The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by UNGA in December 1948. The aim was to establish a universal standard of human rights. International Human Rights Law (IHR) has developed from this. Azeezah Kanji analyses how Israel, by casting Palestinians out from the realm of civilisation, has managed to manipulate the law.

Ever since the Israeli state began constructing the enormous separation wall acrss the West Bank, in the name of security but ‘happening’ to annex large amounts of Palestinian land and separate farmers from their land, there have been protests in which articulate defenders of international human rights law have taken part. The response has been summary arrest, often under military regulations. Addameer report.

Should the British government go beyond formal condemnation of the Israeli occupation to an active policy of trade restrictions, especially on arms? in response to an e-petition – which gathered enough signatures to force a debate -the House of Commons held its second debate in 2 months about the situation in Palestine. It was notable how well-informed many MPs were, and how feeble were the defences of Israeli policies. All the defenders could do was cite the awfulness of Hamas – an easy target, especially if you forget that humanitarian law applies to both sides.

Hundreds of millions of civilians have been killed by governments in the 20th and 21st centuries by one means or other. IHL has ruled such slaughters illegal but Israeli philosophers and lawyers have come up with a handy justification of disproportionate force: its attacks are either on ‘military bases’ (all of Gaza being a military base in Israeli eyes) and self-defence. Other governments have been grateful for this rewriting of the law writes Jeff Halper.

In a careful indictment. B’Tselem examines the sites and statistics of the onslaught on Gaza and concludes ‘The scope of these airstrikes as well as the length of time that they persisted indicate that they were likely authorized by senior military and political officials, and were also granted advance sanction by the Military Advocate General Corps and the Ministry of Justice.’ They, the IDF and Hamas all broke the rules of IHL.

Michael Sfard shows how the IDF has redefined the laws of war, challenging any differentiation between military targets (which are legitimate) and civilian targets (which aren’t) and undermining the principle of proportionality, which forbids attacking even a legitimate target if the anticipated harm to civilians is excessive in comparison to the military benefit from the target’s destruction has gone. The IDF interprets the laws of war in a way that is “shockingly different” from the general consensus worldwide.

A new report published by Al Haq – Water For One People Only: Discriminatory Access and ‘Water-Apartheid’ in the OPT – focuses on the control of water as an instrument of exploitation and subordination along colonial, racial lines in the Occupied Territories. It is – surprise, surprise – in violation of International Humanitarian Law.

In a hard-hitting statement, Amnesty International has condemned the findings of an Israeli inquiry into last year’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla as a “whitewash” which failed to account for the deaths of nine Turkish nationals. The Turkel Commission concluded that, of the 133 incidents of force used by the IDF during the raid on the Mavi Marmara that it examined, 127 were in conformity with international law, while it had “insufficient information” to make a determination on the other six… The report of the International Fact-Finding Mission – the Goldstone Report – came to diametrically opposite conclusions on every issue of substance and it has not been answered in any way.

Further reactions to the publication of the Turkel Commission’s interim report on the Mavi Marmara/Gaza flotilla fiasco. We’ll add to these as they come in, but for now here are: a BBC annoncement of the publication; a stinging criticism by Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam; and a press release by Adalah stating what is for most of us the blindingly obvious, viz. “the conclusions reached by the Turkel Committee completely contradict international law and the findings released in September 2010 by the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate the Israeli attacks on the Flotilla, which was established by the UN Human Rights Council…”

David Shulman, a prominent Ta’ayush activist often working in the South Hebron area, reviews the recent Breaking the Silence publication. He says of the testimonies collected here: “To read them is to see the profound moral corruption of the occupation in all its starkness.”

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years until his retirement in 2001. In 2008 he was appointed to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. At the age of 80 he has started his own blog, and in this posting he pulls no punches in his condemnation of the illegality and the punitive violence of the occupation.

GENEVA (29 November 2010)– The Special Rapporteur Richard Falk urged the United Nations and the international community to draft a new protocol of international humanitarian law to address the situation of prolonged occupation and refugee status imposed upon the Palestinian people for over 43 years of Israeli occupation.

Gideon Levy writes: “The voice of joy, the voice of rejoicing is heard in Israel: The Americans and British have also committed for war crimes, not only us. WikiLeaks’ revelations have inflamed all our noisy propagandists: Where is Goldstone, they rejoiced, and what would he have said? They were relieved. If the Americans are allowed to do it, so are we… Our rejoicing propagandists have changed their tactics now: no longer “the most moral army in the world,” a contention any reasonable person can see is ridiculous. Now they say: “We are terrible, like all the rest.” “

Muhammad Ali Khalidi argues that the new “ethical code” designed for the Israeli army to take into account the “fight against terror”… contains two innovations: it includes acts aimed exclusively at military targets in its definition of “terrorism,” and it contains a principle of distinction that prioritizes the lives of citizen combatants over those of noncitizen noncombatants, contrary to centuries of theorizing about the morality of war as well as international humanitarian law…

International lawyer Sharon Weill provides an overview of what follow-up there has been to the Goldstone Fact‐Finding Mission report, which raised serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel in Gaza during December 2008‐January 2009. The Goldstone report stated that the follow‐up might be exercised via three channels: (1) Israeli institutions; (2) the ICC; and (3) third states through the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Weill updates us on progress via all three…

Al-Haq is alarmed at the seemingly uncontested acceptance of Israel’s claim to self-defence by the international diplomatic community, and would like to make it emphatically clear that Article 51 of the UN Charter cannot be invoked as justification for military operations within or against the OPT…