Photoset

Slides from Anthony Lawson’s conclusions

Photo
israelfacts:

Professor Stephen Hawking is backing the academic boycott of Israel by pulling out of a conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres in Jerusalem as a protest at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Hawking, 71, the world-renowned theoretical physicist and former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, had accepted an invitation to headline the fifth annual president’s conference, Facing Tomorrow, in June, which features major international personalities, attracts thousands of participants and this year will celebrate Peres’s 90th birthday.
Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking’s approval described it as “his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there”.
Hawking’s decision marks another victory in the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions targeting Israeli academic institutions.
In April the Teachers’ Union of Ireland became the first lecturers’ association in Europe to call for an academic boycott of Israel, and in the United States members of the Association for Asian American Studies voted to support a boycott, the first national academic group to do so.
In the four weeks since Hawking’s participation in the Jerusalem event was announced, he has been bombarded with messages from Britain and abroad as part of an intense campaign by boycott supporters trying to persuade him to change his mind. In the end, Hawking told friends, he decided to follow the advice of Palestinian colleagues who unanimously agreed that he should not attend.
Hawking’s decision met with abusive responses on Facebook, with many commentators focusing on his physical condition, and some accusing him of antisemitism.
By participating in the boycott, Hawking joins a small but growing list of British personalities who have turned down invitations to visit Israel, including Elvis Costello, Roger Waters, Brian Eno, Annie Lennox and Mike Leigh.
However, many artists, writers and academics have defied and even denounced the boycott, calling it ineffective and selective. Ian McEwan, who was awarded the Jerusalem Prize in 2011, responded to critics by saying: “If I only went to countries that I approve of, I probably would never get out of bed … It’s not great if everyone stops talking.”
Noam Chomsky, a prominent supporter of the Palestinian cause, has said that he supports the “boycott and divestment of firms that are carrying out operations in the occupied territories” but that a general boycott of Israel is “a gift to Israeli hardliners and their American supporters”.
Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past. Most recently, in 2006, he delivered public lectures at Israeli and Palestinian universities as the guest of the British embassy in Tel Aviv. At the time, he said he was “looking forward to coming out to Israel and the Palestinian territories and excited about meeting both Israeli and Palestinian scientists”.
Since then, his attitude to Israel appears to have hardened. In 2009, Hawking denounced Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza, telling Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera that Israel’s response to rocket fire from Gaza was “plain out of proportion … The situation is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue.”
Israel Maimon, chairman of the presidential conference said: “This decision is outrageous and wrong.
“The use of an academic boycott against Israel is outrageous and improper, particularly for those to whom the spirit of liberty is the basis of the human and academic mission. Israel is a democracy in which everyone can express their opinion, whatever it may be. A boycott decision is incompatible with open democratic discourse.”
In 2011, the Israeli parliament passed a law making a boycott call by an individual or organisation a civil offence which can result in compensation liable to be paid regardless of actual damage caused. It defined a boycott as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage”
The Guardian
Related: An Israeli law centre has since released a statement suggesting Professor Stephen Hawking cuts off the computer-based system which he relies on to communicate.
“His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel’s Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin.
Poll: Is Stephen Hawking right to join the academic boycott of Israel?

israelfacts:

Professor Stephen Hawking is backing the academic boycott of Israel by pulling out of a conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres in Jerusalem as a protest at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Hawking, 71, the world-renowned theoretical physicist and former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, had accepted an invitation to headline the fifth annual president’s conference, Facing Tomorrow, in June, which features major international personalities, attracts thousands of participants and this year will celebrate Peres’s 90th birthday.

Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking’s approval described it as “his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there”.

Hawking’s decision marks another victory in the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions targeting Israeli academic institutions.

In April the Teachers’ Union of Ireland became the first lecturers’ association in Europe to call for an academic boycott of Israel, and in the United States members of the Association for Asian American Studies voted to support a boycott, the first national academic group to do so.

In the four weeks since Hawking’s participation in the Jerusalem event was announced, he has been bombarded with messages from Britain and abroad as part of an intense campaign by boycott supporters trying to persuade him to change his mind. In the end, Hawking told friends, he decided to follow the advice of Palestinian colleagues who unanimously agreed that he should not attend.

Hawking’s decision met with abusive responses on Facebook, with many commentators focusing on his physical condition, and some accusing him of antisemitism.

By participating in the boycott, Hawking joins a small but growing list of British personalities who have turned down invitations to visit Israel, including Elvis Costello, Roger Waters, Brian Eno, Annie Lennox and Mike Leigh.

However, many artists, writers and academics have defied and even denounced the boycott, calling it ineffective and selective. Ian McEwan, who was awarded the Jerusalem Prize in 2011, responded to critics by saying: “If I only went to countries that I approve of, I probably would never get out of bed … It’s not great if everyone stops talking.”

Noam Chomsky, a prominent supporter of the Palestinian cause, has said that he supports the “boycott and divestment of firms that are carrying out operations in the occupied territories” but that a general boycott of Israel is “a gift to Israeli hardliners and their American supporters”.

Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past. Most recently, in 2006, he delivered public lectures at Israeli and Palestinian universities as the guest of the British embassy in Tel Aviv. At the time, he said he was “looking forward to coming out to Israel and the Palestinian territories and excited about meeting both Israeli and Palestinian scientists”.

Since then, his attitude to Israel appears to have hardened. In 2009, Hawking denounced Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza, telling Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera that Israel’s response to rocket fire from Gaza was “plain out of proportion … The situation is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue.”

Israel Maimon, chairman of the presidential conference said: “This decision is outrageous and wrong.

“The use of an academic boycott against Israel is outrageous and improper, particularly for those to whom the spirit of liberty is the basis of the human and academic mission. Israel is a democracy in which everyone can express their opinion, whatever it may be. A boycott decision is incompatible with open democratic discourse.”

In 2011, the Israeli parliament passed a law making a boycott call by an individual or organisation a civil offence which can result in compensation liable to be paid regardless of actual damage caused. It defined a boycott as “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or another factor only because of his ties with the State of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic damage”

The Guardian

Related: An Israeli law centre has since released a statement suggesting Professor Stephen Hawking cuts off the computer-based system which he relies on to communicate.

“His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel’s Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin.

Poll: Is Stephen Hawking right to join the academic boycott of Israel?

Photo
israelfacts:

A Palestinian flag is raised as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas celebrates with members of his delegation and other supporters after today’s vote. Photo credit: Jason DeCrow / Associated Press

israelfacts:

A Palestinian flag is raised as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas celebrates with members of his delegation and other supporters after today’s vote. Photo credit: Jason DeCrow / Associated Press

Video
Quote
"The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages."

Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai

Israel has killed 66 Palestinians so far in its latest assault on Gaza which started on Wednesday, 24 of whom were babies and children. The death toll for Israel’s last major assault on Gaza was 1,400, over 300 of whom were babies and children.

(via israelfacts)

Photo
israelfacts:

From the Facebook photo album titled “Late night tour of the Tel Aviv Safari”: “There are no signs forbidding taking pictures with the animals.” (Photo: Screenshot of Ayala Ben-Naftali’s Facebook page)
Israeli woman gets her picture taken with ‘animals’
See also: Israel is deporting Africans and putting tens of thousands into detention camps

israelfacts:

From the Facebook photo album titled “Late night tour of the Tel Aviv Safari”: “There are no signs forbidding taking pictures with the animals.” (Photo: Screenshot of Ayala Ben-Naftali’s Facebook page)

Israeli woman gets her picture taken with ‘animals’

See also: Israel is deporting Africans and putting tens of thousands into detention camps

Photo
thepeoplesrecord:

holzmantweed:

thepeoplesrecord:

New California legislation targets BDS movement as “anti-Semitic”September 26, 2012
The California State Assembly has passed a resolution declaring criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic—in a clear attack on the boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) movement.
Passed by a bipartisan majority of Democrats and Republicans, the resolution—known as HR 35—specifically defines as anti-Semitic any speaker, film and event that describes Israel as “guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide,” as well as “student- and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel.”
HR 35 smears the BDS movement as anti-Semitic by mixing it in among genuinely anti-Semitic phenomena, like campus vandalism involving swastikas—actual hate crimes which have been perpetrated with disturbing frequency in recent years on California campuses.
But the reality is that in opposing racist and genocidal policies of the Israeli state, BDS is an anti-racist movement, and it is supported by people of all races and faiths around the world, including many prominent Jewish voices, such as Israeli historian Ilan Pappé,Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, South African anti-apartheid fighter Ronnie Kasrils, and the organizations Jewish Voice for Peace and International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.
The California resolution is the latest in a series of attacks on an increasingly effective BDS movement. Last year, members of pro-Israel groups filed lawsuits attempting to force campuses to put a halt to such activism, but were rebuffed when the court dismissed the suit.
These attacks come after several years of highly visible and successful actions in support of Palestine on University of California (UC) campuses and throughout the state—such as the protest of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren in 2010 at UC-Irvine and the successful blockade of an Israeli cargo ship in 2008.
It is because of these successes that supporters of Israel are employing more aggressive methods of intimidation against activists in an attempt to slow the movement’s progress in delegitimizing Israel’s colonial project.
The intent of HR 35, which is a non-binding resolution, is to intimidate the BDS movement in order to create a political climate on campuses that is more favorable to Zionists and the right wing. Already, UC administrators have reacted with severe repression against students who dare to speak out against Israel’s crimes and challenge the UC’s complicity with them.
For example, UC administrators and the Orange County District Attorney (DA) cracked down on the 11 students who interrupted a speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Orenat UC Irvine in 2010. Oren was speaking in defense of Israel’s crimes during Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,417 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, and the Israeli military targeted major components of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, including schools, governmental and administrative offices, and water-treatment and energy facilities.
Not only did the DA level criminal charges against the students, but UC administrators violated the students’ right to privacy when they voluntarily turned over their personal e-mail accounts to prosecutors, who then published them in an act of brazen public intimidation. The 11 were ultimately convicted of misdemeanor charges and sentenced to community service time as well as academic sanctions at school.
The persecution of the Irvine 11 illustrates the close relationship between university administrators and elected officials—and how the two work together to stymie protest and dissent, especially when it comes to solidarity with Palestine.
By officially declaring protests like those of the Irvine 11 to be anti-Semitic, California political representatives want to embolden administrators to stifle opposition to Israel’s crimes and the UC system’s complicity with them. HR 35 will be a handy statement for administrators to reference and employ in order to justify repression of Palestine solidarity activism.
Full article
This comes out on the day I begin to read Omar Barghouti’s “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights.” A full review will come soon after I finish it. 
California is attempting to stifle a human rights movement centered around ending the Israeli apartheid & allowing Palestinians the right to a safe existence, clean resources, education, healthcare, etc. without being terrorized by Zionist soldiers.
The BDS movement will not back down. Zionism is racism. Free Palestine.

Quick review for the California legislature and everyone else, because I see a whole lot of people fucking up all over the place on this one, and if you’re wondering if I’m looking at you when I say that,odds are that I am:
Criticizing the policies of the state of Israel isnot anti-Semitism.
Singling out Israel for criticism on its policies when you are strangely silent about other countries that have racist and genocidal policies, as if there’s one standard for Israel  and another standard for everyone elseisanti-Semitism.   (And I’ll note that posts crossing my dashboard calling out what’s going on right now in Tibet, the Kola Peninsula, Circassia, and Aotearoa — to name only four — are few and far between.)
Interrogating Jews regarding our views on Israel as a litmus test regarding our legitimacy to speakisanti-Semitism.
Denying the Holocaust as a tactic for criticizing Israeli policies isanti-Semitism.

“Singling out Israel for criticism on its policies when you are strangely silent about other countries that have racist and genocidal policies, as if there’s one standard for Israel  and another standard for everyone else is anti-Semitism.   (And I’ll note that posts crossing my dashboard calling out what’s going on right now in Tibet, the Kola Peninsula, Circassia, and Aotearoa — to name only four — are few and far between.)”

Ummmm, nope. There is nothing inherently racist about pointing out one genocide without listing off all other global atrocities. Sometimes people are more socially conscious about certain events in the world than they are about others, particularly ones that they are involved in. That isn’t racist or anti-semetic and to claim so is profoundly ignorant, unhelpful and a transparent tactic used to silence & disempower the voices of those willing to speak out against the violent state of Israel.
With the United States funding Israel with billions of dollars, it makes alot of sense that socially-conscious U.S. citizens are more aware of, and more conscious of, and more sensitive to the conflict in Israel/Palestine - just like citizens here are more aware of and more sensitive to the horribly evil things the United States military does all around the world. That isn’t racist. That’s human. And I’m damn proud to fill my dash with anti-Zionism & to simultaneously have no racial (or ethnic) prejudice against Jewish people.
America does a whole lot of evil things and so does Israel and nobody should be shamed into not speaking out against that.  

thepeoplesrecord:

holzmantweed:

thepeoplesrecord:

New California legislation targets BDS movement as “anti-Semitic”
September 26, 2012

The California State Assembly has passed a resolution declaring criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic—in a clear attack on the boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) movement.

Passed by a bipartisan majority of Democrats and Republicans, the resolution—known as HR 35—specifically defines as anti-Semitic any speaker, film and event that describes Israel as “guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide,” as well as “student- and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel.”

HR 35 smears the BDS movement as anti-Semitic by mixing it in among genuinely anti-Semitic phenomena, like campus vandalism involving swastikas—actual hate crimes which have been perpetrated with disturbing frequency in recent years on California campuses.

But the reality is that in opposing racist and genocidal policies of the Israeli state, BDS is an anti-racist movement, and it is supported by people of all races and faiths around the world, including many prominent Jewish voices, such as Israeli historian Ilan Pappé,Holocaust survivor Hedy EpsteinSouth African anti-apartheid fighter Ronnie Kasrils, and the organizations Jewish Voice for Peace and International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

The California resolution is the latest in a series of attacks on an increasingly effective BDS movement. Last year, members of pro-Israel groups filed lawsuits attempting to force campuses to put a halt to such activism, but were rebuffed when the court dismissed the suit.

These attacks come after several years of highly visible and successful actions in support of Palestine on University of California (UC) campuses and throughout the state—such as the protest of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren in 2010 at UC-Irvine and the successful blockade of an Israeli cargo ship in 2008.

It is because of these successes that supporters of Israel are employing more aggressive methods of intimidation against activists in an attempt to slow the movement’s progress in delegitimizing Israel’s colonial project.

The intent of HR 35, which is a non-binding resolution, is to intimidate the BDS movement in order to create a political climate on campuses that is more favorable to Zionists and the right wing. Already, UC administrators have reacted with severe repression against students who dare to speak out against Israel’s crimes and challenge the UC’s complicity with them.

For example, UC administrators and the Orange County District Attorney (DA) cracked down on the 11 students who interrupted a speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Orenat UC Irvine in 2010. Oren was speaking in defense of Israel’s crimes during Operation Cast Lead, in which 1,417 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, and the Israeli military targeted major components of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, including schools, governmental and administrative offices, and water-treatment and energy facilities.

Not only did the DA level criminal charges against the students, but UC administrators violated the students’ right to privacy when they voluntarily turned over their personal e-mail accounts to prosecutors, who then published them in an act of brazen public intimidation. The 11 were ultimately convicted of misdemeanor charges and sentenced to community service time as well as academic sanctions at school.

The persecution of the Irvine 11 illustrates the close relationship between university administrators and elected officials—and how the two work together to stymie protest and dissent, especially when it comes to solidarity with Palestine.

By officially declaring protests like those of the Irvine 11 to be anti-Semitic, California political representatives want to embolden administrators to stifle opposition to Israel’s crimes and the UC system’s complicity with them. HR 35 will be a handy statement for administrators to reference and employ in order to justify repression of Palestine solidarity activism.

Full article

This comes out on the day I begin to read Omar Barghouti’s “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights.” A full review will come soon after I finish it. 

California is attempting to stifle a human rights movement centered around ending the Israeli apartheid & allowing Palestinians the right to a safe existence, clean resources, education, healthcare, etc. without being terrorized by Zionist soldiers.

The BDS movement will not back down. Zionism is racism. Free Palestine.

Quick review for the California legislature and everyone else, because I see a whole lot of people fucking up all over the place on this one, and if you’re wondering if I’m looking at you when I say that,odds are that I am:

  1. Criticizing the policies of the state of Israel isnot anti-Semitism.
  2. Singling out Israel for criticism on its policies when you are strangely silent about other countries that have racist and genocidal policies, as if there’s one standard for Israel  and another standard for everyone elseisanti-Semitism.   (And I’ll note that posts crossing my dashboard calling out what’s going on right now in Tibet, the Kola Peninsula, Circassia, and Aotearoa — to name only four — are few and far between.)
  3. Interrogating Jews regarding our views on Israel as a litmus test regarding our legitimacy to speakisanti-Semitism.
  4. Denying the Holocaust as a tactic for criticizing Israeli policies isanti-Semitism.

“Singling out Israel for criticism on its policies when you are strangely silent about other countries that have racist and genocidal policies, as if there’s one standard for Israel  and another standard for everyone else is anti-Semitism.   (And I’ll note that posts crossing my dashboard calling out what’s going on right now in Tibet, the Kola Peninsula, Circassia, and Aotearoa — to name only four — are few and far between.)”

Ummmm, nope. There is nothing inherently racist about pointing out one genocide without listing off all other global atrocities. Sometimes people are more socially conscious about certain events in the world than they are about others, particularly ones that they are involved in. That isn’t racist or anti-semetic and to claim so is profoundly ignorant, unhelpful and a transparent tactic used to silence & disempower the voices of those willing to speak out against the violent state of Israel.

With the United States funding Israel with billions of dollars, it makes alot of sense that socially-conscious U.S. citizens are more aware of, and more conscious of, and more sensitive to the conflict in Israel/Palestine - just like citizens here are more aware of and more sensitive to the horribly evil things the United States military does all around the world. That isn’t racist. That’s human. And I’m damn proud to fill my dash with anti-Zionism & to simultaneously have no racial (or ethnic) prejudice against Jewish people.

America does a whole lot of evil things and so does Israel and nobody should be shamed into not speaking out against that.  

Photoset

israelfacts:

‘Savage’ NY subway ads get a make-over — revealing their true character

A friend just sent us these photos of two of the Islamophobic ads that were put up earlier today by Pam Geller’s organization in ten New York subway stations. They got a makeover; and their true character has been revealed.

Mondoweiss

See also: #MySubwayAd Twitter Campaign

(via disconnectedreality)

Photo
yourmaj3sty:

Israel Has Been Stealing Palestinian Land For Decades..

yourmaj3sty:

Israel Has Been Stealing Palestinian Land For Decades..

(Source: your-maj3sty)

Photo
An Israeli judge ruled on Tuesday that the state bore no responsibility for the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to block the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza.

Ms. Corrie, who was a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., joined the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement in January 2003, and was killed two months later in the Gazan town of Rafah, which straddles the border with Egypt.

Photographs published by The Electronic Intifada on March 16, 2003, the day she died, showed that Ms. Corrie confronted the heavily armored bulldozer wearing a bright orange vest and holding a bullhorn. The same Web site also published sworn affidavits recorded within days of the deadly incident by three other international activists who were present when Ms. Corrie was killed. One of those witnesses, a Briton named Tom Dale, sent the following statement to The Lede on Tuesday from Cairo, where he now works as a journalist:

The verdict in Rachel’s case is saddening for all those who knew Rachel, and for all who believe in what she stood for. It should be disappointing for all those who want to see justice done in Israel and Palestine.

On March 16, 2003, Rachel could not have been more visible: standing, on a clear day, in the open ground, wearing a high visibility vest. On that day, she had been in the presence of the Caterpillar D9 bulldozers used by the Israeli army for some hours.

She was standing in front of the home of a young family which was under threat of demolition by a bulldozer. Many homes were demolished in such a way at that time, and Rachel was seeking to protect her friends, with whom she had lived.

Whatever one thinks about the visibility from a D9 bulldozer, it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it. As I told the court, just before she was crushed, Rachel briefly stood on top of the rolling mound of earth which had gathered in front of the bulldozer: her head was above the level of the blade, and just a few meters from the driver.

Those of us who are familiar with events under occupation in Palestine are may not be surprised by this verdict, which reflects a long-standing culture of impunity for the Israeli military, but we should be outraged.

I didn’t have a chance to get to know Rachel as well as I would have liked, since we spent just a few weeks together, but I do know that she is a tremendous loss to us all.

An Israeli judge ruled on Tuesday that the state bore no responsibility for the death of Rachel Corrie, an American activist who was crushed to death by a military bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to block the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza.

Ms. Corrie, who was a student at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., joined the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement in January 2003, and was killed two months later in the Gazan town of Rafah, which straddles the border with Egypt.

Photographs published by The Electronic Intifada on March 16, 2003, the day she died, showed that Ms. Corrie confronted the heavily armored bulldozer wearing a bright orange vest and holding a bullhorn. The same Web site also published sworn affidavits recorded within days of the deadly incident by three other international activists who were present when Ms. Corrie was killed. One of those witnesses, a Briton named Tom Dale, sent the following statement to The Lede on Tuesday from Cairo, where he now works as a journalist:

The verdict in Rachel’s case is saddening for all those who knew Rachel, and for all who believe in what she stood for. It should be disappointing for all those who want to see justice done in Israel and Palestine.

On March 16, 2003, Rachel could not have been more visible: standing, on a clear day, in the open ground, wearing a high visibility vest. On that day, she had been in the presence of the Caterpillar D9 bulldozers used by the Israeli army for some hours.

She was standing in front of the home of a young family which was under threat of demolition by a bulldozer. Many homes were demolished in such a way at that time, and Rachel was seeking to protect her friends, with whom she had lived.

Whatever one thinks about the visibility from a D9 bulldozer, it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it. As I told the court, just before she was crushed, Rachel briefly stood on top of the rolling mound of earth which had gathered in front of the bulldozer: her head was above the level of the blade, and just a few meters from the driver.

Those of us who are familiar with events under occupation in Palestine are may not be surprised by this verdict, which reflects a long-standing culture of impunity for the Israeli military, but we should be outraged.

I didn’t have a chance to get to know Rachel as well as I would have liked, since we spent just a few weeks together, but I do know that she is a tremendous loss to us all.