fact it never even materialised as a border of any kind.

This plan never materialised because, before and during the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948, the Jewish Terror units (Irgun, Lehi, Palmach and Hagana of the Jewish Agency) over-ran, massacred and displaced 750 000 Palestinians from their lands and homes and intensified settler colonising.

Instead the zionists took 50% of the area allotted to Arabs under the Partition plan and a so called Green Line was marked out on the map in 1949 separating the State of Israel from the occupied territories.

This could be crossed freely even after it was over-run after the 1967 six day war that drove Jordanian control out of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

From an article by Prof Newman in 2014 (dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Ben-Gurion University) :

Although the line was overrun by Israel during the Six Day War of 1967, it has never ceased to be the administrative line separating sovereign Israel from that area which is controlled/administered/ occupied (delete whichever terms is least suitable to your personal political preferences). Israel has never formally annexed the West Bank and, as such, has left the Green Line in existence by default. The one exception has been Israel’s policy regarding east Jerusalem.

However, since the first intifada, (a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation 1987-1991), the Green Line became the line of curfews and check points.

Those remaining inside Israel became Israeli citizens, while those in the West Bank were transformed into stateless citizens, initially under Jordanian administration and, since 1967, under Israeli control.

Of course the wall is situated to take as much Palestinian land as possible and often strays well over the so called Green Line of 1949 into the occupied West Bank.

The United Nations Office for the Conduct of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) has issued a report:

Humanitarian snapshot: mass casualties in the context of demonstrations in the Gaza Strip

Since 30 March 2018, the Gaza Strip has witnessed an enormous increase in Palestinian casualties in the context of mass demonstrations taking place along Israel’s perimeter fence with Gaza. The demonstrations have occurred as part of the ‘Great March of Return’, a series of mass protests, expected to continue up to 5 June. The large number of casualties among unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, including a high percentage of demonstrators hit by live ammunition, has raised concerns about excessive use of force by Israeli troops. Gaza’s health sector is struggling to cope with the mass influx of casualties, due to years of blockade, internal divide and a chronic energy crisis, which have left essential services in Gaza barely able to function.

2018: May – massacre in Gaza

This is a serious violation of international humanitarian law, acts of pure terrorism – of intentional lethal military action against peaceful protesting civilians to provoke fear.

This is not at all about Israel ‘defending itself’.

The demonstrations by the Gazans have been peaceful – peaceful in the sense that they posed zero threat to Israeli life – peaceful therefore even whilst throwing some stones and flying some flaming kites over the fence.

Since international humanitarian law is being violated the UK government should revoke licenses for the sale of arms to Israel.

Amnesty International has called for an arms embargo.

I quote from a letter sent by my MP Douglas Ross dated 14/5/2018:

A license would not be issued if there was a clear risk that any exports might be used in the commission of a serious violation of International Humanitarian Law

So, even in a conservative MP’s own words, the arms licenses for sales of arms to Israel should be revoked immediately.

as MediaLens put it:

1. Israelis Deliberately Killing Palestinians, Including Children

A recent media alert highlighted the mass killing and wounding of Palestinians in Gaza, including children, by Israeli armed forces in what the media often describe as ‘clashes’. Before the latest major massacre on May 14 (see below), Israeli forces had already killed over 50 Palestinian protesters and injured over 5000, including 1700 by live fire, during Great March of Return protests that began on March 30. UN Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk condemned Israel’s actions as violations of international law.

An open letter to our local MP, conservative Douglas Ross.

The United Nations Office for the co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) has summarised the ongoing tragedy:

Since 30 March, 41 Palestinians, including five children, have been killed by Israeli forces during the course of the demonstrations. In addition, 12 Palestinians were killed during the same period in other circumstances, including five shot at the fence or after crossing into Israel, whose bodies are reportedly withheld by the Israeli authorities. The cumulative number of injuries has exceeded 9,800, of whom nearly 5,000 have been hospitalized. As of 4 May, at least 169 health personnel had been injured and 18 ambulances damaged, according to the MoH in Gaza.

The UN Secretary General has called for an independent investigation. The Israeli government is responsible for the deaths of Gazans ‘armed’ only with symbolic slingshot. It’s excuse – the need to protect Israel from invasion. Really?

As Amnesty International says, there must be an immediate boycott on selling military equipment to Israel.

The Israeli government is fuelling global instability – it is no ally of the people of the UK or anywhere else.

The Israeli government demonises the secular and Shia neighbouring states, and illegally occupies the Golan Heights (with its oil reserves and links to the Murdoch and Rothschild empires through Genie Energy). It is inciting war in order to pursue its racist, expansionist and profiteering aims.

I think that there is increasing local UK and global awareness of the increasingly destructive nature of the Apartheid government in Israel. And, that politicians who wish to be re-elected would be wise to increasingly acknowledge this and to begin to publicly withdraw support from Israel. For example: Make public your criticism of and resignation from Conservative ‘Friends of Israel’, make a plea for military sanctions, and support BDS.

Future conservative political power may well depend upon a willingness to acknowledge and call for an end to Israel’s apartheid policies and unacceptable actions.

Specifically, will you support a) Amnesty International’s call for a military boycott and b) the UN General secretary’s call for an independent investigation into the murders in Gaza?

Interesting post from Eyal; provokes thoughts about when language reveals ‘white privilege’, racism, and the impossibility of ever being in the ‘other’s ‘ shoes (perhaps the impossibility of the sexual relationship too, obliquely anyway).


Truth from Eretz Yisrael

I love Tamer Nafar. What an excellent performer! I love his music and his politics. Never spearing his audience the burden of politics, and the multilayered difficulty of being a Palestinian, combining criticism of the West and Israel, with that of Palestinian society, and of those observing it. I thoroughly enjoyed his show last week, which was part of his UK tour, where he tried new electronic material, this time in English. It was a huge hit, if you ask me. Very different to his previous works, and really taking his art to the next level, upping the game and giving the audience an extraordinary time.(*)

But what was particularly evident for me in comparison to previous DAM songs, is that it really expressed more forcefully how tired he is of it all, and how he just wants to live his life and be happy. Aren’t we all!? The best…

View original post 434 more words

Amnesty International have called for an arms embargo on Israel (as well as on armed Palestinian groups). In other words, for example, the U.K. (and the USA etc.) should stop selling arms to Israel.

This is because of the irrefutable video evidence that Israeli snipers are deliberately killing unarmed protesters in Gaza.

The protesters are Arab/Palestinian refugees enclosed in a strip of land on the western, mediterranean coast of what is now called Israel. They were put there, or driven there, in the late 1940s early 50s after Zionist militia massacred many Palestinians in order to take their land – a disaster called the Nakba.

The protesters are protesting their right to return to the villages of their origin as they are entitled to do under International law – having fled conflict – and being now displaced from what is rightfully, legally, theirs, their homes.

[on the 11th of December, 1948, the UN General Assembly resolution 194 recognized the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and this resolution, seventeen years later, has been reaffirmed more than a hundred times since, and more than any other resolution in UN history.]

Many UK politicians turn a blind eye to these murders saying Israel is our ‘friend’ and a ‘democracy’ – this is sheer hypocrisy. Motivated by a thirst for power and domination of the Middle East.

Just imagine if Assad, or Kim Jong Un, or the Chinese were doing this. The outrage would be in the headlines of the mainstream media.

What can we do? Perhaps consider writing to your MP – ask them what they are doing about this.

The question arises because some efforts to challenge US/Fr/UK interventionism in Syria – the apparent desire to depose Assad, (as Sadam Hussein was in Iraq) – is challenged by critiquing media that characterise Assad as a monster. But this may be received as if Assad is a benign democratic authority. I would argue that challenging imperialist intervention in Syria can take place alongside awareness that there is resistance within Syria’s own population, from socialist and non Jihadi forces or efforts, to an oppressive Assad State machine.

And, that it is reasonable to try to support their resistance against oppression by the Assad state machine without meaning you support either imperialist intervention or the efforts of Jihadi extremists (some of whom may be Syrian in origin).

See interview with Yassin Al-Haj Saleh, a Syrian communist imprisoned by Assad’s state for 16?yrs: In Syria, The Left and The World. See here. A source from a refugee now outside Syria – true – but a voice that has, it would seem, experienced Assad’s oppression first hand.

Though supporting socialist efforts like this may mean identifying the oppressive nature of Assad’s state machine. Which, in turn, may lend succour to imperialist propaganda.

It seems wrong to silence criticism of Assad on the grounds that this support imperialist efforts. To do this would be to be complicit with his oppression of political resistance within Syria.

After all it is also possible that Russia’s support of Assad’s apparently legitimate authority in Syria is a kind of neo-colonialism in the name of humanitarian protection of ‘a minority’ (in this case Syria itself). Which would be a kind of reversal of the excuse behind Imperialist colonisation and its apparent humanitarian interventions.

However it is possible that some remain silent on Assad’s oppression as a tactic aimed at resisting US/Fr/U.K. intervention – but this tactic may misfire as it also tends to support pro Assad voices and pro Putin voices.

An example:

Take the sentence:

“Early diagnosis of cancer by population based screening prevents cancer deaths and is a good thing.”

This summarises the concept underlying, say, the UK national breast cancer screening programme (UKNHSBCSP).

It is an example of the concept of anticipatory care in general where :

“Predictive risk measurement and diagnosis by population based anticipatory care programmes prevents premature death and is a good thing.”

What is at stake here is “a good thing”.

The question is: “What determines whether the concept should be marketed, commissioned or translated into state policy, as so-called evidence based healthcare, as, that is, a good thing ?”

For pragmatism (P) ‘a good thing’ is a practical thing, where the term practical, as used here, specifically means that the specific form of anticipatory care achieves the active intent of the programme, here defined as preventing specific forms of (premature) death.

By contrast, for Logical Empiricism (LE), the question posed of a good thing depends upon an evaluation of all of the possible conceivable and observable effects of the programme.

So, for example, LE would take into account and value as meaningful, as many empirical observations of harms as possible, such as the impacts on health of for example, mastectomy as such, of side effects and complications, and of longer term but still conceivable, observable, sequelae (such as radiation induced cancer and heart disease).

For LE the so-called observation-sentences (for example, “mastectomy can lead to wound infections and chronic pain”) that attest to the predicate “a good thing” must refer to observable empirical outcomes that make sense, have empirical meaning, and are therefore sensuous, imaginable or conceivable at an individual level.

Therefore, overdiagnosis (OD) is not a meaningful outcome for LE because, most simply put, it is not sensually experienced.

This is a dilemma for scientists who ‘feel’ OD is important but are unable, under the precepts of LE, the basis of Evidence Based Healthcare (EBHC), to make it count as value-able in the inquiry into, say, breast cancer screening.

As an aside, the term premature functions here as an imperative term for the subject. It signifies the subject for another signifier thus: “You not only can but should, even must, try to prevent your premature death, because your proper mature death lies further in the future, some time, not defineable.”

LE accepts the existence and importance of causes and mechanisms of ill health production, such as, say, radiation inducing cancers, because these help to identify possible conceivable, observable, outcomes, which will therefore influence methodology and study design. For P, these causes and mechanisms do not exist, or are meaningless, because the focus is on the relevance of outcomes to the active intent of the programme of anticipatory care and not the wider evaluation of what might be, or attest to, a “good thing”.

In the evaluation of the UKNHSBCSP we can see the workings of a subjective pragmaticist empiricism, that trumps LE in general.

So, that a statement by a cancer expert in 2012 , by Prof. David Cameron, who was on the UK’s independent review panel for the UKNHSBCSP:

“I personally would prefer to avoid a breast cancer death … and the risk that I might have a cancer over diagnosed and therefore treated is one I would be prepared to take”

effectively privileges the active intent of the programme at the expense of other harms that may, if counted and valued as harm as such, negate the conclusion that screening is a “good thing”.

This privileging of the active intent of an intervention devalues harms as such and leads to ever expanding, intensifying forms of anticipatory care and overdiagnosis. It also privileges the intent, scientific interests and healthcare goals of particular clinical specialisms. Cancer specialists tend to be pragmaticist, and therefore interventionist, with respect to their own cancer research and interventions.

Overdiagnosis is an anomaly, meaningless for P, and a contradiction for LE.For P it is meaningless because it is not relevant to the active intent of anticipatory care. For LE, it may be conceivable and measurable at a population level but it is not observable. To be observable is to be experienceable at an individual level. And although it is (indirectly) deduced and measured by LE as a logical (positivist) population outcome – OD is not empirical, it is purely positivist. Thus, OD is, in theory, finite and determinate, and measureable, but it is not imaginable, experienceable, or, literally, sensible.

LE is an ally for social democracy under capitalism because it attempts to value all possible conceivable and observable outcomes that attest to a good thing. It is more likely to objectively strike a more equal, just balance between the harms and benefits of forms of healthcare.

Conversely, P is an ally of neoliberalism under capitalism. Capitalism needs competition and innovation and monetised growth to survive. Because P ignores harms not relevant to the active intent it privileges intervention, and therefore promotes neoliberalism’s necessary endless innovation and the marketisation of ‘new’ products as a good thing.

Therefore, LE has more potential to limit harms due to anticipatory care whereas P continually intensifies harms due to anticipatory care.

The social democratic LE scientists would like to value OD, as harm as such in determining a good thing, for the sake of collective justice, but are unable to make it count as value-able for themselves, and even less so for the neoliberal pragmaticists who are only swayed by active intent, that is, for example, by saving lives from breast cancer deaths.

In the anticipatory mode of care overdiagnosis is an inevitability, but, at the same time it is personally unimaginable, and so compelling citizens to decide whether to comply with screening invitations, as if this is a ‘fully informed’ and ‘fair’process, is anti-democratic.

The cause of this situation is the belief that it is possible to scientifically define the precise biological boundary between normal and pathological forms of life in order to predict future disease. But, because life itself functions alongside and through error: environmental contingencies, constant mutations and non-linear responses – it is inherently unpredictable. To claim, for example, that a screen diagnosed cancer is always ‘real cancer’ when only 1 in 3 of them would have caused harm in the future, is to deny life’s mystery, this unpredictability.

Because of the unpredictability pre-emptive attempts to treat on the basis of anticipation will always over treat, and this will always result in non-empirical, non-sensible, unimaginable, non experienced, overdiagnosis at an individual level. And therefore anticipatory modes of care will always be unjust and anti democratic. It will make the citizen increasingly vulnerable to being positioned as limitless clinical labour for a neoliberalised monetised market, warranted not by a social democratic objective logical empiricism but by an interest driven neoliberal subjective pragmaticist empiricism.