Palestinians Reiterate Call For Sanctions To Stop Israeli Annexation

| Resist!

With Israel delaying its plans, tens of Palestinian civil society organizations said Israel’s ongoing annexation and apartheid demand international sanctions.

As Israel’s far-right government remained silent today (July 1) about its previously stated plan to begin formal annexation of occupied Palestinian territory on July 1, tens of Palestinian civil society organizations representing the absolute majority of Palestinian civil society called for action, not just rhetoric, to stop Israel’s quiet, decades-long annexation and apartheid rule over Palestinians.

(Palestinian civil society statement)

They reiterated their demand that the international community “impose lawful, targeted and immediate sanctions on Israel in response to its ongoing annexation, illegal military occupation and apartheid regime of racial discrimination, segregation and territorial expansion that is enshrined in Israel’s domestic law.

The statement was issued by the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC), which represents eleven Palestinian human rights organizations. Other initial signers of the letter include leading Palestinian trade unions, mass women’s organizations, and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), representing 69 Palestinian non-governmental organizations.

The unified Palestinian civil society statement said that Israel’s delay of its plans today was strategic: “With its silence, Israel hopes to silence global mobilizations that have compelled the international community to consider accountability measures and to safeguard its impunity.”

Their statement noted clear affirmations by a number of prominent experts of the illegality of de facto and de jure annexation of occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, said, “Annexation is illegal. Period. Any annexation.” Hundreds of international law scholars wrote that “De facto annexation entails the same legal consequences as de jure annexation.” Over a thousand European parliamentarians said, “Failure to adequately respond [to Israeli annexation] would encourage other states with territorial claims to disregard basic principles of international law,” while tens of UN experts said that Israel’s formal annexation of occupied Palestinian territory, which happened in occupied Jerusalem in 1980 and may still take place in other parts of the OPT, crystallizes a “21st century apartheid.”

Palestinian civil society reiterated its May unified call on all States and international organizations to respect their legal obligations by immediately implementing the following measures:

  1. A ban on arms trade and military-security cooperation with Israel.
  2. Suspension of trade and cooperation agreements with Israel.
  3. Prohibition of trade with the illegal Israeli settlements and termination of corporate business with Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise.
  4. Investigation and prosecution of individuals and corporate actors responsible for war crimes/crimes against humanity in the context of Israel’s regime of illegal occupation and apartheid.
  5. Support efforts at the United Nations to reconstitute the UN Special Committee against Apartheid and the UN Centre against Apartheid to investigate Israeli apartheid.
  • Jeff

    After WW II, the world seemed to say “enough” and formed the United Nations. One of the basic tenets was that wars of aggression would no longer be tolerated by the world as a whole. (This was the theory, obviously not how it actually played out.) For various reasons, Israel has been given an exception, mainly by the U.S. exercising its veto power in the illegitimate Security Council. This is inexcusable!

    But that said, wars of aggression have existed ever since civilization because they’re a result of it, and civilization in turn is a result of overpopulation. When people all lived as hunter-gatherers, wars weren’t necessary nor even possible. Hunter-gatherer societies didn’t need to make war on neighboring societies in order to take their resources, and societies weren’t large enough to field armies even if they wanted to do so. As long as there are too many people on the planet, they’ll be fighting over resources, including basic ones like water. And as long as people continue to live unnaturally by consuming things they should not be, like trees and fossil fuels, there will be wars over those resources.

  • rgaura

    I’m sure Bill Gates, and other eugenicists will agree with you. You might read Dr Vandana Shiva, who through her institute has found that India could feed twice its current population, were it to implement indigenous wisdom and organic, small scale agriculture, rather than the Gates, industrial GMO model. Its not how many, its by what means, and in what relationship to nature and other beings that determine scarcity or adequate resource distribution. Even small groups of people can be fiercely genocidal.

  • sabelmouse

    it’s not remotely about to many people on the planet.

  • sabelmouse


  • EDYS

    It is strange that the “Palestinians” have only one Nobel Prize. By volume of verbal demagogy they deserve a lot more of these prizes! And where the UN is looking?

  • Jeff

    1. Equating me with Bill Gates couldn’t be more ignorant. We have virtually nothing in common ideologically, and he’s certainly not an environmentalist by my definition of that term (prioritizing the environment over all else). I totally oppose technology and industrial civilization. Do you honestly think that Gates has the same position?

    2. Saying that “Its not how many” is equally ignorant. Do most humans worship themselves so much that they’re totally blind to the idea of population limits, and finite space & food? Why in hell would you want more or even this many humans on the planet? The only reason that humans have been able to expand their population above natural limits is that they’ve circumvented those limits, to the great detriment of the rest of the planet.

    I love Vandana Shiva, she’s one of my heroes (I actually got to meet her briefly!). But if that’s her position on human overpopulation — being from a country that’s so grossly overpopulated and that has a laissez faire attitude toward the problem, I wouldn’t be too surprised — then we strongly disagree on that issue, which would be the only one that I know of on which we disagree.

    Humans, their agirculture, and their infrastructure occupy over half of the terrestrial land on Earth (all surface area except water). Human overpopulation is the largest reason for the current extinction crisis, which tracks almost exactly with human population growth since 1800. The Earth and everything that lives here badly needs humans to implement a global one-child-family policy immediately. Even if we did so it would probably take hundreds of years to get the population down to levels where humans, living much more simply and naturally than we do now, could live in any sort of ecological balance with the Earth and its ecosystems. If humans don’t greatly lower their population, they will continue to cause mass extinctions and other great harms.

  • rgaura

    Slow down, Jeff. Read carefully. I did not equate you with Mr Gates. I only noted that you seem to agree on this topic. Big Difference. At least I did not call you ignorant. I addressed your points with a counter arguement.
    To broaden my point, which I don’t think you fully understand, I would recommend Charles Eisenstein´s essay on Climate. It is a matter of framing. Looking at relationships instead of things. Immeasurables and values. I came to this type of view from long study of ancient eastern scriptures and practices, as well as indigenous wisdom, and also by living in voluntary poverty. No, we cannot all have electric car openers and 2 cars. Conspicuous consumption is destructive. But it all comes from human minds, and attitudes. The loss of the sacred, of our relationship to nature, and to beauty, and to community, and to death.
    To my mind, the climate narrative has been designed to divert from the issues of exploitation and pollution. The population issue has been used to divert from conspicuous consumption and systems that build in waste in order to profit and control others. It is deserving of a longer discussion.
    I was trying to point out how easily this population narrative leads to genocide. While Israel, the US, and many western countries are practicing genocide, not because of population pressures at all. And Dr Shiva makes a very good case for focusing on appropriate systems that create lives worth living in communities of caring, which may be populous, which cannot be measured in currencies.
    You may be interested in a lecture entitled The art of not being governed on you tube. It traces the history of civilization (settled farming), and slavery in south asia. Its not just a western problem.

  • Jeff

    I too studied and practiced eastern spirituality, and to an extent I still do so. But you obviously never studied ecology or wildlife biology. In fact, you don’t even seem to know basic high school biology, which teaches that too many of any species is bad for the natural environment. Humans passed that number thousands of year ago.

    The fact that overconsumption is a problem does not at all mean that overpopulation isn’t also a problem. But your anthropocentric view, which BTW is contrary to any meaningful understanding of eastern spirituality (we’re all one, and by “we” I don’t mean just humans) blinds you to the reality of the great harms that humans are causing to the Earth and everything not human on it, and to the fact that humans as a whole are thriving and should not be the focus of your concern. It’s not about whether we can feed every human on Earth, it’s about leaving enough room for the other species to live and thrive. I realize that my original post was only about human problems because this essay is about Israeli crimes against Palestinians, but things like that are not my priority, the natural world and all that lives there are. Scientists recently said that we must depopulate a large portion of the Earth of humans, because we need to leave at least half for other species, who cannot exist alongside modern humans (if everyone lived as hunter-gatherers we could live everywhere as long as we didn’t over hunt, but there would be far fewer of us).

    Another thing to consider is that if humans are overpopulated, which they clearly are by a lot, then humans as a whole overconsume, even if individuals do not. So overpopulation = overconsumption!

    The twin physical roots of all environmental and ecological problems are overpopulation and overconsumption. Overpopulation is a slightly bigger and worse problem because it’s more fundamental — i.e., if there were far fewer people on
    Earth, some of the overconsumption would stop necessarily — but both overpopulation and overconsumption must be stopped and reversed in order to fix these problems. So there’s no point in arguing about which is worse, because if we don’t fix both, we don’t fix the problems, simple as that.

  • Jeff

    Just saying what you think without any argument or evidence to back it up as you always do is really meaningless. How about making an actual argument for a change or just keeping your opinions to yourself. This isn’t a poll asking what you think.

  • sabelmouse

    what is it, debate club at school?

  • rgaura

    When foxes in europe have enough food, they have 6 kits. When they begin to overpopulate, they only have 2. I believe that we have the same innate mechanisms, were we to live in harmony with the All. Humans have many faculties that they do not develop, because they are squeezed into a belief set (scientific reductionism) that does not include them.
    I don’t need a smart phone because I have been touching minds with my people since childhood. I know we can coexist with creatures of all kinds, because we communicate, directly. They tell me so.
    Your belief set leads to the logical conclusion that you should commit suicide, or alternatively, kill others. We disagree. Sigh.

  • sabelmouse

    sadly NOT so with cats.

  • Jeff

    I’ll say it once more:

    The only reason that humans have been able to expand their population above natural limits is that they’ve circumvented those limits, to the great detriment of the rest of the planet.

    The Earth and everything that lives here badly needs humans to implement a global one-child-family policy immediately.

    Humans haven’t lived in balance or harmony with ecosystems since they started using agriculture, which is totally unnatural and which causes an unnatural abundance of food, thereby causing overpopulation.

    Lowering population is done by birth control. I never advocated killing anyone. When people respond to being confronted by me with the overpopulation problem by saying I should kill myself or others, that just tells me that they refuse to acknowledge the problem.

    If you “touch minds” with other species, they’ll all tell you that humans need to greatly reduce their population in order to allow them some space to live. You didn’t respond to any of the ecological points I made, just like every other overpopulation denier with whom I’ve raised the problem. If you think that my understanding of ecology regarding human overpopulation is faulty, which it’s not, then by all means let’s discuss that. But if not, you’re just admitting that you don’t care about anything but humans, which is the problem here (and unfortunately, your anthropocentric viewpoint is that of the large majority of humans).

  • Kirby One

    Let’s stop the charuade: the Palestinians have never been interested in the creation of state only the destruction of one.

    As Harvey Cameron posted:

    The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

    In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.

    In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.

    In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

    The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

    The Oslo agreements of the 1990s aid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.

    In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.

    In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

    In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.

    The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”