'Israeli crimes against humanity in GazaRichard Falk interviewed by Michael Slate
Revolution Online, 20 January 2009
Revolution newspaper is publishing this interview courtesy of “Beneath the Surface” radio show hosted by Michael Slate on KPFK, Los Angeles. The views expressed by Professor Richard Falk in this interview are, of course, his own, and he is not responsible for the views expressed elsewhere in this newspaper. Richard Falk has edited this interview for publication.
Richard Falk is the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the author of more than 50 books on war, human rights and international law, including Achieving Human Rights; Crimes of War: Iraq, with Irene Gendzier; and Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East, with Howard Friel. In a recent statement issued by the UN, “Gaza: Silence Is Not An Option,” he called Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories a crime against humanity. On December 15, 2008 Professor Falk was denied entry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the Israeli government.
Michael Slate: What are the duties of a Special Rapporteur for the United Nations?Richard Falk: A Special Rapporteur is a post created by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which is the main organ of the UN that is supposed to address human rights. There are two kinds of special rapporteurs. My kind deals with a particular country or situation that calls for special attention. The other country special rapporteurs are for Myanmar, Somalia, and North Korea. The other kind are thematic special rapporteurs that deal with human rights issues such as summary executions, child soldiers, disappearances, religious suppression, food, health, and the like. All in all, there are 29 special rapporteurs, and each of us is supposed to report once a year to the General Assembly in New York, and once a year to the Human Rights Council in Geneva.My particular job is to monitor what’s going on in the occupied Palestinian territories, which means really Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and to assess the situation as it exists in relation to international humanitarian law, UN Charter, human rights law, and international criminal law. That’s what I’ve been trying to do since selected in May 2008.Slate: In that role, you are supposed to have access to any country that’s a signatory of the UN?Falk: Yes, that’s right. And in fact it’s a legal obligation of a member of the UN to cooperate with the UN in discharging its official responsibilities. And so my exclusion from Israel a couple of weeks ago is in direct violation of Israel’s obligations to cooperate with the UN. It should be understood that this is part of a wider Israeli policy that was being pursued at the time to exclude journalists and to keep informed observers who live within Gaza from leaving. So it was part of a politics of diversion to prevent people from seeing and reporting upon what was happening on the ground, and I suppose this was an aspect of Israel’s preparation for the kind of events that have been taking place in Gaza since December 27th.Slate: Israel has a history of refusing entry to people investigating the situation in the occupied territories – there’s Bishop Tutu, Norman Finkelstein and you. In your case there seems to have been a lot of forces marshaled against you from the very beginning. Both Israel and the U.S. opposed your appointment as Special Rapporteur last Spring. In your case, they accused you of being “biased.” Can you speak to that?Falk: I think that Israel’s expulsion approach, which has been applied to other people as well as to myself, is to do all that it can to shift the focus to the observer rather than what’s being observed, it distracts the attention of the wider public from the ugly reality on the ground in Gaza. They’ve been quite successful in persuading much of the mainstream media to follow that track. So often when I’m interviewed, for instance, it’s all about whether I’m biased or not, not about whether my reporting is accurate, and whether or not I am truthful and objective in relation to the realities of the occupation. I always say that the real test of my qualifications is whether I’m accurate and truthful, and that is a test that I welcome. You can’t treat an unequal reality as if both sides have an equal claim to be persuasive. So I think that this emphasis on bias should be challenged by looking at the actual reports and assess whether they’re accurate or not. I would stand by the truthfulness of what I’ve been trying to say and the reasonableness of my legal interpretations of what the Israeli policies imply in terms of violations of the rights of the Palestinian people, and criminal accountability for the Israeli military and political leaders that have put these policies in place and kept them in force, and have magnified their character during their post-December 27th military campaign in Gaza.Slate: It’s so enraging to read the lies that roll off, and the misrepresentations that roll through the newspapers in particular in this country. People are kept ignorant of the truth of what’s going on in Israel and Palestine, what’s going on in the occupied territories. For instance, one of the biggest lies out there about this massacre is that Israel is simply responding to a breach of the peace by Hamas; that they are just protecting the safety and security of their people.Falk: I think that again this is a reflection of the willingness of much of the world’s media, particularly here in the US, to go along with assertions that are just not concerned at all by the true nature of the relevant reality. The reality was that for the year before Israel attacked Gaza at the end of 2008, not a single Israeli death had occurred as a result of the few rockets that had been fired. Further, Hamas had all along indicated its willingness to enter a long term truce with Israel up to ten years. Beyond that, the temporary truce that had been negotiated under Egyptian auspices last June, had held pretty well until Israel broke it on November 4, by attacking some alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza and killing six people. After that the interaction becomes confusing, with some rockets fired, but it’s not clear whether these rockets were fired under the authority of Hamas, or by quite independent groups in Gaza. There are other militias, some of which are tied to Fatah, the adversary of Hamas, and they may try to embarrass Hamas or cause it difficulties. I should say at the same time that in my role as special rapporteur, I have consistently said that if these rockets are aimed at civilian targets they are unlawful, immoral, and also represent politically imprudent ways of demonstrating the persistence of Palestinian resistance to an unlawful occupation.Slate: You’ve written about the difference between what Israel is doing to Gaza and what Hamas is doing to Israel. You’ve described the Palestinian rockets, for example, as a crime of survival. What did you mean by that?Falk: What I meant by such a comment is that the Palestinians basically have no weapons and they have a strong incentive to try to demonstrate that they’re not going to surrender, that they’re not going to allow this kind of occupation to go unchallenged, and their situation of subjugation gives them few alternatives. They seem to lack the imagination or the capabilities to do anything that might be more effective, and at the same time being less helpful than the rockets to Israel in its search for legal and moral pretexts for the continuous violence directed at Gaza. The difficult question to pose is where there exist feasible forms of resistance that are less susceptible to allegations of unlawfulness. There’s no question that the Geneva Conventions that spell out the requirements of international humanitarian law prohibit aiming military weapons at civilians. It is true that these rockets are incredibly inaccurate and have done surprisingly little damage. But they are aimed at civilians and therefore they do violate international humanitarian law, and I think Israel has effectively brought attention to the rockets as providing a political cover and pretext for mounting outrageously disproportionate responses, and diverting attention from their policies of targeted assassination of Hamas leaders that have killed far more Gazan civilians than the rockets. Israel has been orchestrating the rocket narrative to make its violence appear to be “defensive” and “reasonable,” neither of which it is.The November 4 Israeli attack on Gaza certainly seemed to be an Israeli provocation that was designed to activate a set of forces that the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] had been planning to put in play for months, and was connected with the domestic elections that are forthcoming in Israel in February. The Israeli leadership and public seemingly wanted a non-diplomatic confrontation in Gaza. They didn’t pursue the numerous diplomatic openings that Hamas had provided by offering repeatedly a truce and even suggesting that if Israel would leave the occupied territories, as long required to do by a unanimous UN Security Council Resolution, peaceful coexistence would be acceptable to Hamas for the indefinite future. Recall that Gaza has been unlawfully and harshly occupied since 1967, all along in violation of international humanitarian law,'
Revolution newspaper is publishing this interview courtesy of “Beneath the Surface” radio show hosted by Michael Slate on KPFK, Los Angeles. The views expressed by Professor Richard Falk in this interview are, of course, his own, and he is not responsible for the views expressed elsewhere in this newspaper. Richard Falk has edited this interview for publication.
Richard Falk is the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the author of more than 50 books on war, human rights and international law, including Achieving Human Rights; Crimes of War: Iraq, with Irene Gendzier; and Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East, with Howard Friel. In a recent statement issued by the UN, “Gaza: Silence Is Not An Option,” he called Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories a crime against humanity. On December 15, 2008 Professor Falk was denied entry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the Israeli government.
Michael Slate: What are the duties of a Special Rapporteur for the United Nations?Richard Falk: A Special Rapporteur is a post created by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which is the main organ of the UN that is supposed to address human rights. There are two kinds of special rapporteurs. My kind deals with a particular country or situation that calls for special attention. The other country special rapporteurs are for Myanmar, Somalia, and North Korea. The other kind are thematic special rapporteurs that deal with human rights issues such as summary executions, child soldiers, disappearances, religious suppression, food, health, and the like. All in all, there are 29 special rapporteurs, and each of us is supposed to report once a year to the General Assembly in New York, and once a year to the Human Rights Council in Geneva.My particular job is to monitor what’s going on in the occupied Palestinian territories, which means really Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and to assess the situation as it exists in relation to international humanitarian law, UN Charter, human rights law, and international criminal law. That’s what I’ve been trying to do since selected in May 2008.Slate: In that role, you are supposed to have access to any country that’s a signatory of the UN?Falk: Yes, that’s right. And in fact it’s a legal obligation of a member of the UN to cooperate with the UN in discharging its official responsibilities. And so my exclusion from Israel a couple of weeks ago is in direct violation of Israel’s obligations to cooperate with the UN. It should be understood that this is part of a wider Israeli policy that was being pursued at the time to exclude journalists and to keep informed observers who live within Gaza from leaving. So it was part of a politics of diversion to prevent people from seeing and reporting upon what was happening on the ground, and I suppose this was an aspect of Israel’s preparation for the kind of events that have been taking place in Gaza since December 27th.Slate: Israel has a history of refusing entry to people investigating the situation in the occupied territories – there’s Bishop Tutu, Norman Finkelstein and you. In your case there seems to have been a lot of forces marshaled against you from the very beginning. Both Israel and the U.S. opposed your appointment as Special Rapporteur last Spring. In your case, they accused you of being “biased.” Can you speak to that?Falk: I think that Israel’s expulsion approach, which has been applied to other people as well as to myself, is to do all that it can to shift the focus to the observer rather than what’s being observed, it distracts the attention of the wider public from the ugly reality on the ground in Gaza. They’ve been quite successful in persuading much of the mainstream media to follow that track. So often when I’m interviewed, for instance, it’s all about whether I’m biased or not, not about whether my reporting is accurate, and whether or not I am truthful and objective in relation to the realities of the occupation. I always say that the real test of my qualifications is whether I’m accurate and truthful, and that is a test that I welcome. You can’t treat an unequal reality as if both sides have an equal claim to be persuasive. So I think that this emphasis on bias should be challenged by looking at the actual reports and assess whether they’re accurate or not. I would stand by the truthfulness of what I’ve been trying to say and the reasonableness of my legal interpretations of what the Israeli policies imply in terms of violations of the rights of the Palestinian people, and criminal accountability for the Israeli military and political leaders that have put these policies in place and kept them in force, and have magnified their character during their post-December 27th military campaign in Gaza.Slate: It’s so enraging to read the lies that roll off, and the misrepresentations that roll through the newspapers in particular in this country. People are kept ignorant of the truth of what’s going on in Israel and Palestine, what’s going on in the occupied territories. For instance, one of the biggest lies out there about this massacre is that Israel is simply responding to a breach of the peace by Hamas; that they are just protecting the safety and security of their people.Falk: I think that again this is a reflection of the willingness of much of the world’s media, particularly here in the US, to go along with assertions that are just not concerned at all by the true nature of the relevant reality. The reality was that for the year before Israel attacked Gaza at the end of 2008, not a single Israeli death had occurred as a result of the few rockets that had been fired. Further, Hamas had all along indicated its willingness to enter a long term truce with Israel up to ten years. Beyond that, the temporary truce that had been negotiated under Egyptian auspices last June, had held pretty well until Israel broke it on November 4, by attacking some alleged Palestinian militants within Gaza and killing six people. After that the interaction becomes confusing, with some rockets fired, but it’s not clear whether these rockets were fired under the authority of Hamas, or by quite independent groups in Gaza. There are other militias, some of which are tied to Fatah, the adversary of Hamas, and they may try to embarrass Hamas or cause it difficulties. I should say at the same time that in my role as special rapporteur, I have consistently said that if these rockets are aimed at civilian targets they are unlawful, immoral, and also represent politically imprudent ways of demonstrating the persistence of Palestinian resistance to an unlawful occupation.Slate: You’ve written about the difference between what Israel is doing to Gaza and what Hamas is doing to Israel. You’ve described the Palestinian rockets, for example, as a crime of survival. What did you mean by that?Falk: What I meant by such a comment is that the Palestinians basically have no weapons and they have a strong incentive to try to demonstrate that they’re not going to surrender, that they’re not going to allow this kind of occupation to go unchallenged, and their situation of subjugation gives them few alternatives. They seem to lack the imagination or the capabilities to do anything that might be more effective, and at the same time being less helpful than the rockets to Israel in its search for legal and moral pretexts for the continuous violence directed at Gaza. The difficult question to pose is where there exist feasible forms of resistance that are less susceptible to allegations of unlawfulness. There’s no question that the Geneva Conventions that spell out the requirements of international humanitarian law prohibit aiming military weapons at civilians. It is true that these rockets are incredibly inaccurate and have done surprisingly little damage. But they are aimed at civilians and therefore they do violate international humanitarian law, and I think Israel has effectively brought attention to the rockets as providing a political cover and pretext for mounting outrageously disproportionate responses, and diverting attention from their policies of targeted assassination of Hamas leaders that have killed far more Gazan civilians than the rockets. Israel has been orchestrating the rocket narrative to make its violence appear to be “defensive” and “reasonable,” neither of which it is.The November 4 Israeli attack on Gaza certainly seemed to be an Israeli provocation that was designed to activate a set of forces that the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] had been planning to put in play for months, and was connected with the domestic elections that are forthcoming in Israel in February. The Israeli leadership and public seemingly wanted a non-diplomatic confrontation in Gaza. They didn’t pursue the numerous diplomatic openings that Hamas had provided by offering repeatedly a truce and even suggesting that if Israel would leave the occupied territories, as long required to do by a unanimous UN Security Council Resolution, peaceful coexistence would be acceptable to Hamas for the indefinite future. Recall that Gaza has been unlawfully and harshly occupied since 1967, all along in violation of international humanitarian law,'
Lees verder: http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=19114
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten