Doc's Talk: "NIF 2004 Fellow Shamai Leibowitz: Support For Divestment and Single-State Solutions"

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

"NIF 2004 Fellow Shamai Leibowitz: Support For Divestment and Single-State Solutions"

Avi Bell
NGO Monitor

Under the twenty-year old Israel-U.S. Civil Liberties Program, the New Israel Fund sends a pair of Fellows annually to the American University's Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C. The Fellows receive a full tuition waiver as they complete the one year Master's Degree in Law program (LL.M.), as well as a $2,000 stipend for living expenses. In exchange for the stipend and waiver, the Fellows must agree to return to Israel after completion of their studies and work for a year in a NIF-approved civil rights organization. The NIF in Israel is responsible for selecting the fellows, subject only to the condition that at least one of the Fellows must be a woman. In recent years, the NIF has unofficially adopted an additional condition that one of the Fellows must be an Arab. The declared agenda of the NIF in choosing Fellows is to provide "academic and professional experience to Israeli lawyers specializing in civil rights" in order to create and maintain civil rights leadership in Israel.

The 2004 Jewish Fellow is Shamai Leibowitz. Since receiving the Fellowship, Leibowitz has devoted great efforts to advancing the cause of economic and diplomatic war against the existence of the Jewish state.

In June, 2004 Leibowitz participated in the Palestine/Israel Conference on One Democratic State in Lausanne. The Collective for Peace in Israel/Palestine, created in order to hold the conference, promotes the idea described in the P.L.O. charter of eliminating the state of Israel and replacing it with a single "democratic" state. The conference adopted a declaration calling for an end to the state of Israel, and its replacement with a single state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea that would be open to a Palestinian "right of return." Leibowitz's reported address to the conference, entitled "The Care and Feeding of the Binational State," has not yet been published as a paper by the Collective. Doubtless, though, the address was similar to Leibowitz's similarly unpublished "Legal Strategies for a One-State Framework," originally scheduled to be delivered at a November 13, 2003 Montreal conference of the Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel.

In November, 2004 Leibowitz testified before the Somerville City Council in favor of a resolution imposing economic sanctions on Israel through divestment. According to Leibowitz, "divestment resolutions are an effective remedy for the severe violence plaguing the Israelis and the Palestinians for 37 years." Leibowitz claimed to have been ordered as a soldier in the I.D.F. to "commit grave human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories" and that his platoon "shot and killed unarmed Palestinian civilians" and committed other war crimes as "daily occurrences." Leibowitz also railed against the peace process on the grounds that it merely constitutes "an excuse to divert world attention away from the infliction of suffering, humiliation and destruction upon the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories."

In March, 2005, Leibowitz published an article in the Nation claiming that "international law mandates the use of sanctions to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions and human rights treaties" and calling upon "American civic institutions to support a multi-tiered campaign of strategic, selective sanctions against Israel until the occupation ends." Leibowitz's proposed sanctions against Israel would include barring Israeli politicians and military personnel from traveling abroad and hauling them before international courts for alleged human rights violations, barring all sales of arms to Israel, and ending all investment in any company that sells to the Israeli military. Leibowitz specifically singled out for praise the Presbyterian Church and World Council of Churches for their divestment efforts against the Jewish state.

During the same month, Leibowitz spoke at the Philadelphia Cathedral in support of the Presbyterian Church's divestment campaign and urged other Christian churches to join in imposing economic sanctions on Israel. This followed on a speech in Oak Park, Illinois in February, 2005 similarly calling for economic sanctions against the Jewish state.

Leibowitz's anti-Israel activity could hardly have come as a surprise to the NIF Leibowitz came out in favor of economic warfare against Israel several years ago. At the October 2002 Second National Student Conference on the Palestinian Solidarity Movement at the University of Michigan, Leibowitz accepted an invitation (link has expired) to argue for divestment alongside the likes of Sami al-Arien (under indictment for his longtime activities in the service of the Palestine Islamic Jihad terrorist organization).

Leibowitz's legal work in Israel prior to his Fellowship is notable primarily for its political quality, rather than its devotion to civil rights. For several years, Leibowitz has served as counsel for International Solidarity Movement activists who illegally enter the state of Israel in order to foil anti-terror operations. Leibowitz has also attempted to intimidate reporters into silence through libel suits, such as the one he filed on behalf of I.S.M. activist Radhika Sainath against Jerusalem reporter Judy Balint for writing of Sainath's efforts to help Palestinians avoid security checks (The suit was ultimately dismissed.). Employment of the law in order to chill political reportage is generally thought of as inimical to the promotion of civil rights.

Leibowitz achieved public recognition in Israel for his decision to represent Marwan Barghouti, West Bank leader of the terrorist al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in his murder trial in Israel. Leibowitz apparently took on the representation because of his admiration for his client, and he claimed that trying Barghouti was immoral, since Barghouti was the Palestinian Moses leading his people to liberty (Ha'aretz, 4 Oct. 2002). Leibowitz expanded on the theme in a column published by the Israeli news website nfc.co.il, where he argued that the proper understanding of the Exodus story is that the Almighty acted as a terrorist, killing Egyptian children and innocents as punishment for Egyptian arrogance in lording it over another nation, and it would behoove Israel to ask itself how it has become the Egyptians.

For Jewish audiences, such as readers of the Ha'aretz newspapers, Leibowitz has continued to claim to support justice in the form of "two states for two peoples" (Ha'aretz, 29 Sep. 2002). He has also repeatedly condemned all terrorism and killing of the innocent in the abstract, while continuing to extol the heroism of Palestinian terrorists and condemn anti-terrorist Israeli measures.

While Leibowitz is likely the most notorious of NIF Fellows, others have taken notable actions in the fight to delegitimize the Jewish state. Netta Amar, a 2001 Fellow was among 218 signatories to a public call in October, 2000 to the United States Congress to respond the outbreak of Palestinian violence by suspending all aid to Israel. Yohanna Lerman, a 2000 Emily Skolnick Law Fellow, is a member of Women in Black and signed (link has expired) the Al Awda petition in 2000 calling for Israel to yield to the Palestinian "right of return." Hassan Jabareen, a 1994 Fellow, founded Adalah; three of Adalah's eight-person legal staff are former or current Fellows (Hassan Jabareen, Marwan Dalal and Gadeer Nicola). An additional two Fellows are listed by the NIF as having served as legal staff for Adalah (Jamil Dakwar and Suhad Hammoud), and another Fellow is listed as an Adalah board member (Muhammed Dahleh). Several of these NIF Fellows are listed in Adalah's reports as having playing important roles in Adalah's activities at the 2001 Durban conference against "racism," where Adalah actively promoted efforts to demonize Israel as an "apartheid" state committing "genocide" against Palestinians.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk