A petition signed by 35 distinguished Australian Jews rejecting the automatic right of Jews from anywhere in the world to settle in Israel is printed below. Under the racist “law of return”, Jews do not need to have any connection with Israel to obtain citizenship. Signatories include ethicist Peter Singer, feminist campaigner Eva Cox, author and journalist Antony Loewenstein and writer Sara Dowse.

We are Jews from Australia, who, like Jewish people throughout the world, have an automatic right to Israeli citizenship under Israel’s “law of return”. While this law may seem intended to enable a Jewish homeland, we submit that it is in fact a form of racist privilege that abets the colonial oppression of the Palestinians.

Today there are more than 7 million Palestinian refugees around the world. Israel denies their right to return to their homes and land — a right recognised and undisputed by UN Resolution 194, the Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Meanwhile, we are invited to live on that same land simply because we are Jewish, thereby potentially taking the place of Palestinians who would dearly love to return to their ancestral lands.

We renounce this “right” to “return” offered to us by Israeli law. It is not right that we may “return” to a state that is not ours while Palestinians are excluded and continuously dispossessed.

The article below is a reply to Michael Visontay in AJN Nov. 13, 2009, ‘The Israel Discussion’:

http://jewishnews.net.au/2009/11/13/the-israel-discussion/9733#more-9733 

The editor of AJN, Zeddy Lawrence refused to publish this reply in which I have sought to correct certain misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the nature of IAJV published in an Opinion article by Michael Visontay. Whatever one’s views of the issues concerning Israel/Palestine or of IAJV, the most significant fact about the editor’s decision is his policy of not allowing the right of reply to certain people whose views he considers are not to be made available to the readership of AJN.  

I agreed not to make Lawrence’s actual email to me public, but indicated that I would convey the gist of his remarks: His reasons for not publishing my piece were essentially that he sees his role as protecting the community from unpopular views by standing up for Israel and ensuring that Israel’s point of view is expressed. I provide my own reply to Zeddy Lawrence below the article.

---

IAJV and “empathy with Israel”

Peter Slezak 

It is reassuring that in his recent column (AJN November 13), Michael Visontay does not find fault with anything Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) has actually said or written but only with what he imagines we really mean. Visontay does not cite anything from the voluminous material on the IAJV website since 2007 to justify his charge of “an underlying hostility in the group’s activism.” Remarkably, Visontay also presumes to explain what “permeates everything” IAJV does without interviewing any of its founders or contributing writers.  

By inventing the stance of IAJV, Visontay neglects key features of IAJV articulated in declarations on our website. We have hundreds of signatories to various statements and several bloggers, none of whom are likely to agree with one another on anything. Visontay does not reveal that IAJV is not an organization with a membership, representatives or official doctrines at all. By analogy with the editorial role of a magazine or journal, we write: 

IAJV is not an organization or society with members or political platform. In accordance with the principles enunciated in the initial statement, we aim to widen the debate to include a range of opinions not reflected in mainstream Jewish media or official community organizations. As part of this effort, our blogs provide a forum for independent Jewish opinions that are, of course, those of their authors and not those of IAJV organizers or signatories of any IAJV petitions or statements. 

Of course, there is no doubt about our critical “editorial” orientation. However, Visontay’s charge of bias is always made against dissident opinion on the spurious assumption that the prevailing orthodoxy is somehow neutral. 

The significance of IAJV rests precisely on the fact that we are concerned to widen the public dialogue and to ensure a representation of growing Jewish opinion here and around the world that departs from the uncritical “pro-Israel” line of community leadership and official organizations.  

Toward this end, we have cooperated with other groups to bring significant people on lecture tours including internationally renowned Jewish figures such as Jeff Halper and Sara Roy. Their views are well represented in Israel itself and regularly published in Ha’aretz, and therefore it is meaningless to describe our efforts to have them heard here as hostile to Israel.  

For the record, there can be no inference from what we have published to the claim that IAJV is not “pro-Israel” unless this is interpreted to mean uncritical support for all Israeli government policies and actions. Facing uncomfortable facts about Israel is discouraged by those who, in Ed Murrow’s familiar words, confuse dissent with disloyalty. Those who voice criticism are denounced in familiar ways, or merely “characterised by a noticeable lack of empathy with Israel”. I addressed these questions in my talk to the recent Limmud-Oz festival in Sydney on Jewish Identity and Responsibility (available on the IAJV website). It is noteworthy that Visontay’s charge was precisely the one levelled against Hannah Arendt because she dared to hold Israel to universal standards. She insisted that Eichmann’s crime was a “crime against humanity” and not just against the Jewish people. In a famous admonition Gershom Scholem said that Arendt lacked ahavat Israel – love of the Jewish people. However, there can be no doubt either about Arendt’s profound commitment to her Jewishness or that she was, in Scholem’s own words, “an extraordinary Zionist”. Other commentators saw Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem as her “most intensely Jewish work, in which she identifies herself morally and epistemologically with the Jewish people.” Her answer to the charge of lacking ahavat Israel was to say “Love is not a collective matter: I indeed love ‘only’ my friends and the only kind of love I know of and believe in is the love of persons.” In this way, at the same time as Arendt emphatically confirmed her Jewishness by giving it political expression, she continued to challenge the unreflective, self-celebratory nature of group affiliations. 

It helps us to see Visontay’s complaints about IAJV’s lack of sufficient “empathy with Israel” in a wider context. It is striking that in Plato’s Republic, Socrates makes the same distinction as Arendt and admonishes Callicles for not only loving a person but also for being in love with the state of Athens. 

I have noticed that we have something in common. We are both lovers …  Besides the person I love, I am also in love with philosophy, while besides your lover, you are also in love with thestate of Athens. Now, I have noticed that, despite all your cleverness, you are unable to contradict any assertion made by your beloved ...  

Israeli Jeff Halper notes that today the same “unreflexive, self-celebratory group affiliation” is deep in the heart of Jewish identity, but mainly among diaspora Jews, and not so much among Israelis themselves. However, the true friends of Israel are not those who serve uncritically as propagandists for official myths but those who stand with the many Israelis to condemn, not only the crimes of Palestinians, but also those of the State of Israel. Independent Australian Jewish voices who speak out against crimes committed in their name recognize a responsibility to the wider human community, especially Palestinians, to participate in a more balanced dialogue. In this regard, it is revealing that, of all the desperately important moral and political issues IAJV has raised, Visontay manages not to mention a single one.

---

Email To Editor of AJN, November 21, 2009

Dear Zeddy, 

Thanks for your lengthy reply and for explaining your reasons for rejecting my article. 

I confess that I am rather shocked by the reasons you give, especially because, on your own account, clearly it's nothing about the content of what I have written that is the ground for your decision. 

You refer to your responsibility to the Jewish community as editor which you evidently conceive as not allowing the right of reply to direct criticism. I'm sure that even people in the Jewish community who strongly disagree with my views would not support your position in preventing them being heard in the community newspaper. Even if they did think that I should not be heard, it's rather more astonishing that you, as editor, should take such a stance. 

Your position is all the more remarkable because you have not objected to anything I have written. My article is surely unremarkable and mild. I have mainly sought to correct Visontay's misrepresentations about the nature of IAJV and put his criticisms in a larger intellectual context by citing distinguished intellectual figures and universalized ethical principles that are also central to the venerable Jewish tradition. As I mentioned in the article, these were views I had articulated at the Jewish Limmud-Oz festival and this makes your other reasons equally inappropriate where you suggest, by comparison with the British IJV that I am somehow  to be regarded as setting up my tent outside the Jewish community. You must recognize that this is not our own view of ourselves but an effort to quarantine certain members of the community whose views you don't share - in this case many hundreds of distinguished and ordinary Jews. Furthermore, this is deeply offensive not only to me personally but an affront to the entire community that you claim to be acting on behalf of. My 84 year-old mother is a survivor or Auschwitz and your idea that I must be somehow excluded from the Jewish community is to treat your community with disrespect by presuming to decide whose views they may be permitted to hear in your AJN pages. When this goes so far as to prevent the right of reply to direct criticism and misrepresentation, it really does raise questions about how you understand your role as editor. Evidently, this means that Visontay may discuss IAJV and make misrepresentations, but I am not permitted to reply because of who I am in some unclear sense, even when I make the mildest responses to which you seem to have no substantive objection. You may not know that AJN has in the past not rejected articles and letters from me speaking even more explicitly and strongly about controversial questions regarding Israel and the Jewish community. Your policy as you describe it is now a serious departure from this openness that the AJN had admirably followed in accordance with the most elementary principles of fairness and journalistic standards. In effect, you have said that the AJN must protect the wider Jewish community from hearing certain views of some of its own members who are, after all, respectable and informed. Worse still, these very views are widely available in the public media in Israel itself, as you well know. This is a conception of a censorship that is quite shocking to me and would be to many members of the Jewish community who would not agree with my views. The most dictatorial regimes permit a free press to the views they agree with. The test of editorial and journalistic principles is whether you permit the expression of views that you or the community may not share. 

I'm afraid that even from your own point of view, you fail to recognize the harmful effect that your decision and attitude will have for AJN and the Jewish community you claim to support. You may recall the bad press in the mainstream media that AJN received on an earlier occasion when an advertisement placed by Jewish community members was censored. Such efforts to prevent respected people being heard is hardly to advance the very aims you express in support of the Jewish community or Israel. You don't seem to understand or accept the point I made in my article that I and IAJV sympathizers are also supporters of Israel. I have close family in Nahariya and Tel-Aviv and close friends who are Israelis. You don't advance the cause you support by so explicitly admitting to acting in the patronizing way towards the Jewish community by deciding which Jews they may be permitted to hear. 

I had a large and respectful audience at Limmud-Oz where I presented my talk, though most did not agree with my views. They knew who I am and came in the best spirit to hear what I had to say and to argue with me. We had a vigorous and mutually respectful and even enormously friendly discussion, with many strongly opposed people getting in touch with me afterwards to continue the discussion. This is the spirit in which I had expected the AJN might serve its important role in the community. Surely, this is how it should be, and there was no hint that I was somehow unwelcome or inappropriate as a member of the Jewish community presenting at a community festival. Your effort (not ours) to somehow exclude me and other supporters of IAJV from the Jewish community is a very disappointing and frankly offensive position to adopt. 

I had naively imagined that my mildly expressed article and my explanation about the nature of IAJV would indicate that IAJV is far from being hostile to Israel or the Jewish community as you appear to think. On the contrary, I had expected that you would recognize that we may disagree about various substantive questions but that we are trying to foster the dialogue where we disagree. So, you respond, not by taking up the well-meaning concern to engage in respectful, informed dialogue, but by preventing me being heard - and not even because you object to anything I have actually said! 

Let me conclude by asking you to reconsider your decision and to publish my piece - as AJN has done in the past. This would be an important, constructive step towards engaging with those many respected, informed members of the community who care as much as you do about their Jewishness and about Israel. It's precisely the fact that we disagree that provides the reason to engage with each other in the pages of AJN. 

I look forward to hearing from you again. 

Best and cheers for now, 

Peter 

Gaza's protracted blockade has resulted in the near total collapse of the private sector. At least 95 percent of Gaza's industrial establishments (3,750 enterprises) were either forced to close or were destroyed over the past four years, resulting in a loss of between 100,000 and 120,000 jobs. The remaining 5 percent operate at 20-50 percent of their capacity. The vast restrictions on trade have also contributed to the continued erosion of Gaza's agricultural sector, which was exacerbated by the destruction of 5,000 acres of agricultural land and 305 agricultural wells during the war. These losses also include the destruction of 140,965 olive trees, 136,217 citrus trees, 22,745 fruit trees, 10,365 date trees and 8,822 other trees.

Lands previously irrigated are now dry, while effluent from sewage seeps into the groundwater and the sea, making much of the land unusable. Many attempts by Gazan farmers to replant over the past year have failed because of the depletion and contamination of the water and the high level of nitrates in the soil. Gaza's agricultural sector has been further undermined by the buffer zone imposed by Israel on Gaza's northern and eastern perimeters (and by Egypt on Gaza's southern border), which contains some of the Strip's most fertile land. The zone is officially 300 meters wide and 55 kilometers long, but according to the UN, farmers entering within 1,000 meters of the border have sometimes been fired upon by the IDF. Approximately 30-40 percent of Gaza's total agricultural land is contained in the buffer zone. This has effectively forced the collapse of Gaza's agricultural sector.

These profound distortions in Gaza's economy and society will--even under the best of conditions--take decades to reverse. The economy is now largely dependent on public-sector employment, relief aid and smuggling, illustrating the growing informalization of the economy. Even before the war, the World Bank had already observed a redistribution of wealth from the formal private sector toward black market operators.

Last week the Right-wing media and their political friends worked themselves up into lather over an assessment by ASIO that a small number of Tamil asylum seekers should not be allowed into this country because they are apparently a security threat.

But when two Israeli political leaders came to Australia shortly before Christmas, those same politicians and media fawned over them, despite the fact they have been identified as possibly having committed crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Right at the outset let's make it clear that just because ASIO assesses someone as a security threat means nothing. ASIO jumps at shadows and you have no way of knowing if its assessment is correct or not because it is secretive, unaccountable and has a history of getting it horribly wrong in the past.

But ASIO's secret assessment of these asylum seekers was enough to get the now Far Right Liberal Party jumping. Leader Tony Abbott says the Rudd Government has put the security of Australia at risk, and his chief supporter in the media, The Australian, ran an editorial last week criticising the Rudd Government for failing to "protect our borders".

Tragically neither The Australian nor Abbott queried for a nanosecond that ASIO might be wrong. But while The Australian or Abbott are running around condemning Tamil asylum seekers on the basis of a secret assessment by "spooks", neither took issue with the visits just over a month ago by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and the current Israeli Deputy PM Silvan Shalom.

Yet both these men played a large part in the Gaza Offensive of a year ago. This military operation by Israel against the Palestinians resulted in 1300 Palestinians dying, and hundreds of thousands of others being displaced and injured.

The Gaza Offensive has been the subject of a major investigation and report by eminent South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who found that: "Repeatedly, the Israel defence forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require."

Goldstone further noted that "pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law". Failure to do so "will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy. As a service to hundreds of civilians who needlessly died, and for the equal application of international justice, the perpetrators of serious violations must be held to account," he said in his report, which he presented to the United Nations on September 29 last year.

Goldstone's Mission found that those who were responsible for the devising, planning and execution of the Gaza Offensive -- and this means Olmert and Shalom -- should be held accountable for any crimes committed by Israeli forces.

Goldstone's Mission said it found that Israel committed grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, including "wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly".

And Goldstone's Mission found that Israeli officials and armed forces should be held accountable for crimes against humanity because of a series of "acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy".

Australian law now allows for persons suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity to be arrested and tried in this country, irrespective of where the alleged offences were committed.

One would have thought that, given the very public findings of the Goldstone report, Australian political leaders and the media would be making it clear to Shalom and Olmert that they risked arrest if they entered Australia.

You can bet if it were a Tamil leader seeking to enter Australia, about whom Goldstone-type findings had been made, that would definitely have been the reaction.

But Abbott and, it has to be said, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard feted their Israeli guests.

The Australian's Greg Sheridan conducted a long and sympathetic interview with Olmert and slobbered that he spent "90 minutes in the boardroom of Sydney's Park Hyatt, and then over a relaxed lunch with his wife, Aliza, at Circular Quay", while "Olmert talked with remarkable frankness about the military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, the historic peace deal he offered the Palestinians, [US] President Barack Obama's Middle East policy and the options for action against Iran".

Would Sheridan roll out the read carpet for a Tamil leader? One thinks not. Hypocrisy and double standards are awful things.

I co-founded Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) nearly three years ago. Since then, our achievements have been modest, but the key aim has always been to expand public debate over the Middle East and show to the wider community that not all Jews back Israeli apartheid in the occupied territories.

It’s therefore pretty amusing to read a piece published in today’s National Times attacking IAJV…as if we started recently. It rehashes the usual arguments, clearly ignores any discussion about Israel’s behaviour in the West Bank or Gaza and focuses on the initiative’s supposed dishonesty:

It is now more than two years since Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV) was launched in a flurry of publicity, and past time for the original and latter signatories of its initiating declaration to take stock of their commitment.

According to the declaration, that commitment by its Jewish signatories is to “ensuring a just peace that recognises the legitimate national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians with a solution that protects the human rights of all . . . (and that) Israel’s right to exist must be recognised and that Palestinians’ right to a homeland must also be acknowledged.”

This is an inoffensive statement and could loosely be sanctioned by the mainstream of Australian Jewry. Moreover, nothing is gained by an attack on the integrity of the signatories, one of whom is Antony Loewenstein who was featured on this website yesterday. Other aspects of the declaration may invite harsher interpretation, but those clauses do not detract from the straightforward call for an equitable analysis of the “crisis in the region”. More worthy of examination are the steps that have been taken by the IAJV organisers following the publication of the declaration.

The declaration is the centrepiece of what has become a dense online forum for anti-Israel and anti-Zionist views. The dilemma is clearly understood by the organisers, who must find a means to incorporate the innocuous clauses of an originating document while promoting views that breach its parameters. In legal constitutional matters this conflict would be resolved by a superior court. In the abstract world of the internet, the organisers achieve this by way of a less accountable device – a tortuous statement that prefaces the website and reads in part: “It is evident that we as organisers cannot speak in the name of anyone unless explicitly authorised to do so, and there can be no suggestion that signatories are in any way endorsing or associated with a statement unless they explicitly sign it . . . (we) must do whatever we hope is worthwhile and constructive towards the broad principles enunciated in the original statement.”

This begs the question, despite this statement do the signatories know what is written on their behalf, or in the alternative, that they have been disenfranchised from a project that lays its foundation squarely on their name and ethnicity? The logic of this foundation is inescapable, because without the Jewish signatories to the declaration, the IAJV is deprived of its raison d’être. The views of a handful of little known commentators would garner far less attention without the original declaration or the much proclaimed ethnicity of its signatories. Certainly virulent criticism of Israel is now so pervasive on the internet as to make the existence of yet another condemnatory website merely conventional. The power of the IAJV lies solely in the ethnicity and imprimatur of the signatories.

The signatories may believe that they have signed a petition of sorts, but in fact they have provided a platform for a broad criticism of Israel, that contrary to its declaration, is not matched by an equivalent critique of the Palestinian or regional positions. No doubt the organisers will counter, again as stated in the prefacing statement, that they intend to redress a perceived bias in the media, but once more this would be disingenuous. The declaration is too plain-spoken to allow this re-interpretation: “We call upon fellow Jews to join us in supporting free debate to further the prospects of peace, security and human rights in the Middle East.” Human rights abuses, security concerns and freedom of debate are hardly concerns that can be solely ascribed to Israel, particularly in a region where democracy is an anachronism.

The ongoing discussion regarding the IAJV has unfortunately played into the hands of a few largely unknown but canny organisers. Remove the bluster and the issue is not the credibility of their opinion or those featured by way of links to other publications, rehashed on thousands of similar websites, but rather whether those opinions reflect representations made to signatories. For the signatories there is a larger moral issue to consider. If they wish to promote a forum that makes Israel chiefly accountable for the Palestinian plight and the prospects for peace in the region, then they are in the right place. If not, or their views are tempered by pragmatism or even a well-informed ambivalence, then it is time to reassess that initial commitment.

So here’s an idea for the signatories. Take a tour of the IAJV website, look around, become familiar with the landscape. It will soon be clear that the declaration you signed was achieved more in the breach than in its plain meaning. May we suggest a new declaration, reflective of the website’s actual content. Something along these lines would suffice: “We condemn the Jewish state as the principally guilty party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and primarily responsible for its resolution.” Not only does it shave hundreds of unnecessary words from the original declaration, it is also more candid, straightforward and honest. That is something the signatories can choose to endorse. Or not.

Manny Waks is the founder of the Capital Jewish Forum and a public servant based in Canberra. Geoffrey Winn is a Melbourne based lawyer and author.

Frankly, it’s odd to have to make the same points over and over. IAJV is not an organisation or a group. There are no members. A handful of people organise occassional petitions and events and anybody who wants to sign-up or be involved can be. And people can ignore these programs, too. Nothing more, nothing less.

Waks and Winn either ignore this clearly stated aim or remain uncomfortable with Jews speaking out critically against Israel and its policies.

Get used to it lads, we have much more planned in 2010.

The 85-year-old Jewish, anti-Zionist, Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein is a sturdy looking woman. Her slightly hunched frame hides the determination to continue a life-long dedication to social justice.

This week in Cairo she joined close to 1400 international delegates on the Gaza Freedom March (GFM), a project aimed at ending the suffocating blockade on Gaza. Epstein launched a hunger strike alongside about 50 others to highlight the human rights abuses in Palestine and Israeli and Egyptian collusion in the humanitarian crisis for the Strip’s 1.5 million population.

GFM steering committee member Dr Haidar Eid, based in Gaza, said that the “deadly, hermitic siege” had only tightened after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in December 2008/January 2009.

Epstein told The Age that she refused to remain silent as a Jew when, “Israel was committing crimes against the Palestinian people. I often receive hate-mail from Jews over my public stance, being called a self-hating Jew and worse, but I ignore them.”

Citizens from 42 countries, including America, Venezuela, Cameroon, Ireland, Australia, Britain, Japan and Libya descended on Cairo on December 27 with the hope of leaving for the Egyptian/Gaza border the following day. Organised by American peace group Code Pink, prominent delegates included leading American legal advocate Michael Ratner, European members of parliament and co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website Ali Abunimah.

The Egyptian regime blocked access for the mission, citing “security” concerns, and refused to grant entry visas to the assembled group. Cairo’s position, undoubtedly backed by its masters the US and Israel, condemned most of the marchers as “hoodlums” and “criminals”. In fact, many participants were the elderly and the religious and non-violent, Gandhian tactics were the central ideology.

I attended the week-long event, as a Jew, human being and journalist, and never heard any mention of incitement from the delegates. Instead, it was clear that Palestine had become a key concern for citizens across the globe, dismayed that the Western political elites continued to support Israeli aggression. The Jewish state’s very legitimacy is being challenged like never before.

A key concern of the GFM was establishing closer global links between civil communities. The Congress of South African Trade Unions held a meeting with various individuals and shared stories about its own ultimately successful struggle against apartheid. A leader from the metal worker’s union intended to educate his delegates about the importance of boycotting Israeli products. “During apartheid we labelled certain products with a label that excluded its export,” he said. “We can do the same thing with Israeli products if they arrive on our shores.”

The term “apartheid Israel” wasn’t controversial in these circles; it was simply used as an accurate description of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains desperate and the GFM aimed to highlight the plight to the international community. On the one-year anniversary of Israel’s latest assault, according to Israeli human rights group Gisha, “87 million litres of untreated or partially treated sewage is dumped into the sea daily for lack of electricity and spare parts”.

The Gazan people are being collectively punished to pressure the democratically elected Hamas Government. It seems to be failing. During my visit to the Strip in July last year, I constantly heard complaints towards the Islamist organisation but they’ve only increased their grip on the territory in the past 12 months.

The GFM was faced with a dilemma. The focus was supposed to be Gaza but Cairo’s intransigence forced them to find creative ways to protest peacefully in a country where the gathering of more than a few people is deemed illegal.

Mass demonstrations were held outside the UN building, the Journalist’s Syndicate and about 300 French citizens camped for three days outside the French Embassy, surrounded by hundreds of Egyptian riot police. One of their leaders told me one night, as we snaked past sleeping bags, tents, mattresses and aching bodies, that, “we are only sacrificing our comfort while the people of Gaza have been suffering for years”.

A small Australian delegation was granted a meeting with the Australian ambassador, Stephanie Shwabsky, who said she found the situation “utterly tragic”, but could only pledge to push the tired, unworkable formulas offered by the Rudd Government and the Obama Administration.

On the last day of the GFM, after a handful of delegates were granted entry to Gaza, about 500 protested in Cairo’s central Tahir square. The state’s security forces dragged, kicked, punched and groped a number of us, causing a few broken ribs and bloody noses, but we stood firm for about five hours.

Participants wore T-shirts with the words, “The audacity of war crimes”, “Boycott Israel” and “Free Gaza”, the sheer range of countries represented and the backgrounds of those present reflecting the internationalisation of the Middle East conflict.

Antony Loewenstein is a Sydney journalist and the author of My Israel Question and The Blogging Revolution

Hilmi Samouni still hopes at some point – “inshallah” – to go back to his old job as a kitchen assistant in the Palmyra, Gaza City’s best known shwarma restaurant. But unlike his 22-year-old brother Khamiz, who is working once again in a car paint shop, and his 20-year-old cousin Mousa, on a two-year accountancy diploma course at Al Azhar University, Hilmi, who is 26, found that he couldn’t cope when he returned to the Palmyra after the war. “Everyone there was very supportive,” he says, “but I couldn’t do good work.” Unlike Mousa, who also lost his parents, and Khamiz, Hilmi saw the bodies not only of his father Talal and his mother Rahme but also of his wife Maha, age 20, and their only son, six-month-old Mohammed, among the 21 killed in the shelling of the warehouse in which they had been ordered by Israeli troops to gather. It still bothers Hilmi that he has no pictures of any of them; they were burnt when the family home was fired on the day before.

Now Hilmi mainly potters round the house, set amid devastated orchards and chicken coops in the southern Gaza City district of Zeitoun. The graffiti in English and Hebrew on the interior walls, left by the men of the Israeli army’s Givati brigade, are the only relics of their two-week occupation of the building – a gravestone drawn beside the words “Gaza we were here”; “One down and 999,000 to go”; “Death to Arabs”. Has the family deliberately kept the graffiti visible? “Yes, but anyway we didn’t have paint to cover them,” he says. One of Hilmi’s duties is to help look after his dauntingly self-possessed 11-year-old sister Mona, who turns the pages of artwork inspired by her memories of the morning of 5 January 2009. “This is me cleaning the face of mother who is dead. This is my father who was hit in the head and his brains came out. This is my dead sister-in-law. This is my sister taking the son from my sister in law…”

The warehouse shelling commemorated in Mona’s artwork was one of the worst of many attacks on civilians in Gaza by Israeli forces between 27 December and 18 January. The Israeli military offensive had been a long time coming but still the multiple Saturday-afternoon bombing raids with which it began came as a surprise. The stated purpose was to halt the rocket and mortar attacks – 470 of which had spread undoubted fear through the border communities of southern Israel since an Israeli raid on Hamas ended an uneasy but largely effective five-month ceasefire in early November 2008.

But if the timing was a surprise, the unprecedented ferocity of the onslaught on Hamas-controlled Gaza was even more so. More than two weeks into the war, the Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni would boast in a radio interview that “Israel … is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild – and this is a good thing”.

British Zionist activists reacted on Tuesday with “bemusement” to a letter cosigned by hundreds of pro-Palestinian Jewish compatriots urging Gordon Brown to adopt the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel of committing war crimes during its operation last winter in the Gaza Strip.

The letter, which appeared as an advertisement in The Times Tuesday, was cosigned by more than 565 Jews – many of them belonging to organizations extremely critical of Israel – who called the controversial United Nations report by Judge Richard Goldstone a “welcome” and “key document in the upholding of international law.”

The cosignatories also wrote to the British prime minister that if he really wanted to “build bridges” with the Jewish community in light of the report – as was reported by the London-based Jewish Chronicle a few weeks ago – then it was “vital” for him to “recognize that British Jews do not speak with one voice on this matter.”

The United Kingdom’s Zionist Federation said in a statement that it was “bemused” to read this letter from Independent Jewish Voices and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, two of the groups that co-organized the letter and ad.

“It would be astonishing if the prime minister believed that 270,000 Jews spoke with ‘one voice’ about anything,” the federation’s statement said. “He will appreciate that most of the signatories have little connection with Jewish organizations and only self-identify for the sole purpose of public vilification of Israel.”

One prominent activist told Haaretz: “The people who signed the letter are on the fringe of the Jewish community.”

Today (Sunday, Nov 22nd), Israeli human rights group B’Tselem commemorates 20 years since its founding with release of data collected by the organization from 1989-2009. This period includes many of the main events of the first Palestinian Intifada, the Oslo period and the Second Intifada, as well as the recent military operation in the Gaza Strip (Cast Lead). B’Tselem’s Executive Director, Jessica Montell, said that “a twenty-year perspective leaves one with a heavy heart, especially due to the ongoing violation of the right to life of Palestinians and Israelis resulting from the conflict. However, we can also note several human rights achievements: for instance, twenty years ago, thousands of Palestinians were systematically and routinely tortured during investigations. Thanks to the efforts of the human rights community, including B’Tselem, this torture has stopped”.

Casualties

Israeli security forces killed 7,398 Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories in the last 20 years, among them at least 1,537 minors. The year with the highest number of Palestinian casualties was 2009: 1033 persons were killed, of them 315 minors. Most of those were killed in Gaza during operation Cast Lead. 1999 saw the lowest level of Palestinian casualties (8 people killed). B’Tselem’s website provides the breakdown of casualties since September 2000, according to participation in the hostilities and other categories.

During the past twenty years, Palestinians killed 1483 Israelis, of them 139 minors. Of this number, 488 were members of the security forces, and 995 were civilians, killed in Palestinian attacks in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The year with the highest number of Israeli casualties was 2002; 420 persons were killed, of them 269 were civilians, including 47 minors, and 151 members of the security forces. 1999 was also the year with the lowest level of Israeli casualties, which numbered 4.

House demolition

Israel demolished at least 4300 homes in the Occupied Territories in the years 1989-2009, either for being built without a permit, or as punishment. This figure does not include the destruction of property justified for military necessity. This type of demolition include 3540 houses demolished during operation Cast Lead alone, and an estimated 2700 homes demolished during previous military incursions into Gaza.

Administrative detention

In November 1989, 1,794 Palestinians were held by Israel in administrative detention, a detention without trial. Today the number of administrative detainees is 335. The lowest number of administrative detainees, 12, was registered in December 2000. The highest number of those held without trial during the second intifada was 1,007, in January 2003.

Settlements

The last two decades saw a substantial increase in the number of Israelis living over the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line). In 1989, the settlement population was 69,800 in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), and 118,100 in East Jerusalem. Today, over 300,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, as well as about 190,000 in East Jerusalem.

Casualty figures are from 1.1.1989-31.10.2009. Additional statistics, including the breakdown of Palestinian casualties according to participation in the hostilities, here.