Savile and the Web of Deceit

THE CAST

• Jimmy Savile
• 'Friends in High Places'
• BBC cover-up - Michael Crick, Paul Mason, Jeremy Paxman. 
• ITV - Roger Cook.
• 'Iron Mountain' fire destroys entire archive of Central TV's 'Cook Report'.
• 'Newsnight' - Liz MacKean, Peter Rippon
• 'Private Eye' - Ian Hislop
• 'The Oldie' - Richard Ingrams
• Margaret Thatcher
• Prince Charles
• MI5
• Verint Systems (previously Comverse) Kobi Alexander - CCTV London Underground five months before the 7/7 bombings. Former explosives expert in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), Daniel Bodner as CEO,
• Benjamin Netanyahu
• ‘Strategy of Tension’.
• Zionist lawyer David Toube,
• Princess Diana 
• Mohammed Al Fayed
• Ravi Zacharias' ‘postmodern’ news. 

The article by Tony Gosling is reproduced from https://www.rt.com/op-edge/168876-savile-scandal-bbc-presenter/

Published on 27 Jun, 2014.

Tony Gosling is an intrepid independent journalist.
His web site can be located here: http://www.public-interest.co.uk/

BBC Newsnight journalist Liz Mackean (L) talks next to colleague Meirion Jones (R) as the pair make statements to the media at BBC Broadcasting House in London on December 19, 2012 after the release of the Pollard report into BBC's handling of the child-sex abuse claims against late presenter Jimmy Savile (AFP Photo / Ben Stansall) / AFP

Will the Savile scandal be the last top establishment cover-up to see the light of day?

TagsScandal, UK, Mass media, Psychology

We heard this week yet more horrors about the BBC presenter, 'volunteer hospital porter' and prolific child abuser Jimmy Savile having molested living patients at 28 separate hospitals, as well as testimony that he gained access to at least one mortuary to sexually abuse corpses. But despite Savile having up to a thousand victims, it was only due to the immense courage and persistence of a handful of selfless journalists that the devastating story of Britain’s most prolific ever pedophile and child abuser saw the light of day.

Since the scandal broke in October 2012, the London media have criticized police, royalty, government officials, health service managers and BBC staff for covering up Savile’s crimes, but few if any of these media commentators has admitted to their own vital role in hushing up Britain's 'worst kept secret' for decades. After the shameful sacking last month of Richard Ingrams, who broke the Savile story in his magazine 'The Oldie', is there anyone left to break such a scandal again?

Friends in the highest of high places

Many have been shocked at Savile’s ability to keep his child sexual abuse secret for nearly fifty years, while mingling with royalty and others at the top of British society. Those he abused were told they better never breathe a word about it because he had ‘friends in high places,’ which he did.

Those who endorsed Britain’s most prolific ever child sex abuser were not just the obvious and unpunished BBC bosses, but included Prince Charles and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In his regular contact with these figures, Savile must have been vetted by Britain's counter-intelligence service, MI5. Why the Security Service also endorsed a serial child abuser, giving him the highest security clearance in the land, has never been adequately explained.

One of the Savile victims' lawyers, Liz Dux, in response to today's appalling hospital reports put it like this: "Saying that this [sexual abuse] was something that happened in the 1960s and couldn't happen today is simply not good enough.... Nobody is being held to account." Since nobody has been punished why shouldn't it happen again? Why shouldn't it be happening now, still?

It may comfort us to hear “it couldn't happen today”, but where is the evidence for that? Are Britain's press and parliament freer than they were thirty years ago? No, the circumstances surrounding the emergence of the Savile story suggest that such a scandal may never be exposed again because immense establishment pressure can be leveraged to keep a lid on a story, and indeed many of those who eventually told us about the Savile scandal have now lost their jobs.

London's media ‘professionals’ spike the story of the decade

Social Affairs Correspondent Liz Mackean, from the BBC’s nightly flagship Newsnight, was the only senior journalist in the country with the courage to bite the bullet on the ‘worst kept secret in journalism.’ She put her career on the line and pushed her editor to broadcast the Savile accusations. Despite Liz, a former BBC Radio colleague of mine, having obtained heart-wrenching interviews with Savile’s victims in December 2011, Newsnight editor Peter Rippon refused to even watch, let alone transmit them. He waved a fraudulent Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) report around, which exonerated Savile and told Liz to forget about it.

This was not just bad professional judgment but made Rippon complicit in Jimmy Savile’s pedophilia in an even more serious way than individual health service staff and managers who shredded complaints about Savile when he was alive. These victims had risked a great deal to go on camera and on the record, but BBC top brass decided to compound Savile's abuse by pulling the rug out from under them. Despite being moved sideways by the corporation after the scandal broke, Rippon was actually endorsed by the corporation and given another senior BBC editorial job.

Not prepared to roll over and have the story of the decade spiked by an editor who had become another one of Savile's'friends in high places,' Liz spoke to freelance journalist Miles Goslett who wrote up her Newsnight horror story and offered it, one by one, to all Britain’s national newspapers. Goslett dutifully spoke to editor after editor, but not a single one would publish it. So he turned to the alternative press and although Private Eye didn't print the story, eventually, in March 2012 Miles got to tell his tale in former Private Eye founder Richard Ingrams' magazine 'The Oldie'.

Despite eventually being so spectacularly exonerated, Liz Mackean could not carry on at Newsnight, and, since her Savile tribulations of December 2011, all the show's top staff, one by one, have abandoned ship. First, when technicians refused to stop deleting his interviews, political correspondent Michael Crick, then economics editor Paul Mason, and most recently, last week, the show’s anchorman for the last 25 years, Jeremy Paxman, presented his final show.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) report bullying is rife in the BBC and senior management simply do not have the will to check it. Jeremy Paxman's parting riposte this week was that the dumbed-down current affairs show is 'made by thirteen year-olds.'

Private Eye – Britain’s ‘controlled opposition’ scandal sheet?

Though many were surprised the Savile story appeared in The Oldie and not the much higher circulation Private Eye, I was not. After having reported on IRA terrorism in the early 1990s for the BBC, in March 2007 I found myself investigating the London bombings. When I came up with evidence that a privatized security contract on the London Underground may have been linked to the 7/7 attacks, which killed 52 people, it was to Private Eye that I turned.

Israeli company Verint Systems had won the CCTV surveillance contract five months before the bombings. Verint, formerly known as Comverse Infosys, had recently changed their name because their parent company, Comverse, was embroiled in a fraud scandal in the United States. Chief executive of Comverse, Kobi Alexander, ended up being chased half way across the world to a hideout in Namibia before he finally paid off the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fines to the tune of a cool 54 million dollars. What, I asked, was such a foreign firm with a former explosives expert in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), Daniel Bodner as CEO, doing in charge of any part of London Underground security?

London Underground’s CCTV is of particular interest because not a single image has ever been produced of the three alleged 7/7 bombers on, or getting onto, any of the bombed tube trains that day. I also pointed out to Private Eye that then Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who happened to be in London on the day of the bombings, was reported by the Associated Press (AP) in Jerusalem as not leaving his hotel that morning to go to his scheduled Israel investment conference because he had received a warning. There was only one problem with this - the bombings were supposed to be a surprise attack.

Attacks on public transport are the hallmark of what is known in far-right circles as a ‘Strategy of Tension’. Their purpose, as in Italy's 1980 Bologna Railway station bomb, planted by the state as part of NATO's Operation Gladio, is to convince press, public and politicians alike of a need for increased government ‘security measures’ in an apparently senseless, random attack on public services.

Instead of printing my report about the London Underground security firm Comverse’s crimes, or legitimate worries about foreign private security firms being a potential vector for terrorism, Private Eye instead held fire for a year, until November 2008, and then printed a smear against me in their anonymous ‘Ratbiter’ column. It had been cut and pasted from Harry’s Place, the anonymous website of Zionist lawyer David Toube, and accused me of being a homophobic, anti-Semitic bigot. Nice!

On the really big international scandals, Private Eye cover up for the establishment. After the death of Princess Diana in Paris, Private Eye cruelly dubbed bereaved father of Diana's soon to be fiancé, Mohammed Al Fayed, 'The Phoney Pharaoh'. In the Jimmy Savile story, despite testimony of ritual abuse 'The Eye' mocked psychotherapist Valerie Sinason and other professionals who supported the victims. Britain's scandal sheet has become a ‘limited hangout,’ an establishment tool for controlled dissent.

As his prize for leaving the establishment's biggest scandals alone and playing along with the pantomime of British democracy, Private Eye's editor, Ian Hislop, is now a regular panel show guest on network TV and radio, and his views on this, that and everything else are 'immortalized' in mainstream TV documentaries.

West Yorkshire police The Cook Report and Savile’s ‘satanic rituals’

Psychotherapist Valerie Sinason had been talking for years, to anyone who would listen, about Savile. She personally interviewed two of his victims in her London based 'Clinic for Dissociative Studies' who told her at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire that they had been repeatedly sexually abused in horrific rituals they described as 'satanic.'

Wearing robes and masks in the hospital basement and to Latin chants of ‘Hail Satanus’, the idea, it seems, was two-fold: for Savile to ‘share’ his victims with other abusers and also to so deeply traumatize the children with supernatural threats of demons and devil masks that, through fear, they would never dare breathe a word to anyone. They were being groomed, as so many children are in government ‘care homes’ for serial abusers, and for pimps, heading down the lonely road to a life of abuse or prostitution.

Sinason has not been the only one to talk of satanic ritual abuse in connection with Savile. Britain’s most popular TV journalist ever, Roger Cook, also exposed what he believed was a satanic ritual abuse ring in Savile's home town of Leeds, Yorkshire. During the airing of an edition called the 'The Devil's Work' on 17 July, 1989 (under the umbrella of the ten-million-viewers-a-night 'Cook Report' series), witnesses told Cook that a certain ‘Sorcerer’s Apprentice shop’, run by one Chris Bray, was connected to a ritual abuse ring in the city. Post-transmission threats by Bray to prosecute Central TV proved empty.

Ironically, in 2000, it was Rupert Murdoch’s now infamous News of the World that destroyed The Cook Report by printing three weeks of double page spreads strewn with lies about Cook ‘making up stories.’ By the time Roger Cook had beaten Murdoch back in the courts, a new boss had arrived at ITV and Britain's most successful and popular ever current affairs series was dead.

Unfortunately, the program, made with the help of courageous ritual abuse victims, literally went up in smoke when it was destroyed in a fire at a warehouse run by ‘secure storage’ firm Iron Mountain, along with the entire archive of Central TV's Cook Report.

The explanation as to why Savile was never prosecuted in his home town of Leeds is now clear, although it is still denied to this day by West Yorkshire police. Every Friday morning Savile held what he called his ‘breakfast club’ with the 'great and good' of the city - social gatherings that included senior police officers. This cozy relationship is why the pleas of Savile’s victims to health officials and police went nowhere for decades. Savile’s friends in West Yorkshire’s ‘high places’would doubtless prove doubly useful by deflecting unwelcome questions to police from reporters.

Like Richard Ingrams everyone with guts in journalism is being squeezed out

With the dismissal of The Oldie editor Richard Ingrams on May 30, 2014, followed by all the magazine’s top staff over the last few weeks, one of the last British news outlets with the will to expose evil deeds in high places also looks to have been killed off.

All we are left with now in Britain is what Indian writer Ravi Zacharias calls ‘postmodern’ news. Outlets that remain are more loyal to the power elite than they are to the public, so while they will merrily print all sorts of minor corruption scandals, the ones that extend to the very top of British society, to evil deeds in royalty, the army council or City of London blue bloods, may never see the light of day again.

This largely Tory elite have a simple, unsportsmanlike principle: if any organization irks you, political or media, simply bankrupt it through the courts, or buy it up and put your cronies in charge, preferably both.

Not asking the difficult questions and not investigating the powerful is by far the easier option, but is it journalism? The fact is, many opinion formers in Britain would rather not know about depravity among those who hold our fate in their hands.

But without publishers and broadcasters with the sort of courage Liz Mackean, Miles Goslett and Richard Ingrams demonstrated in breaking through the Savile cover-up, it is only a matter of time until the soul is ripped out of our society, and we become a nation led by the nose to a tune played by thirteen year olds.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. ARTICLE END.

Do not be misled: the way the matter of 'historic abuse' has been expertly handled to: 1. keep it focused on the past; 2. to keep attention fixed on expendable entertainment celebrities rather than establishment or politicos; 3. where the evidence against latter becomes irresistible, ensure individuals are either dead or die shortly afterwards; 4. label accusers as unreliable or complicit; 5. wrap records in 70 year secrecy on pretext of protecting the children; 6. close and/or demolish institutional buildings allegedly implicated; 7. alternatively subject same to redecoration or improvement thus incidentally removing any remaining evidence; 8. criticise police investigations and methods; 9. increase pressure or dismiss any police doing their job; 10. engender sympathy for alleged abusers; 11. close down any current cases; 12. persecute/prosecute 'whistle-blowers'; set up police and other 'independent' inquiries, that either discover 'nothing to see' or take so long to report, or are rigged to exclude sensitive areas, so that the issue is effectively shelved for half a decade or longer. 13. change the law to protect vulnerable parties. These are the methods that have been and are being successfully applied to the matter. We should be in do doubt about that whenever leading politicians claim to be intent on getting to the root of the problem. See: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=hampstead for a current casestudy in some of the methods employed by the state.

A Picture Paints a Thousand Words!

http://anonhq.com/guess-government-just-introduced-terrifying-special-forces-clone-army-uniforms-w-photos/

A picture that appeared in the 'New Arab' is of what appears to be, two very happy and self congratulatory men. The fact that the men in question are respectively Israel's 'Prime Minister', Benjamin Netanyahu and 'Minister of Science, Technology and Space”, Ofir Akunis and that it was taken very soon after the Brussels bombing, could be significant. 

 We do not know what they were discussing – it might just have been a dirty joke – but given the timing and Akunis' comments, reported in the attached 'New Arab' article, there's more than even chance the subject of conversation was Brussels and cause of the mirth was another 'successful' 'terrorist attack'. It reminds me of the dancing Mossad employees in New York following the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 and Netanyahu's predecessor, Prime Minister Sharon's comment, “That it would be good for Israel”. And so it was of course.

This photo appeared in the “New Arab” (here: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/fullimage/eff18e9b-7920-4da1-9f9f-e242fc02290f/ee1f061e-0a59-4adc-a29c-cdb970d173c1) on the 22^nd March, 2016 with the text that follows below.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/file/getimagecustom/ccc7daa8-ca16-4299-992f-da687b19e334/850/479

It is quite remarkable how there always appears to be multiple strange Israel links to virtually all the recent western outrages. Can there be anyone left in the world that doesn't know of them, yet the British Prime Minister says those that deny them should be prosecuted. By his own admission he is a “Staunch supporter of Israel”, under whose watch ties have been strengthened and Israeli war crimes ignored and defended, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by his stance.

But for those unfamiliar with the topic and perhaps living in a remote cave for the last two decades (at least) here is a brief summary of the coincidences.

• 9/11 Attacks. Israeli Mossad agents are witnessed filming the collapse of the Twin Towers and celebrating. Israelis are stopped and arrested for driving a vehicle containing explosives. One floor of the WTC run by an Israeli 'Art Project' is photographed full of detonators. Security at all the airports affected is run by an Israeli owned security firm. The buildings are owned by Jewish individuals. Jewish employees and Hollywood notables were warned to stay clear of buildings and flights. All arrested Jewish suspects are allowed to fly back to Israel unquestioned and uncharged on orders from the top. The Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert (subsequently convicted of criminal offences) was in New York at the time. Ariel Sharon was quoted as saying the attacks were 'Good for Israel' and that 'Israel controlled America.'

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/img/Ehud-Olmert-and-Ariel-Sharon.JPG

• 7/7 London Bombing. Benjamin Netanyahu was in London on the day and was warned in advance to stay indoors. Many consider for multiple reasons, 7/7 was a joint MI5/MI6/CIA/Mossad operation.
• 13/11 Paris Attack. The Bataclan which had been owned by a Jewish family for a long period, changed hands immediately before the attack. The shooters by virtue of method and appearance fit a mercenary Mossad profile more closely than the alleged attackers. Netanyahu made a point of attending the public demonstration following earlier Charlie Hebdo 'attacks' though uninvited. Both in this and the later one, anti-semitism was alleged and Jewish assets targeted (or claimed to be) Evidence that Jewish people were forewarned.
• Brussels 'Attacks'. Zionist supporting media (Sky) fortuitously on site at the right time (before flying to Tel Aviv) as had CNN at the Bataclan previously. Both have what appear to be very dubious 'crisis actor' elements. Footage of people running out of the airport from a multi-storey car-park taken by an Israeli agent obviously briefed and prepared for the incident. Security (or lack of it) provided by the same Israeli security firm as cited in the 9/11 attacks.

I hasten to add these are only the most superficial accounts of strange and incriminating connections between 'terrorist events' and Israel. It must also be viewed against a proven track record of such, and despite widespread realisation, a denial by western governments to admit it. It is in this context that statements from Israeli politicians as to the reason for the attacks has to be interpreted, and in particular this one by Ofir Akunis, pictured two pictures up laughing with Netanyahu, and reproduced from the same source.

From the New Arab article referred to above we have this: 

“An Israeli minister has said that a recent European Union law regarding the labelling of goods produced in Israeli settlements illegally built in the occupied Palestinian West Bank was a factor behind Tuesday's bombing in the Belgian capital. Ofir Akunis, minister of science, technology and space, said that Europeans had lost sight of "terrorism of extremist Islam" by focusing on boycotting Israeli goods instead. This supposed letting down of Europe's guard had allowed an armed gang to strike at the heart of Europe with three bombings in Brussels, which killed at least 26 people, he inferred.

"Many in Europe have preferred to occupy themselves with the folly of condemning Israel, labelling products, and boycotts. In this time, underneath the nose of the continent's citizens, thousands of extremist Islamic terror cells have grown," Akunis wrote on Facebook. "There were those who repressed and mocked whoever tried to give warning. There were those who underestimated. To our sorrow, the reality has struck the lives of dozens of innocent people."

"His reference to EU boycotts follows a decision by European MPs in Brussels for new guidelines regarding the labelling of products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Israel has said that labelling the "origin of goods" from illegal settlements from occupied Palestinian territories was "unacceptable discrimination".

"The terrorism of extremist Islam strikes all those who do not accept its authority," Akunis added. He suggested Europe and refocused their attention on "Islamic extremism" to prevent further attacks. His comments have been met with scorn on social media."

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02757/01_23011212_71e70f_2757058a.jpg

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02755/trainmain_2755610a.jpg
http://mic.com/articles/138554/je-suis-bruxelles-trends-in-wake-of-brussels-bombings-to-show-support-for-victims-of-attack#.hu6GjDkQ0

If ever there were 'weasel words' these are they: "The terrorism of extremist Islam strikes all those who do not accept its authority."  The impression is clearly given that it was Israel that was actually behind the events as punishment and warning. This phenomenon of terrorist atrocity following on from policy decisions considered to be detrimental to Israel, is now so well documented, it cannot be ignored or denied. Whether real or counterfeit or combination of both must now be regarded as the most likely and dangerous threat to western democracies, rather than Muslim terrorism from ISIS which is also now widely recognised as a Zionist front organisation supported by Western interests. Either way it implicates Israel in terrorism with the objective of blaming and isolating Muslims.

Mystery French Survivor.

As regards the Zaventem attack, the following image was all over the media and emblematic of it.  A very similar one of a bloodied man in a survival blanket appeared following Bataclan you may remember. 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319825/Tragic-list-lost-Photos-victims-deadly-Paris-attacks-emerge-friends-relatives-forced-wait-news-missing-loved-ones.html

It would appear that the images of the November 13th Paris attacks are becoming increasingly difficult to find on the internet also highly suggestive of a 'clean-up' as they have proved so suggestive of artifice and trickery.

This and the way it is handled as an integral part of a PR campaign is very suggestive of theatrics and media manipulation, both well recognised in 'False Flag' events. Also highly suspicious is the fact that in contrast, the image is now very difficult to find using Google search engine. The same man was interviewed on Sky news here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLC4xbvUUCQ  Very conveniently the reporter stated they were at the airport at the time as they were booked into a flight to TEL AVIV! Rather akin to CNN film crew outside the Bataclan when the 'bombs' went off.



http://thumbs.mic.com/OTU5ODJkYzFlNSMvUURhTG1DV21DalBrUEtMNkNVSE5fU1ZBY01jPS81OXg0Mjk6Mzk4MngyNDMyLzEyODB4NjIwL2ZpbHRlcnM6cXVhbGl0eSg3NSkvaHR0cHM6Ly9zMy5hbWF6b25hd3MuY29tL3BvbGljeW1pYy1pbWFnZXMvaDFhcmc1ZGFqYXRwdGVvbGJqZWpqenFtMDM3eWJzdHhrZzc4aDd0a3FxbnR3b2Zwazd4czNnaGpudmUwenh6eS5qcGc.jpg

Here's another image that was emblematic of the Brussels attack. It was carried by virtually all media outlets and headed the "Pray for Brussels" PR campaign. Yet very strangely it now is almost impossible to find on a Google image search. This is always highly suspicious are are some of the circumstances surrounding him. For example the 'blood-stained' sweat shirt emblazoned with the word 'Chicago', an important link to the USA (for propaganda purposes?) Underneath the word "Authentic" - perhaps a not so subtle joke? Of course it just happens to be the place the band 'Eagles of Death Metal' are managed by the brother of the Mayor, who before he got elected was President Obama's right hand man!

The same man was interviewed by the Sky news team, that just happened to be at Brussels airport at the time of the explosions, booked on a plane due to fly to Tel Aviv. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLC4xbvUUCQ) 3.08 mins in, he tells a moving story about meeting a mother with a child who says she has lost a second child. He shrugs suggesting tragic ignorance of what might have happened to him or her.

A happy coincidence rather akin to the CNN camera team that 'just happened' to be outside the Stade de France' when those explosive devices went off, also interviewing a blood stained survivor. You may regard these events as just happy coincidences of 'being in the the right place at the right time', or indications of something far more orchestrated and sinister. Take a look and see what conclusion you come to.

http://mic.com/articles/138554/je-suis-bruxelles-trends-in-wake-of-brussels-bombings-to-show-support-for-victims-of-attack#.fJDsjf1mi

Perhaps we shouldn't overlook the fact that despite the blood-stained trauma, he had his ear microphones in place and an unlit cigarette (alight in the interview) between his lips. I wonder if anyone knows who this important 'mystery' man is and why his central PR role appears to be scrubbed from the internet?

Brussels Tube Attack

At 4.17 here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLC4xbvUUCQ the Sky report shows what purports to be people evacuating the damaged tube train. Note the vehicle is in an otherwise dark section of the tunnel and not at a station. The interior lights have remained on which requires explanation. We must therefore assume this carriage is not where the explosions occurred or they would be out. 

Now compare this this with the official version of what purports to be the condition of the damaged carriage with suggestions of blurred bodies and other debris making it clear that the carriage had not been moved.

Here's another of the same shot without the blurring:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2AHsYBvLQzQ/hqdefault.jpg

It can clearly be seen that the said carriage is no longer in a dark tunnel but in a well lit platform area as indicated by the floor level platform and advert on the far wall. 

It has clearly not been moved from one location to the other by virtue of the debris etc apart from the fact that it is a cardinal rule of investigation that nothing be disturbed until it has been completed. 

So you do not need much brain power to realise one or other or both the images and the story attached, must be fraudulent. 

I can see no alternative to this conclusion, unless part of the train was in the tunnel and part out which I suppose might be possible, if it was entering or leaving.  

Even if one of them is true and reliable, the other must fatally damage the credibility of the story for it would mean one or other or both were intentionally contrived to deceive. 

Just this one fact alone proves beyond doubt that the event was staged in the way described whether people were actually killed or not. END.

No way to treat children Israel!

From: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/24995-new-report-palestinian-children-in-israeli-military-detention-experience-violence-coerced-confessions

New report: Palestinian children in Israeli military detention experience violence, coerced confessions

Thursday, 14 April 2016 08:01

Israeli soldiers try to detain a Palestinian child in Occupied Jerusalem

A new report on Palestinian children in Israeli military detention claims that prisoners as young as 12-years-old are routinely subjected to violence, coerced confessions, and solitary confinement.


‘No Way to Treat a Child’, published today by Defense for Children International - Palestine (DCIP), is based on the testimonies of more than 400 Palestinian children detained by Israeli forces between January 2012 and December 2015.


According to DCIP, the affidavits are evidence of “the widespread and systematic ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system.” Three-quarters of the 429 Palestinian children detained in the West Bank during the period considered in the report “endured some form of physical violence following arrest.”


In 41.7 per cent of cases, the Israeli military arrested children from their homes in the middle of the night, while in 88.1 per cent of cases, Israeli forces arrested children without notifying parents of the reason for arrest or the location of detention. In 416 of 429 cases – 97 per cent – children had no parent present during the interrogation or access to legal counsel.


DCIP documented 66 children held in solitary confinement, for an average period of 13 days, during the reporting period. More than 90 percent of those held in solitary confinement produced a confession (a third of which were drafted in Hebrew).


According to the NGO, “many children maintain their innocence, but plead guilty as it is the fastest way to get out of the system.” Out of 295 cases that resulted in convictions, just over half of children (151) received a custodial sentence between three and 12 months.


An additional issue is the fact that Israeli authorities transfer nearly 60 per cent of Palestinian child detainees out of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) to prisons inside Israel, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.


Marking the report’s publication, Khaled Quzmar, DCIP General Director, said that “recent amendments to Israeli military law have had little to no impact on the treatment of children during the first 24 to 48 hours after an arrest, when most of the abuse occurs at the hands of Israeli soldiers, police, and the security service.”


Quzmar added that, despite Israel’s obligations under international law, “year after year”, Palestinian children are “experiencing widespread, systematic, and institutionalized ill-treatment at the hands of Israeli forces.”


Israel operates two, separate legal systems in the OPT; a civilian legal framework for Israeli citizens living in illegal settlements, and military law for Palestinians. According to DCIP, Israel is the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes 500-700 children in military courts each year.


As of February 2016, there were 440 Palestinian children in Israeli detention for so-called ‘security’ offenses, the highest total since the Israel Prison Service (IPS) started providing figures in 2008. Almost one in four of these children (104) are aged 12-15. In addition, seven Palestinian children are held without charge or trial, based on Israeli military-issued administrative detention orders.

For example: https://www.facebook.com/1548979158648103/videos/1729904377222246/?pnref=story


An Israeli General's Son Speaks Out

One of the best objective, rational and unemotional (although the speaker is clearly passionate about his desire to see equality and peace come to a Palestine he is familiar with) overview of sixty four years of Israeli hegemony and how the narrative has and is corrupted to allow and indefensible system to continue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ&feature=share

"

Published on 2 Dec 2012

Miko Peled is from a famous and influential Israeli Zionist family and was born in Jerusalem. Miko's father was a famous general in the Israeli army. Miko too has served his time there. When his niece was killed in a Palestinian suicide bomb attack, his family surprisingly placed the blame squarely on the state of Israel. They believed it was the torture, violence and forced eviction from their homes that was driving Palestinians to commit suicide to fight back.

In this honest, ground breaking talk Peled reveals the truth about the terror state of Israel. His talk is based on his father's insider knowledge on the Israeli war of terror, coupled with his own research. Many Jews and Israel supporters will be deeply shaken by this expose. Some facts from his talk are that the returning Jews are not the original expelled Jews, nor their descendants. He also reveals that until 1947 when Israel launched their illegal terrorist attacks on the people of Palestine, there was no conflict.

Miko Peled is one of many modern day Jews who are standing up to the Zionist state of Israel. This talk is a must watch for everybody, to clear their minds of the lies spread and supported by the Zionist owned mainstream media."

On the other hand....

here is a lengthy submission defending and supporting Israel in its current form and practice. I certainly agree that many so-called Islamic States are not free of censure when it comes to human rights, and particularly in their forms of justice and punishment, that we should do more to be critical of them where necessary and encourage liberal, democratic principles to prevail but nor can or should we turn a blind eye to the many grievous terrorist actions, at home and abroad of Israel. 

The misrepresentation is apparent from the word go in the following article, for it claims, "the only country that defends those rights for all its citizens and visitors." It fails to point out this excludes virtually half its resident population to which a different set of legal and policing standards apply. Nor does it refer to what is now internationally recognised as enshrined apartheid. How many other countries in the world so blatantly espouse such a discriminatory and repressive form of government?

How easy it is to support a system when you are part of the privileged section of it and blind to and unaffected by its iniquities. Denis MacEoin is impressively qualified to speak from an academic perspective, perhaps less so from a empathetic and emotional one. Would he take such a strident pro-Israeli position if his children were imprisoned or shot in the street and allowed to bleed to death without assistance; if his children were regularly gassed on the way to school; if his house was raided in the middle of the night, ransacked and family members taken away and incarcerated without trial or sentence; if he was refused the return of the body of a loved one or indications that body organ had been stolen; if his home was either taken over by Jewish settlers or worse just demolished without compensation; or if his olive groves tended for generations, were just bulldozed; or if his farmland was perfunctorily cut off by a bloody great wall; or if he was shot at just for approaching it or demonstrating against it; or if he was daily inconvenienced, humiliated and assaulted by soldiers at checkpoints, merely in the process of trying to go about normal business; of if his movement was wholly constrained and controlled by an members of an invading army; or if when he was unjustifiably assaulted by settlers the police and army would do nothing to protect him?

Not to mention, if, as in the case of Gaza, he was mercilessly targeted and attacked with the most sophisticated weaponry the world could provide, some of which such as phosphorus bombs, were illegal - on not one but two occasions (2008 & 2014) causing tens of thousands of deaths and injuries - the world looking on but doing nothing? And not even to mention the proven foreknowledge and collusion of Israeli organs in the events of 9/11 and possibly other international terrorist events and assassinations, none of which of course Dr. MacEoin alludes to.

Rose-tinted glasses are an essential accessory, it would seem, for any well-travelled and eminent academic.

Open Letter to the Edinburgh University Students' Association

by Denis MacEoin
April 7, 2016 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7792/edinburgh-student-association-israel

• No one holds meetings to call for reform in Islamic states. Instead, people like yourselves pass resolutions condemning the only country that defends those rights for all its citizens and visitors.
• If your government in Scotland or the UK banned books, imprisoned journalists, censored films, or prohibited campus meetings, you would be rightly outraged. You depend on free libraries, uncensored (though never unbiased) newspapers and journals, and direct access to the Internet. None of those freedoms exists in any Muslim country. Not in Egypt, not in Jordan, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Iran, not in Pakistan.
• Israel is, in every respect, a free society. When you support the Palestinians exclusively, you offer support to censorship and state control of expression. You need to think about this very carefully, because otherwise you reveal yourselves to be hypocrites of the first order. To attack a country that defends the rights you demand for yourselves and your friends is morally unforgivable.
• There are no apartheid laws in Israel. Arabs (both Muslims and Christians) in Israel have the same voting rights as Jews, have political parties of their own, serve as members of parliament, serve on the Supreme Court and other courts, are diplomats, lawyers, military officers, scientists, academics, and anything else they wish.
• "Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know that there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid. ... There is a widespread allegation, really a slander, that Israel is an apartheid state. That notion is simply wrong. It is inaccurate and it is malicious." -- Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, President of the African Christian Democratic Party in South Africa.

Dear Students,
As a concerned Edinburgh graduate, I write you with a sense of déjà vu, as I have done this before.
I want to restate and expand on my objections to your 2016 motion and resolution to boycott the Jewish state of Israel. Let me put that a little differently: the only liberal parliamentary democracy in the Middle East, one of the very few genuine democracies in the world today. I would like all of you to read this; only your willingness to do so, at least to listen to the arguments of others, will justify your claim to be intelligent young people studying at a world-class university.
At Edinburgh, I qualified with a first-class MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History, and went on to Cambridge, where I took a PhD in Persian Studies, dealing with a religious and historical topic in 19th-century Iran. After that, I taught Arabic-English translation and Islamic Civilization at a university in Morocco, then Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University in the UK. Later I accepted an invitation to join the Gatestone Institute as a Distinguished Senior Fellow. There, I research and write on subjects relating to Islam, the Middle East and Israel. I have written about forty books, think tank reports, and a long list of articles on these topics.
I only write the above to explain that I am adequately qualified to address you on the topic of the Israel-Palestinian struggle. It embarrasses me to say that your grounds for passing a boycott motion are unworthy of anyone who claims to be well educated, intelligent, or well informed. Sadly, the reasons given in your resolution are childish, ignorant, and based on nothing but a series of lies or at best misunderstandings. If you stop reading at this point, I call you out as traitors to the most basic principles of academic work: the need for open dialogue, critical debate, and readiness to change one's opinions in the presence of evidence. If you cannot abide by those principles, you are not fit to be at university at all. If your self-righteousness and your conviction that you are utterly right all the time cannot be changed, you will never understand what it is to take part in any intellectual debate. This is a letter that I hope many of you will read, in the hope that you are not frightened by dissenting opinion.
So, let me begin with some simple points. I assume that most or all of you are feminists, that most or all of you insist on women's rights and equal status for men and women worldwide. Now, as we are in some measure talking about the Middle East and the Islamic world, it is probably not necessary to spell out to you that no Arab country and no Islamic nation gives full rights to women, and that many openly oppress their female citizens. Forced veiling; beatings, floggings or stonings to death; women who have been raped treated as adulteresses and stoned; the legal status of half a man; bans on travel without permission from a man; women forbidden to drive cars, honour killings of women, female genital mutilation (FGM) of young girls, and non-consensual divorce are commonplace.
I would have thought you might pass a resolution about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Somalia or somewhere similar. But instead, you pass boycott motions about Israel. In Israel, men and women have equal status under law. Muslim women are free to wear veils and many do, but no woman is ever arrested or fined if she prefers not to wear one. Honour killings or FGM are punishable offences under Israeli law, but few take place. Women in Israel -- Christians, Arabs and Jews -- are free to walk on the beach in swimsuits, to go dancing in nightclubs, to live with male or female partners with or without marriage, to serve in the army, navy and air force, and to enter any profession, in or out of the government, for which they are qualified. They receive equal justice under law. They live lives identical to yours in free Western countries. So, if you are feminists, why do you sanction Israel and leave brutal misogynist regimes without a word of criticism? Does that seem like hypocrisy to you? It certainly seems so to me.
You probably all support rights for LGBTQ communities. Perhaps you take part in gay rights parades, no doubt some of you are either gay or have gay friends, and none of you would tolerate psychological or physical abuse directed against people of diverse sexuality. But take a look at Arab countries and Islamic countries. In Gaza and the West Bank, they kill homosexuals by throwing them off roofs or beat them to death. In Iran, they hang them. In Saudi Arabia, they behead them. Under the Islamic State, they also throw them from roofs. Not a single Islamic country gives any rights whatever to gay men and women, to transsexuals or transvestites. In the Middle East, tens of thousands of gay people live in fear. But no one ever marches against these places, writes petitions demanding gay rights, or passes boycott resolutions against them.
In Israel, gay pride marches take place in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. There are no laws forbidding homosexuality. Tel Aviv has been described as the gay capital of the world. The Israeli army does not sanction soldiers who are gay. Israeli law protects people of all sexual orientations -- and it does so because it is a country based on full human rights for all its citizens. This is not "pinkwashing": using gay rights to cover up other abuses. It is gay rights in practice, which is why many Arab and Iranian gay people flee to Israel. Providing such protection only serves to make Israel even more hated by many countries surrounding it and even many farther away. This too is hypocrisy, pure and simple. To attack a country that defends the rights you demand for yourselves and your friends is morally unforgivable.
You probably agree that all people should be free to worship and practise their religion openly, or not, under the protection of the law. And you all probably agree that religious people and atheists also should have the right to live freely, without persecution. No Arab or Islamic state offers that sort of protection. In Iraq and Syria, in Gaza and the West Bank, Christians have been killed in huge numbers or driven out. In Egypt, the indigenous population of Coptic Christians suffers severe persecution and sees its churches destroyed. In Iran, Christians are regularly arrested, and the country's largest indigenous religious minority, the Baha'is, are openly persecuted. Baha'is are hanged, imprisoned, denied access to education, forbidden to work in any profession. Their holy places throughout the country have been systematically bulldozed and sometimes mosques have been built on the sites.
In Israel, the Christian community is the only one anywhere in the Middle East to have grown in numbers since 1948. All the holy places of all religions -- Muslim, Jewish, Christian -- are actively protected under the Law for the Protection of Holy Places. The Baha'i religion has its World Centre (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) in Haifa, and its two holiest shrines there and outside the city of Acco. Pilgrims come from around the world. The Baha'is are among the most hated people for Muslims everywhere. But not in Israel. Yet no one marches to defend the religious rights of Baha'is in the Islamic world; no one brings petitions to the Iranian embassy to protect them or others from persecution; no one holds meetings to call for reform in Islamic states. Instead, people like yourselves pass resolutions condemning the only country that defends those rights for all its citizens and visitors. By siding with the persecutors and sneering at the only country that since its inception has actually implemented all human rights, you show nothing but contempt for those rights. That is not just sad, it is despicable.
You are students, young people with your minds open to new sensations, new information, new questions, a galaxy of differing opinions, learning how to weigh and balance your own assumptions and those of others. You have access to the most amazing technologies and sources of information -- resources that simply did not exist earlier. In order to access all this, you require freedom of speech, a world without censorship, a free press, the right to protest, and to question received opinion. If your government in Scotland or the UK banned books, imprisoned journalists, censored films, or prohibited campus meetings, you would be rightly outraged. You would march to defend those freedoms were there a threat to take them away. You depend on free libraries, uncensored newspapers and journals, and direct access to the Internet.
None of those freedoms exists in any Muslim country. Not in Egypt, not in Jordan, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Iran, not in Pakistan. Censorship is rife, secular views are everywhere condemned. Freethinking bloggers such as Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, several in Bangladesh, and many in Iran have been imprisoned, sentenced (in Badawi's case) to lashes, or (in Bangladesh) assassinated. The majority of newspapers in these countries are state-owned. Books are banned and burned across the region. Television stations are closed down for the pettiest of reasons, as happened recently in Egypt to MP Tawfiq Okasha. There is no freedom of speech in Gaza or under the Palestinian Authority, and those who breach the rules are, as often as not, found with a bullet in their head.
Israel has as much freedom of speech as the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, the United States, Canada, Australia or any other Western democracy. The only restrictions on the press are those relating to national security -- as in all democracies. Anti-Israel NGOs operate freely in Israel, anti-Israel articles appear daily in the press, notably in the left-wing newspaperHaaretz. Arab politicians speak against Israeli policy daily in parliament or in interviews with the press. When arrests are made, Jewish extremists are as likely to be charged as Arabs. Israel is, in every respect, a free society. Yet you choose to condemn it. By doing so, you condemn the very freedoms you yourselves benefit from in your ivory towers in Scotland. And when you support the Palestinians exclusively, you offer support to censorship and state control of expression. You need to think about this carefully, because otherwise you reveal yourselves to be hypocrites of the first order.
Let me take this one step further. Are you aware that your motion is anti-Semitic? I want you to think about this carefully, too. What, you may ask, does boycotting Israel have to do with hating Jews? You are, I do not doubt, fiercely anti-racist, and for that I strongly commend you. Racism is still an ugly feature of modern life, not only in the West, but across a swath of other countries. It is ironic in the extreme, therefore, that your boycott motion was presented by the BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] Liberation Group. Ironic, because anti-Semitism has been and remains one of the most poisonous and genocidal forms of racist hatred. Across Europe, anti-Semitism is growing to levels reminiscent to that of the 1930s. The 2015 figure for anti-Semitic incidents was 53% higher than for 2014. Jews are leaving Europe and taking refuge elsewhere, most of them in Israel.
Fair criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. But exaggerated, libellous, and false criticism most certainly is. That is not my opinion, but the view of several major bodies dedicated to anti-racist work. At the university level, the Regents of the University of California, along with many other American universities, have just condemned anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic. Another official body you should know and recognize, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, has the following as their working definition of anti-Semitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism (sic) manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic (sic) materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic (sic) when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

That definition also forms the basis for the current U.S. State Department definition, with wording almost exactly the same. If you are serious about scholarship, may I suggest you buy or borrow a copy of Kenneth Marcus's book, The Definition of Anti-Semitism, published last year by Oxford University Press. Read chapter 6 in full. Marcus is the Founder and President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Formerly, he was Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and held the Chair in Equality and Justice in America at the City University of New York. He is, in other words, an authority on precisely those human and civil rights issues with which the BME concerns itself. And he agrees that exaggerated and malign criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
Your resolution is one passed by an anti-racist organization and presented by a group supporting the rights of black and other ethnic minorities. Yet it is, by definition, racist in character and, frankly, racist in intent. Are you proud of that? Can you sleep at night knowing you have joined a chorus of hate against the most persecuted race in human history? I am sure you support the right of self-determination for a thousand national, ethnic, and other groups round the world. Yet you call for an end to Israel, a state created after the genocide of six million Jews so they could to exercise their right to self-determination.
When people march on European streets side by side with far-right Muslim extremists chanting "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas," surely even you must admit that something is seriously wrong.
Your motion states that "The actions of the State of Israel are in violation of international law," with some supposed examples but not a single piece of evidence. In fact, the State of Israel has an impressive record of full compliance with international law at all levels. Your statement contradicts the opinions of very large numbers of experts in international law, a body of men and women whose knowledge of this subject far surpasses that of undergraduates who spout claims that have no legal or factual or historical backing.
It is often said, for example, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal under international law. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. Under the original partition plan advanced in UN Resolution 181 in 1947, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza was permitted, just as Arab settlement in Israel was permitted. The law has not changed since then.
In 1948-49, Egypt illegally occupied Gaza, and Jordan the West Bank, as a result of a war of aggression against Israel. Those were illegal occupations, yet nobody complained or demanded the removal of Egyptian or Jordanian troops.
In 1967, acting again in a war of defence, Israel displaced the aggressors Egypt and Jordan from Gaza and the West Bank. The occupation was recognized as fully legal by UN Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). According to the UN today, "Security Council resolution 242, adopted on 22 November 1967, and resolution 338, adopted on 22 October 1973, are considered basic instruments in all subsequent discussions of a Middle East peace settlement."
According to Resolution 242 (which has never been revoked), Israel is entitled to remain in Gaza and the West Bank until secure borders are agreed. As Israel has never forced any of its population into the Palestinian territories, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which you cite, simply does not apply. That is a matter of legal fact, not woolly opinion. Resolution 242 was very carefully worded to indicate that Israel did not have to pull out of "all the territories" -- just some.
In 2005, Israel, at very high cost to its own citizens, pulled lock, stock and barrel out of Gaza. Hamas then killed PLO politicians and took control, and before long launched a series of wars against Israel. Hamas's 1988 Covenant calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews worldwide. I hope that is not something any of you support.
Since 1967, Israel has made over half a dozen very serious offers of peace towards the establishment of a Palestinian state, including one offer of 97% of the West Bank and one of 100%. Each one has been rejected by the Palestinians, whose official bodies still demand the creation of a Palestinian state in place of Israel, which would lead to the expulsion or murder of all Jewish Israelis. So much, then, for the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. Your motion suggests that only Palestinians have a right to determine their own futures. That is pure discrimination.
Another charge you level at Israel may be found in paragraphs 14 and 16 of your motion. That is the charge of apartheid. Describing Israel as an apartheid state is, as I have noticed, another anti-Semitic libel. It is libellous for the simple reason that there is nothing in Israel that begins to resemble South African apartheid. Clearly, not one of you knows the first thing about apartheid, apartheid laws, and apartheid government in South Africa. If you did, you would be thoroughly ashamed even to suggest that Israel practises apartheid today.
Let me quote a modern South African politician who lived through the Apartheid years. Kenneth Rasalabe Joseph Meshoe, President of the African Christian Democratic Party, lived as a black man through the Apartheid regime. He has this to say about Israel:

"Those who know what real apartheid is, as I know, know that there is nothing in Israel that looks like apartheid. ... [The apartheid claim] is an empty political statement that does not hold truth... There is a widespread allegation, really a slander, that Israel is an apartheid state. That notion is simply wrong. It is inaccurate and it is malicious.
"The BDS movement is a real pain... to us in South Africa who love the truth, BDS movement is not a democratic movement; they are a movement of intimidation, a movement that performs hatred. People who don't believe in hatred should not allow the BDS movement to stop them from doing the right thing."

Meshoe and many other South Africans know what they are talking about. Do any of you? A Muslim friend once told me how he went to Israel to get information on its apartheid policies in order to write a book about it. But for however long he stayed, he could not find a single instance of apartheid. Today, he speaks worldwide on behalf of Israel. And he is right.
There are no apartheid laws in Israel. Arabs (both Muslims and Christians) in Israel have the same voting rights as Jews, have political parties of their own, serve as members of parliament, serve on the Supreme Court and other courts, are diplomats, lawyers, military officers, scientists, academics, and anything else they wish. Arab women win beauty contests and singing competitions. 20% of students in Israeli universities are Arabs because 20% of the population is Arab.
Dr Tarek Abu-Hamed, a Palestinian from East Jerusalem, works as Israel's Deputy Chief Scientist. Rana Raslan, an Arab woman, was voted Miss Israel. Omar Barghouti, an Arab founder and leader of the BDS movement, is studying for a PhD at Tel Aviv University. Dr Rania Okby is the first female Bedouin female physician in history and a proud Israeli. Yiytish Aynaw, a black Israeli of Ethiopian origins, was Miss Israel in 2013. The Master of Ceremonies for the 2014 Israel Prize Awards was Shibel Karmi Mansour, a Druze Israeli. Colonel Ghassan Alian, another Druze, is commander of the Israel Defense Force's Golani Brigade. The 2009 Eurovision singer for Israel was Mira Awad, an Arab woman. Israeli Arab Miriam Kabha, an attorney, was selected as the country's National Commissioner for equal employment opportunities. Salim Joubran, a Justice on Israel's Supreme Court, is an Arab. The Acting President of Israel in 2007 was Majalli Wahabi, a Druze Arab.
I could extend this list for pages. You are intelligent. Do your own thinking. Think of blacks in apartheid South Africa. Not a single one could have achieved any of these things.
There is no segregation on Israeli buses, trains or communal taxis. No separate queues anywhere for Jews and Arabs. No segregation at beaches, restaurants, cinemas, bars, shops, theatres -- anywhere. In Israel, Jews and Arabs work together, are friends, intermarry, and attend lectures, concerts, and parties together. There are no segregated places in Israeli hospitals. Jews, Muslims, Christians and atheists sleep on the same wards and are treated by a range of nurses and doctors, some Jewish, some Muslim, some Christian, and many atheist. Israel is a secular society, not a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
If you want to protest about apartheid, do not look at Israel. Look at Lebanon and other Arab countries, where Palestinian refugees are denied citizenship, refused entry to most professions, forcibly kept in camps, or even banned completely. And please do not bring on the lie that the Jews ethnically cleansed Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Here is what the current Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, had to say about that in 1976, in the official PLO journal Filastin al-Thawra:

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them: they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity."

History matters.
How many of you have ever been to Israel? I don't mean with guided tours organized by the BDS movement or other hate groups who set out to give you a false impression of life in the country. I mean simple holidays where you can move around freely and experience everyday life, just as you might in India or Thailand or anywhere you have not been before. If you have never been to Israel and seen it at first hand, you have absolutely no right to condemn it or to pass resolutions against it. If you are frightened that going there might shake you out of your prejudgements, then you are cowards. If you actively oppose visits to your campus by Israeli speakers or experts who favour Israel, or if you turn up at pro-Israel events just to shout and disrupt them, you are again cowards. If you cannot bear to listen to the views of the other side, then taking sides in ignorance is cowardly as well as dishonourable.
During the four years it took me to complete my PhD, my entire system of beliefs and assumptions was challenged profoundly, and in the end I abandoned many of them. I did that because my research entailed the examination of Persian and Arabic manuscripts in an Iranian archive, which meant that I was exposed to new levels of evidence that turned my assumptions upside down. That is a hard thing to go through, although I have never regretted it.
For you to face challenging facts about Israel and Jews may be equally disturbing. But it will be worth it in the end. You only have to possess the courage to go through with it, to read material that shows you evidence you have dismissed or ignored before. But if you are worth your salt, if you are to play a serious role in the world outside your university enclave, with its "safe space" policies and its political naïveté -- if, in short, you are ever to grow into maturity and leave behind your childish fantasies -- you really need to do this.
Travel to Israel, find Jewish homes to visit and share meals with, meet Israeli Muslims who love their country because it provides them with freedoms they could not hope to enjoy in any Islamic state, see why Israelis are forced to prioritize security, look closely at the security fence, one of dozens in the world, and find out why it was built. Draw your own conclusions. Do not let anyone else, whether anti-Israel or pro-Israel, tell you what to think. But do get out of your comfort zone, ask hard questions of both sides, go through the effort and come out the other side. You have all been conned. Just take the plunge, and in the future vote with integrity.
The Israel you present is a fantasy Israel, an Aunt Sally or Jim Crow invented by prejudiced minds to further the anti-Semitic dream of wiping out the Jewish people, starting with the world's only Jewish state.
If far-left socialist and far-right Islamist and fascist hoaxes of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, of Jewish power and wealth, of a cabal of Elders of Zion were even remotely true, don't you think there would be many Jewish states in the world today? Don't you think the enemies of Israel would have been wiped out in their entirety, given that the Israel Defense Force is one of the most powerful in the world? The Tsarists and the Nazis constructed lies about the Jewish people, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- lies that all educated people know for what they are. Today, the Arab states, Iran, Pakistan, and others tell almost identical lies, draw similarly grotesque cartoons, ascribe miraculous sinister powers to Jews and Israelis, and call for another genocide to match the Holocaust. In 2002, the leader of the Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, Hasan Nasrallah, made the following recorded statement:

"Among the signs [...] and signals which guide us, in the Islamic prophecies and not only in the Jewish prophecies, is that this State [of Israel] will be established, and that the Jews will gather from all parts of the world into occupied Palestine, not in order to bring about the anti-Christ and the end of the world, but rather that Allah the Glorified and Most High wants to save you from having to go to the ends of the world, for they have gathered in one place -- they have gathered in one place -- and there the final and decisive battle will take place."

That is an unambiguous threat to complete what Hitler started. Will you please think about it and look for the many hundreds of Palestinian, Arab, Iranian and other threats to accomplish the same thing? And ask yourself what side you wish to occupy. If you are indeed people of goodwill and humanity, the answer will come swiftly. In my early teens, I watched a teacher roll up her sleeve to reveal tattooed numbers. Not once since then have I veered from my support for the Jews. As a non-Jew, I could shrug my shoulders and say the Jews and Israelis are none of my business. I choose the moral path. Will you continue to shrug your shoulders and will you do even worse and continue to undermine the one country where Jews can take refuge in time of peril?
To get into a university of Edinburgh's calibre means you are clever young people. You have worked hard to get there. You have demonstrated (and, I trust, still demonstrate) academic ability. My criticism is that you are not using your brains well. You pontificate on a matter about which you are clearly poorly informed. You parrot charges that have no substance. You adopt an extreme position without listening to the views of your opponents. You seem not to have read any balanced books or articles about Israel, yet you leap on a very slippery bandwagon to vent hatred against it. Israel is not without its faults, just as Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland are not without their faults.
Israel can and should be criticized in a moderate, balanced manner. But you go farther than that, singling out Israel for boycott while leaving some of the greatest human rights abusers to go free. If you cannot see the iniquity of that, or understand why it is a matter of shame for intelligent, educated people to take such an extreme position, then you are failing your responsibilities to engage with truth in a rational and unbiased manner. One can have no patience with that. Above all, do not pander to your prejudices -- they will kill you morally and emotionally.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Denis MacEoin
Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute

On some of the practical and psychological implications of child arrest and imprisonment

see: 

http://www.dci palestine.org/inside_megiddo_s_juvenile_section_the_psychological_impact_part_4

https://www.facebook.com/431256660252368/videos/1075921935785834/