Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel and the Apartheid Slander

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Israel and the Apartheid Slander

    Israel and the Apartheid Slander

    By RICHARD J. GOLDSTONE
    Published: October 31, 2011

    THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.
    Related in Opinion

    One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

    While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

    I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

    In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

    In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

    To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

    The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

    But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.

    Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

    Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

    Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.

    The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.

    Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.
    Zraver, don't get all excited or get your panties in a bunch, I'm not reengaging and I'm not going to get too seriously involved in this thread either. I'm just posting this for you reading pleasure, the legal opinion of someone that's pretty big in the Human Rights area, Richard Goldstone, maybe you've heard of him? Perhaps once you read this you'll finally admit that you're wrong when you call Israel an Apartheid state, but I doubt it.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  • #2
    First he is a lawyer, so he is free to and well trained in helping others draw conclusions that might not actually be supported by the evidence. He went to school and has made a living doing just that after all.

    So lets begin for my sources I use his writings and the 1998 Rome Statute.
    Rome Statute - Part 2. Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law

    Using his own definition from the Rome Satute, "Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

    But thats not what the law actually says. Here is the wording from the UN, "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

    Of a character similar to those ... kind of an important thing he left out. Because that phrase means even if its a goose, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks its a duck. Also, those means more than 1, but not necessarily all.

    Paragraph 1 is important- because apartheid is a crime by both definition which Goldstone deftly tries to turn and by act. It also requires single group domination over one or more other groups. So to be apartheid all three criteria need to be met.

    The Acts which may be indicative of aparthied

    1(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

    (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

    (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

    (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

    (j) The crime of apartheid; (zraver- the legal frame work or official regime by which acts are carried out)

    (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

    So its pretty clear that there are acts which are indicative of an apartheid regime, and that such policies are the official (and thus crime of apartheid in (j)) policy of Israel.

    That leaves the third criteria- race.

    Are Jews a race? Yes, 1- they have distinct and identifiable genetic markers linking them to a specific region and time, 2- membership is hereditary through the mother, you can be religious, convert to another religion or be secular and still be Jewish and a person's Jewishness is measured to degrees of removal like some others races like American Indians.

    All three criteria are met as regards the occupied territories. Not my criteria- the law as it is written. Goldstone even admits this, "This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters."

    He admits the oppression is real, and then adds the qualifier of permanency. Finally, he tries to shift the blame to the Palestinians. Who have no legal obligation under international law to sign away their land. The obligation is on Israel per the 4th GC.

    His attempted sleight of hand is thin and unconvincing.

    What is permanent? I say if its built on a foundation and designed to last more than a decade its permanent by design, and if its at least 20 years old its permanent by effect. If you have a different but compelling argument for a different scale I'm all ears. Most of this stuff has been going on for more than double that. However in dealing with the charge of apartheid permanent is established after 48 years no matter what becuase that how long South Africa had apartheid 48-94. Israel has now controlled the territories for 43 years.... 5 years to go tick tick tick tick...

    1. Resource allotment, security services, access and right of way, goods and services, legal systems, rights of self defense, medical care, education, electricity... In every area by which one would measure quality of life the settlers get the big end of the stick. These policies have now been in place so long that they are a permament benefit to the settlers.

    2. The Palestinians do not have to negoiate away anything that is legally theirs. By international law the future state of Palestine is entitled to 100% of the land seized by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in 1967. Israel's refusal to honor its international obligations until the Palestinians give in and give away something to Israel is a prima facia example of an attempt to permamently alter the region to the benefit of the settler minority.

    3. Israel illegally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 and declared it the united undivided capitol of Israel. Now lets be clear even if you don't like my definition of permament- you'll agree that few things are more permament than those which permamently move a nations seat of government and that declare that all other things not withstanding that maps have to be redrawn to recognize that move...

    There are three real examples of permamency... Again not my words- his.

    Sorry Ben, by the law as written and by your champion's own words Israel is an apartheid state as regards the occupied territories.

    Even your champion was forced to add criteria not found in the law (permanency), shift blame to the oppressed and not reveal what the law actually said to reach his conclusions. I hope he argues better in court...
    Last edited by zraver; 01 Nov 11,, 10:07.

    Comment


    • #3
      That is what we call hoisted on your own petard... learn how to read legalese next time. I know your not a law student, lawyer or even a gifted amateur like me- but each word is important when dealing with laws. Believe it or not that is actually a legal concept, "so that no words be left vague, void and left without meaning, that each have their full weight and effect".

      Which is also why preambles to documents, declarations and treaties are not legally binding. Politicians can't help but spit words that are vague, void and without meaning so the lawyers give them the preamble. Don't believe me, go ask an international law lawyer. or find proof of a successful suit for violation of a preamble.

      Comment


      • #4
        "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

        What if it is used as maintaining security?

        Also how can you characterize on the level of "apartheid" when a minority of Arabs vote, and enjoy the same rights as Israeli citizens? How can it be characterized "ystematic oppression and domination" when there are members on the Supreme Court - which are Arabs - (not verified just from Ross source) and also have legislative members? Can "systematic oppression and domination" be applied?

        Does some racial discrimination apply as "systematic oppression and domination" ?

        If that could be the case, requiring the English language could be racial to a degree because a large portion of that race lack the necessary knowledge of the English language? What about head scarf ban? That could be labeled racist as well and labeled "systematic oppression and domination" - in which the ruling regime directs laws which are heavily biased towards a specific religion and also which the majority of the race if Muslim?
        Last edited by Dago; 01 Nov 11,, 10:18.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Dago View Post
          "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

          What if it is used as maintaining security?

          Also how can you characterize on the level of "apartheid" when a minority of Arabs vote, and enjoy the same rights as Israeli citizens? How can it be characterized "ystematic oppression and domination" when there are members on the Supreme Court - which are Arabs - (not verified just from Ross source) and also have legislative members? Can "systematic oppression and domination" be applied?
          Talking about the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, not Israeli Arabs- two distinct legal personages here. Conflating them confuses the issue.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Talking about the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, not Israeli Arabs- two distinct legal personages here. Conflating them confuses the issue.
            I was not aware that this argument was referring primarily of occupied territories. From the OP : "In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment." - It would seem that Israel was also discussed with that of apartheid.

            I was essentially going off the opening post, and lacked any knowledge of previous arguments and discussion that you two obviously had and carried over from another thread.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Would be better if you said from another threads.

              This is basically what confuses me about Israel, occupied territories are in Israel or they are not?
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Dago View Post
                I was not aware that this argument was referring primarily of occupied territories. From the OP : [I][B]"In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute:...

                I was essentially going off the opening post, and lacked any knowledge of previous arguments and discussion that you two obviously had and carried over from another thread.
                before that quote there was this, "In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement."

                My argument deals with the Occupied Territories- all of them save the Golan Heights which per settled precedent are part of Israel.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  Would be better if you said from another threads.

                  This is basically what confuses me about Israel, occupied territories are in Israel or they are not?
                  Depends on what claim Israel is trying to make at the time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    Would be better if you said from another threads.

                    This is basically what confuses me about Israel, occupied territories are in Israel or they are not?
                    There are other threads!
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      before that quote there was this, "In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement."

                      My argument deals with the Occupied Territories- all of them save the Golan Heights which per settled precedent are part of Israel.
                      Do you have any articles discussing the situation more in depth of the current environment of the occupied territories? Also perhaps any UN report findings? I would think they would be relevant in this thread, could be informative.

                      Also :

                      "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

                      What if it's as maintaining "security", temporarily?
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dago View Post
                        Do you have any articles discussing the situation more in depth of the current environment of the occupied territories? Also perhaps any UN report findings? I would think they would be relevant in this thread, could be informative.

                        Also :

                        "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

                        What if it's as maintaining "security", temporarily?
                        Define the length of temporarily.
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                          Define the length of temporarily.
                          When the state of war ceases?
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Dago View Post
                            Do you have any articles discussing the situation more in depth of the current environment of the occupied territories? Also perhaps any UN report findings? I would think they would be relevant in this thread, could be informative.
                            Human rights report: West Bank situation 'reminiscent of apartheid regime in South Africa' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

                            B'Tselem | The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

                            Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights

                            Two Jewish sources and the Amnesty International which is widely known if not widely regsrded by those who abuse... Of the three Bt Selem is my fav, they are effectively the soul of Israel when it comes to the occupied territories.

                            Also :

                            "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

                            What if it's as maintaining "security", temporarily?
                            False analogy, the occupation is illegal, so results stemming from that illegal act are (at least in part) the fault of Israel. Israel could have peace (with the Palestinians) in the West Bank and East Jerusalem tomorrow and set the stage to collapse Hamas in Gaza- yank the settlers out tear down the barriers, respect international law, pump in economic aid to put men to work, and have a few show trials of the worst offending settlers. But she won't do it, the irredentist right will never allow it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zraver View Post

                              False analogy, the occupation is illegal, so results stemming from that illegal act are (at least in part) the fault of Israel. Israel could have peace (with the Palestinians) in the West Bank and East Jerusalem tomorrow and set the stage to collapse Hamas in Gaza- yank the settlers out tear down the barriers, respect international law, pump in economic aid to put men to work, and have a few show trials of the worst offending settlers. But she won't do it, the irredentist right will never allow it.
                              How is it illegal when a state of war exists?

                              What's different from US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq?
                              Last edited by Dago; 01 Nov 11,, 23:17.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X