Israel: A Failing Colonial Project

Increasingly, despite its early military and political successes, it appears that Israel cannot for long endure as a colonial project. It must choose between wars – and destruction – or transition to a state for all its peoples.

In order to firmly secure its existence – as firmly as that is possible for any state – a settler state has to overcome three challenges. It has to solve the native problem; break away from its mother country; and gain the recognition of neighboring states and peoples. It can be shown that Israel has not met any of these conditions.

Consider Israel’s native problem. In 1948, in the months before and after its creation, Israel appeared to have solved its native problem in one fell swoop. It had expelled 80 percent of the Palestinians from the territories it had conquered. In addition, with the rapid influx of Arab Jews, Palestinians were soon reduced to less than ten percent of Israel’s population.

So, had Israel licked its native problem for good? Not really.

The Palestinians inside Israel pushed back with a high natural rate of growth in their numbers. As a result, despite the continuing influx of Jewish immigrants, the Palestinian share in Israel’s population has grown to above 20 percent. Increasingly, Jews in Israel see Israeli Arabs as a threat to their Jewish state. Some are advocating a fresh round of ethnic cleansing. Others are calling for a new partition to exclude areas with Arab majorities.

The Palestinians expelled from Israel in 1948 did not go away either. Most of them set up camp in areas around Israel – the West Bank, Gaza, southern Lebanon and Jordan. In 1967, when Israel conquered Gaza and the West Bank, it could expel a much smaller fraction of the Palestinians from these territories. In consequence, with more than a million additional Palestinians under its control, Israeli had recreated its native problem.

Israel’s native problem has grown worse since 1967. Already, the Palestinians equal or outnumber Israeli Jews between the Sea and the Jordan River. In the years ahead, moreover, the Palestinian share will continue to rise.

Having run out of solutions – such as rising net immigration of Jews and ethnic cleansing – Israel has been implementing draconian measures to handle its native problem. With Egyptian collaboration, it maintains a medieval siege over Gaza; it neutralizes the Palestinians in the West Bank with the apartheid wall, expansion of settlements, settler-only roads, intimidation and humiliation of Palestinians, and military control over the Jordan Valley.

However, these remedies are creating new problems. They lend support to charges that Israel is an apartheid society not a democracy. As a result, slowly but steadily, Western publics are throwing their support behind the campaign to divest from, boycott and impose sanctions on Israel.

Has Israel broken away from dependence on its mother country/countries?

In the absence of a natural mother country, Zionism worked with surrogates. Quite a few of them. Indeed, there is not a Western country – including Russia in its previous incarnation as Soviet Union – that has not served as a surrogate mother country to the Jewish colonial project.

The Jewish settlers in Palestine lost the support of Britain – their leading surrogate mother – in the early years of World War II, but retained it long enough to create their own state. Over the next few years Israel took on several new surrogates, not counting the Jewish diaspora: including the Soviet Union, France, Germany and the United States. Starting in the late 1950s, however, the United States became the leading mother country to Israel. This was the result of a powerful dynamic largely directed by Israel and the Jewish lobby in the United States.

Over the years, the United States has subsidized Israel, armed it, allowed it to acquire nuclear weapons, and gave it immunity from the sanction of international laws. Under the protection of the United States, Israel quickly gained hegemony over the Middle East: it became a law unto itself.

Still Israel is not an autonomous state.

It could not sustain its current military posture without the annual military grant of some three billion dollars from the United States and the tax-free donations from American Jews. More importantly, without the US veto at the United Nations, Israel could not continue its occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights, its siege of Gaza, its pre-emptive wars against its neighbors, and its policy of assassinations against Arabs. In short, without US-backed immunity, Israel would become a pariah state.

Arguably, this dependence does not place Israel at risk, since it is primarily an artifact of the Israel lobby in the United States. Over time, however, as the damage that Israel causes to US interests filters to the American electorate, unqualified US support for Israel may be in jeopardy.

Finally, there is the question of gaining the recognition of its neighbors.

Israeli gains on this front are more apparent than real. The Arab regimes that have recognized Israel, or are eager and ready to recognize it, have little legitimacy. Should these regimes collapse, their replacements are likely to resume their early confrontational posture towards Israel.

This is not mere speculation. Under the despotic Shah Iran was friendly to Israel, but after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 Iran became an ideologically committed adversary of Israel. As the powers of the secular generals in Turkey have been clipped, Turkey too has been revising its friendly ties with Israel.

In recent years, Israel has been running into a new problem: the loss of legitimacy with growing segments of civil society in the Western countries.

Driven by the contradictions of an exclusionary settler-state, as Israel has ratcheted its violence against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, as it has tightened its siege of Gaza, as it deepens its apartheid regime in the West bank, as it threatens to strips Arab Israelis of their rights, it has slowly called forth a new form opposition to its policies.

Angry at the complicity of their governments in Israeli crimes, segments of civil society in Europe, Canada and the United States have been moving forward with calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Increasingly, despite vigorous opposition from the Jewish establishment, this movement has been spreading among academics, students, trade unions, church groups, dissenting Jewish organizations, and human rights activists. Some of them have been organizing convoys, over land and sea, to break the blockade of Gaza.

As the failure of Israel’s colonial project looms larger, its nervous leaders will increasingly seek security in new and more dangerous wars. Increasingly, Israel will become an intolerable threat – if it isn’t already – to the Middle East, the world, and no less to Jews everywhere. Zionism was founded overwhelmingly by secular Jews, but, in order to succeed, it created a new religious myth of Jewish restoration, galvanized messianic tendencies among Western Christians, and created the myth that Israel alone shields the West from a resurgent Islam and Islamicate. It will not be easy putting these genies back in the bottle.

Perhaps, the best chance of unwinding the Zionist colonial project lies with the Jews themselves. Only when liberal segments of the Jewish diaspora are convinced that Zionism endangers Jewish lives, only when they act to countervail the power of the Jewish lobby in leading Western societies, will Israel finally be moved to dismantled its apartheid regime. In the end, the alternative to this orderly dismantling of Zionism is a destructive war in the Middle East that may not be limited to the region. Whatever else happens, it is unlikely that Israel or US interests in the Middle East will survive such a war.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University, Boston. You may read this essay with footnotes and references in Real World Economics Review where it was first published. He is the author of Poverty from the Wealth of Nations (Palgrave-Macmillan: 2000) and Intimations of Ghalib (Orison Books: 2018). Read other articles by M. Shahid.

12 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ismail Zayid said on July 7th, 2010 at 10:26am #

    The colonial project that Zionist mytholgy, in collusion with British imperialism, created in Palestine continues to be suastained by the hypocrisy of US president Obama and his Western allies. It is true, as M.Shahid Alam indicates here, that the credibility of this colonial project is faltering. But its aggressive military prowess, with US support, continues to present a real threat to peace in the Middle East and the world at large. It is hoped that its racist practices, brutal illegal occupation and continuing defiance of international law, will engender public alienation in the international community that may bring about the failure that Professor Alam predicts.

  2. MichaelKenny said on July 7th, 2010 at 11:29am #

    The first sentence says it all. Indeed, I think that the Israeli leadership has already quietly accepted the “one-state solution”, a single Palestinian state, with, inter alia, Jewish citizens. I think that’s why they are so busy building settlements. They calculate (probably rightly) that nobody will be forced to leave, although some of the Jewish polulation undoubtedly will. That will create a Palestine with a significant Jewish population for a least a generation, maybe two and will leave Jews largely in control of the economy. Then, all that private Jewish money now being used to hijack the US political system and to bully other countries into submission will be invested in the Palestinian economy. Thus, if you think about it, the one-state solution is actually win-win all round! The Palestinians get their state and demographics mean that they will ultimately control it. The Jews keep a blocking minority long enough to decide what to do next. Americans finally get to govern their country in their own interest. And the rest of the world gets Israel, its lobbies and its American bully off their backs! I don’t see any losers!

  3. Rehmat said on July 7th, 2010 at 6:20pm #

    The World Zionist movement leaders headed by David Ben Gurion – chose “conflicts and wars” as the only mean for the survival of the Zionist colonial experiment. However, with the power of the mainstream media – the Zionist leaders have been able to harness western politicians and fooled the world for over 60 years.

    Since Israel’s first defeat in South Lebanon in 2000, followed by the major military humiliation in Summer 2006, at the hands of some thousand Hizbullah fighters – Israel’s military invinciblity has evaporated. Currently, Israel see itself surrounded by three new regional powers, i.e., Turkey, Islamic Iran and Syria.

    Israel has become so paranoid now that CENTCOM has to tell it how to destroy its enemies – Hamas and Hizbullah.

  4. mary said on July 8th, 2010 at 12:31am #

    Note the role that Christian Zionism in Canada played in the establishment and support of the Zionist state in this book ‘Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid’ by Yves Engler.

    Palestine/israel : Canada’s “Peacemaker” Myth Deflated…

    Book review: pocket-sized volume deflates Canada’s “peacemaker” myth
    Hicham Safieddine, The Electronic Intifada, 6 July 2010

    Most Canadians today would probably agree that their country’s foreign policy is pro-Israel. Even Canada’s “liberal” supporters of Israel complain about this policy. Siding so explicitly with Israel, they lament, damages Canada’s long-time role of a peacemaker. It signals a shift away from the country’s perceived balanced approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But in his latest book, Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid, Yves Engler contends that Canada’s lopsided support for Israel is neither a shift nor the product of current government policy. Engler argues that the support goes as far back as Zionism itself, long before conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper or his anti-immigration minister Jason Kenney learned the alphabet of pro-Israel speak…

    Engler stresses the fact that the roots of Zionism in Canada are Christian rather than Jewish. He chronicles Canada’s involvement at every state of Zionist history by citing the prominent role Canadian Zionists played at each of those stages: businessman and Christian Zionist Henry Wentworth Monk was campaigning to raise funds and buy land in Palestine long before Herzl “thought of a Jewish state.” In 1881, Monk proposed setting up a National Jewish Fund. Clergymen like Albert Thompson and Charles Russell spoke of turning the “wilderness” of the holy land into the “very garden of the lord.” But Monk’s efforts bore little financial fruit. By 1906, Canadian Zionism had raised a mere $6,000 in support funds. Things changed during the First World War. Close to 400 Canadian soldiers took part in British General Allenby’s invasion of Ottoman Palestine. Some were mobilized by then-president of Zionist Societies of Canada Clarence De Sola. Following the war and Britain’s Balfour Declaration in November 1917, which declared support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, Canadians raised close to half a million dollars for Zionism between 1919 and 1921 — a giant increase compared to Monk’s time.

    …./Full Review:

  5. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 8th, 2010 at 12:54am #

    While it is true that we must aid decent Jews in battling the monsters within their community,it seems to me preposterous to simply rely on Jewry reforming itself as the chief means to end Zionist depravity.If the attitude of the world towards Nazism or Afrikaaner apartheid had been to sit back and hope for reform from within to remedy the social pathology of those societies, the terror would have continued for decades longer.
    The central truth about Israel,in my opinion,is that it has become a unique evil and danger.Not only has the decent fraction of Israeli society been completely sidelined, but also power has been seized by a clerico-fascist elite whose ideology of absolute racial and cultural supremacy, not just to their immediate victims, but to the whole of humanity. This dreadful turn of events is wicked and threatening almost without parallel. Moreover Israel is determined, along with its supporters in the Western world, to pervert and debase international humanitarian law, and turn it on its head.They are attempting,by establishing ‘facts on the ground’ to make the deliberate killing of civilians permissible and to criminalise the resistance of occupied peoples as ‘terrorism’. This vile ideology is rooted in a perverted doctrine, preached by fundamentalist religious leaders, that sees civilians as legitimate targets,their killing as a ‘mitzvah’ or good deed and the killing of children as permissible, if they can be said to be about to grow into adults who would ‘oppose’ the Jews,
    However,Israel’s greatest danger lies in the complete dominance of the Western world by Jewish Lobbies, whose loyalty to Israel far outweighs their loyalty to their ostensible home countries. These Lobbies, through their massive money power,that buys entire legislatures,establishes propaganda foundations by the score and which owns or controls most of the Western media, and strongly influences the rest, are the real rulers of the West. In Australia we have just seen the plainest expression of that power yet, with the removal of our Prime Minister,Kevin Rudd, by the Zionists, in the media and their stooges within the Labor Party and the Right of the trade union movement, for the crime of expelling a Mossad agent over the theft of Australian passports.Interestingly, Israel was caught out doing this before, and promised not to do it again. As the Palestinians well know, a promise given to a mere goy, even one as assiduous in bootlicking as Australia has been, means nothing.
    As far as the future goes,I’m deeply pessimistic. We are dealing here with people who regard their adversaries as animals, who, if they determine it, may be slaughtered without compunction. The atrocities in Gaza, attested by Goldstone, the Red Cross,Amnesty,Human Rights Watch, Medicines sans Frontieres, Western medical staff and Arab journalists, not to forget decent Israeli soldiers, were simply dismissed as ‘anti-semitic’ slurs. The slaughters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan,all organised and promoted by Zionists as part of their ‘Plan for the Middle East’, continue apace, and Israel openly threatens Lebanon,Syria and Iran.Turkey is now also being targeted with the Israelis fomenting trouble in the Kurdish regions, where Mossad has long had a dominating presence. Israeli experts in murder and terror are in India, advising on how to repress the Kashmiris and on death-squad operations against the Maoists. And Zionist hatemongers in the Western media continue to preach hatred and demand violent action against Moslems everywhere and Iran in particular. In fact, with its messianic zealotry, religious fundamentalism that sees genocide and child-killing as Holy Acts and arsenal of thousands of thermonuclear weapons, I consider Israel, and its Fifth Columns that control the West, as the greatest threat to humanity, with the sole exception of its puppet hyperpower, the USA. A two-headed horror, to be sure.

  6. mary said on July 9th, 2010 at 12:29am #

    Piracy, murder, daylight robbery, grand theft, kidnapping, assault and now this and where is the Foreign Office, yelling its head off in support of its NATO ally? I see and hear not.

    The mayor of Haifa plans to turn the Mavi Marmara into a floating hotel.

    This is the final outrageous indignity offered to the nine Turkish men who lie in their graves and to the injured some of whom are considered to be brain dead.

    We have always said that Israel knows no law.

  7. mary said on July 9th, 2010 at 1:11am #

    Hurrah for the Aussies.

    11 unions back campaign to boycott Israel
    Sun 27 Jun 2010
    By 2SER


    The international campaign for boycott, sanctions and divestment against Israel is starting to gain leverage in Australia, especially since the recent killings of nine Turkish solidarity activists.

    Since the May 31 attack on the flotilla of peace activists who were attempting to break the siege of Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, several more trade unions have signed up to the boycott campaign.

    The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union was the first Australian trade union to join the international boycott of Israel, even before the attack on the flotilla.

    Now eleven Australian trade unions and regional trade councils have joined the boycott.

    Mal Tulloch from the New South Wales CFMEU visited occupied Palestine earlier this year as part of a study tour to the Middle East organized by Union Aid Abroad-APHEDA.

    He spoke with 2SER’s Liz Cush – hear the interview here:

  8. mary said on July 9th, 2010 at 5:41am #

    If proof was needed that the British Foreign Office is in the control of Israel, here it is.

    UK removes blog post praising late Lebanese cleric
    AP – 09 July 2010 13:38:36 By RAPHAEL G. SATTER

    Britain’s ambassador to Beirut angered Israelis and embarrassed officials in London after writing a blog post praising the late Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon’s top Shiite cleric, who supported Hezbollah’s and other militants’ attacks on Israel.

    Frances Guy, who has served nearly four years as the Britain’s ambassador in Lebanon, made her tribute following the cleric’s death late last week. Writing in a blog carried on the Foreign Office’s Web site, she called Fadlallah a decent human being and a “true man of religion.”

    “Lebanon is a lesser place the day after,” she wrote. “If I was sad to hear the news I know other peoples’ lives will be truly blighted. The world needs more men like him willing to reach out across faiths, acknowledging the reality of the modern world and daring to confront old constraints. May he rest in peace.”

    Officials in Jerusalem were furious. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor described Fadlallah as an extremist who inspired “suicide bombings, assassinations and all kinds of wanton violence.”

    “The British ambassador must decide whether promoting terror and giving it religious justification can be considered a heritage to be cherished,” Palmor said.

    Britain’s Foreign Office said the posting had been removed “after mature consideration.” A spokeswoman declined to elaborate. Guy could not immediately be reached; the embassy said she was out of the country.


  9. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 9th, 2010 at 8:46am #

    mary, turning the Mavi Marmara into a shrine to Judaic ritual murder can surely come as no surprise. I don’t doubt that the terrorist murderers who put several bullets into the heads of the Turkish victims were ‘blessed’ by fundamentalist Rabbis before they set off on their death-squad rampage. The bare-faced theft through piracy ought to raise a few eye-brows, but these are Jews after all, and the ‘Christian morality’ of injunctions against theft does not apply to such lofty creatures. What say you?- the Holy Torah, in the Commandments (Free?!-I’ll take ten) outlaws theft too. Well, that’s just like the injunction against charging interest,or the great love of humanity expressed elsewhere-it’s for Jews only, I’m afraid. The ‘two-legged animals’ may safely be stolen from, have usurious debt extracted from them or see their children massacred lest they grow to oppose the Jews, but, amongst the Herrenvolk, well there are niceities to be observed.
    As to the craven behaviour of your Foreign Office, well that is par for the course. Once the Israeli spittle starts flying (literally as an ABC journalist discovered when covering a fundamentalist demonstration in Jerusalem and she had the impiousness to start her tape-recorder)the Sabbat Goy stooges must ‘tremble and obey’. You wouldn’t want to get a reputation as an ‘anti-semite’, now would you? Fadlallah seems to have been an enlightened,humane and decent man ie the antithesis of a Zionist. The typical expectoration of Zionist hatred and vilification for ‘human dust’ that dared lead his people in fighting back against racist, colonial invasion and diabolical terror, as the Shia of South Lebanon suffered, can only be to Fadlallah’s everlasting credit.

  10. mary said on July 9th, 2010 at 11:40am #

    CNN have sacked their reporter of 20 years’ standing, Octavia Nasr, for saying much the same about Fadlallah. Note the presence of the embedded AIPAC official Wolf Blitzer within.

    A re-run of the bullying attack on Helen Thomas. Both women have lost their jobs and the British Ambassador to the Lebanon will be quietly removed.

  11. Deadbeat said on July 9th, 2010 at 3:00pm #

    Here’s another take on the sacking …


    Re: CNN’s Octavia Nasr’s firing and what the liberal media allows
    From: Joaquín Bustelo
    Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:56:22 -0400

    The idea of the “liberal media” in relation to CNN is preposterous.

    The liberal media still exists, of course, every Monday and Friday on
    the opinion page of the New York Times when Paul Krugman isn’t on vacation.

    Otherwise, the only mass media still extant in the United States is the
    *corporate* media.

    And it is a very peculiar animal. As we might say in Spanish, it isn’t
    liberal nor conservative, but totally the opposite. No es ni liberal ni
    conservadora, sino todo lo contario. Que no es lo mismo, pero es igual.

    Because corporations today are not run by their owners but by
    professional “managers,” members of the noble race of traveling salesmen
    who have excelled at combining ass-licking with back-stabbing.

    That this layer of almost-capitalists and wannabes is IN FACT in charge
    is shown by their obscene compensation packages, which often represent a
    sizable percentage of the overall profits generated by the company, and
    it is not unusual for a CEO to get a third, half or more as much as the
    TOTAL dividends paid out to the putative “owners,” the stockholders.

    THEY have to be content mostly with the alleged growth in the value of
    their shares due to retained and reinvested profits. You know. what’s
    driven the Dow Jones from the 11,000+ level it started this century with
    to the 10,100 and change closing today.

    In other words, the putative “owners” lost more than 10% of their
    investment over the past decade in NOMINAL terms, and perhaps something
    like a third or more taking inflation into account.

    The pay of CEO’s is an entirely different story.

    I mention this because it is impossible to understand modern American
    media unless you understand that it is being run by arriviste nouveau
    riche twits.

    Take CNN, for example. The claim to fame of the head of CNN, Jim
    Walton, was to have led CNN’s all-sports network, something he did so
    successfully that today CNN doesn’t even have a half hour sports show on
    its schedule.

    He has presided over a such a collapse of CNN’s ratings that not just
    Fox, but even reruns on MSNBC and CNN’s own low-rent “Headline News”
    (dumbed down to “HLN news and views”, what with “Headline” being a
    complicated multisyllabic compound word, and used as an adjective, no
    less) routinely get higher ratings than CNN’s prime time lineup.

    The latest fiascos are the resignation of neocon Campbell Brown, too
    embarrassed to stay on the air with her ratings, to be replaced by a
    retread (the Jon Stewart torpedoed “Crossfire” under another name) and
    Larry King’s decision to use the occassion of his grand 25th anniversary
    CNN celebration take a walk rather than a paycut, which would surely
    have resulted from the dive his ratings have taken from having Wolf
    Blitzer and Campbell Brown as lead ins, as well as a significant portion
    of his audience constantly moving from the living room to the mortuary.

    The latest fad among media moguls like Walton is “social media.” What
    they mean by this is reproducing the dead-tired verticalist one-to-many
    model of 20th Century mass media on the Internet. Which is why a twerp
    like Octavia Nasr was tweeting.

    What she got fired for wasn’t whatever she said about that dead guy. It
    was for not being white.

    Now wait a minute, you say, CNN –and especially the International
    operation– have lots of people of color. Sure they do. But the rule for
    staying there is to be whiter than white, like that moron Fareed
    Zakariah, with his “yassa massa” smile and inside-the-beltway Washington
    cliche opinions.

    They are today’s version of Sammy Davis Jr., meant to make liberals
    feel righteous because they wouldn’t mind someone like that moving in
    next door … or at least down the street (preferably on the opposite

    Of course, the liberals at Salon and … elsewhere … can comfort
    themselves with the thought that this was really JUST “ideological,” an
    outrageous example of censorship and all that.

    Go ahead and believe that.

    I’m sure it’ll make you feel better.

    Or let me put it more gently: the reason most intelligent Americans get
    their *news* from the Daily Show isn’t because they can’t tell the
    difference between news and comedy, but because they can.


  12. mary said on July 10th, 2010 at 5:33am #

    Complete rubbish in that piece about her colour being the cause of her sacking. It was obvious that she said the wrong thing and that the Israel lobby brought pressure to bear on the management. Why was such a stupid little piece posted here I ask?

    This is what the cruel Occupiers do each and every day of the year whilst they are supported financially by the successive amoral US governments.

    In violation of Medical Ethics and International Law: Israel Restricts the Access of Gaza Patients to Urgent Medical Treatment if their Condition is Not Life-Threatening
    Source: Al Mezan Center for Human Rights; Physicians for Human Rights (PHR)

    Date: 30 Jun 2010

    Full_Report (pdf* format – 73.7 Kbytes)

    A new position paper by three human rights organizations, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-IL), Al-Mezan and Adalah, reviews Israel’s exit policy at the Erez Crossing regarding Gaza patients seeking medical treatment unavailable in Gaza. The paper argues that there is a consistent Israeli policy of distinguishing between life-threatening cases and cases that affect quality of life, as a basis to deny their exit from the Strip for medical treatment, which violates the principles of medical ethics and international law.

    This conclusion is based on an analysis of Israel’s rejections of applications submitted by Gaza patients during 2009, which found a strong correlation between cases considered life-threatening and permit approval rates. It should be stressed that cases which are not defined as life-threatening, and which were denied by Israel, can still be clinically urgent: this includes, for example, conditions that can lead to the loss of limbs, organs, or eyesight.

    The organizations argue that Israel must allow every patient requiring medical treatment that is unavailable in Gaza access to treatment outside the Strip without delay.

    The policy, which was first adopted on June 2007, is still in effect today. In the past few weeks, PHR-IL has received about 40 applications from Gaza patients whose requests to exit Gaza to receive medical treatment had been rejected by the Israeli security authorities. This is an extraordinarily high number of rejections in a relatively short period of time, which calls for special attention, given that all of these patients suffer from non-life-threatening medical conditions. On June 15, 2010, after 11 individual requests submitted by PHR-IL to the Israeli security authorities had been rejected, PHR-IL submitted a collective request in behalf of the 28 remaining patients, asking the security authorities to reconsider their cases.


    This is what this most inhumane of places is like –