Netanyahu says that he will not allow any Israeli to face war crimes as the Goldstone report is endorsed.

The Goldstone report has been given the green light when it was voted 25-6 at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last week Thursday. Britain and France absented from voting, hoping to delay the vote for at least six months. Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovakia and the US all opposed the report. The Goldstone Report is a heavily documented inquiry into the conflict between Hamas and the Israeli Army in January, which caused an expansive humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It is based on “10,000 pages of documentation, 1,200 photographs and 188 interviews.” and within the 574 pages of the report, it was recommended that both Hamas and Israel investigate apparent human rights violations committed by both sides during the conflict. It went on to say that if Hamas or Israel do not conduct their own respective investigations within a deadline of six months, the UN will refer their cases to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The UN Security Council’s decisions have binding powers under International law, which is why the findings have been met with consternation from both Hamas and Israel.

The UN report could prove to be a fundamental decision within the Middle East Peace process which could have more profound implications later on. It is also an unprecedented step in seeking accountability for actions carried by Israel within the Occupied Territories. The resolution was chaired by Judge Richard Goldstone, a widely respected South African jurist of Jewish ancestry, who went on to serve in his country’s highest court and went on to prosecute war crimes in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. Goldstone has been described as a Zionist, who loves Israel, and he sits on the Hebrew University of Directors at Jerusalem University. He was initially required to investigate Israel’s crimes, but the mandate was altered on his request to also include Hamas. He urged “fair minded people” to read the report and “at the end of it, to point out where it failed to be objective and even-handed.” He also went on to say that Israel’s assault on Gaza (referred to as Operation Cast Lead) amounted to “war crimes and possibly , in some respects crimes against humanity were committed by the Israel Defense Force (IDF)” The notion here is that Israel deliberately attacked civilians and failed to minimize loss of civilian life. Of Hamas, it said that “there was no question that the firing of rockets and mortars was deliberate and calculated to cause loss of life and injury to civilians and damage to civilian structures.” But rejection of the reports have been vehemently expressed. Israel declared that the report was “flawed from A-Z” and that the report "provides encouragement for terrorist organisations world wide and undermines global peace". Yigal Palmor, the Israeli Foreign ministry spokesman said “This fact finding mission was established in sin. This is why Israel is unable to cooperate with it.”Consequently Richard Goldstone was barred from entering Israel to pursue his probe and action which draws parallel with preventing journalists from entering Gaza to report on the seige.

The timing of the publication of the Goldstone report tied in with the US commencing its term as a member of the Human Rights Council. Administrative officials have reportedly stressed the need for the US to sit on the council, to make sure Israel is treated fairly. This corrupting influence from the US, was brought to fruition on Friday 2nd of October, when the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dropped his support for the report, under US pressure. Rory McCarthy in the Guardian reports that: “The Palestinian reversal came after “intense diplomacy” by Washington, which told the Palestinians that going ahead with the vote would harm efforts to restart peace talks with the Israelis" This delay appeared to be signaling the shelving of this report, though there were many dissenters within the Palestinian government. However because there was such an outcry amongst Palestinians, on the 12th of October Abbas performed a U-turn in large part in order to save his diminishing reputation amongst Palestinians who saw him bowing down to US pressure. On the 16th, the UN passed through the resolution. Israel rejected it as one-sided.

The report is consistent with the findings of other human rights organizations, including two reports issued by Amnesty International, five reports issued by Human Rights Watch and various other reports issued by Israeli human rights organizations. The conclusion from Israel that the report is biased is a mute one. The report is biased, but not in the way that Israel wants us to see it. It is biased according to the actions committed by both parties, but not within a political or racial one as people would like us to perceive. This is a question of comparable damage. Around 1,400 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, a third of this number consisting of women and children. In Israel 13 people died, including 10 soldiers, and three civilians. Which is why nine tenths of the report was devoted to Israel war crimes, and one tenth devoted to Palestinian war crimes; and shows that from using these comparable figures, Hamas seems to be doing a better job of keeping civilian causalities to a minimum. The statistics therefore speak for themselves.

Israel’s response to any criticism of their military conduct or annexation of Palestinian settlements; ultimately pulls out the accusatory anti-Israel card. “What, you’re going to judge me for raping and killing an 11 year old boy? You must be anti-Semitic, and biased against Israel.” Accusing anyone of being anti-semetic is the ultimate defence mechanism against scrutiny against Israel, and it is indiscriminate of whether you are Jewish or not to receive this slander. What has changed in recent times is the exposure of the unreliability of their propaganda campaign which incurs the perception that all Palestinians are Islamic terroristswho must be controlled by using extreme force. Another line is that Israel has no choice but to resort to such actions in order to defend itself. Johnatahan Peled, spokesman from the Israeli Embassy in London said: “This is a report that should wrong every country fighting terror. We need to make sure this report does not endanger the US and other countries.” This unashamedly mirrors the post 9/11 rhetoric that was popular with the Bush administration and a perfect example of Israel’s and their supporter’s unconditional clandestine response to criticism.

Criticisms of Goldstone, who himself is Jewish AND Pro-Israel, are absurd and full of falsehoods; he has been called anti-Semitic amongst other things. Israeli Finance Minister had these words to say: “Just as a non- Jew can be anti-Semitic and discriminate against our people and discriminate and hate our people.” he was quoted as saying in Jewish Week. Likewise, Canadian journalist and film maker of Jewish origin Naomi Klein was berated by Canada’s National Post for staging an anti-Israel boycott at the Toronto Film festival. Judging from these reactions there still is a fear of Israel’s name being tarnished. Israel is forming a reputation that will be seen in the history books in the same mould as Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Amin's Uganda, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Sadaam’s Iraq. Which is why Israel is eager to rebuke any criticisms of their military actions. They would like to view their massacre in Gaza,as defending a democracy from terrorists and as a war where they came out victors (more of them dead than us). But as Norman G. Finkelstein has said Israel’s “war” on Gaza was less a war, but rather a concentrated massacre of a densely populated country. Uri Avney, an Israeli intellectual however sums it up best. He says: "What will be seared into the consciousness of the world, will be the image of Israel as a blood stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints."

Defending criticisms of Israel’s military conduct, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said “So now they talk about Israel cruelty. When you win, you automatically hurt more than you have been hurt, and we did not want to win this campaign. That after all was the alternative.” Yet if we are to believe that Israel won this supposed war against Hamas, it is evident that they have been defeated in their battle to withhold an image of a country whose only crime is to defend itself. However world public opinion should be shaped by the findings of the report. “No decision present, or future will deny our basic right to defend residents of Israel.” Olmert said in the early stages of his assault on Gaza where more than half of those killed in Gaza were women and children. The erected wall which traps and contains the population of Gaza, and the series of security checkpoints and barriers which subject the Palestinians in the West Bank to scrutiny and humiliation has also been implemented under the suspect notion of “ensuring the safety of of Israel.”

The most prominent unconditional supporters of Israel’s name includes supposed “academics” Alan Dershowitz, Michael Walzer, and Martin Perez. Their motives for going on the defensive lie in the roots of preserving Israel’s name. Take this line from Dershowitz in the Huffington Post “…in desperation Israel launched an attack designed to stop the rockets. It succeeded in large part though some rocket attacks have continued. Because Hamas fired its rockets from behind human shields, it was inevitable that there would be civilian casualties, despite Israeli efforts to reduce them by making hundreds of thousands of phone calls and leaflet drops warning civilians to stay out of the streets.” Not only are these articles and comments irresponsible and dangerous , they promote the idea that ethnic identity and national pride should be held higher than any country’s total repression of an oppressed people, or any crime against humanity. He also says that: “The Goldstone report has made it virtually impossible for the Israeli army to protect its citizens against rocket attacks from territory that is no longer militarily occupied.” , a perpostrous claim if there ever was one.

Dershowitz seems to be following an established line that Hamas was hiding behind human shields, therefore it would be “inevitable that there would be civilian casualties.” This appears to be an excuse to justify the amount of civilians killed within the conflict. Also dropping leaflets and making phone calls to warning people to stay off the streets is not a significant measure in minimizing casualties. Perhaps avoiding bombing schools, hospitals, Red Cross ambulances, mosques and civilian houses would have been a better measure. Yet there are many witnesses who claim that the IDF deliberately targeted civilians. On the 5th January in Zeiton, on the Southern outskirts of Gaza City, 48 members of the Samouni family were killed by Israeli shells. Salah Samouni tells Rory McCarthy, how a group of around 100 men, women and children consisting of family and neighbors, took shelter from heavy shelling on the ground floor of a housing block. Israeli soldiers had apparently approached their shelter and ordered everyone to leave. The group left and entered the single storey home of Wa’el Samouni. In the morning while four of the men went out to search for firewood for cooking, they were hit by an Israeli shell, which killed two of them. According to Salah, two more shells were then fired at the house killing dozens.

Mc Carthy’s report goes on to speak of other atrocities. “Faraj Samouni, 22, lived with his family next door to Helmi and Salah. Again on the Saturday evening the family had sought shelter from heavy shelling, a group of 18 of them gathering in one room for the night. On the Sunday morning the Israeli soldiers approached. “They shouted for the owner of the house to come out. My father opened the door and went out and they shot him right there,” said Faraj…the soldiers fired more shots into the room…[this] time killing Faraj’s younger half-brother Ahmad, who was four years old, and the child’s mother.” If any of these shocking accounts are true, I am not sure how Likud are able to morally defend its soldiers. Though Israel's Prime Minister Binayamin Netanyahu insisted that he will not allow any Israeli to face war crime trials. The incidents in Zeitoun are what constitute war crimes, and it is imperative that investigations are made to uncover the truth and hold people accountable. In addition to Mc Carthy’s report watch this video which shows the testimony of Ms. Kawthar Abed Rabbo and a horrific account of the Israeli seige:



But lets remember the dead. On the 4th January Abdul Rahim Abu Halima, 14 years old, was killed with his two brothers, Zayed, 8, Hamza, 6 and his sister who was 15 months old. Abel Abed Rabbo (pictured) died after an attack in the village of Izbit Abed Rabbo on January 7th. She was only 2 years old Lina Hassan, 10 years old was killed on 6th January next to a UN school in Jabilya. So too was Mohammed Shaqoura who was 9. Ghaida Abu Eisha, 8, was killed with her parents and two brothers. Mohammed Abu Eisha, 10 was killed by an Israeli air strike in Shamali on January 5th. Dalal, 12, and Ahmed, 5, survived but are deeply traumatised. Finally Shahed Abu Sultan, 8, was killed by a bullet fired from a helicopter as she sat on her fathers lap in a Jabaliya refugee camp on the 5th of January. In truth though there are many more. Why did these children have top die? Under what circumstances did they die? These questions are impertive, but Israel of course does not want us to find out.

Please support Amnesty’s new call on David Miliband - strongly urging the UK government to support the Goldstone report.

John Lennon's Piano (Studio 2 Abbey Road)

No bullshitting! The hazy image on the right is the former Beatle and late John Lennon's piano, in studio 2 Abbey Road St John's Wood. This is the closest I could get to it and this is my very own digital picture that I took. The piano is covered up and I dont think anyone has been allowed to use it since Lennon died. It must have hi DNA all over it. Abbey Road celebrates it's 40th anniversary this month.

Reflections on the Death Penalty and Troy Anthony Davis

In a nation that is big on Christianity, “though shall not kill” should be a relevant enough platitude for those with the power of a man’s life within their hands. “But I say to you do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”, is another useful addition. Despite this many people want to see Troy Davis dead. This desire to see blood is attributed to the fact that Troy has the tag “cop killer” hanging above his name, something that is to be met with some derision if you hold conservative views. Therefore the conservative solidarity has become restless in the need for an irrevocable execution date, for the satisfaction that the death penalty will deliver justice.

Yet what is the role of the death penalty in a Western democratic society? Albert Camus argued that capital punishment as a deterrent was ineffective, and furthermore grounded on instinct emotions and revenge, rather than law or principle of which are the inherently the key components of justice. The function of the death penalty is not as straightforward as to ease a country of evil amongst law abiding citizens or to ease the economic pressure of a prison system that is overcrowded. Some hold the view that the death penalty, which is accommodating of many black men, is a fascist system, concealed in protecting the Aryan whiteness of Middle America. However whether you believe in capital punishment or not is not the main issue here. The main issue is this: should a man be sentenced to death when we are not 100% certain that he is guilty of committing the crime? The answer is a resounding no, yet some people fail to comprehend this assertion.

Troy Anthony Davis has spent the last 18 years of his life on Georgia’s death row, convicted of killing Police officer Mark Allen Mac Phail in a Burger King parking lot in Savannah, Georgia, August the 18th 1989. Here is a series of important facts that surrounds Davis’s case. No physical evidence links Davis to the crime, the murder weapon has never been found, and his conviction was based exclusively on 9 eye witness accounts 7 of which have since recanted their testimonies in sworn affidavits. Almost all these witnesses have stated that they were coerced into implicating Davis as the shooter, whilst 3 have claimed that they did not see the murder. These facts should at the very least offer him the chance of review of a case that had had been subjected to an abuse of Troy’s constitutional rights and which highlights police misconduct. Within the years of his incarceration, Troy has appealed to the twice to the Georgia Supreme Court, twice to the US Court of Appeals and twice to the US Supreme Court. Davis has come close to being executed several times. In September last year, he came to within an hour of being executed. He was granted a last minute stay from the Supreme Court, but his petition to examine new evidence pointing to his innocence was again rejected, this time by the United States Court of Appeals. Many are justified in commenting on the notion of procedure over innocence with regard to these verdicts.

On Monday 17th of August, the US Supreme Court interrupted its summer recess, to order a federal judge to consider innocence claims from Mr Davis. The reason behind the decision was to determine whether fresh evidence which could not be presented in the initial trial, is valid in proving Davis’s innocence. Dissenting from the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that as there was no constitutional violation at Davis’s trial, he should not be allowed to present new evidence. He labelled the action as a “fool’s errand” and as “a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state’s execution of its lawful criminal judgement.” The court's decision was a momentous step within the American judicial system, which went against the precedent of procedure over innocence that has plagued the death penalty appeals process. The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) had been a major factor in streamlining of his appeals. The AEDPA was passed in 1996 and signed under political pressure by Democratic former President Bill Clinton in response to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. What the AEDPA does is place restrictions on the scope of the capacity to attack a conviction and subsequently puts limitations on federal courts ability to grant new trials. The validity of the habeas petition is virtually rendered obsolete. Therefore if you have solid grounds in determining whether a conviction was conducted fairly, or if you have solid grounds to challenge false evidence that had led to the said conviction, or to judge whether the state court had correctly interpreted the US constitution, a number of barriers will prevent you from doing so.

There was also a socio-economic deterrent to justice for Davis. In 1995 the Georgia Resource Center, which helped to represent Troy, had 70% of its funding removed by Congress. Due to these financial constraints, the Georgia Center was unable to present a petition or evidence to the state Court. When representatives of Davis, finally had the financial capabilities to obtain and present the recanted testimonies to the federal district court in 2004, the appeal was rejected, based on the provisions of the AEDPA, which stated that evidence must first be presented to the state court. This is, it is fair to say an obvious catch-22 scenario.

The former district attorney for Chatham County (Georgia), Spencer Lawton Junior, wrote in the Savannah Morning News about Davis’ case. He begins his article “many people are concerned that an innocent man is about to be put to death. I know this and I understand it, I am not likewise concerned…” These are not the kind of comments you expect to hear from someone representing the legal system. He then sets out to raise some interesting points. The shell casings found at the party where a certain Michael Cooper was shot, were fired from the same gun that killed Mac Phail. He claims that Davis shot Cooper and therefore he killed Mac Phail. There is no certainty in this assumption, as many suspect that Sylvester “Red” Coles as being the shooter at the party and therefore Mac Phail’s killer, as he was present at both of these scenes. He claims that Davis had the motive as he was harassing and pistol whipping a homeless man, when Officer Mac Phail came to the rescue. This is not certain either as conflicting accounts suggest that it was Coles who was harassing the homeless man.

He objects to the reliability of the witness recantations suggesting coercion and bribery, which ironically are the same factors that these same witnesses were allegedly pressured into implicating Davis. If his objections to the new witness testimonies are genuine, there is no harm in determining the validity of the recantations in a retrial. Yet Lawton goes on to say “If every verdict could be set aside by the casual acceptance of a witness changing his mind, or suggesting uncertainty decades after the event, it is easy to see how many cases would have to be tried at least twice.” Since the return to the US of the death penalty in 1977, 1,118 prisoners have been executed. 42 of these have come from Georgia. In the same time, more than 100 people have been released from Death Row, many in cases where witness information have proven untrustworthy. The fear of Davis being one of these released men underlies every word of Lawton’s article.

As Lawton expresses the unimportance orf the recanted testimonies, it is worth looking at how important they are. As already discussed, 7 out of the 9 key witnesses have recanted their testimonies. Three of the eyewitnesses who who had initially implicated Davis, now claim that they never actually saw the murder. Larry Young, the homeless man of whom Mac Phail came to the aid of, was at the time heavily intoxicated with liquor yet remained a key witness. He now admits that he “just couldn’t tell who did what.” He continues “I have never been able to make sense of what happened that night. It is as much a blur now as it was then.” When Dorothy Ferrel gave her original statement, identifying Troy as the killer, she was on parole, and was given the impression that if she did not cooperate with the authorities, she would be sent back to prison. “I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I did not see who shot the police officer.” Antoine Williams had always claimed that he did not know who shot Officer Mac Phail: “I kept telling them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared.” However, he was persuaded into signing a statement that suggested the contrary, even though he was illiterate.

In the recantations, Darrell Collins explains the extent of the police coersion when he fingered Davis. A sixteen year old Collins was threatened with a jail sentence for being an accessary to the crime, if he did not falsely testify against Davis. “After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threateneing me I finally broke down and told them what they wanted to hear.” Then there are the three supposed confessions to three men that Davis is said to have made individually. One of these men Kevin Mc Queen, said that Davis had confessed to him while they were both serving time in Chatham jail. He admits in the sworn affidavid that “Troy never confesed to me or talked to me about shopoting that police officer. I made up the confession {from information I heard on the T.V. and from other inmates talk about the crimes}. Troy did not tell me any of this.”

Aside from the recantations there is new exculpatory evidence that that the defense had presented in their appeals which include claims that Sylvester “Red” Coles was the true perpetrator of Mac Phail’s murder but the various judges who ruled against Davis’ appeals argue that there needs to be lots of new evidence to revisit a case. In April 2009 after Davis lawyers filed the federal habeas petition to the 11th circuit; there was a 2-1 decision against a review of his case. This was based on the two procedural requirements contained in section 28 of the AEDPA, however the dissenting Judge, Rosemary Barkett stated that “…the AEDPA cannot possibly be applied when to do so would offend the constitution and the fundamental concept that an innocent man should not be executed.”

Sylvester Coles was never a suspect in MacPhail’s case, and remains one out of the two non recanted testimonies claiming Davis as Mac Phail’s killer. In the exculpatory evidence, Joseph Washington and Gary Hargrove clearly identify Coles as the shooter. None of these men were interviewed by the police. Another affidavit explains Cole hiding a gun in an empty house the day after the murder, then threatening one Tonya Jackson not to tell the police. At least 3 of the affidavits, who were familiar with Coles, claim that he had confessed to killing a police officer. Another expressed that Coles was near the scene of the crime acting nervously with a concealed gun in his shorts: “I had seen him with a gun many times before” Anita Sadler says. None of this evidence was ever presented at a trial, whilst Chatham County prosecutors object that can determine the credibility of this evidence.

When claims of innocence are dismissed without a hearing, it means that something must be wrong with the justice system. The absurdity of the AEDPA and legal representative’s unwillingness to let this case go to a trial, shows that the main interest here is with covering up allegations of misconduct within the police force (a name that keeps coming up in the affidavits is Detective Ramsey), instead of gaining justice for Officer Mark Allen Mac Phail. Finding the right killer is justice. Going under the notion that someone has to pay for the murder of an unarmed off duty police officer; regardless of any questions of innocence negates against any action for a reprisal. The US Supreme Court’s decision is a significant step in the right direction for federal law to provide relief for a death row inmate who has established his innocence. This decision is a welcome one for justice and democracy within America and is far from being a “fool’s errand” as Scalia claimed. Davis has suffered from 12 years of rejected appeals, when all he wants is a chance to prove that he is innocent. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

An in depth discussion of the legal issues surrounding his case can be read here

Forced Evictions in Cambodia: Group 78 Families

This e mail was delivered to me yesterday, and I had no time to research and report on it. The mail depicts forced evictions of a poor community by the Cambodian authorities on the basis of "beautification". This is shockingly evil and should be exposed and stopped.

"Reports say that 700 police and military police have been mobilised to forcibly evict the families.

The Group 78 families started moving into the area in 1983. Since then the value of the land has increased enormously. They applied for land titles several times, but the authorities have rejected their applications, despite the families having official documentation proving strong ownership claims.

The Phnom Penh authorities have given different reasons for the eviction of the families, ranging from beautification of the city to claims that the community are illegal squatters. In the “final eviction notification” they said that the community is living on land belonging to a private company and on a public road. Group 78 maintains that under the Land Law they are the rightful owners of the land.

You can understand why the families have rejected the compensation that’s been offered: relocation to an area 20 km outside the city. The cost of transport to and from the site for work far exceeds their daily earnings and the site doesn’t have proper water, electricity and sewerage supplies. 20 of the families have been offered no compensation at all.

Please spread the word about this so we can generate as many appeals as possible. More info and the appeal at www.amnesty.org.uk/group78.

You can see photos of Group 78 on flickr too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aiawebteam/sets/72157617764164696/

And even more info in our case sheet:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_18833.pdf

Hope you can help.

Until next time,

Steve
Amnesty’s Project Blog team

"

Subversive Haircuts and the case José Emiliano Nandayapa Gomez (San Critobal Las Casas)

What the hell is going on in San Cristobal Las Casas? I received an e mail from Eulette of the Amnesty International Blog Project informing me about the case of 16 year old José Emiliano Nandayapa Gomez. On the June the 27th at 2’O’ clock in the morning he was on his way home when he was stopped by police who were apparently doing “routine checks”. Minutes later another five police officers arrived and forced Jose into a van where he was severely beaten. The police were alleged to have punched, kicked and stepped on the Jose’s back, head and legs. They were then reported to have taunted him by saying: “what a lovely subversive haircut you have, here’s your revolution, get the weapons and the drugs out.”, and then “if you keep on the same path, you won’t live to tell the tale.” Jose then lost consciousness when he was kicked in the face.

So let’s get back to the question, what the hell is going on in San Cristobal Las Casas? Eulette seems to believe that this was an authoritarian attack on individual image of expression: “I don’t know about you but I’ve definitely had some interesting hairstyles in my time… I’ve always taken for granted that I could express myself through my hair and never once thought I could be attacked for it.” She may be right but could there be a less absurd explanation? On 30th March 2009, new legislation was passed by San Critobal de Las Casas, where anyone found in the act of graffiti would be met with a 20,000 peso fine. Those who informed on graffiti artists would be rewarded with 5,000 peso’s, whilst selling aerosols to minors is prohibited. Three days before the implementation of this law by the town council, 16 year old Victor Penagos Estrada, was shot and killed by a hotel guard who saw him paint graffiti on a hotel wall. Judging from the views of Sipaz blog and Melel-Xojobal A.C. what's going on in San Cristobal at the moment is the suppression of the rights of youths in the area in ways which are “being limited by the interest of San Cristobal in satisfying the tourism sector”

San Cristobal is the principle city in the state of Chiapas, the most Southern state in Mexico. Back in 1994 it was one of four cities that the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) took in protest of annexed ancestral land implemented under the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Zapatista’s demanded social, cultural, and land rights for the marginalised indigenous population of Tzotzil and Tzeltal Mayans in Chiapas. The Mexican Authorities responded by creating a military zone within the region forcing the EZLN into the hills. Although there was a ceasefire soon afterwards, tensions have continued to simmer since. In December 1997 a paramilitary group, which was allegedly funded and trained by the state, surrounded a church in the small village of Acteal, about 20 km north of San Cristobal. They then shot to death those who were inside; a reported 47 indigenous refugees died in the church including 15 children, 21 women (some of whom were pregnant) and 9 men, while the Mexican Army units were stationed not far away.

In January 2006, La Otra Campaña (The Other Campaign) was set up, a political program headed by de facto spokesman of the EZLN, Subcomandante Marcos. Its goal was to end financial exploitation of the indigenous population in Chiapas, and to force the government to rewrite the national constitution to include the protection of indigenous rights and autonomy. In December 2007 Naomi Klein spoke to Ernesto Ledesma Arronte , a researcher at Center of Political Analysis and Social and Economic Investigations within the region. She documented in her article “Zapatista Code Red” about rising tensions within San Cristobal and Chiapas.

“On the fifty-six permanent military bases that the Mexican state runs on indigenous land in Chiapas, there has been a marked increase in activity. Weapons and equipment are being dramatically upgraded, new battalions are moving in, including special forces--all signs of escalation.”

Referring to the Acteal massacre she says

“In Chiapas, however, many people point out that conditions today feel eerily familiar: the paramilitaries, the rising tensions, the mysterious activities of the soldiers, the renewed isolation from the rest of the country. And they have a plea to those who supported them in the past: don't just look back. Look forward, and prevent another Acteal massacre before it happens.”

Lets return to José Emiliano Nandayapa Gomez. Nillucio in Amnesty International’s UK blog claimed that after having lodged a complaint against the officers, instead of helping José the police commander instead went about insulting him. In the argument that broke out José’s grandfather was punched, and his pregnant mother was shoved by the police chief and another officer. José’s family have been subjected to harassment by the police since the incident and the prosecutor’s office have been unconcerned with all that has been going on. Before the incident, Jose and his father were involved in local movements that promoted the rights of young people in the area. They performed street plays dealing with impunity and criticising government policies.

Nillucio says that “the police have stepped up a generalised harassment of the city’s young people.” Amnesty’s concern over the well being of José Emiliano Nandayapa Gomez is not a superfluous one. With the death of Victor Penagos Estrada, rising tensions between the young and authorities, a marginalised indigenous population and increased military activities, there are fears that Chiapas and San Cristobal may erupt into chaos, like the time when the death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Greece sparked riots Greece in 2008.

You can send an appeal to the Mexican authorities HERE calling for the guaranteed safety of Jose and his family.

Talks at Marxism 2009

I went to the Marxism Festival to experience some fascinating talkers and academics. Some of it I enjoyed bu I felt that some of the issues they were talking about just went way over my head. With my shit camera I tried to document my experience of the festival. This video at the bottom shows a contributor talking about the demise of American influence in Latin America. This seminar was very interesting, with speakers Jermey Corbin and Grace Livingstone giving their opinions and expertise. Excuse the abrupt ending as I ran out of memory space on my camera and also I apologise for the hair on the left side of the picture, and also I apologise for the poor sound quality:

Marxism 2009



Related posts

Butter not Gun