Petitions/Actions- Letter On The Plight Of Palestinian Child Prisoners
- Jo Johnson and Steve Smith – cancel your trip to Israel
- Free Issa Amro
- Celtic fans ask Rod Stewart NOT to play in Israel
- John Lewis, Don't market Israeli toys from illegal settlements
- Inquiry into Israel influencing British political democracy
- Grant Iyad Burnat, award winning peace activist and author, a UK visa
- Make visa rules the same for Palestinians and Israelis
- Demand Airbnb Stop Listing Rentals in Israeli Settlements
- Israeli Defense Forces: Free circus trainer and artist Mohammed Faisal Abu Sakha
- Tell the UN to drop its contracts with Israeli Occupation prison contractor G4S
- Amnesty International: freedom for the palestinian child Ahmed Manasra
- Tell the Prime Minister: Pressure Israel until it ends Gaza siege
Starting on Monday l7 April, the prisoners have been refusing food until basic humanitarian demands are met. Their health is deteriorating. Israeli doctors have refused to force feed them – which is against International Law. Israel is now looking at bringing in foreign doctors.
Amnesty International have called on Israel to end ‘unlawful and cruel’ policies towards Palestinian prisoners. This includes the use of torture during interrogation, solitary confinement, numerous cases of gross medical negligence in cases of acute health issues, alongside the routine denial of visits.
Please write! Thank you.
Link to FO letter towards the end of this page: https://www.palestinecampaign.org/palestinian-hunger-striker/
Taken from here
Hundreds of people gathered at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London yesterday to protest against a student society hosting Israel’s ambassador to the UK.
The former spokesman of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, was invited to give a lecture by the SOAS Jewish and United Nations societies however the UN society pulled out from co-hosting though it failed to explain why it had done so.
The movement #AparthiedOffCampus was mobilised once news had spread of Regev’s impending visit through social media were SOAS students and the public were invited to make their voices heard against the visit.
— Mark Regev (@AmbMarkRegev) April 24, 2017
More than 40 student societies and 100 SOAS academics had earlier signed an open letter opposing the platform given to the Israeli ambassador to speak at the university.
Activists filled the university’s courtyard with banners write the statement “apartheid off campus”. As well as pro-Palestinian protesters, the demonstration was attended by over 50 pro-Israeli protesters.
One pro-Palestinian activist told MEMO:
The Israeli government is panicking about the success of the boycott campaign and they have sent Mark Regev to this country… to make certain that the British government support the Israelis. We are in total support of what is happening here [the protest against Regev’s visit].
Regev reportedly condemned the protest to his visit but questioning why “extremist speakers were invited to SOAS over the years, with no protest” and called out the “selective” indignation towards Israel.
By supporting an uncompromising, maximalist stance, are the protesters outside serving the Palestinian cause?
Regev’s visit to SOAS is the first of any Israeli diplomats since 2005 after the university’s Student Union became the first in the UK to officially support the BDS campaign on campus.
— Mark Regev (@AmbMarkRegev) April 27, 2017
Fairouz, a Moroccan SOAS student, told MEMO Regev should not be allowed a platform owing to his previous record as spokesmen where he “justified” the bombings in Gaza.
“We as a SOAS community decided to come to celebrate the resistance and the struggles of Palestine. We have over 40 SOAS societies who have organised this event. It’s showing how the student Palestinian movement in the UK is very strong and is protesting and talking about the justice for Palestinians and their freedoms.”
A statement by the SOAS Jewish Society warned protesters that armed police would be present on campus while Regev was speaking.
A Swab team and armed personnel were reportedly seen securing the area of the Senate House building where Regev was speaking.
Many of those who attended the protest, including Palestinian students, were afraid to speak to the media fearing their words will be used as evidence of attending a protest that would be seen as reason to prevent them from entering the Palestinian territories due to Israel’s “anti-boycott” law.
The law was approved by Israel’s parliament in February this year and it prohibits individuals who advocate for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement from entering Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories.
The SOAS SU said in a statement:
Not only is this [anti-boycott] law a blatant breach of free speech, it also puts students and staff members – especially Palestinian students and staff members – in an extremely precarious situation.
The SOAS Student Union condemned the university for agreeing to host the event and questioned the safety of Israeli and Palestinian students who wish to “engage freely” in a debate with Regev about Israel’s anti-boycott law.
The levels of security surrounding the event and the lack of access to Regev’s lecture meant any intention of “open discussion” would have been impossible and were viewed as disingenuous by the vast majority.
Legal opinion finds major faults with government antisemitism definition – Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Legal opinion finds major faults with government antisemitism definition
- Definition cannot be used to judge criticism of Israel as antisemitic, unless it expresses hatred towards Jews. Describing Israel as a state enacting a policy of apartheid, as practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel cannot properly be characterized as antisemitic.
- The definition’s poor drafting means public bodies applying the definition could be at serious risk of “unlawfully restricting legitimate expressions of political opinion”.
- Definition has already been used to close down student events at universities across the country; it is widely feared to have a ‘chilling effect’.
- Eminent lawyers Sir Geoffrey Bindman and Sir Stephen Sedley endorse the legal opinion and will address the launch at the House of Lords.
A coalition of organisations has obtained an Opinion from Senior Counsel on the possible impact on freedom of expression and assembly of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism adopted by Theresa May’s government in December 2016.
Hugh Tomlinson QC examined the concerns of Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) that the ‘IHRA definition’ conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel and could be misused to curtail campaigning on behalf of Palestinians. The groups cite recent occasions when university authorities have forced student Palestine societies to cancel or postpone planned meetings and actions.
The Opinion states that the definition is badly drafted, creates scope for confusion and inconsistency, and potentially “chills” the debate around Israel/Palestine. Tomlinson stresses that the definition is not legally binding, public bodies are under no obligation to adopt it, and those that do must take care applying it or risk “unlawfully restricting legitimate expressions of political opinion in violation of statutory duties to ensure freedom of expression and assembly.”
He makes clear that the definition cannot be used to judge criticism of Israel to be antisemitic, unless the criticism actually expresses hatred towards Jews. He states:
“Properly understood in its own terms the IHRA Definition does not mean that activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting a policy of apartheid, as practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as antisemitic. A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully.”
A spokesperson for the commissioning organisations said,
“We have years of experience of facing attempts by pro-Israel lobby groups to shut down activities that expose Israel’s denial of Palestinian human rights, increasingly by whipping up fears of antisemitism. We have a duty to advise local authorities, universities and other public bodies that they do not need to succumb to pressure to collude in the latest phase of this censorship campaign. Introducing attitudes to Israel into the equation makes combating hostility to Jews more difficult, not easier.”
The Opinion will be launched in the House of Lords on Monday, March 27 at 15:00. Speakers will include leading solicitor Sir Geoffrey Bindman of Bindman’s LLP, expert on freedom of expression and retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Stephen Sedley.
MPs, peers, media, prominent lawyers, academics, campaigning groups, local government authorities, and trade unions are also expected to attend.
The full text of the opinion is available online here.
Notes for Editors
The IHRA Definition
- The IHRA Definition was broadly based on the working definition of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (“EUMC”). The EUMC Definition has proved controversial, see, for example, the report of Professor David Feldman: Sub‐report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism (1 January 2015). http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/themes/PCAA/images/DAVID-FELDMAN- pdf
- UK government measures to restrict activism for Palestinian human rights and raising awareness of the Israeli state’s abuses include the new definition of antisemitism (adopted December 2016) that includes criticism of the state of Israel.
Defining antisemitism to limit free speech on Israel/Palestine
- The definition has been invoked publicly on numerous occasions where Israel has been publicly criticised, and always in the context of attempts to halt criticism of Israel. See for example the high-profile failed legal challenge to the university teachers union UCU in the United Kingdom.
- Universities became embroiled in a free speech row during February’s Israel Apartheid Week 2017, when several events by Palestinian activists were shut down, and others were obstructed.
- ‘Prevent Duty’ guidance and materials issued to universities identify activism for Palestinian human rights as a behaviour to watch – and even include ‘Opposition to Israeli settlements in Gaza’. Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and run counter to British foreign policy.
About the coalition of organisations
- Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP) – a network of nearly two thousand Jews in Britain, stretching across the political and Jewish religious spectrum, who are opposed to the Occupation and campaign for the human, civil, political and economic rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self determination.
- Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) – Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) is a network of Jews in Britain from diverse backgrounds, occupations and affiliations who have in common a strong commitment to social justice and universal human rights. The initiative was born out of a frustration with the widespread misconception that the Jews of this country speak with one voice – and that this voice supports the Israeli government’s policies. IJV promotes the expression of alternative Jewish perspectives, particularly with respect to the Palestine / Israel conflict.
- Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) – a predominantly Jewish campaign group established in Spring 2016 to counter the manufactured moral panic over a supposed epidemic of antisemitism in the UK. FSOI promotes a non-Zionist Jewish perspective. It affirms that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Antisemitism is a form of racist bigotry directed at Jews because they are Jews.
- Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is the largest UK civil society organisation dedicated to securing Palestinian human rights established in 1982. With more than sixty branches across the country, we campaign against Israel’s flouting of international law, the continued military occupation of Palestine, and systematic discrimination against Palestinians. We work to build awareness amongst politicians and the public of the continual injustices and advocate for peaceful and just solutions that respect the rights and dignity of Palestinians and Israelis.