Saed Bannoura, International Middle East Media Center, March 13 2011

Dozens of armed Israeli settlers attacked on late on Saturday at night and early Sunday at dawn dozens of Palestinian homes in Huwwara town, south of the northern West Bank city of Nablus. The settlers also attacked a number of areas in Bethlehem, Hebron and Ramallah.

The settlers first gathered at the Za’tara roadblock, north of Huwwara, and south of Yitzhar illegal settlement.

Eyewitnesses reported that the settlers hurled stones at local vehicles, torched several vehicles and broke into a number of homes after surrounding them.

Meanwhile, the Israeli army blocked Route 60 that links between Ramallah and Nablus due to increasing settler attacks.

Hundreds of local residents took off to the streets to counter the heavily armed settlers who attacked their town while soldiers stood near the entrances of Huwwara and refrained from removing the settlers from the Huwwara.

Furthermore, settlers hurled stones at Palestinian vehicles driving near Ofer settlement, near Silwan, east of the central West bank city of Ramallah.

In the Hebron district, settlers torched a vehicle and wounded a child in Beit Ummar town. The settlers attacked several Palestinian homes located near the Ramat Yishai illegal settlement in Tal Romeida area in the city.

Settlers of the Keryat Arba’ settlement in Hebron attacked a number of homes near the settlement. Settlers of the Kharsina settlement, east of the city, also attacked a number of nearby homes. Damage was reported in both areas.

Local sources in Beit Ummar said that the attack against their town was carried out by at least 250 settlers, and that the settlers hurled stones at local homes and vehicles, while a child was moved to a local clinic after inhaling gas fired by the Israeli army.

Furthermore, a group of settlers attacked homes in Al Arroub refugee camp, located on the main road that links between Hebron and Bethlehem; damage was reported, no injuries.

Five members of Abu Aker family were wounded on Saturday evening after being attacked by a group of armed settlers. The family was driving on the Jerusalem-Hebron road while driving back to their home in Bethlehem.

The settlers said that they are avenging the death of five family members, including an 11-year old, 4-year old, and 3-month old baby in the northern West Bank, who were stabbed to death in their home, on Friday night, after an infiltrator made it into Itamar settlement and entered the home of the settler family.

Izzat al-Rishiq, a member of the political bureau of the Hamas movement, said that Hamas had nothing to do with this attack, adding that the Hamas movement and other Palestinian resistance groups do not target children.

Al-Rishiq speculated that the attack could have been criminally motivated, similar to other brutal crimes that have shocked Israeli society in the past.

The Palestinian Popular Committee Against the Wall, which represents the non-violent movement in Palestine, also condemned the attack, and expressed their sorrow and condolences for the family.

In their statement, the Committee added that they view the murders as part of the escalation generated by the policies of the Israeli occupation, as these policies created the circumstances out of which these heinous acts arose.

The Committee stated, “Although the crime was committed on colonized land, we see the killing of children as a despicable crime, regardless of nationality, gender or religion.”

On Saturday at night, the Ministerial Cabinet for settlement affairs held a meeting and decided to approve hundreds of new units for Jewish settlers in Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, Ariel and Keryat Sefer.

The meeting was headed by Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and was attended by Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, and ministers Moshe Yaalon, Benni Begin, and Matan Vilnai.

Anshel Pfeffer and Yaniv Kubovich, Haaretz, March 12 2011

Five members of an Israeli  family were killed Friday night when a suspected terrorist broke into their home in the West Bank settlement of Itamar and stabbed them all to death.

According to police, the suspect broke into the house armed with a knife and stabbed the mother, father and three children, aged 11, three and an approximately one-month-old baby. Magen David Adom rescue services arrived at the scene and found them all dead.

It is believed that there were two other children in the house at the time of the attack, aged 4 and 2, who were not injured in the attack.

Extensive police forces and Israel Defense Forces are scanning the area for the suspect.

The family’s 12-year-old daughter, who was at a youth group activity, returned to her home at approximately midnight and her calls for the door to be opened for her went unanswered. With the help of a neighbor, they managed to open the door and came upon the horrible murder scene.

The military blocked the entrance to the northern West Bank settlement of Itamar, as soldiers poured inside and a pair of ambulances departed.

The overnight attack is the first attack against settlers in months and the first of its kind and scope in years. It marks a rare outburst of violence during a relatively calm period.

Itamar is home to some of the West Bank’s most fervent settlers.

In 2002 a terrorist broke into the home of the Shabo family in Itamar and shot the mother, Rachel, in the back. Then he shot Zvi, 13, and Avishai, 5, also in the back. After that, Neria, 16, was also shot dead.

The terrorist climbed up from the valley and without even cutting it, simply trampled down the fence. First he approached the neighbors’ house but the dog began barking and he turned instead to the Shabo family’s home. They were among the settlement’s founders. Boaz, the father, a printer by profession, was not at home. The older children – Yariv, 17, and Atara, 15 – were also out, visiting friends.

Thirteen-year-old Aviah, who was wounded, told the doctor who attended her in the hospital that she had heard her mother shout out in pain and then all was quiet.

Haaretz, March 3 2011

Former Pink Floyd frontman urges fellow artists to join ban until Israel to ends the occupation, grants full equality to Israeli Arabs, and allows all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

Roger Waters, founding member, vocalist and bassist of the iconic rock band ‘Pink Floyd’ has voiced his support for a cultural boycott of Israel.

The British musician performed in Israel in 2005, ignoring calls from Palestinian rights advocates to cancel. While in Israel, Waters visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem. He was taken to the controversial separation fence in the West Bank, which he called “an appalling edifice to behold.”

Waters said he was extremely affected by his tour of the West Bank, scrawling “We don’t need no thought control”, lyrics from one of Pink Floyd’s most popular songs, on the wall, and cancelling his performance in Tel Aviv. Instead, the British star held the concert in Neve Shalom, a cooperative village founded by Jews and Arabs.

In the letter Waters wrote announcing his support of a cultural boycott of Israel, he said that in his “view, the abhorrent and draconian control that Israel wields over the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, coupled with its denial of the rights of refugees to return to their homes in Israel, demands that fair minded people around the world support the Palestinians in their civil, nonviolent resistance.”

He concluded the letter, saying that he is joining the campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, until it satisfies three basic human rights he claims are demanded by international law.

He called on Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and dismantle the separation fence, recognize the rights of Arab citizens of Israel and granting them full equality and allow all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

Waters stressed in his letter that he is not anti-Semitic, and his solidarity with the Palestinians stems from his belief that all people deserve basic human rights.

Last week, American folk music legend Pete Seeger officially joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign – an international movement to pressure and sanction Israel through economic means.

Seeger, 92, one of the fathers of American folk music, is a veteran political and peace activist. In the 1950s he was interrogated by the McCarthyist House Unamerican Activities Committee and two years ago performed for U.S. President Barack Obama’s inauguration concert.

Artists, academics and celebrities throughout the world have supported and participated in the cultural boycotting of Israel.

Earlier this year, French pop star Vanessa Paradis cancelled her concert in Israel only a month before she was supposed to arrive in the country with her partner, Hollywood actor Johnny Depp, leaving fans and pundits speculating as to the reasons for the cancellation.

Although Paradis’ agent David Stern claimed that the cancellation was due to professional reasons, insiders who organized the concert claim that the singer acceded to calls to cancel the show made by Palestinian solidarity groups.

According to the same sources, it was apparently the planned visit of Paradis’ partner Johnny Depp that drew the attention of the groups that advocate BDS.

Dax D’Orazio, Mondoweiss, March 3 2011

SAIA Carleton is one step closer to becoming the first student group to successfully push for a Canadian university to divest from the Israeli occupation. Launched in early 2010, the divestment campaign focuses on four specific companies that Carleton invests in through its pension fund: BAE Systems, Tesco, Northrupp Grumman and Motorola. All of them are complicit in serious violations of international law and human rights by supporting and profiting from the illegal occupation of Palestine. The campaign’s latest big step was a motion passed at the undergraduate student union (CUSA) that calls on the university to divest from companies involved in ‘illegal occupation.’

In the months leading up to the event, dozens of SAIA members met with professors, classrooms, individual students, community members and student groups to garner support. Organizers asked students to send personal letters addressed to the CUSA councillors and executive. Over 2,000 were sent. This represents about one tenth of the undergradute population and is more support than the incoming CUSA president received (in votes of the last election). The campaign has also received an endorsement from the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA), over two dozen student groups on campus, dozens of faculty members and the union representing contract instructors and teaching assistants.

When the day arrived, it was apparent the campaign has some of the strongest support the campus has seen in recent memory. Hundreds of supporters flooded the small corridors adjacent to the small meeting room. In order to deal with the room occupancy and fire code regulations, a Carleton official set a quota for each ‘side’ to be allowed into the meeting; 20 each. Although the CUSA executives knew there would likely be a significant amount of support, a curiously small room was chosen to house the council meeting.

Despite the overwhelming support on campus, some elements within CUSA were keen to refrain from an overt endorsement. A few days before the council meeting, a new motion was drafted that echoed the toothless ethical investment policy that the Carleton administration passed earlier in an attempt to marginalize SAIA’s campaign. Ignoring the support for SAIA’s motion and an earlier introduction, the watered-down motion was heard first by the council. An attempt to reverse the order were unsuccessful. In a bid to compromise during an elaborate and passionate discussion, an amendment was proposed to include companies involved in ‘illegal occupation’ as one of the criterion for Carleton’s divestiture. This motion with the amendment passed. Consequently, the original motion drafted by SAIA was discarded due to redundancy because its content was too similar to the first. Attempts to have the motion discussed were ultimately unsuccessful.

The decision was met with chants of protest from the massive crowd outside. Councillors and executives leaving the meeting had to navigate a sea of people whose reaction depended upon their support for the motion or lack thereof. It was truly one of the most inspiring outpourings of democracy and solidarity the supporters had experienced on campus. While the campaign did not receive an explicit endorsement from CUSA, it has succeeded in rallying a critical mass of supporters and gaining the tacit support of the undergraduate student union.

Moving forward, SAIA is planning for another successful Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) from March 7 – 11, this year including a keynote from Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada. We plan to further increase our support and finally present our campaign to the Board of Governors in the coming weeks.

YNet News, March 2 2011

Veteran diplomat Ilan Baruch quits, says he can no longer represent government; Israel’s foreign policy is ‘wrong,’ he says, adds that blaming global anti-occupation views on anti-Semitism is ‘simplistic, artificial.’

Foreign Ministry earthquake: A veteran diplomat says he has resigned from his post because he had a hard time defending the policies of Israel’s current government, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday.

Ilan Baruch says he quit because “Israel’s foreign policy is wrong,” pointing to the Palestinian issue.

Should this trend continue, he warned, Israel will turn into a pariah state and face growing de-legitimization.

Baruch told Israel TV Wednesday that Israel’s standing was in danger because of its policies, which he said were “difficult to explain.”

“I can no longer honestly represent this government,” he said earlier. “As (Foreign Minister) Lieberman was elected by a large public in a legitimate manner, I cannot question him – but I don’t have to serve him, and therefore I’m quitting.”

“I have nothing against Lieberman the person,” Baruch added. However, he said he had a problem with the diplomatic messages conveyed by the Jewish state at this time and its dismissal of former understandings pertaining to the Road Map and the Palestinians.

‘Don’t blame anti-Semitism’

Baruch sent a personal letter to all Foreign Ministry employees Tuesday to explain the motives for his decision.

“Identifying the objection expressed by global public opinion to the occupation policy as anti-Semitic is simplistic, provincial and artificial,” he wrote. “Experience shows that this global trend won’t change until we normalize our relations with the Palestinians.”

A more than 30-year veteran, Baruch resigned a few years before the usual retirement age. His last overseas posting was ambassador to South Africa last year. He quit several months ago. The longtime diplomat lost an eye during the War of Attrition and joined the Foreign Service in 1974.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said it was unusual for a diplomat to criticize the government upon retirement. Officials at Lieberman’s office declined to respond to Baruch’s comments.

AP contributed to the story

Isabel Kershner, New York Times, February 28 2011

TEL AVIV — The children in the kindergarten class were taking their new celebrity status in stride on Monday, singing a Hebrew song about patience hours after a movie about their school, Bialik-Rogozin in south Tel Aviv, won the Academy Award for best short documentary in Los Angeles.

The school, which is state-supported, caters to the children of migrant workers and refugees from 48 countries. For many of them it is a safe haven from daily hardships and, in some cases, traumatic pasts.

Although the American-made documentary, “Strangers No More,” celebrates the school’s atmosphere of diversity and tolerance as it tries to integrate the children into Israeli life, there is an ominous subtext to the story that was not explored in the movie. Of the school’s 828 pupils, ranging from kindergarten to 12th grade, 120 are facing deportation with their families because they do not meet government criteria for obtaining legal status.

Despite all the school’s attention from the Oscar, Israel’s Interior Ministry said Monday that the government’s preparations for dealing with the children of illegal residents were in their final stages and that the plan would be carried out in the coming weeks.

Among the potential deportees is Esther, 12, one of the stars of the movie, who came to Israel from South Africa at the age of 8. An appealing girl with big dark eyes, Esther was brought here by her father after her mother was murdered, teachers said. Interviewed at school on Monday, she said she was happy with the way the movie turned out.

“I want everyone to know about me and about the school,” said Esther, whose favorite subjects are Hebrew and mathematics, “but not the reason why I came.” A staff member who accompanied her said she did not want to discuss the threat of deportation, either.

Last summer, the Israeli cabinet laid down guidelines for granting legal status to the children of people who have entered Israel with a valid visa or permit but have stayed on illegally. The criteria grant permanent residency visas to children of migrants if they attend school, they speak Hebrew, their parents entered the country legally and they have resided in Israel for at least five years.

Under those rules, up to 400 children and their families living in Israel are not qualified to remain.

A spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry said that since August the government had considered more than 700 requests from people appealing their expected deportation.

Most, including Esther and her father, who are a year short of meeting the criteria, have not received word about their fate.

In Israel, a country of 7.5 million people, the idea of deporting children has become the subject of emotional debate. It is estimated that there are as many as 300,000 foreign laborers in Israel, about half of them without valid documents. Many have entered legally to work in construction, agriculture and domestic jobs, but have outstayed their visas. Their numbers have swelled as African refugees and economic migrants have crossed the border from Egypt over the past several years.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has described the illegal migration in the past as “a threat” that could “flood the foundation of the Zionist state.”

Others here say that Israel, a nation of Jewish refugees, should show more compassion, especially for Hebrew-speaking children who consider themselves Israeli and have not known any other home. “I cannot believe that we do not have room in our territory or in our hearts for these children,” said Rotem Ilan, the founder of Israeli Children, a nongovernmental volunteer organization that helps the children of immigrant families. “We let them go through the Israeli school system, and then we are surprised that they feel Israeli and want to stay?”

The directors of the documentary, Karen Goodman and Kirk Simon, became aware of the deportation issue during filming but decided not to focus on it.

“We chose to create a film that was not political,” Ms. Goodman wrote in an email message en route from Los Angeles to New York. “Bialik is a place of peace and introducing the issue of deportation in a broad way would have been inappropriate.”

Mr. Simon added, “Because our film would take over a year to produce and will not be broadcast in the United States until later this year we thought that including an issue that could be resolved or change or evolve could hurt the long time viewership potential of the film.”

Both, however, expressed hope that all the children threatened with deportation would be allowed to stay in Israel, and at the school.

Bialik-Rogozin is supported by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa municipality and the Ministry of Education. Ron Huldai, the mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, told Israel Radio on Monday that the school slowly began to become a center for the children of foreign workers about 15 years ago. “When I became mayor we made things formal,” he said, “not to ignore them but to care for them, and there were wonderful people who joined and helped.”

Over the past six years or so, the rate of children passing their matriculation exams at the school has almost doubled to about 78 percent, according to Nechama Seinberg, one of the school’s deputy principals.

Meanwhile, Gila Benarzi, a staff member, said that winning an Oscar had imbued the school with a “feeling of euphoria and hope,” adding, “The children are proud.”

Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, January 19 2011

A Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank. Photograph: David LeveneThe Obama administration wielded its first veto at the UN security council last night in a move to swipe down a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

The US stood alone among the 15 members of the security council in failing to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process. The Palestinians have made clear that they will not return to the negotiating table until Israel suspends settlement building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The decision placed the US in a controversial position at a time when it is already struggling to define its strategy in a tumultuous Middle East.

The 14 member countries backing the Arab-drafted resolution included Britain and France.

The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the decision to use the veto power – open to the five permanent members of the UN, of which the US is one – “should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity”.

She said Washington’s view was that the Israeli settlements lacked legitimacy, but added: “Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.”

But the isolated stance of the Obama administration risked the appearance of weakness in its approach to the search for Middle East peace and set it on a contradictory course to its earlier tough language against the settlements.

The Palestinian observer at the UN, Riyad Mansour, said the veto was unfortunate. “We fear … that the message sent today may be one that only encourages further Israeli intransigence and impunity,” he said.

Washington’s controversial move clearly riled other members of the security council. Britain, France and Germany put out a joint statement in which they explained they had voted for the resolution “because our views on settlements, including east Jerusalem, are clear: they are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace, and constitute a threat to a two-state solution. All settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, should cease immediately.”

William Hague said he understood Israeli concern for security, but said that was precisely why Britain had backed the resolution. “We believe that Israel’s security and the realisation of the Palestinians’ right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary, they are intimately intertwined objectives.” The US has used its veto 10 times since 2000, nine of which involved backing the Israeli side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Barak Ravid and Reuters, Haaretz, February 17 2011

The United States is putting heavy pressure on the Palestinian Authority and Arab states to withdraw a draft resolution condemning Israeli settlements which is due to go to a vote at the United Nations Security Council this week.

Washington has made it clear that it will veto the resolution should it come to a vote, and has implored the Palestinian Authority and other Arab nations to withdraw the proposal, but to no avail.

	The West Bank settlement of Ariel
	Photo by: AP

The point of the resolution, foreign diplomats say, is to highlight Washington’s isolated position on the Security Council, show the Palestinian population that the Palestinian Authority is taking action, and to pressure Israel and the United States on the settlement issue.

The resolution has nearly 120 co-sponsors, exclusively Arab and other non-aligned nations. UN diplomats said that the draft would probably receive 14 votes in favor and the one veto if put to an immediate vote.

The Security Council is expected to vote Friday on the draft. Should the vote take place, it will be the first time the United States has used its veto power since Barack Obama assumed the presidency.

The Obama administration has deployed heavy-hitters in an effort to get the Palestinians to withdraw the proposal. Several days ago U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a phone connversation with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an attempt to sway him, and the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, met Tuesday with ambassadors of several Arab countries, emphasizing that the U.S. has an interest in a compromise that will make a veto superfluous.

According to the Bloomberg news agency, diplomatic sources quoted Rice as saying that in return for the resolution being dropped, the United States would back “stronger statements on settlement construction and other issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the Security Council and the Middle East Quartet.”

Rice also reportedly said that the U.S. would weigh lending its support to a Security Council trip to the Middle East proposed by Russia. But both offers apparently fell on deaf ears.

The draft uses language that the “Quartet” of Middle East peace negotiators – the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – have used in previous statements on settlements.

It says that “Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

Diplomats said Washington had attempted to persuade the Palestinian Authority not to go ahead with the resolution because the Obama administration would find it awkward to veto a resolution that it generally agreed with.

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo made clear that Washington’s position on the settlements issue – that it should be resolved in direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians – had not changed.

“We therefore consistently oppose attempts to bring these issues to this council, and we will continue to do so because such action moves us no closer to the goal of negotiated final settlement,” DiCarlo told the council.

“Rather, we believe it would only complicate efforts to achieve that goal,” she said at a council meeting on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

But some European U.S. allies believe a resolution could be useful if the Palestinians then resumed peace talks. Restating condemnation of settlements “could be something instrumental in not keeping the settlement issue at the center,” Portuguese Ambassador Jose Filipe Moraes Cabral told reporters.

Intensive U.S. diplomatic efforts to revive direct peace talks between Abbas abd Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu collapsed last year over settlement construction.

Israel has repeatedly called for a resumption of direct negotiations with the Palestinians. But the Palestinians have refused to return to the negotiating table until Israel first agrees to renew its 10-month freeze on West Bank settlement building.

Haaretz, February 16 2011

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee yesterday approved the “boycott law,” which if passed would levy harsh punitive fines on Israelis who call for academic or economic boycotts against Israeli institutions.

The bill was approved in July by the Knesset plenum in a preliminary reading. It will now go back to the Knesset for a first reading.

The controversial bill was put forth by 24 Knesset members, including Kadima party whip Dalia Itzik, coalition chairman Zeev Elkin (Likud ) and committee chairman David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu ).

The draft law calls for imposing sanctions on foreign nationals and organizations that called for anti-Israel boycotts, as well as states that pass legislation giving such boycotts the force of law.

The Ministries of Justice, of Foreign Affairs and of Industry, Trade and Labor are fiercely opposed to the bill, on the grounds that it will not achieve its stated purpose of curbing boycotts and will only hamper efforts to cope with boycotts and the delegitimization of Israel on the international level.

Representatives of these ministries told the committee that the law would violate the right to freedom of expression and could damage Israel’s relations with the European Union and the Foreign Ministry’s freedom of action.

The preamble to the bill states that its aim is “to protect the State of Israel in general and its citizens in particular from academic, economic and other boycotts targeting the state, its citizens and its corporations because of their connection to the state.

The draft law distinguishes among boycotts by Israeli residents or citizens; by foreign residents or nationals; and by foreign states, through legislation. It explicitly includes boycotts that affect the West Bank, such as boycotts of goods and services originating in the Jewish settlements there.

Under the provisions of the bill, the court could levy a fine of up to NIS 30,000 on Israeli citizens calling for or taking party in boycotts against Israel. Foreign citizens who violate the law could be prohibited from entering Israel for 10 years or more. Foreign states that pass laws leading to a boycott of Israel or of Israeli products could be barred from carrying out transactions in Israeli bank accounts and from trading in Israeli stocks, land or real estate. In addition, the state could suspend the transfer of payments owed to the states. Israeli citizens who have suffered damage as a result of the boycott could sue for compensation, to be paid out of the frozen funds.

Elkin said that while under U.S. law, participating in a boycott against Israel is punishable by up to five years in prison, there is no equivalent law in Israel. “The time has come to end this absurd situation,” he said. “A citizen who takes action against the state must know that he will bear the consequences.”

“The bill will not help and could even hurt the state’s ability to contend with boycotts,” the Foreign Ministry’s legal advisor, Ehud Kenan, told the committee. “In our opinion, the fight should take place mainly in the states where the boycotts are initiated. Israel has tools at its disposal. Foreign nationals who declare a boycott against Israel can already be barred from entering the country. Organizations that oppose Israel can be denied a license.”

Some MKs who attended yesterday’s committee session argued that the bill does not clearly define the term “boycott” or the sanctions to be imposed against those who violate its terms.

“Does a boycott mean not buying Israeli products, does it mean not visiting Israel, or does it mean calling on [others] not to buy Israeli products or to visit Israel?” MK Nitzan Horowitz (New Movement-Meretz ) asked.

Other MKs who voiced their objections to the bill included Yohanan Plesner (Kadima ), Dov Khenin (Hadash ) and Talab al-Sana (United Arab List-Ta’al ).

Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, Vice President of Research at the Israel Democracy Institute, told the committee that the draft law constitutes an almost unimaginable blow to freedom of expression, and said that there are “democratic ways to take action against boycotts of the state.” He said that he would have no objection to the bill were it modeled on similar laws in other states.

US Campaign to End the Occupation, February 15 2011

(Washington, DC) February 14 — The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation today criticized the Obama Administration for giving Israel “too much love” in its FY2012 budget request to Congress. The budget request, delivered today to Capitol Hill, contains a record-breaking $3.075 billion in military aid to Israel.

“With the United States facing an ongoing budget deficit and an unsustainable debt, it is difficult to believe that President Obama would actually request an increase in U.S. military aid to Israel,” stated Josh Ruebner, National Advocacy Director, “especially given the fact that Israel misuses U.S. military aid to commit systematic human rights abuses of Palestinians in violation of the Arms Export Control Act.”

Ruebner added that “Now is the time — with the U.S.-backed ‘peace process’ in tatters and Israel continuing to illegally colonize Palestinian land — to end, rather than increase, U.S. weapons transfers to Israel.”

Last month on CNN, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called for ending U.S. military aid to Israel, an idea endorsed by the Israeli think tank Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies (JIMS) and Israeli journalist Ran Dagoni writing in Globes.

The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation is organizing a multi-year campaign to end U.S. military aid to Israel.  On its interactive web site, www.aidtoisrael.org, users can view how much money their cities, counties, Congressional districts and states provide in military aid to Israel, and determine how much health care, education, housing and jobs training this money could purchase instead.