Interview with Israeli BDS activist Tali Shapiro: The fear of international isolation is shifting the discourse in Israel
- Details
- Written by Eleanor K Eleanor K
- Published: 29 March 2011 29 March 2011
- Hits: 4949 4949
In early March, I attended an Independent Jewish Voices event in London with Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy. Those who follow Levy’s articles in Haaretz – a collection of which have been published in his 2010 book, The Punishment of Gaza – will be familiar with the central theme of his presentation: Israeli society’s indifference to a brutal, military occupation on their doorstep and the ongoing crimes – under international law – against the Palestinian people. After his talk, and a brief intervention by director of JNews, Miri Weingarten, the floor was opened to questions: two out of five questions were about economic sanctions and the academic and cultural boycott. Levy affirmed that boycotts are legitimate, but questioned whether an Israeli boycott can be effective, concluding that it will push Israelis further to the right, and feed into their paranoia that 'the world is against us'. He said that academic institutions should be the last target of a boycott and it 'should be against the occupation, not all of Israel'.
I approached Tali Shapiro, Israeli activist and writer, for her responses to what seems to have become the last line of defense against the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) amongst progressive circles, in Israel and internationally. I was curious as to why the international community is still being asked to consider the feelings/fears of Israelis who rarely challenge their own government's apartheid policies, and why we are still discussing 'if' the boycott 'will' be effective in Year seven of the campaign.
Tali Shapiro: Part of being an effective activist on any issue is to know it inside-out. I happen to be the head editor of the Boycott! Supporting the Palestinian BDS call from within newsletter; this gives me good insight into the trends in the mainstream media, concerning BDS. I've been involved since the Gaza massacre of 'Operation Cast Lead'. This unabashed blood bath was a turning point in Israel's international image, and the emergence of BDS as the main tactic to fight the occupation and apartheid is a clear result of Gaza.
While international papers were beginning to talk about what was previously the sole domain of alternative media, it took the Israeli media six more months to catch up. In another six months (one year after Cast Lead), it would be common to see several articles a day concerning BDS in the online Israeli MSM; within two years of Cast Lead there's not an article, a news spot, or a radio show that doesn't include 'Israel's declining image'/ 'delegitimization'. In fact, by now it's not just in the news, it is part of the language and culture. The latest BDS victory began a couple of months ago, when Israeli journalists preyed upon the fears of the typical, colonial citizen with titles like ‘BDS is working’. The interesting thing is that when you actually read the article [in Hebrew], you realize that all that's happening is that a certain company has looked into the details. This latest phenomenon shows how hard it is to really measure effectiveness. I believe all movements for social change learn, sooner or later, how to respect the complexities of reality and not force themselves upon it. This ability to adjust is what makes us truly effective. Chela Delgato of INCITE! was quoted as saying, "when you're making the road by walking it's hard to run." That's the cautionary tale, which those who use force as an "easy solution" refuse to grasp.
Just to answer that cheap shot about Israelis becoming even more defensive, this is a natural progression which happens with every abuser who is called out on his abusive behaviour: when you tell the man who beats his partner that you see what he's doing and it's wrong, naturally, the first thing he does is get defensive. He may lie, he may make excuses, he may blame the victim, but does that mean he shouldn't be confronted?
EK: Why does the academic – and cultural – boycott continue to be the most controversial amongst those commentators that yet understand how complicit state institutions are in the occupation?
TS: To me, statements like Levy's are a clear indicator that the man doesn't know the issue to its full extent (and I say this with all due respect to his dedication, sharp analysis, and genuine concern for the well-being of human beings). It's hard to grasp the vastness of the workings of the occupation. This is what separates the Gush Shalom 'progressives'/ 'enlightened colonialists' from the Who Profits radicals. When the Who Profits project began, I don't think they anticipated the depth of economic involvement in the occupation. What they realized is that it is all about the money – war profiteering, in the most classic sense of the term. What they discovered was that 80% of Israel's economy is entangled in occupation. The meaning of this big word 'occupation' is theft by force, and amassing of profit on those stolen gains by exploitation.
One has to remember that Israelis are no different from other people. The banality of evil is, well, banal. How do you get the 'average Joe' to do the above? How do you get them not to object to all this? You have to create justifications for it. These will only be effective if they are manifested in each and every member in the society. In other words, you have to create a culture around it. So in Israel you write songs about 'mighty battles won', you create a whole culture that never mentions its victims, and this serves as the canon in your educational institutions. Once we can see the clear connection, of how culture has been enlisted to enable economic oppression by military means, really there's no other choice, but to widen the boycott.
As I've illustrated in my response to the first question, BDS's main effect will not be via the actual severing of ties. The effect will be felt much sooner with the fear of severing of ties. This pressure was instrumental in fighting the South African apartheid regime and I think denying it doesn't point to an understanding of the situation – not then and not now. This doesn't mean BDS is the only action taken. People have been taking to the streets in a very organized and consistent manner for years: we write, we speak abroad. South Africans did all this as well. Just as evil doesn't substantially change through geography and time, neither do the ways to fight it effectively.
EK: Weingarten responded to the questions on BDS by saying that in the light of the new anti-boycott bill, which is likely to be passed by the Knesset, it seems strange that audiences would ask an Israeli speaker if she or he supports the boycott because a) they could be penalized for their opinion, and, she implied b) the boycott does not need a 'kosher stamp'. Is it relevant what Israeli commentators, academics and cultural figures think about the boycott?
TS: Israeli speakers can simply say ‘my country has made it illegal for me to comment, fearing the consequences I choose not to speak’ – this would be making a very clear political statement about how bad things have become and does not belittle the importance of other activists who do choose to take the risk.
Israelis do have that unique role in the BDS movement, in that we are basically asking to boycott ourselves. Yes, one of our roles is to 'kosher stamp' the movement, but that's hardly our only role, and we're not the first in history to hold this status. Whites did it in South Africa, in the US, Christian Germans in Nazi Germany, veterans do it in the anti-war movement, as do cisgendered, heterosexual men in the feminist and queer movements. They can choose to be a tool, or they can choose to take an active, thinking part. Israelis in the BDS movement are much more than 'kosher stamps'; we commit much of our time, resources and energy, and we do it knowing the consequences. We initiate and we join – that is what activists do. For solidarity groups, it's not just about the ends, but about the means. There are two results by which we measure success: 1. Have we attained our goal? 2. Have we gained the trust of the oppressed, enough to be welcome in their safe spaces? Our voices can only become relevant if we manage to achieve the latter. Otherwise, we are still the oppressor, speaking from a place of privilege. It's only when we're radical enough to step out of the binary paradigm that we can truly become part of the movement; otherwise all we do is perpetuate oppression.
Some elements within the progressive Israeli left would really like to make it about 'BDS vs. anything other than BDS'. This is also a historic repetition of earlier struggles between the centrists and the radicals, which isn't specific to Israeli politics. As long as the Israeli government didn't impede on the centrists (typically educated, Ashkenazi, upper-middle class), they were OK with Palestinians biting the dust. A fine example of this is Sheikh Jerrah: if the state hadn’t arrested Jews in truck-loads, the great majority of the people with the Meretz stickers wouldn't have come out against the forced poverty, through property theft, of East Jerusalem Palestinians.
In Israel today the left is actually one of the smallest minority groups. You can be classically fascist, like the 'National Left' group and still be considered a 'leftist fifth column'. This is epitomized by the Boycott Prohibition Law. Because it's so all-encompassing, all of a sudden organizers of B'tselem feel a need to come out on television and say, 'I'm a Zionist'. It's very similar to the American progressives talking about how 'true patriotism is in criticizing the state'. I don't disagree with this statement, I disagree with the framing of social involvement as subject to my proving my loyalty to a state/government. In this kind of reality, we are very limited in our actions. Fortunately for us, this isn't reality, just one way of perceiving it. Again, this is where radicals come in: our role is to challenge these concepts, while visualizing and working towards a more just/free society."
EK: When do you think we will reach the point – or have we already arrived – when BDS will be at the centre of any discussion on Israel/Palestine?
TS: We have arrived!
April 8-9, 2011: PeaceWorks: Solidarity in Action
- Details
- Written by Peter Miller Peter Miller
- Published: 28 March 2011 28 March 2011
- Hits: 4730 4730
Register here: rachelcorriefoundation.givezooks.com/events/peace-works-2011-solidarity-in-action
Come together to turn knowledge into action, to build connections across movements, and to strengthen grassroots efforts for...
Peace, Justice, and Freedom in Palestine/Israel and Beyond.
Celebrate, learn from, and explore the implications of the People's Uprisings in the Middle East with
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS
Hear the words of a poet who has examined the wounds in Gaza and drawn connections between rich histories of struggle with
ALICE WALKER
Whether new to the cause or a seasoned activist, come to Olympia to join students and young people, community members, people of faith, peace and justice activists from a range of struggles. Network, share skills and attend workshops on...
Read more: April 8-9, 2011: PeaceWorks: Solidarity in Action
Boycotting Israel ... from within: Israelis explain why they joined the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement.
- Details
- Written by Mya Guarnieri Mya Guarnieri
- Published: 28 March 2011 28 March 2011
- Hits: 4407 4407
Boycotting Israel ... from within
Israelis explain why they joined the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement.
by Mya Guarnieri
A Palestinian activist holds Israeli bread products being sold in a shop in the West Bank town of Ramallah [EPA]
It was Egypt that got me thinking about the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement in a serious way. I was already conducting a quiet targeted boycott of settlement goods - silently reading labels at the grocery store to make sure I was not buying anything that came from over the Green Line.
I had been doing this for a long time. But, at some point, I realised that my private targeted boycott was a bit naïve. And I understood that it was not enough.
It is not just the settlements and the occupation, two sides of the same coin, which pose a serious obstacle to peace and infringe on the Palestinians' human rights. It is everything that supports them - the government and its institutions. It is the bubble that many Israelis live in, the illusion of normality. It is the Israeli feeling that the status quo is sustainable.
And the settlements are a bit of a red herring, a convenient target for anger. Israelis must also face one of the major injustices that have resulted from their state - the nakba, the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
While BDS addresses that, among other concerns - the three principles of the movement are respect for the Palestinians' right of return, as outlined in UN resolution 194, an end to the occupation and equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel - I remained reluctant to get involved.
I have to admit that I was frightened by the movement. I did not think it would help. I was sure that BDS would only encourage Israel to dig its heels in deeper. It will only make things worse for everyone, I reasoned.
Egypt was the tipping point for me. I was exhilarated by the images of people taking to the streets to demand change. And while the Palestine Papers prove that the government seems intent on maintaining the status quo, I know plenty of Israelis who are fed up with it.
There are mothers who do not want to send their children to the army; soldiers who resent guarding settlers. I recently spoke with a 44-year-old man - a normal guy, a father of two - who told me he wants to burn something he is so frustrated with the government and so worried about the future.
And Egypt is on many Israeli lips right now. So, what can be done to help bring it to Israeli feet? What can be done to encourage Israelis to fight for change, to fight for peace, to liberate themselves from a conflict that undermines their self-determination, their freedom?
BDS has stacked up a number of successes, which is one reason the Israeli Knesset is trying to pass a bill, known as the Boycott Law, that would effectively criminalise Israelis who join the movement, subjecting them to huge fines.
And some of those involved with BDS are already feeling an immense amount of pressure from the state.
'Israel's mask of democracy'
Leehee Rothschild, 26, is one of the scores of Israelis who have answered the 2005 Palestinian call for BDS. Recently her Tel Aviv apartment was raided. While the police did this under the pretense of searching for drugs, she was taken to the station for a brief interrogation that focused entirely on politics.
"The person who came to release me [from interrogation] was an intelligence officer who said that he is in charge of monitoring political activity in the Tel Aviv area," Rothschild says. It was this officer who had requested the search warrant.
Since Operation Cast Lead, Israeli activists have reported increasing pressure from the police as well as General Security Services - known by their Hebrew acronym, Shabak.
The latter's mandate includes, among other things, the goal of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, making those who advocate for democracy a target.
House raids, such as the one Rothschild was subjected to, are not uncommon, nor are phone calls from the Shabak.
"Obviously [the pressure] is nothing compared to what Palestinians are going through," Rothschild says. "But I think we're touching a nerve."
When asked about the proposed Boycott Law, Rothschild comments: "If the bill goes through, it will peel off, a little more, Israel's mask of democracy."
Tough love
As for her involvement in BDS, Rothschild remarks that she was not aware of the movement until it became a serious topic of discussion within Israel's radical left, which she was already active in. And even after she heard about it, she did not jump onboard right away.
"I had reservations about [BDS]," Rothschild recalls. "I thought about it for a very long time and I debated it with myself and my friends.
"The main reservation I had was that the economic [aspects] would first harm the weak people in the society - the poor people - the people who have the least effect on what's going on. But I think that the occupation is harming these people much more than the divestments can."
Rothschild points out that state funds that are poured into "security and defence and oppressing the Palestinian people" could be better used in Israel to help those in the low socioeconomic strata.
"Another reservation I have had is that it might make the Israeli public more extremist, more fundamentalist," Rothschild adds. "But I have to say that the road it has to go to be more extreme is very short right now."
As an Israeli, Rothschild considers joining the BDS movement to be an act of caring. It is tough love for the country she was born and raised in.
"I hope that, for some people, it will be a slap in their face and they will wake up and see what's going on," Rothschild says, adding that the oppressor is oppressed, as well.
"The Israeli people are also oppressed by the occupation - they are living inside a society that is militant; that is violent; that is racist."
'Renouncing my privileges'
Ronnie Barkan, 34, explains that he took his first step towards the boycott 15 years ago, when he refused to complete his mandatory military service.
"There's a lot of social pressure [in Israel]," Barkan says. "We're raised to be soldiers from kindergarten. We're taught that it's our duty [to serve in the army] and you're a parasite or traitor if you don't want to serve."
"What is even worse is that people are raised to be deeply racist," he adds. "Everything is targeted at supporting [Jewish] privilege as the masters of the land. Supporting BDS means renouncing my privileges in this land and insisting on equality for all."
Barkan likens his joining of the boycott movement to the "whites who denounced their apartheid privileges and joined the black struggle in South Africa".
When I cringe at the "a-word," apartheid, Barkan counters: "Israel clearly falls under the legal definition of the 'crime of apartheid' as defined in the Rome Statute."
'Never again to anybody'
Some oppose BDS because it includes recognition of the Palestinian right of return. These critics say that the demographic shift would impinge on Jewish self-determination. But Barkan argues that "the underlying foundation [of the movement] is universally recognised human rights and international law".
He emphasises that BDS respects human rights for both Palestinians and Jews and includes proponents of a bi-national, democratic state as well as those who believe a two-state solution is the best answer to the conflict.
He also stresses that BDS is not anti-Semitic. Nor is it anti-Israeli.
"The boycott campaign is not targeting Israelis; it is targeting the criminal policies of Israel and the institutions that are complicit, not individuals," he says.
"So let's say an Israeli academic or musician goes abroad and he is turned away from a conference or a venue just because he's Israeli ... " I begin to ask.
"No, no, this doesn't fall under the [boycott guidelines]," Barkan says.
"Because that's not a boycott. It's racism," I say.
"Exactly," Barkan responds, adding that the Palestinian call for BDS is "a very responsible call" that "makes a differentiation between institutions and individuals and it is clearly a boycott of criminal institutions and their representatives".
"Whenever there is a grey area," he adds, "we take the gentler approach."
Still, Barkan has faced criticism for his role in the boycott movement.
"My grandmother who went to Auschwitz tells me, 'You can think whatever you want but don't speak up about your politics because it's not nice,' I tell her, 'You know who didn't speak up 70 years ago.'"
Barkan adds: "I think that the main lesson to be learned from the Holocaust is 'never again to anybody' not 'never again to the Jews.'"
Mya Guarnieri is a Tel Aviv-based journalist and writer.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera
Introducing ASOI: Apartheid State of Israel
- Details
- Written by ILAN PAPPÉ ILAN PAPPÉ
- Published: 25 March 2011 25 March 2011
- Hits: 4519 4519
Those of us who have been veteran comrades in the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine have quite often been frustrated by the inability to galvanize enough support in the political and media establishments in the West against the brutal occupation of the West Bank and the strangulation of Gaza. We believed that clear cut evidence of the oppression and the highly visible criminal policies that raged since 1967 should have at least triggered a world reaction similar to the one that now takes place against Libya, and even more so.
But we know all the reasons why it did not, and will not happen. And yet we may have overlooked one particular reason, indeed one successful ploy of the Israeli peace camp that seems to have aborted any such effort in its buds. The liberal Zionists believe strongly in the existence of two discrete entities one Israel and one that lies on the other side of the 1967 green line which have very little in common. The acceptance of this line as a hard fact is the main justification given in the West for the inaction against Israel (one which is also supported by some of Palestine's best friends and of course the Palestinian Authority). The line drawn is not just a political boundary it is mainly a moral border. Everything that is happening in the occupied world is diametrically opposed to life in democratic Israel and hence the argument is that if you treat Israel as a pariah state then you will also harm the 'good' part, the pre-1967 state. This is also the basis to the continued support for the two states solution that bases peace on the ability of moral Israel to re-invent itself in the pre-1967 borders.
I hope this distinction would at least disappear from the vocabulary and dictionary of the Western solidarity movement with Palestine (where it can still be heard in loyalty to the peace camp in Israel, the PA and the invisible lord of realpolitik).That this distinction is false was proved once more this week (20 March, 2011) when yet another apartheid law was passed in Israel. This new law allows Jewish settlements built on state land inside Israel not to admit Israeli Palestinian citizens as residents and legalizes the wish of these new settlers not to sell land to the Palestinians citizens of the state. This is one of many such laws passed recently (the loyalty oath law that turns the Palestinians in Israel to second class citizens by law and one which does not allow them to live with their Palestinians spouses from the occupied territories are two of the more famous apartheid laws passed recently). The new law, like the previous others, institutionalize the Apartheid State of Israel or for short ASOI.
ASOI is now one of worst apartheid regimes in the world. It controls almost all of Palestine (apart from Gaza which it imprisoned hermetically since 2005). It has, in absolute terms the highest number of political prisoners (China was reported to have less then 1000, Iran has few thousands); Israel holds nearly 10,000 of them. It has the largest number of apartheid laws and regulations than any country in the world and apart from the Arab regimes that are now collapsing and rogue states such as Miramar and North Korea, has the longest imposition of emergency laws and regulations that rob citizens of their most basic human and civil rights. Its policies against the discriminated native population, now composing nearly half of the overall population in ASOI, include atrocities such as barring people from using water sources, from cultivating their fields, building more houses, from getting to work, schools or universities and it bans them from commemorating their history and in particular the 1948 Nakbah.
ASOI is protected by left wing philosophers, mostly Jewish but not only, in the USA and the West as well as by the new members of the European Union whose deplorable record during the holocaust may explain their unconditional support for ASOI. It enjoys the unconditional backing of many Jewish communities in the World, Christian Zionists and cynical corporations who benefit from ASOI's military elite's proclivity to use lethal weapons at will and from the state's progressive banking system and a high tech know how.
ASOI could become the Free Republic of Israel and Palestine (FRISP) or any similar name, where people would enjoy the same rights now fought for all over the Arab world and which the West claim to disseminate and protect all over the world. If ASOI will not become FRISP, any action such as the one taken now by the West in Libya would rightly be regarded suspiciously as cynical and dishonest.
Linkage has lost it attraction since it was misused by Saddam Hussein in 1991. But now is the time to revive it. It is time to realize that there will not be a new Middle East - in fact, there will no world peace - if ASOI continues to enjoy immunity and is not curbed and stopped - and hopefully one day - replaced by the democratic FRISP.
Ilan Pappé is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the UK, director of the university's European Centre for Palestine Studies, co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies, and political activist. His books include A Modern History of Palestine, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and Gaza in Crisis (with Noam Chomsky).
Jerusalem bombing condemned, Israel urged to halt use of mortars in residential areas
- Details
- Written by Amnesty International Amnesty International
- Published: 24 March 2011 24 March 2011
- Hits: 4596 4596
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Index: MDE 15/020/2011
24 March 2011
Jerusalem bombing condemned, Israel urged to halt use of mortars in residential areas
Amnesty International has condemned yesterday's bombing in Jerusalem, which clearly targeted Israeli civilians, and urged Israel to stop firing mortars on residential areas, following an Israeli attack which killed four Palestinian civilians in Gaza City earlier this week.
Yesterday's bombing in Jerusalem, which took place at a bus stop in the centre of the city, killed a British woman and injured more than 30 people, three of them seriously. No group has claimed responsibility for the bombing, but the location and composition of the bomb indicate that it was designed to cause serious civilian casualties. The bomb, which reportedly included steel pellets, was left in a bag at a crowded bus stop near Jerusalem’s International Convention Center and central bus station. It was the first bombing in Jerusalem since 2004.
Amnesty International reiterates that all attacks targeting civilians – wherever, whenever and by whomever they are carried out – are prohibited absolutely under international law.
The Jerusalem bombing follows a recent increase in the firing of indiscriminate rockets into southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups, and numerous Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. Since Saturday, Israeli artillery shells and air strikes have killed six Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including four children, as well as four fighters from the al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of Islamic Jihad. More than 25 Palestinians, mostly civilians and including 11 children, have been injured, and property and electricity infrastructure have been severely damaged by the Israeli attacks.
Amnesty International is seriously concerned that in at least one recent attack on Gaza, the Israeli military failed to distinguish between fighters and civilians. On 22 March, Israeli forces fired four “Keshet” mortar shells into the densely populated al-Shuja’iya neighbourhood in Gaza City. The third shell landed next to the home of the al-Hilu family, on a group of children and youth playing football, killing two of them, while the fourth shell killed a man and his grandson who were trying to evacuate the wounded. Another 11 civilians were wounded by shrapnel, at least three of them seriously; most of those wounded were members of the al-Hilu family and eight were children.
A statement by the Israeli military expressed regret for these civilian casualties and said that the incident was being investigated, but also blamed Hamas for “using civilians as human shields.” Even if Israeli forces had fired the mortars in response to fire from Palestinian armed groups, the use of an imprecise weapon such as mortars in a densely populated residential area would be contrary to Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law to take necessary precautions to spare civilians. Amnesty International calls on the Israeli authorities to launch an independent investigation into this incident, and to end the use of mortars in residential areas.
This is not the first time Israeli forces have fired mortars into densely populated civilian areas. During Operation “Cast Lead”, Israeli forces fired “Keshet” mortars near an UNRWA school in the Jabalia refugee camp on 6 January 2009, killing more than 30 civilians who were sheltering in the school at the time. That incident was extensively investigated by Amnesty International and a UN Board of Inquiry at the time, and an investigation was also opened by the Israeli military. In July 2010, Israel’s Second Update on its investigations into the Gaza operation reported that, following the military investigation into this incident, the Military Advocate General had recommended that the military orders governing the use of mortars in populated areas be revised in order to minimize civilian casualties in the future. Amnesty International is disturbed that eight months later, this recommendation does not appear to have been implemented.
Israel has a duty to protect those within its borders from rocket and mortar fire. But it must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law, including by selecting means and methods of attack that distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilians.
On 19 March, Palestinian armed groups fired over 50 mortars and rockets into southern Israel; two Israeli civilians were lightly injured and buildings on a kibbutz were damaged. Hamas’ military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for firing 33 mortars into southern Israel; its statements said that the attacks targeted Israeli military bases and came in response to the killing of two members of the Brigades in an Israeli air strike three days earlier.
Rocket and mortar fire has continued since Saturday, with Grad rockets hitting locations in or near the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be’er Sheva, causing property damage and lightly injuring a number of residents.
Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned the indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into Israel by Palestinian armed groups. The UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, led by Justice Richard Goldstone, concluded in its September 2009 report that such attacks constituted war crimes.
-------------------------------------
East Mediterranean Team
Amnesty International, International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street
London WC1X 0DW
United Kingdom
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7413 5500
Fax: +44 (0)20 7413 5719