Legal Brief: Flotillas and the Gaza Blockade

[Jefferson23]

by Jadaliyya Reports



Legal Brief: Flotillas and the Gaza Blockade (July 2011)


The Gaza Strip is currently under a continued naval and land blockade.<1> New flotillas are trying to reach Gaza to provide assistance to the people of the Strip. In light of the deadly outcome of the previous flotilla of 31 May 2010, Diakonia IHL Programme would like to reiterate the relevance and importance of international humanitarian law (IHL).

The Gaza Strip is an occupied territory

The Gaza Strip remains an occupied territory as it is effectively controlled by the Israeli army (land, sea, airspace), which administers the supply of basic services (customs, currency, population registry, electricity, water, fuel etc.). The opening of Rafah border crossing has allowed movement of people only, and remains at large restricted.<2> Furthermore, even if the military presence of Israeli troops inside Gaza decreased, Israel has the ability to regain its military control over the Strip at will.<3>

The naval and land blockade is illegal

1. The land and naval blockade does not serve a concrete and direct military advantage

in full: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2187/legal-brief_flotillas-and-the-gaza-blockade

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[King_David]

9. Dismantle The Jewish State ? nt

[pelsar]

2. grasping at straws again?

This is not a legal brief as much as a political fantasy.....

what happen to the UN's opinion?

this reminds me of obama when he went shopping for an opinion to avoid the war powers act....you can always find a lawyer to push any point of view, no matter how pathetic. And if the place your normally trust has an opinion you dont like.....well i guess its time to find someone else.



lets see, this is pretty easy to take apart....i'll take a few minutes just for fun:

1) effectively controlled by the Israeli army (land, sea, airspace)
the "lawyer(s)" obviously is geographically challenged: israel doesn't control egyptian foreign policy...thats the border to the south

2) oops he/she did realize there is a border-thats pretty new
the opening of Rafah border crossing has allowed movement of people only, and remains at large restricted.
except they are politically challenged, as israel does not control egyptian foreign policy, hence there cant be an occupation without full control.

3) even if the military presence of Israeli troops inside Gaza decreased, Israel has the ability to regain its military control over the Strip at will.
right and since when does ability to invade have anything to do with an occupation?

i think thats enough........this is getting really pathetic, i mean if you can't trust the UN to go against israel, where else to turn?

[Jefferson23]

3. I thought you'd like it pelar.

Maybe you should speak to attorney's who have a specialty in this area before
you claim it's not a legal brief.

Have a nice day.

[pelsar]

11. nah, international legal briefs are nothing more than political play

obamas "legal" war in libya made that so abundantly clear that its hard not to see that same play elsewhere.


i always find "legal" intl opinions to be nothing more than than political positions (classic case being how dafur is not genocide), but you live by them, so now what?

are you now going to ignore the UN and go "fishing" every time they have an official position that no longer jives with yours?
doesn't sound to principled to me.

[Jefferson23]

15. nah? ok then.

nah pelsar, the legal brief can be challenged but not in the manner you suggest.

I've stated an opinion to you about Darfur? I don't believe that to be true, post my response you claim I've made
or stop telling me what I accept or not.


The UN report won't be out until July 27th, I think that's the date anyway...so we'll see the details then.


Obama has credibility issues regarding the handling of Libya, you disagree?


War Powers Expert Disputes Obama Administration Justification for Libya Military Action
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/06/28-11

Until the world collectively gets their act together, Israel can sit back and relax?



Yes, I know you do not care for legal international opinions, like this one:

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
http://www3.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

[pelsar]

17. you missed the point about the politicalization of intl law

the obvious example is dafur.....the reason the UN wont consider it genocide is not because of the massacres that are happening but because if they do, they then have to act, and the UN doesn't want to, hence they wont declare it a genocide.....thats a good example of the UN's politicalization of the law.


Obama and Libya?.....yes i think its rather pathetic that he ignored the war powers act, went shopping for a legal brief (i think he found on via the TV at 2:00am....) that he liked....but the concept is there, you don't like one legal view, just go find another one to find the one you want. (I believe bush did something simaler for something less obvious, but it just something i remember...)

so what are you going to do, if the UN declares the blockade legal?.....I believe its you who believes in the UNs legal opinions. Are you going to reluctantly agree with the UN or go shopping for a different opinion?

tough choice.........

[Jefferson23]

18. That's your opinion of the UN's action on Darfur..their opinion is

not quite what you seem to be suggesting. It was a rep for the UN who referred to Darfur as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis.( 2004)

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/sudan/fact_sheet.pdf

As I said earlier, the legal brief I posted can be challenged, just not in the manner you suggest and
continue to do so.

Once the UN report is out, we'll know the details. Do you imagine their finding legality of the blockade will
then circumvent all other UN positions regarding Israel?

I'm not shopping pelsar, it's a legal brief; I think it has substance and points to relevant concerns
about the law. The UN's may carry weight too, and ultimately legal challenges can sometimes end at the highest levels of justice and there will always be some in disagreement. For instance, your disagreement with the ICJ advisory ruling 2004.

Just so you know, the reaction by Colin Powell to the ICJ was more about how the ICJ should mind its own business..in more
polite terms than how I am characterizing it of course. But basically that was the United States position, he wasn't stupid
enough to try and argue against such a legal body's powerful findings. John Kerry followed suit, I suggest you shape
your arguments, as poor as they are, along those lines too.

on edit to correct spelling.

[pelsar]

23. our differences is in approach

I view lawyers as a tiny notch above politicians in terms of believability...both can talk out of both sides of their mouth. (i was sent a speech by reid (senate majority leader) during the bush administration....its was a speech a republicans are now repeating today about obamas spending...almost word for word.

lawyers are in the same boat with their ability to take any position, depending upon whos paying their bills.
___________

the only opinions that to me have any worth are those that can offer a realistic solution to the immediate problem. The wall is a good example. If you want to claim the wall is illegal, thats fine, but if you cant offer a realistic solution that would replace the wall, in terms of security then its "illegality" has no worth in my eyes.

same for the blockade on gaza, you want it removed?...fine, now whats the solution for the military grade rocket that might just land on those chemical tanks just out of kassam reach today?

if you dont have a solution for that, i'm hardly going to take your claim that the blockade is "illegal".....i value my actual life and those in my country far more than some clerk/lawyer sitting nicely fare away with some opinion.

i suppose thats the legal argument anyway: potential loss of lsraeli lives vs the convenience of gazas having their own port...if thats not addressed in any "legal brief" of the blockade than clearly its political opinion dressed up legal terminology....

you appear not concerned with actual multiple consequences that can occur for any one single action....your just "paper" kind of person, believing that whats written somewhere is actually real.

the obvious example being the "humanitarian crisis in gaza" that was written about, but never actually physically occurred, the "massacre" in jenin, that also never occurred, etc etc etc

black marks on a white sheet of paper, can be fantasy or real, they prove nothing, in the real world, during actual events the only thing they are good for is toilet paper.

[Jefferson23]

24. You hold great contempt for lawyers, that include courts of law too?

I think we have come full circle here again pelsar. I see no point in speaking about Gaza, you
are set with the conditions there etc.

For arguments sake, the blockade is legal...then what? The occupation is only about security and not a land grab
conversation again?

We differ, likely always will.

Stay well.

[pelsar]

25. not so much contempt as low credibility....

i accept that fact that we need laws (intl, local etc) as well as politicians to keep a society going. We also need garbage collectors, gardners, etc.....i just trust the guys working the garbage collection circuit as having more credibility than the others.

the bockade...well unfortunately hamas has little credibility in my eyes so basically they have to "prove themselves to us" which means we return to the initial pullout when there was no shooting....and they simply stop shooting, laying IEDs, tossing over the occasional kassam.....i.e. stop trying to kill us.

once thats been settled, and they work the political circuit we get to play with our fantasies.

hamas pretends that they are now more concerned with governing, we pretend (as do all the progressives) that in time the gazan population will push hamas to really be moderate or one day they might lose control (we all pretend that Iran and hizballas model dont really exist).

and slowly they get sea access....

and then one day like hizballa they'll attack and we'll bomb them again and wipe out their port....back to square one.

they got the options, depends upon how smart they want to play....(so far they keep trying to kill us, on a weekly basis, thats the key).

oh yea, and when they try the "swing around" going out to egypt and trying to kill us via the longer egyptian border, that too counts as an attack from hamas....

[pelsar]

26. and you?

you want the blockade removed...

hamas is still shooting kassams, which are not accurate enough or have the range for the chemical tanks just north......

i thinks its reasonable to assume that if they have the missles (military grade) that will be easy to import with no blockade then the will

is that relevant to you at all?

[Jefferson23]

27. Of course it is relevant. The cease fire was relevant too, or should

have been to your government, but then there was OCL.

I don't think I need to repeat a showing of sources for you, correct?

The safest most pro-active move those who govern Israel can do for all its citizens is to end
the occupation, take the deal..it's a fair one.



Resolution adopted by the General Assembly



64/19. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine


http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6F2DF1FFB49D51AD852576C100537C1F

[shira]

28. What do you make of 64/19 WRT refugees? What's a just settlement in your view? n/t

[pelsar]

30. no no..this time, no evasion, no links...just you

i believe you want the blockade lifted today...not in the future after an agreement, not after peace signing ceremony sometime in the future....you want it lifted today.

kassams were flying last week in to israel.


is it relevant to you, not anybody else in this entire world, that hamas might actually use some of those ships unloading at gaza city to import miitary grade missiles and aim/hit the chemical tanks north of gaza the day after they import them?

if they are shooting kassams to kill israelis last week, why not next week using better weapons with a better target?

I'm not asking for a solution, just wondering if its relevant, if it occurs to you that it might be problem, if it should even be considered.....

[Jefferson23]

31. I form my opinion based on as accurate information as I can.

I haven't evaded anything, I believe in all our conversations I am quite stark and
to the point re: what Israel needs to do and I answered you with yes, what Hamas does
is relevant.

As I said previously, Israel needs to extend itself to negotiations immediately, to
have meetings to include Hamas..they could begin the process by the end of this week.

I am confident agreements to assure all groups of an end to the occupation to include a deal
similar to if not identical to the UN link I posted for you would have a tremendous impact
for good.

There would be no reason for more violence as you describe, security would not be dropped immediately of course, I believe
you know that pelsar. It would be a great first step, but one I do not believe will ever be
initiated by Israel, who prefer more land over peace.

[shira]

32. LOL, what on earth makes you think Hamas would sit down and discuss genuine peace with Israel?

They'd cease being who they are if they agreed to a land for peace 2-state deal that kept Israel secure.

If you really believe in peace via 2 states, Jefferson, then please tell me what you thought was wrong with the Olmert 2008 offer...

[pelsar]

33. either i was not clear, or your evading ...so i'll try again...

i am talking about tomorrow.....
you want the blockade lifted tomorrow...i.e. so hamas can start importing whatever it wants tomorrow.

if i understand you correctly all israel has to do, is start talking to hamas and they will forgo the idea of targeting the chemical plants....

as they will be importing before any agreements are actually made......

is that your belief?

and they will not shoot during the negotiations? and if they get frustrated, they still wont shoot?.......

is that your belief?
__________

btw since you believe israel prefers land for peace, why did israel give back the sinai to egypt for peace?..it seemed to me to be a pretty straight forward deal, what am i missing?

[Jefferson23]

34. Israel can begin the process tomorrow....you trying to play some semantics

game, then our conversation is over. I have made myself very clear, several times.

Your government has been urged to include Hamas in talks, how would talking to them increase attacks
when no other security now in place would be removed while doing so?

They're going to shoot Israeli's during the negotiations?? You are confused, I thought we agreed there was
no need to re-hash the events prior to OCL.

[pelsar]

35. i dont play semantics..i look at real world possibilities....

you probably believe you've made yourself clear, but its not for me, because your world is not made up of real violent actions that happen 5 minutes after something that happened miles away.......

as i understand it, and you can clarify this, you want the blockade removed tomorrow as its illegal....that i believe is your position is it not?

is the removal conditional on talks starting? or should it be removed whether or not there are talks? you're very vague about this, i don't know if its intentional or not.

[Jefferson23]

36. No, not tomorrow pelsar. Do we have a language barrier issue here?

You can go back and read what I posted again if you prefer. The process which can involve all parties, representatives
of each group etc can begin ANYTIME Israel so desires.

[pelsar]

37. its not a language barrier its a cultural barrier

if i ask a question again, it means your previous answer was vague and unclear....i am asking you to use different terminology.

for instance, when do you believe (note the word, YOU, would be a good time for israel to lift the blockade on gaza?

some basic options, feel free to add milestones if you would like:
before the talks
during the talks
after an agreement...


or as i believe i now understand, you don't have an opinion.....(its up to the negotiators)

[Jefferson23]

38. A cultural barrier we have now? I don't think so.

Beginning the process of talks directly, with all groups equally represented comes first. What
each side is bringing to the table is crucial, it should move forward from there once agreements
are finalized.

[pelsar]

39. its definitely cultural

your approach is a vague, "we'll set the stage, see how things go and if things don't go so well, we'll just blame the side we prefer to....in this way you really don't have to declare anything definitive, other than "talking is good." and know who to blame if things don't go as planned.....

and like a good consultant, you dont have to take any responsibility for any actions that follow. (i assume that is your profession-consulting)


its cultural because we over here have to attempt to look at various scenarios and have an answer for the unexpected or the expected.....otherwise when things happen as they always do, we require an answer. We don't have some vague, generalities as answers.....

but i do understand now why you cant/wont answer about improved missiles and the chemical tanks...consultants dont give definitive answers, just vague suggestions of what others should do...and if they don't succeed its because they "did it wrong".

reminds me of a discussion i had with a lady a few years ago about the kassams...her suggestion was that israel should talk to hamas and whatever they agree to will work.....the concept of a plan b or c or what to do tomorrow (the kassams were falling day and night at that point) was simply not relevant...she didn't understand about the kassams falling as we spoke, that required any action..... i suspect you have the same point of view.

[Jefferson23]

40. Really? I'm not sure where to begin in response since you have

a lot of convoluted nonsense here. You think that George Mitchell's role was one that
held no responsibility too?


It's a cultural difference because you over there have to attempt to look at various scenarios and have an answer for the unexpected
or the expected, you require an answer..I see. So the same security that is in place now, the occupation, the blockade, is not enough
to begin talks to include Hamas, according to you. Your government would need more security than they have now, do I understand you correctly?

Improved missiles and the chemical tanks are what you presume. You also presume all security ceases to exist once talks begin. I wonder if you appreciate the lack of trust the Palestinians have since OCL, among other events.

You need to start somewhere, and the longer the occupation continues, the less chance there will be for
a viable two state solution.

Israel prefers military solutions, the United States likes them too..you might want to reconsider support for that, considering how much blow back it can bring to the innocent.

[pelsar]

41. its not complicated....

those who cannot state clearly (as you cant) what specific solutions there are for specific problems are simply "consultants." George was one of those "facilitator" type people who quit when he couldnt facilitate...

i didnt mention anything about what kind of security, when it can change etc.....i just brought a potential problem that requires a solution to be ready.


i dont expect you to have any kind of answer....its not something that you can related to: a very specific potential problem that does require a very real solution should it occur.

of course the Palestenian dont trust us, why would they...we don't trust them....which is precisely why each side has to have solutions prepared for what they see as problems. The Gazans are now busy building underground cement lined tunnels and preparing launching pads.....we require an answer for the missiles.

i just asked you about the blockade, when you want it lifted.....i assumed you had an opinion, i was wrong.

[Jefferson23]

42. I gave you an opinion, you don't like it....fine. I answered your questions.

Yea, George was a flunky too.

I believe we're done here pelsar.

[pelsar]

43. like i said...its probably a culture thing...you dont get it

theres a difference between a short term solution that demands immediate answers and the willingness to make a definitive stand, that is not vague or open to shades of interpretations vs the long term solutions which always rests upon 'negotiations" various degrees of the ability to interpret or misinterpret or degrees of confidence in what is reported or what was not reported.


clearly you prefer the latter, which as i wrote, doesnt require much effort, just a word game that has little consequences....its the short term solutions that are the tough ones....where there is a direct line between actions and consequences and responsibility.

and george...just a negotiator who failed and gets to write a report blaming others....

[shira]

4. The PA agreed to the naval blockade at Oslo >15 years ago...

Pursuant to the Oslo Accords negotiated and signed between Israel and the PLO, the Palestinians agreed that the Gaza coastline would be placed under Israeli control and that no foreign ships would be allowed closer than 12 nautical miles from the shore. Israel demanded this out of concern over widespread import of conventional and unconventional weapons into Gaza. Had it not been for this provision, there would be no Palestinian Authority today, and Israel would not have withdrawn from Gaza.

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=229401

Gaza/Jericho Agreement
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Gaza-Jericho+Agremeent+Annex+I.htm

[Jefferson23]

5. Snip*

Revised and expanded: February 1999)




The Wye memorandum reeks of the rancid Israeli (and American) discourse on terrorism. Terrorism is a self-generating force. It originates in the "terror support structure," "terrorists and their structure," "terrorist organizations and their infrastructure," "terrorist cells and the support structure that plans, finances, and supplies and abets terror," "organizations (or wings of organizations...) of a military, terrorist, or violent character," and -- lest we forget -- the "external support for terror."

Detached from its Israeli environment, Palestinian terrorism is always the cause but never the effect of evil: assaulting Israeli innocents, it is by definition unrelated to Israel's brutal rule. Thus, to understand terrorism, it is irrelevant that, since the Oslo accord, more than 600 Palestinian homes have been demolished and 140,000 dunums of Palestinian land confiscated. It is also irrelevant that, due primarily to Israel's illegal imposition of closure on the eve of Oslo, the Palestinian standard of living has fallen by nearly 40 percent, with fully 30% of the workforce unemployed and fully 40 percent of the population living at or below the poverty line. (16)

Given that terrorism is an implacable negative force, the only means to combat it is an implacable positive force: repression. And in this Manichaean struggle between good and evil, the more repression the better: any restraints will impede the struggle. Accordingly the Wye memorandum gives short shrift to human rights concerns, despatching them in one sentence: "without derogating from the above, the Palestinian Police will...implement this Memorandum with due regard to internationally accepted norms of human rights and the rule of law...." Presumably on account of its exemplary human rights record, Israel is not called upon to do even this much. Indeed, the record does impress. According to Amnesty, even after Oslo, Israel continued to engage in "mass arrests of Palestinians;" place "thousands of Palestinians" under administrative detention without charges or trial, sometimes for "years on end" ("many may have been prisoners of conscience"); "use torture systematically on Palestinian political suspects...its use was effectively legal, an internationally unprecedented state of affairs" ("this legalization of torture has, over the past five years, if anything, become a more entrenched part of the system in which Palestinian detainees find themselves"); resort to "brutality, amounting to torture or ill-treatment...at checkpoints"; and conduct "unfair trials...convictions are almost invariably based exclusively on the accused's confession, usually extracted by the use of torture and ill-treatment." (17)

The Palestinian Authority's "deplorable" human rights record has been extensively documented. (18) Without extenuating PA culpability, it bears recalling that Israel recruited Arafat precisely in order to facilitate repression. Thus Rabin boasted that the PA would quell Palestinian resistance "without problems caused by appeals to the High Court of Justice, without problems made by B'Tselem, and without problems from all sorts of bleeding hearts and mothers and fathers." Truth be told, "Palestinian Authority" is a misnomer. Apart from what Israel and the US authorize it to do, the PA exercises no authority whatsoever: in all respects it is in thrall to them. The Oslo process marked, in Meron Benvenisti's phrase, the continuation of "occupation...albeit by remote control." In exchange for the perquisites of collaboration, the PA must ruthlessly crush all opposition to continued Israeli occupation. (19)

Human Rights Watch observes that

The role of Israel, the U.S. and the international community in influencing the conduct of the PA should not be underestimated....xternal demands that the PA halt anti-Israel violence have been made in terms that condone a disregard for the human rights of Palestinians. Such pressure is highly potent, due in part to the situation of extreme political and economic dependency in which the self-rule entity exists.

It goes on to recall that "the Netanyahu government...conditioned the easing of the closure of the West Bank and Gaza on a halt in prisoner releases by the PA;" that "the Clinton administration demanded that Arafat act more decisively to prevent anti-Israel violence, but made no reference to the need for due process, even as...massive, arbitrary round-ups were taking place;" that "as President Arafat cracked down on the opposition, particularly Islamist groups, by carrying out arbitrary arrests, detaining people without charge, and practicing torture, Israel and the U.S. praised the crackdown while remaining largely silent on the facts;" and that "despite clear evidence of the systematically unfair practices of the state security courts, neither Vice-President Al Gore nor any other U.S. official has publicly retracted the praise for their creation that Gore offered." (20)

in full:http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=13

[shira]

6. So? The PA long ago agreed to this blockade the UN now admits is legal. Also...

Also, Norm Finkelstein believes in Hezbollah's right to terrorize Israeli civilians.

Kinda funny you quote him as an authority on terror.

:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

7. Kind of funny you rarely seem to read what is posted. n/t

[shira]

8. That article blaming Israel for Arafat's conduct has nothing to do w/ the legality of the blockade

It's just more bullshit on top of bullshit blaming Israel for the way Arafat was supposed to control terror (which he never did as terror and incitement to it only got worse after Oslo). But then, what do you expect from someone who supports and enables terror like Finkelstein?

[Jefferson23]

10. You seem to curse a lot lately shira.

You: "It's just more bullshit on top of bullshit blaming Israel for the way Arafat was supposed to control terror (which he never did as terror and incitement to it only got worse after Oslo)."

As I said earlier, it's kind of funny you rarely read what is posted, I believe that still applies here.

The OP I posted for you was in response to your post #4, it is appropriate and deals directly
to counter the content of your post.

[shira]

12. Can you explain the hidden meaning behind the Finkelstein article and how it relates to post #4? NT

[Jefferson23]

13. There is no hidden meaning...the OP is quite clear. n/t

[shira]

14. I suppose you can't. You post a red herring, claim it's relevant, and presto - it's relevant! n/t

[Jefferson23]

16. The PA's agreement doesn't tell the whole story, does it, shira?

The response you received from me deals directly with that. If you believe the legality of the
blockade due to the UN's say so will receive no legal challenge of merit..good for you.

[shira]

19. Finkelstein's response assumes Arafat abused his power to control terrorism for his Israeli masters

That baloney (as well as the rest of that drek he wrote) couldn't be further from the truth as Arafat only incited and rewarded terrorism.

[Jefferson23]

20. Sure, on your say so. Bye shira. n/t

[shira]

21. Arafat admits Oslo process is Trojan Horse (from 1994)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDj7bg0lN44

Now match those words with history, as terror increased exponentially after Oslo, and what we have is something different than what a quack like Norm Finkelstein claims. Arafat never tried to control terror.

[Jefferson23]

22. Well there ya go..if you're confident about the content of this video,

good for you.

Anyone interested decides the veracity of each post shira.



*RAUL HILBERG: Well, let me say at the outset, I would not, unasked, offer advice to the university in which he now serves. Having been in a university for thirty-five years myself and engaged in its politics, I know that outside interferences are most unwelcome. I will say, however, that I am impressed by the analytical abilities of Finkelstein. He is, when all is said and done, a highly trained political scientist who was given a PhD degree by a highly prestigious university. This should not be overlooked. Granted, this, by itself, may not establish him as a scholar.

However, leaving aside the question of style -- and here, I agree that it's not my style either -- the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it_takes_an_enormous_amount_of



On edit to add: Director, Palestinian Media Watch, Itamar Marcus.

Interviewed here for the film Obsession, Radical Islam's War Against the West.

Marcus lives in the settlement of Efrat in the West Bank.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/about_interviews_Marcus.php

[shira]

29. That was in english. Here's Arafat in arabic, in 1995...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3tFYmMpd3A

Here's more confirmation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD_KQMJqPeA

It can't possibly be true, right?

So what do you do with this information?