GMB 3 Pickets Acquitted in Brighton Magistrates Court
What is the Meaning of the Massive Opposition in Israel to Netanyahu’s Judicial Reform Plans?
John Ware Accuses Me of Being Disagreeable!
Those of you with long memories may
recall that in the early hours of Tuesday 9 March I was arrested with 5
supporters of Palestine Action whilst driving a van to Elbit Systems
Shenstone factory.
The trial, in Wolverhampton Crown
Court, is due to start on Monday before Judge Chambers. I shall, of course, be
pleading not guilty to the charge of intending to destroy or damage
property, contrary to section 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. My intent was
not to cause criminal damage but to
prevent war crimes being committed.
Elbit's Hermes Drone
British
justice places a premium, as it has always done, on the protection of property over
people, even when that property’s sole reason for existence is to kill and maim
the innocent.
The trial
is scheduled to last between 2 and 3 weeks and I shall try to keep people
informed as to its progress from time to time though my blog will not be
appearing as regularly as before.
Picket of Brighton Magistrates Court
GMB
3 Pickets Acquitted of Obstructing the Highway
Yesterday
the case against the “GMB three”, who were accused of wilful obstruction of the
highway collapsed. Three GMB officers were arrested in May last year during an
industrial dispute with waste management company Biffa in Wealden, East Sussex.
They were found not guilty at Brighton Law Courts after the Crown put forward
no evidence. Gary Palmer, one of those involved, was quoted
as saying:
Picket of Brighton Magistrates Court
“This was always a political
case about the rights of people during a cost-of-living crisis to win enough
money to look after their families.
“Our members were taking
part in lawful industrial action to win a decent pay rise.
“This was an
attempt by the company and the police to restrict the right to protest,”
The 3 were arrested under the 1980
Highways Act on suspicion of “obstructing
the highway” in the course of asking strike-breakers not to cross their
picket line. Among the scabs was “a
manager driving a vehicle who GMB and the strikers believe does not have the
correct paperwork to drive the vehicle he was in.” But the Police weren’t
concerned with such trifles as health and safety.
Picket of Brighton Magistrates Court
“This is a serious health
and safety risk for GMB members on the picket line he was crossing and the
general public. The licence violation was reported to the police.”
A statement by Sussex Police read,
“Pickets or assemblies in
trade disputes are not immune from criminal law and police have powers at their
disposal to respond to any issues or breaches of the peace, including any
offences of blocking the highway.
The Highways Act was introduced by
the Thatcher government in 1980—one of its first major pieces of legislation
aimed at suppressing the right to strike. It has been routinely used against
pickets and protests. Under “Obstruction of highways and streets”, section 137
of the Act reads,
“Penalty
for wilful obstruction (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in
any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an
offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.
“(2) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section.”
The Informed Dissent
website notes,
“‘Obstruction’ includes
anything that prevents passing and re-passing along the highway. To be
committing this offence, you don’t have to be blocking the whole width of the
highway. This is because the offence is obstructing the highway itself
(and not other users of the highway). The prosecution, therefore, do not have
to prove that anyone was actually obstructed, but instead that you obstructed
the highway itself.”
The
police attack on the refuse workers’ pickets came after the police consulted
with senior Tory Party politicians. In a statement following the police
operation Wealden District Council said,
“following intervention by
the Police today to enforce lawful access to and from the depot, which had
until now been blocked by the picket line, Biffa have been able to operate two
rubbish collection rounds in the southern half of the District today.”
Simon
Hester, chair of Hastings and District trades union council, told Socialist
Worker,
“A number of GMB full-time
workers and I were blocking vans from leaving the depot. We knew Friday would
be a stand-off because the council had recalled all the vans to the Amberstone
depot on Thursday.
“Vehicles were in line
waiting to leave the depot, and I was in front of the trucks. They sent
officers to deal with pickets. When the chief inspector arrived, he said we
would be arrested for blocking a highway.
“He also made it clear that
we needed to stop blocking vans because public pressure on the council to clear
the streets of rubbish was starting to mount.” See UK: Police
attack refuse workers’ picket in Wealden, England, arresting union officials
Being attacked for being disagreeable by John Ware is like being accused
of sexual harassment by a rapist
Readers of this blog will be shocked
to hear that Islamaphobe-in-chief John Ware, has accused me of being ‘one of the most disagreeable individuals
I’ve ever set eyes on.’ Leaving aside the minor point that he has never set
eyes on me, you will understand why I have to consult m’learned friends about
this attack on my good character and reputation.
Coming from the man who was quoted
in the Guardian as having ‘a track record
for displaying unfairness and twisting the truth’ this is a case of pots
and kettles.
Ware's
2005 programme "A
Question of Leadership" was described
by a senior ex-Panorama journalist as "the
most disgusting Panorama that I have ever seen. The presenter was acting like a
prosecuting attorney, not a journalist." The Guardian's Madeleine
Bunting called the documentary "McCarthyite".
Ware is also on
record, in the Jewish
Chronicle (where else?) as saying that Islamaphobia is rational and the
fault of Muslims themselves.
‘Yet there are several
differences between antisemitism and (authentic) Islamophobia. The former is
entirely irrational, the latter reactive.
It is surely Muslim radicals
who have brought it [Islamaphobia] on their fellow Muslims — by their promotion
of Islam as a political ideology, and by invoking Islamophobia to close down
criticism of this ideology, pouring fat on the fire of those predisposed to
blind bigotry in the first place.
Islamophobia — however it is
defined — will abate when terrorism carried out in God’s name ceases.
All you
have to do is substitute ‘Jew’ for ‘Muslim’ and John Ware would be the first to
protest. Given the extent of Israeli terrorism the possibilities are endless.
Clearly anti-Semitism is rational.
It is no surprise that Panorama has
employed Ware so frequently, all in the name of that famous ‘balance’ between
the right and far-right.
What is the
Meaning of Israel’s Jewish Protests?
It is important to understand the
nature of the massive Israeli demonstrations against the judicial reforms that
Netanyahu is proposing. As Gideon Levy wrote
in Ha’aretz:
To most Israelis, real
democracy is tantamount to “the destruction of Israel.” They’re right. True
democracy will bring an end to the Jewish supremacism they call Zionism, and an
end to the state they call Jewish and democratic. Therefore the threat of
democracy is the existential threat, against which all Jewish Israelis unite:
Should democracy be instituted for all the state’s residents, it will bring an
end to the pretend democracy.
Therefore, the leaders of
the protest make sure to steer clear of any true contact with democracy, lest
the entire thing collapse like a house of cards. It is not due to racism or
hatred of Arabs that they don’t want Palestinian flags or protesters – they are
good people, after all – but only due to the understanding that raising the
question of apartheid will render their struggle ludicrous.
That is why most Israeli Palestinians
have avoided the demonstrations which are about Jewish democracy only. Both
Netanyahu and his opponents agree on the place of Israeli Arabs and they also
agree with the repression that Palestinians face.
One of the most vociferous opponents
of the ‘judical coup’ is former Defence Minister and Chief of Staff, Benny
Gantz, who promised
to bomb Gaza ‘back to the stone ages’.
It was Gantz who outlawed 6 Palestinian Human Rights organisations and it was
under Gantz that Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was assassinated.
In the eyes of these Jewish
demonstrators the Supreme Court represents all that is good about Israel. As
the Jerusalem Post reported:
Around a hundred activists
from the civil society movement Darkenu argued that the High Court of Justice
protected IDF soldiers from international lawfare campaigns.
The High Court
is the flak jacket of IDF soldiers, it is protection for our sons and daughters
that serve in the army, from attempts to petition against IDF soldiers at the
International Criminal Court in The Hague," warned Darkenu CEO and former
Kulanu MK Rachel Azaria. "The Override clause and Levin's moves to weaken
the justice system would hurt IDF soldiers, and hurting our soldiers is a red
line.
The military fears that the war
crimes that the Israeli army perpetrates would be open to the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court at the
Hague if the judicial reforms go through.
The demonstrations in Israel reach
into the innermost parts of the secret state. Thousands of reserve soldiers,
some from the elite forces, have said they would refuse to serve.
Ex-Generals, heads of Shin Bet and a
raft of Judges have condemned the override clause that would enable 61 votes in
the Knesset to overturn any decision of the Supreme Court. Coupled with
proposals that would allow the government to choose who sits on the court this
has provoked panic at the heart of the Israeli establishment.
Israeli Palestinians however have
been conspicuous by their absence from the protests. Why? Because the Supreme
Court has an unparalleled record of approving legal discrimination against
Arabs. Not one piece of anti-Arab legislation has been disallowed.
Even the Jewish Nation State Law
of 2018 which officially made Israel an Apartheid State was approved
by a vote of 10-1, the sole dissent coming from the sole Arab member of the
court.
Eg the Central District Court reduced
the time spent on Administrative Detention for two settler suspects in the
Huwara pogrom from 4 to less than 2 months and from 4 to 3 months.
Administrative Detention is almost never used against Jews. It is a form of
internment without trial and Palestinians are routinely given 6 months
detention renewable every 6 months. In the case of these settlers they were
given less than 6 months in the first place. The Supreme Court has an
unparalleled record for approving
Administrative Detention for Arabs.
Little wonder that the settlers’ legal
representatives from Honenu said that ‘it
was precedent-setting for the court to significantly shorten an administrative
detention order’ They are right. Court
reduces detention without charges for 2 held over assault on Huwara
Khalil Awawdeh - Hunger Striker - Imprisoned Without Trial - Supreme Court Refused to Release Him
Yet in
the case of Khalil Awawdeh, who had been on hunger strike for 170 days and was at death’s door the
Supreme Court refused
to intervene. As a matter of course they refused to challenge the assertions of
Israel’s Shin Bet secret police. As Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer
and former negotiator said
“The Supreme
Court rubber stamps everything that the Israeli security services put forward.
It is only in very rare circumstances that we actually see that they are
pushing back against what the security services are saying.”
As +972 Magazine recounted:
On Wednesday afternoon, Palestinian
administrative detainee Khalil Awawdeh announced
that he was ending his hunger strike, which had lasted over 170 days, after the
Shin Bet agreed not to renew his detention beyond October 2. Until then, he
will remain at Shamir Medical Center in central Israel, where he is currently
hospitalized, in order to recover….
In recent days, photos of an emaciated
Awawdeh on the brink of death flooded social media, energizing the global
campaign to release the prisoner. If the Shin Bet’s policy of extending the
detention and agreeing to release the hunger-striking detainee as his life
hangs in the balance were not grotesque enough, it is worth remembering that
only on Tuesday, Israel’s Supreme Court rejected
another urgent petition for Awawdeh’s release.
So on Tuesday the Supreme Court were
satisfied by Shin Bet’s evidence that Awawdeh was a dangerous terrorist and the
day after Shin Bet itself agreed to end the Administrative Detention making a
fool of the Supreme Court. This speaks volumes about the racism of the Court.
But if the Supreme Court is racist
towards Palestinians it is liberal towards Jews and that is what has earned it
the ire of the Jewish Supremacist Religious Zionism and the Orthodox Jewish
parties. It has repeatedly recognised non-Orthodox conversions for the purpose
of being a Jew entitled to the law of return.
It has always made clear that its
version of ‘who is a Jew’ is an all encompassing one, rejecting the narrow
racial purity definitions of the Israeli right. It does indeed have a liberal
attitude to gay Israelis and others. But when it gets an Arab in its sight it is
as racist as Ben Gvir.
So what is likely to happen? In the
short-term we should not be surprised if the judicial reform plans do not go
ahead, at least unreformed.
Israeli Defence Minister
‘Yova
Gallant has reportedly threatened to resign his post recently over concerns for
the brewing crisis in the military and fears that it could be beset by mass
desertions and refusals to serve’.
The Jerusalem Post asked ‘Could senior Likud MKs
force compromise on judicial reform? – analysis’. It reported that possible
defectors include MKs Danny Danon, Yuli Edelstein as well as MK David Bitan and
Avi Dichter, a former head of Shin Bet. The Coalition’s majority of 64-56 could
easily disappear as it would only take four Likud MKs to vote against or
abstain to prevent the passage of the legislation.
If this were to happen then it is
almost certain that the ruling coalition would break up and Religious Zionism would
defect, thus causing fresh elections. So in the short term the judicial reforms
could be nixed.
ButiIn the longer term the
beneficiary is likely to be Religious Zionism which already has 14 seats.
Israeli Jewish society is undergoing profound changes. Until 1977 the Israeli
Labor Party, which has just 4 seats in the Knesset today, formed the government
in partnership with the National Religious Party.
The effect of the 1967 war and the
conquest of the West Bank was to cause the NRP, which no longer exists today,
to move to the right as the settler movement began, with ILP encouragement, colonising
the West Bank. What was a handful of settlers in 1967 is 700,000 today.
Today Israeli politics are driven by
the Jewish settlers with their messianic dreams of a Third Temple, the Return
of the Messiah and eternal salvation. ‘Left’ Zionism is dead. How did this
happen? I would argue that it was
inherent in Zionism itself.
Labor Zionism created the Israeli
state. Most of their leaders were atheists who based their claim to Palestine
on the god they denied! In order to provide their movement with legitimacy, at
a time when most Orthodox Jews saw Zionism as a secular heresy, they formed a faustian
pact with the minority of Orthodox Jews led by Rabbi Abraham Kook who supported
Zionism. Why? Because without their backing there could be no definition of a
Jew that would be accepted by religious Jews. The NRP were given control over personal
affairs – birth, death and marriage. They defined who was a Jew (although the
definition was different for the purposes of the Law of Return).
As Jewish nationalism and religious
Zionism became intertwined, both feeding off each other, so Israel has moved
further and further to the settler right. Today much of the army has been taken
over. Recently we saw the active
complicity of the army in the Huwara pogrom.
The settler lobby will continue to grow,
politically and numerically, until it exerts a stranglehold over Israeli
politics. It knows what it wants unlike secular Israeli Jews. Although the racism
of secular Jews is not fundamentally different from that of religious Zionists
they do not want Israel to become a halachic state, a state ruled by Jewish law.
There is a very real prospect of
Israel having the attributes of a theocratic state based on the principles of
racial purity and with an open dictatorship and apartheid. The rabbis, corrupt
as they are, will then rely on their own interpretation of the bible to rule.
Already segregated classes in universities are accepted. The present coalition
is proposing to prevent chametz, forbidden food at Passover, entering
hospitals.
The old wars
between the two Jewish states of Judah and Israel is more than likely to be
repeated. What has held Israeli Jewish society together over the past 75 years
has been a common antagonism towards the Palestinians. Today religious Zionists
see no need to compromise with their secular opponents. That is what we are
seeing played out today.
So although it is more than possible
that the judicial reforms will be watered down in the long-terms they and more
will be introduced.
Tony Greenstein