Friday, May 17, 2024

Documenting the history of pro-Palestinian solidarity in Australia

 Images: Khaled Ghannam

Pro-Palestinian solidarity activists in Australia have been spreading information about the tragedy of the Palestinian people and the legitimacy of their revolution to Australian society for decades.

Some Australian leftist solidarity articles were written during the 1936 revolution, also known as the great Palestinian general strike during the British Mandate in Palestine. This was followed by many leftist articles and seminars after the 1948 war and the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe).

Pro-Palestinian activists protesting in support of the Palestinian people began to appear in the streets of Melbourne’s city centre in the early 1960s.

After the Naksa (Six Day) War in 1967 and the occupation of all Palestinian lands, the voice of pro Palestinian activists was heard in all Australian cities in support of the Palestinian people. Student groups and unionists’ associations supporting Palestine were formed and radio programs were launched.

Along with the Australian leftist movement, there were great efforts by Lebanese community activists who were the pioneers in organising the ranks of the Arabic community and pushing them to participate in activities in support of Palestinian rights. This began with political and literary seminars in the mid-1960s.

As for the Palestinian community, it did not begin to form its associations until the mid-1970s. Perhaps one of the most important of these was the Palestinian Club in Sydney, which is considered to be one of the oldest associations of the Palestinian community in the cultural and artistic fields.

I recently obtained a hard copy of the first issue of an Arabic language magazine called Sawt Falastine (Voice of Palestine), published by the Palestinian Club in January 1974, from my teacher and mentor, the great Palestinian journalist Hani El Turk, author of The Palestinians in Australia and journalist with the Arabic language El Telegraph newspaper, which was launched in Sydney in the mid-1970s.

I wrote to ask him: “You are the most Arab journalist who urges the sons and daughters of the Arabic communities to have a broader understanding of cultural and artistic life in Australia. You used to write in Arabic about life in Australia for members of the Arab community until you became an important reference for everyone who wants to know about Australia. The question is: Where is Palestine and the support for the Palestinian revolution in your writings?

“He answered: I used to write in many of the bulletins issued by the pro Palestinian activists group in both Arabic and English. When the Palestinian Club was founded, we issued many bulletins and periodicals. If you read the first issue of Voice of Palestine magazine, which was published in 1974, you will know that the editors of this magazine were highly skilled journalistic cadres, and that they were very revolutionary and exposed themselves to danger because Australia at that time considered the Palestinian revolution to be a terrorist movement and did not recognise any representation of the Palestinians, and we were accused of being supporters of terrorism.

“Finally, I send to you an electronic, illustrated copy of the first issue of Voice of Palestine magazine.”

We will continue to work to document the struggles of the Palestinian and Arab communities in Australia and the association of pro Palestinian activists in Australia who started their solidarity to support the Palestinian people and their just revolution.

[Khaled Ghannam is a Palestinian activist, author, writer and journalist based in Gadigal/Sydney. He co-founded the Australian Palestinian Cultural Centre and the Al-Entilakah Research Centre and is a member of the General Union of Historians and Archaeologists in Palestine. This is a translated and edited version of an article that first appeared on his website at: https://khaledghannam.com/.]

Video: How union power should be mobilised against Israel's genocide

S. Africa v. Israel on Rafah Genocide

May 17, 2024
Source: Informed Comment



South Africa returned to the International Court of Justice in the Hague on Thursday over the Israeli invasion of Rafah, which its attorneys alleged is a further act of genocide in Gaza. South Africa had laid out its initial case in January. The court will take months to come to a decision on whether Israel has violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The court ruled on January 26 that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide and issued the equivalent of a preliminary injunction against the further commission of acts of genocide. It issued a further injunction on March 28.

The South African case has now been joined by Ireland, Egypt, Colombia, Libya, and Nicaragua, and Turkey says it too will join shortly. Egypt and Turkey have had strong trade and security relations with Israel and their decision to support Pretoria’s suit is a slap in the face of the Israeli government and a signal that Israel is losing what few friends it had in the region.

The Israeli government, given impunity from UNSC sanctions by the Biden administration, thumbed its nose at the injunctions and went on with its slaughterhouse policies. Adilah Hassim, one of several South African attorneys pressing Pretoria’s case, pointed to five pieces of evidence that the Rafah campaign is genocidal. At one point in her detailing of Israel’s atrocities she broke down. She said,


(1) First, Israel has continued to kill Palestinians in Gaza, including women and children, at an alarming rate.

(2) Second, as a result of Israel’s onslaught, Palestinians in Gaza are facing what the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations has described as the “worst humanitarian crisis” he has seen for more than 50 years.

(3) Third, Israel’s systematic targeting and bombardment of hospitals and medical facilities, and its throttling of humanitarian aid, has pushed Gaza’s medical system to collapse;

(4) Fourth, Israel’s direct attack and siege of Gaza’s biggest hospitals has led to the uncovering of mass graves evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinians seeking shelter and medical treatment;

(5) Finally, most recently, Israel has intensified its attacks in the north while pressing on with its Rafah offensive leaving displaced Palestinians nowhere safe to go.

Earlier in the trial, Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law in the University of Oxford and himself a barrister, explained that “Israel’s action is directed against the Palestinian people throughout Gaza and the West Bank. South Africa’s request was initially focused on Rafah, because of the imminent prospect of death and suffering on a massive scale resulting from Israel’s attack. Since that request was made, it has become increasingly clear that Israel’s actions in Rafah are part of the endgame in which Gaza is utterly destroyed as an area capable of human habitation.”

Professor Lowe is clearly flabbergasted that partisans of the far, far right Netanyahu government continue to attempt to gaslight us all and to assert that nothing out of the ordinary is happening in Gaza. The the contrary, he said, we have the “evidence of continued bombings, attacks on people in so-called ‘safe areas’ to which they have been directed by Israel, attacks on aid convoys, and of mass graves and the horrors of which the corpses speak.”

Lowe deals summarily with the smarmy claim that the Israeli government is only exercising its right to self defense: “First, the right of self-defence does not give a State a licence to use unlimited violence. No right of self-defence can ever extend to a right to inflict massive, indiscriminate violence and starvation collectively on an entire people. Second, nothing — not self-defence or anything else — can ever justify genocide. The prohibition on genocide is absolute, a peremptory norm of international law. Third, the Court ruled in 2004 that there is no right of self-defence by an occupying State against the territory that it occupies.” (Emphasis added.)

If I owned a fleet of small aircraft I’d arrange for these words to be sky-written over every major city in the world. What Lowe is saying is that in some instances, two legal principles might come into conflict with one another. Where, for instance, does free speech stop and libel begin? But there are some laws that trump others. Genocide is the ultimate in this regard. It trumps every other law. There is no legal principle you can invoke to justify genocide, not even the right to self-defense, which is enshrined in the UN Charter and is generally sacrosanct.

Remember this the next time you hear a glib US government spokesman dance around the Gaza genocide by saying that Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas.

Max du Plessis explained Israel’s command that Palestinians who had taken refuge in Rafah must now leave is genocidal in effect: “Not only is there nowhere for the 1.5 million displaced people and others in Rafah to safely flee — so much of Gaza having been reduced to rubble — but that if Rafah is similarly destroyed there will be little left of Gaza or prospects for the survival of Palestinian life in the territory.” In particular, he said, the last functioning hospitals are in Rafah, and if they are destroyed as all the others have been, health care in the Strip will be dead.

At the same time, du Plessis pointed out, virtually all aid has now been blocked by the Israel government, which seized the Rafah border checkpoint from Egypt and closed it. Gaza cannot feed itself in the best of circumstances, but it is now a basket case needing hundreds of trucks of food and medical aid a day to survive. Hunger and disease are spreading, since most of the trucks are now barred.

Du Plessis said, “Deliberately herding 1.5 million Palestinians into Rafah and then carrying out a full-scale bombardment while sealing off entry and exit for life-saving aid to an already devastated population, while exposing them to famine and human suffering, leaves only one inference, regrettably, and that is of genocidal intent.”

Prominent attorney and senior counsel (SILK) Tembeka Ngcukaitobi pointed to the extensive statements made publicly by Israeli officials that prove their genocidal intent:

The Israeli Minister of Defence: Yoav Gallant said that Israel is “taking apart neighbourhood after neighbourhood” and “will reach every location” in Gaza.

Finance Minister and Cabinet heavyweight Bezalel Smotrich : “[T]here are no half measures. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat — total annihilation.” He goes on to say: “We are negotiating with the ones that should not have existed for a long time.”

Ngcukaitobi cited reams of quotations showing genocidal intent from government officials — quotes that somehow I never see quoted by CNN anchors in the United States.

On January 26, the court had found that Israel was violating specific provisions of the Genocide Convention, to which Tel Aviv is signatory, regarding targeting a group of people because of their ethnicity:


(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

All of these genocidal actions have continued and intensified ever since.




Juan Cole is Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. For three and a half decades, he has sought to put the relationship of the West and the Muslim world in historical context, and he has written widely about Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and South Asia. His books include Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires; The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the Middle East; Engaging the Muslim World; and Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East.

Beyond Awards and Accolades: Why Gaza Journalists are the Best in the World


By granting its 2024 World Press Freedom Prize to Palestinian journalists covering the Israeli war on Gaza, UNESCO has acknowledged a historic truth.

Even if the decision to name Gaza’s journalists as laureates of its prestigious award was partly motivated by the courage of these journalists, the truth is that no one in the world deserved such recognition as those covering the genocidal war in Gaza.

“As humanity, we have a huge debt to their courage and commitment to freedom of expression,” Mauricio Weibel, Chair of the International Jury of Media Professionals, which made the recommendation for the award, truthfully described the courage of Gaza’s journalists.

Courage is an admirable quality, especially when many journalists in Gaza knew that Israel was seeking to kill them, often along with their families, to ensure that the horror of the war remains hidden from view, at worst, or contested as if a matter of opinion, at best.

Between October 7, 2023, and May 11, 2024, 143 Palestinian journalists in Gaza were killed by Israel. It is higher than the total number of journalists killed in World War II and the Vietnam wars combined.

This number does not include many bloggers, intellectuals and writers who did not have professional media credentials, and also excludes the many family members who were often killed along with the targeted journalists.

But there is more to Gaza’s journalists than bravery.

Whenever Israel launches a war on Gaza, it almost always denies access to international media professionals from entering the Strip. This go-to strategy is meant to ensure that the story of the crimes that the Israeli army is about to commit goes unreported.

The strategy paid dividends in the so-called Cast Lead Operation in 2008-9. The true degree of the atrocities carried out in Gaza during that war, which resulted in the killing of over 1,400 Palestinians, was largely known when the war was over. By then, Israel had concluded its major military operation, and corporate mainstream western media had done a splendid job in ensuring the dominance of the Israeli political discourse regarding the war.

Israel’s behavior since that war remained unchanged: barring international journalists, placing a gag order on Israeli journalists and killing Palestinian journalists who dared cover the story.

The August 2014 war on Gaza was one of the bloodiest for journalists. It lasted for 18 days and cost the lives of 17 journalists. Palestinian journalists, however, remained committed to their story. When one fell, ten seemed to take his place.

Occupied Palestine has always been one of the most dangerous places to be a journalist. The Palestinian Journalists’ Union reported that between 2000 – the start of the Second Palestinian Uprising – and May 11, 2022 – the day of the Israeli murder of the iconic Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, 55 journalists were killed at the hands of the Israeli army.

The number might not seem too high if compared to the latest onslaught in Gaza, but, per international standards, it was a terrifying figure, based on an equally disturbing logic: killing the storyteller as the quickest way of killing the story itself.

For decades, Israel, an occupying power, has managed to depict itself as a victim in a state of self-defense. Without any critical voices in mainstream media, many around the world believed Israel’s deceiving discourse on terrorism, security and self-defense.

The only obstacle that stood between the actual truth and Israel’s engineered version of the truth are honest journalists – thus, the ongoing war on the media.

What Israel did not anticipate, however, is that by blocking international media access to Gaza, it would inadvertently empower Palestinian journalists to take charge of their own narrative.

“Interpretations depend very much on who the interpreter is, who he or she is addressing, what his or her purpose is, at what historical moment the interpretation takes place,” late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said wrote in ‘Covering Islam.’

Like any other form of intellectual interpretation, journalism becomes subjected to the same rule of positionality in academia, as in the relationship between the identity of the researcher and the social or political context of the subject matter.

Palestinian journalists in Gaza are themselves the story and the storytellers. Their success or failure to convey the story with all its factual and emotional details could make the difference between the continuation or the end of the Israeli genocide.

Though the war is yet to end, the Gaza journalists have already proven to be deserving of all the honors and accolades, not only because of their courage, but because of what we actually know about the war, despite the numerous and seemingly insurmountable obstacles created by Israel and its allies.

Most people all over the world want the war to end. But how did they acquire the needed information that made them realize the extent of horror in Gaza? Certainly not through Israel’s cheerleaders in mainstream media, but through Palestinian journalists on the ground who are using every means and every channel available to them to tell the story.

These journalists include self-taught youngsters, like 9-year-old Lama Jamous, who wore a press vest and conveyed the details of life in displacement camps in southern Gaza, reporting from Nasser Hospital and many other places with poise and elegance.

As for the accuracy of information provided by these journalists, they were certainly professional enough to be verified by numerous human rights groups, medical and legal associations and millions of people around the world who used them to build a case against the Israeli war. Indeed, all we know about the war – the death toll, the degree of destruction, the daily human suffering, the mass graves, the famine, and much more – is possible because of these Gaza-based reporters.

The success, and the sacrifices of Gaza journalists should serve as a model for journalists and journalism around the world, as an example of how news about war crimes, sieges and human suffering in all its forms should be conveyed.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out. His other books include My Father was a Freedom Fighter and The Last Earth. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.




Israeli Human Rights Lawyer Attacked While Documenting Settler Raid on Gaza Aid Convoy


By Sapir Sluzker Amran, Amy Goodman , Nermeen Shaikh 
May 17, 2024

Aid agencies are running out of food in southern Gaza amid Israel’s ongoing offensive in Rafah and the shutdown of the two main border crossings in the south. Some 1.1 million Palestinians are on the brink of starvation, according to the United Nations, while a “full-blown famine” is taking place in the north. Meanwhile, some Israelis have been blocking aid from reaching the Gaza border, including a violent attack on trucks carrying humanitarian relief through the occupied West Bank earlier this week, when settlers threw food packages on the ground and set fire to the vehicles at the Tarqumiyah checkpoint near Hebron. “They did whatever they want,” says Israeli lawyer and peace activist Sapir Sluzker Amran, who documented the attack on the aid convoy. She says Israeli soldiers appeared to be working with the settlers, refusing to intervene. “They were just standing aside like there is nothing that they can do, like it’s normal, what’s happening.”
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Aid agencies are running out of food in southern Gaza amid Israel’s ongoing offensive in Rafah. The World Food Programme says it’s run out of stocks in Rafah and has suspended food aid distributions there for several days. No food has entered the two main border crossings in southern Gaza for more than a week, since the Israeli assault on Rafah began and Israeli forces seized control of and closed the border crossing with Egypt. Some 1.1 million Palestinians are on the brink of starvation, according to the U.N., while a full-blown famine is taking place in the north. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said today, quote, “The impact is devastating for over 2 million people.”

AMY GOODMAN: This comes just days after Israeli settlers blocked aid trucks headed to Gaza through the occupied West Bank from Jordan. Footage of the incident shows settlers raiding the aid trucks, throwing food into the road and setting fire to vehicles at the Tarqumiyah checkpoint near Hebron in the occupied West Bank. Palestinian truck drivers say they fear for their lives after the attack.


ADEL AMER: [translated] We went to the checkpoint, and after the check, we were surprised to see settlers on the roundabout of the checkpoint. They damaged the cars. They tore the tires off the trucks. They threw the contents of the truck on the ground. We gathered some of the products and sent some of those products on to a bulldozer and sent them to sheep farms. Around 15 trucks were damaged. Their haul was damaged. Windows of the trucks were broken. Some drivers were beaten. Some of the products were thrown away, and the whole loss for Hebron is around $2 million.

AMY GOODMAN: At a White House press briefing Monday, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan was asked by reporters about the attack on the aid convoy.


JAKE SULLIVAN: It is a total outrage that there are people who are attacking and looting these convoys coming from Jordan, going to Gaza to deliver humanitarian assistance. We are looking at the tools that we have to respond to this, and we are also raising our concerns at the highest level of the Israeli government. And it’s something that we make no bones about. This is completely and utterly unacceptable behavior.

AMY GOODMAN: The attack on the aid convoy was the culmination of weeks of Israeli settlers attempting to block aid trucks from reaching Gaza.

For more, we’re going to Tel Aviv to speak with Sapir Sluzker Amran, an Israeli human rights lawyer and peace activist who documented the attack on the aid convoy right near Hebron. She’s the co-director of Breaking Walls, an intersectional feminist grassroots movement.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Sapir. It’s so good to have you with us. If you can describe exactly what took place, how you ended up there when the Israeli settlers attacked the aid convoy, and what exactly they did to the convoy and to you?

SAPIR SLUZKER AMRAN: Thanks, and thank you so much for having me. Before we get into details, just to say from Tel Aviv that we are calling for ceasefire and safe return of the hostages, and hope to see this war ending as soon as possible and not seeing another one.

So, I came on Monday. It was after a few months where they’re organizing those kinds of actions, those looting actions. Settlers and their supporters, they are organizing in those WhatsApp groups, getting notifications from inside information, actually, to know where the trucks are going and coming from, and then trying to block them or to loot and destroy the entire food on the trucks. And when I came on Monday, it was to — I wasn’t sure. It was trying to document — it was after seeing those footages, those videos that they published a few months now, trying to organize groups. But people were afraid. And they should be afraid, because they’re coming with guns and knives and axes even. And the police and the IDF is totally on their side and not protecting us. But when I was there, I came to document and to understand a bit what’s going on.

And then, after they had this, like, first round of looting the convoy there, they started to go to another crossing in order to see if there was more trucks there, because they got an inside information again that there might be other trucks a few minutes’ drive from that crossing. I was there with another activist, and we went to the drivers of the trucks to see if we can help. And they were very surprised. They didn’t understand why there were Jewish people, Israelis, that want to help them. It took them a minute to understand that we are Arabs, but not Palestinians, we are Arab Jews, and we are with them. So, we started to pack everything again on one of the trucks. And we almost finished, and then they came back, more people — I think there were around few dozens, and then it became almost 150 people. At that time, they did whatever they want.

So, I want to be specific. This event, I got a message on WhatsApp that this event’s starting, and they’re asking people to come around 9:30 in the morning. They were there on their way. So they were there at 10 a.m. I came at 12:00. I left, though, for my own safety. Around 3 p.m., there were dozens of people, and people kept coming. So, it happened for hours. There were a few soldiers there without a supervisor. They didn’t know what to do. They were just going around, maybe two policemen, and that’s it. And what the settlers did is tearing up the entire food that was there. There were bags of rice, bags of sugar and instant noodles in bags. And they did it in a way that we cannot repair it. They did it in a way that they were tearing everything down, jumping on the instant noodles so we cannot save it. And, yeah, that was the situation.

We saw a lot of families there. I think that the youngest person that was there was maybe 3 years old, a kid with his father, like it was like a fun day, a festival day, and more teenagers that were there. And they did whatever they want. They laughed, they enjoyed, and they said it was the best action that we had ’til now. It was in Tarqumiyah crossing. And I think many came because it’s in the area of the settlers, so it was very easy for them just to be first and to hold those trucks.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Sapir, could you talk about what the settlers did specifically to you, what happened to you? And then explain who the settlers are and what their justification is for doing that, for disrupting the aid convoys and destroying all the aid. They say that the aid is helping Hamas, and they want to obstruct its delivery until the hostages are released. Who are the settlers? And do they have any connection to the government?

SAPIR SLUZKER AMRAN: Yeah. So, I think, just to say, I’m not the story here. Yes, I will share that I was injured. One of the settlers — so, I was — I’m not sure how, but I couldn’t stand aside when I saw them running again, going on the trucks with sugar bags, going on the trucks with their knives and weapons and axes and all kinds of sharp objects and tearing down everything. And I couldn’t. And I started to run towards them and document it and tell them, “Please, stop. Stop. What are you doing? This is food. This is food. Like, you have to understand, inside of ’48, inside Israel, we have more than 2 million people that are under the poverty line. This is food. We have, an hour from now, people that are hungry. They can be your family that are hungry an hour from here.” And they didn’t care about it.

So I went on the truck and tried to stop them. And I called and I screamed on the IDF. There were like very young soldiers. I told them, “Come! Come and help me! This is your role! This is not my role! Come and help me! I can’t do it on my own!” And my friend was documenting it and trying also to talk with them and trying to stop them while they were doing it. And they tried to prevent her to photograph. And she managed to do it anyway.

So, when I was on the truck, yeah, one of the settlers, in front of an IDF that was right next to us, he kind of slapped me extremely hard, and then he was trying to escape. The police was there. The police took him. I told them, “I want to press charges.” They said, “No,” and they hid him so I couldn’t document him, even though I have his photo and the video. And then, after 10 minutes, he came back, like nothing was happened. So they took him only to protect him, not for something else.

And I was the only one that the government, that the IDF, the police, asked for to see an ID. All that time, they didn’t ask anyone from them, from the settlers, to get out of this area, that it was like a parking lot — only us, only the two of us, just the two of us. And they were just sitting there or standing there while I was telling them, “You’re standing right here. You see someone with a knife. That person, a teenager, took a knife at me.” I told them, “You see him. At least take the knife. At least take the knife so, like, he won’t attack me.” And they didn’t care about it. They were just standing aside like there is nothing that they can do, like it’s normal, what’s happening.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Sapir, we only have a few minutes left —

SAPIR SLUZKER AMRAN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — and we want to know: Who are these Israeli settlers? Who are the people that destroyed the aid truck?

SAPIR SLUZKER AMRAN: Yeah, so, those are the people, settlers, that are, you know, living in the settlements. They’re Orthodox Jews. They’re from the national Zionist Jewish stream, Zionist stream. They have many supporters in government. They are the government. It’s not that they’re supporters.

And we know that yesterday — I want to say something like that right now I can show you — I can add you right now, Amy, to a WhatsApp group, because they’re organizing right now to do it again. So, they have this information. No one is trying to stop them. I think maybe it’s not clear that nothing has changed from Monday. They are still doing it. I don’t know what is showing on the international media, what the Israeli government is publishing. But they are doing it right now, with their names, with their numbers, and they don’t care about presenting even theirselves and documenting theirselves, because they know that nothing is going to happen to them, no circumstances, no objects, and nothing will happen at all.

So, they are connected to the government. We know that some of them are working with the government. We know that some of them — I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re funded from the government. We have MKs, members of the parliament, the Israeli parliament, that are supporting it and coming to those actions. We have someone that is a CEO of a right-wing organization that just got, a few months ago got — he has a photo with one of the MKs, the chairman of the Knesset, giving him a diploma to thank him for his service to Israel. OK? So, they are — last week, it was the mayor of one of the big cities in the south of Israel. They are the blood, and they are part of it. What you are doing is just, we can call it, privatization, privatization of the violence, which means that the government know. They hide because of the U.S. They have to pretend that they are obeying international law. But, in fact, they don’t want to. So they have these kids, they have these settlers, they have their supporters, that they are part of their political parties, and also they’re also funding them, to tell them, “Go to this crossing and handle it.”

AMY GOODMAN: Sapir —

SAPIR SLUZKER AMRAN: So, that’s why the police is not intervening, because the police belongs to Ben-Gvir and those kinds of people. So, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Sapir Sluzker Amran, I want to thank you so much for being with us, Israeli human rights lawyer and peace activist, who went to the Tarqumiyah crossing in Hebron to document the attack on a Gaza-bound aid convoy by Israeli settlers. She’s also the co-director of Breaking Walls, an intersectional feminist grassroots movement.
In a First, Jewish Biden Administration Staffer Resigns Over War in Gaza
May 17, 2024
Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Image by Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego

At first glance, the chalkboard sign looked like any of the others standing in front of Washington D.C.’s many restaurants and cafes.

But instead of advertising espresso or sandwiches, this one — across the street from a federal government building — displayed only one thing: the number of Palestinians killed in Israel’s war with Hamas, along with the words “Remember the people of Gaza.”

When it was taken down earlier this month after being vandalized, that number had passed 34,000 — a statistic quoted often in pro-Palestinian advocacy. But what made the blackboard different from the campus protests and others across the country was that the people keeping it current worked for the Biden administration, which has largely supported Israel and armed it as it has fought Hamas in Gaza.

Nearly all of the federal employees behind such efforts have kept their identities hidden — including the relatively few Jews in the movement. But a landmark moment in internal Jewish dissent came on Wednesday, when Lily Greenberg Call, special assistant to the chief of staff at the Department of Interior, announced that she was resigning in protest of President Joe Biden’s Israel policy — the first Jewish staffer among the several who have publicly resigned since Oct. 7.

“I can no longer in good conscience represent this administration amidst President Biden’s disastrous, continued support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” Greenberg Call, 26, wrote in her resignation letter, which she submitted to Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and shared on social media.

Greenberg Call, 27, attended Jewish day school and was a leader of a pro-Israel group in college, at the University of California, Berkeley, that was affiliated with AIPAC, the Washington lobby. She has previously written publicly about her move to the left on Israel, saying in a 2022 Teen Vogue essay that she had begun to question the idea of unconditional support for Israel after getting to know Arabs and Palestinians, including through her work on political campaigns.

In her resignation letter, Greenberg Call said her family had come to the United States after escaping persecution in Europe and that she was concerned about rising antisemitism around the world now. But she said she did not believe the war aided in Jewish security.

“Israel’s ongoing offensive against Palestinians does not keep Jewish people safe — in Israel nor in the United States,” she wrote. “What I have learned from my Jewish tradition is that every life is precious. That we are obligated to stand up for those facing violence and oppression, and to question authority in the face of injustice.”

While Greenberg Call is the first Jewish Biden administration staffer to resign publicly over the war, others in her movement say she isn’t alone in her sentiments. In memos, in internal staff meetings, and in occasional bursts of public protest, a cadre of mid-level D.C. bureaucrats is dissenting from the Biden administration’s backing for Israel in the war. They describe crushing disappointment in an administration that they feel is committed to defending innocents from carnage elsewhere — most notably in Ukraine — but not, they say, in Gaza.

“There is nothing more American than the right to free speech and free assembly,” said a May 3 statement from Biden-Harris Administration Staffers for Ceasefire, an ad hoc group formed soon after the war broke out.

The staffers say they have moved the needle a bit on policy — citing the increased flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza as an example — though they wish they’d had more impact. But their critics in the administration say their influence is negligible.

Those making the actual decisions say the dissent is background noise and that factors stemming from the crisis — and not the protests — are behind shifts in policy.

“These are people who are not involved in the policy discussions,” said a federal official who has a seat at the policy making table, “who are not in the room to hear senior-level policymakers make the case for both humanitarian assistance and describe what our expectations are when it comes to avoiding civilian harm and preventing violations of laws.”

The clandestine pro-Palestinian organizing began shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 invasion of Israel, which killed approximately 1,200 people and launched the war. As Israel began counterstrikes, heads of various departments convened meetings to air concerns about Biden administration policy. Soon, S, a Jewish staffer who is part of the activist movement, was spearheading one of a number of letters to top Biden administration officials that called for a ceasefire.

An Oct. 20 letter from Jewish and Muslim congressional staff calling for a ceasefire represented an early public action. A letter sent to Biden in November ultimately garnered a thousand signatures, and a White House vigil took place in December. Discussion of others has not abated.

“Word of mouth and WhatsApp are pretty active,” S said.

Another convening point has been the Instagram account Dear White Staffers. Established in 2020 by an anonymous congressional staffer to post examples of how colleagues of color face discrimination, the account turned after Oct. 7 to decrying Biden’s war policies. The account has posted anonymous comments from administration staffers alongside news articles and calls to action such as alerts about D.C.-area pro-Palestinian protests. On Wednesday, it directed followers to Greenberg Call’s resignation letter.

P, a staffer for a congressional Democrat, joined one of the Jewish-led vigils in the Capitol that led to arrests. Contacts he forged through helping to set up the first union for congressional staffers helped lead to the letter from Hill staffers a few weeks later.

“We have continued to show up and speak at large rallies and marches,” he said.

S and P asked to be identified only by first initials in order to avoid professional repercussions. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has verified their identities and their staff positions. Jewish groups that have organized ceasefire protests, including the anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, confirmed that they are among the groups’ active participants within the government.

IfNotNow distributed Greenberg Call’s resignation letter on Wednesday.

The Jewish activists who spoke to JTA believe they are among the few Jewish voices in the movement because of the pressures pro-Palestinian Jews feel from their communities at home. Others in the executive branch support Biden’s position.

“I definitely feel like I’m one of the only Jewish voices in the group chats,” said S.

The dissenters point to Biden’s increased pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow in humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, and measures to hold accountable alleged Israeli perpetrators of abuses, as evidence they made a difference.

But Julie Fishman Rayman, the American Jewish Committee managing director, said the dissenters have had more of an impact on the media than on actual policy in the government or in Congress.

She noted that one of their key demands — a unilateral Israeli ceasefire — has not found support in the executive branch, or in Congress, where the majority of lawmakers calling for a ceasefire have insisted that it must be mutual and include a release of hostages.

“There are people who from the get-go were starting these calls for a one-sided ceasefire,” she said. “If they were reading the fine print here, they would see that argument has not gained any currency.”

A congressional staffer told JTA that the flood of calls from constituents opposing the war had been more influential than the internal dissenters. “They are way less impactful than a bunch of angry constituents who are calling day in and day out and are better organized,” the staffer said.

Asked for comment, a State Department official referred JTA to remarks recently by spokesman Vedant Patel, when he was asked about the resignation of Hala Rharrit, the spokeswoman for Arab media. Rharrit quit over Gaza policy, saying State Department staff were afraid to speak out in dissent. (At least one other staffer has publicly resigned from the department, while a Palestinian American staffer at the Department of Education resigned publicly in January.)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken “reads every single one of those dissent channel cables and dissenting viewpoints from across the administration,” Patel said. “We continue to welcome them and we think that it helps lead to stronger, more robust policy making.”

Whether or not the internal protests are making a difference, pro-Palestinian activists say they are meaningful.

“Congressional and administration staffers have joined Palestinian solidarity marches, written dissent cables, signed open letters of disapproval, and in some cases publicly resigned,” Beth Miller, the political director of JVP Action, the political advocacy affiliate of Jewish Voice for Peace, told JTA. “Such public expressions of protest from people who are usually unwilling to do so should be a dire warning to the Biden administration to change course.”

The US Will Not Defend Japan, But Tokyo Doesn’t Tell the Truth to the Public


Washington and Tokyo strongly opposed China’s attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion in the East China Sea. Still, the U.S. doesn’t promise anything special about defending Japan.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida held a Summit Meeting with U.S. President Joseph Biden during his official visit to Washington D.C., On April 10, they issued a joint statement as the outcome of the meeting.

In the statement, Biden mentioned the U.S.’s unwavering commitment to Japan’s defense under Article V of the US-Japan Security Treaty, using its full range of capabilities, including nuclear. He also affirmed that Article V applies to the Senkaku Islands.

Article V of the Security Treaty reads, “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.”

Senkaku, also known as the Diaoyu in China and the Diaoyutai in Taiwan, is a small group of Japanese-administered, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. China and Taiwan claim sovereignty over the islands, but Japan rejects the existence of a territorial dispute.

The U.S. government acknowledges the administration of Japan over Senkakus but has taken no position on who has sovereignty over the islands. At least, that has been U.S. policy since 1972, when the Nixon Administration stated that, according to a document titled The Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations, published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and updated in 2021.

The tensions between China and Japan over the Senkakus flared up in 2012 because Japan’s central government purchased three of the islands from their private owner to preempt the then-governor of Tokyo prefecture, Shintaro Ishihara, to buy the islands and carry out various activities on them. China and Taiwan protested the move, and China began to increase maritime patrols around the Senkakus. Now, it has been a near-daily presence.

After that, to expand rhetorical support for Japan, the U.S. Congress inserted a resolution in the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act stating that “the unilateral action of a third party will not affect the United States’ acknowledgment of the administration of Japan over the Senkaku Islands.” In April 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama publicly stated that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty covered the islands. U.S. President Donald Trump, in 2017,  and Joe Biden, in 2021,  reiterated the Obama-era language. But, the CRS document reads, “The statements by the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administrations have not changed the U.S. government’s position of neutrality.”

On February 23, 2021, then-Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said the U.S. supported Japanese sovereignty over Senkakus. However, three days later, he corrected his remark, stating that the U.S. position hadn’t changed.

To begin with, in 2005, the U.S. and Japan announced a document titled U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future, which declares that “Japan will defend itself and respond to situations in areas surrounding Japan, including addressing new threats and diverse contingencies such as ballistic missile attacks, attacks by guerilla and special forces, and invasion of remote islands.”

Therefore, the “U.S.’s unwavering commitment to Japan’s defense under Article V of the Security Treaty” means that if an armed attack occurs in Japanese territory, including the Senkakus, Article V will apply, and the U.S. Congress will discuss it. Then, because the U.S. has taken a neutral attitude toward the sovereignty of the Senkakus and Japan declared to defend itself from an invasion of remote islands, the U.S. Congress (or President) would judge that Japan should fight. If the U.S. military action is in the national interest, the U.S. will take it.

Though the U.S. doesn’t promise anything special, Tokyo hasn’t told the truth to the public.

The Japanese Foreign Affairs Ministry misleadingly explains that the US-Japan Security Treaty requires the U.S. to defend Japan under an armed attack. The Defense Ministry uses ambiguous expressions.

Also, in June 2022, Japanese Representative Nobuhiko Isaka asked the Prime Minister four questions about Tokyo’s understanding: 1. If Japanese territory is attacked, will the U.S. military automatically defend Japan? 2. Will the U.S. military defend Japan after Congress approves it? 3. If the U.S. doesn’t dispatch its military and only provides the Japanese Self-Defense Force with weapons and ammunition, does the U.S. observe Article V of the Security Treaty? 4. What is the U.S.’s obligation?

However, Kishida, the Japanese Prime Minister, avoided answering. He only said that he believed the U.S. would fulfill its obligation Article V prescribes.

Tokyo doesn’t mention the possibility that the U.S. will not defend Japan. Otherwise, there’s no sufficient reason why Japan has to accept a significant number of U.S. military bases and personnel.

Article VI of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty describes the purpose of the U.S. military presence in Japan for “contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air, and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan.”

The U.S. military in Japan perhaps works as a deterrent. Still, it wants to use its influence in the Far East, which Tokyo interprets as being in and north of the Philippines, Japan, and its surrounding area.

As the Japanese government knows the truth, its National Defense Strategy, which the Cabinet decided on December 16, 2022, set an objective that “should deterrence fail and an invasion of Japan occur, to rapidly respond to the invasion in a tailored and seamless manner; to take primary responsibility to deal with the aggression; and, while receiving support from the ally and others, to disrupt and defeat the invasion.”

Japan has been consistently subordinate to the U.S., so Tokyo doesn’t show an attitude toward detente with China, even if it risks heading toward war.

Reiho Takeuchi is a Japanese journalist whose work focuses on international politics. He has written a series of articles titled U.S. Military and Modern Colonialism on substack.

FBI Documents Allege Japan Used Germ Warfare in Attack on US and Canada


Two FBI reports, one of them newly declassified, suggest the use of biological agents, in particular bubonic plague and anthrax, as part of a large-scale balloon barrage – code name “Fu-Go” – carried out by Japan over the United States and Canada in late 1944 and the first four months of 1945.

One report, dated two months after the end of World War II, stated that anthrax was discovered in Japanese balloons that came down in the U.S. Midwest. The other report was dated five years after the war. Written by J. Edgar Hoover, or sourced to his office, it discussed outbreaks of bubonic plague that experts felt were linked to the Japanese balloon attacks.

During World War 2, Japan launched some 9,300 high-altitude balloons against the U.S. and Canada. Approximately 300 balloons, many carrying antipersonnel and incendiary bombs, were known to have touched land in North America.

According to Japanese testimony, all records inside Japan relating to their secret balloon program were destroyed at the end of World War II, along with the biological warfare research undertaken by Japan’s infamous Unit 731.

The new evidence presented in this article significantly changes our understanding of this important episode in World War II, and points to an intelligence cover-up more than seven decades old.

Balloons Downed in Midwest Carried Anthrax

Last year, stimulated by the controversy over the discovery of a Chinese balloon drifting over the United States, a number of news articles recalled the WW2 Japanese balloon episode. In a May 5, 2023 Time Magazine interview with historian Ross Coen, who has written a book on the Fu-Go attacks, Coen noted, “From the perspective of the War Department and Army intelligence, the thing that they feared most was biological warfare…. Ultimately there never was any biological component to the balloons.”

But a July 6, 1945 FBI memorandum addressed to the Chief of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, Daniel M. Ladd, stated, “recently several Japanese balloons were found in [North and South Dakota, and Nebraska] which were determined to have been carrying bacteria.”

The bacteria were identified as anthrax. The pathogen was discovered in the hydrogen gas that inflated the massive paper-laminated balloons. The FBI report was written by the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Norfolk Field Division.

The FBI was provided this information during a Weekly Intelligence Conference with military officials. The information originated from an officer within the U.S. Army Air Forces. His identity, as well as that of the FBI memo’s author have been censored by the U.S. government. The memo was declassified in 2004 and has been otherwise unnoticed until now.

Copies of the FBI memo to Ladd were also sent to the FBI’s Assistant Director at the time, E.A. Tamm, and to the head of the FBI’s crime laboratory, Edward Coffey.

Coffey also happened to be a member of the Bacterial Warfare Committee at the U.S. government’s World War II biowarfare agency, the War Research Service. According to a November 30, 1942 FBI memo, Coffey was well-connected in U.S. intelligence circles.

Other sources examined by this author, including Military Intelligence Division reports at The National Air and Space Museum Archives’ Japanese World War II Balloon Bombs Collection, have shown that the gas inside the discovered balloons was routinely examined when possible.

The military official who briefed the FBI said the Army was “not greatly concerned over the number of such balloons which have been located.” At the same time, he admitted that the use of anthrax “does show a different trend in the Japanese attack.” Earlier examinations of the balloons had heretofore only found they carried “small bombs.”

The memo to Ladd was not meant to be have wide distribution. Its footer stated the memo was “to be destroyed after action is taken and not sent to files.”

Government experts suspected Fu-Go Balloons found in New Mexico and Alberta, Canada carried plague

A separate FBI memo, dated May 11, 1950, enlarged upon the germ warfare threat the Japanese balloons contained. The memo was from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Chief of the Army’s Military Intelligence Security and Training Group in Washington, D.C. Copies were also sent to the directors of Naval Intelligence, U.S. Air Force Special Investigations, CIA, as well as to the Acting Director of the Security Division at the Atomic Energy Commission.

Hoover’s memo, which was much more extensively declassified by the National Archives in September 2023, indicated that Japan’s Fu-Go barrage included some balloons that landed in New Mexico’s Sandia Mountains. It is noteworthy that no other history or list of Japan’s balloon attacks has ever indicated that any balloons were sighted or landed in New Mexico, suggesting the New Mexico sightings were covered-up.

According to Hoover, Dr. Lincoln La Paz, then Head of the Department of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of New Mexico, suspected that an outbreak of bubonic plague in New Mexico’s Sandia Mountains was related to the Japanese balloon landings. During World War 2, La Paz worked as Technical Director for the U.S. Second Air Force Operations Analysis Section investigating the Japanese balloon attacks.

La Paz told Hoover two plague-infected rats were found “only about three and a half miles from the Atomic Energy installation at Sandia Base, New Mexico.” The rats appeared near a ski resort at an elevation higher than any presence of plague had ever been found in the region before, but near where “some Japanese paper balloons had landed.”

In addition, La Paz stated that in laboratory tests, the plague cultured from the dead rats had seemed in laboratory tests to be of “some strange type” and “unusual.”

To buttress his suspicions surrounding the origin of the plague outbreak, La Paz forwarded to the FBI a separate report provided to him by a Canadian official “in charge of investigating… the Japanese Paper Balloon offensive in the Edmonton [Alberta] district.” The name of this official remains redacted in the otherwise declassified memo.

Similarly to La Paz, the Canadian official described the near total disappearance of expected numbers of small game (“rabbits, squirrels, small rodents, etc.”) in a region “north and west of Edmonton.”

The report further described how the 1949 plague outbreak occurred “principally in the northern part of the province, precisely the area most heavily bombarded with [Japanese] paper balloons.” Importantly, according to the Canadian source, “the plague had never occurred before in the area in question.”

While there were correlations between outbreaks of plague and areas of Japanese balloon penetration in both Alberta and New Mexico, Japanese balloon landings in South Dakota  presented at least one such case associated with anthrax. This concerned a 1947 anthrax outbreak in Haakon County, the first such instance of plague there in over a decade.

Changing Japanese narratives

In the early 1970s, former Air Force pilot and curator at the National Air and Space Museum, Robert Mikesh, interviewed several Japanese scientists, including “former Major Teiji Takada, engineer for the balloon project, who provided invaluable material and insight from his personal observations” (pg. v). Mikesh accepted Takada’s assurance that no biological payload had ever been considered for the balloon barrage.

But according to Amanda Kay McVety’s 2018 book The Rinderpest Campaignsan official who worked with the Japanese military’s Noborito Institute, which developed the balloons, testified that Japanese scientists did intend the Fu-Go balloons to carry biological agents, particularly rinderpest, a virus that affects cattle. According to this account, the germ war attack was supposedly called off only at the last minute, out of fear of U.S. counter-attack.

The rinderpest attacks may have been cancelled, but some biological weapons attacks must have taken place. A Top Secret 1947 U.S. Army Chemical Corps in-house history of the Chemical Warfare Service during World War II, now declassified, presented a complimentary account of the Japanese effort (pg.527): “The Japanese balloon was well-adapted to spread biological warfare agents, particularly for serious epidemics of livestock. The balloon incidents prove that the U.S. and Canada are open to this form of attack from the Asiatic mainland.”

By 1950, the Air Force and the Chemical Corps had initiated their own balloon-delivered biological bomb, inspired in part by Japan’s World War II balloon barrage. The U.S. biological balloon bomb was code-named Project Flying Cloud, and was meant to drop anti-crop biological organisms, and possibly other “agent candidates” over a potential “enemy.”

To date there are likely hundreds of Japan’s “Fu-Go” balloons, which flew over remote parts of North America, that have never been found. It is not known how many of these might have contained biological disease payloads.

Neither the U.S. Army’s biological warfare division at Fort Detrick, nor Japan’s Washington D.C. embassy returned requests for comment. The U.S. claims it has foregone research on biological warfare since 1969

Jeffrey Kaye is a retired clinical psycholgist whose work on torture and U.S. war crimes has been published at Al Jazeera America, The Guardian, AlterNet, Truthout, and other publications. He is the author of Cover-up at Guantanamo: The NCIS Investigation into the “Suicides” of Mohammed Al Hanashi and Abdul Rahman Al Amri. His website is https://kayej.substack.com.