Goldstone's 'apartheid' denial sparks strife

[oberliner]

After his famous article earlier this year on Gaza, Judge Richard Goldstone has written a new op-ed, this time seeking to defend Israel against charges of apartheid.

There are numerous problems with Goldstone's piece, but I want to highlight two important errors. First, Goldstone - like others who attack the applicability of the term "apartheid" - wants to focus on differences between the old regime in South Africa and what is happening in Israel/Palestine. Note that he does this even while observing that apartheid "can have broader meaning", and acknowledging its inclusion in the 1998 Rome Statute.

As South African legal scholar John Dugard wrote in his foreword to my book Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide, no one is saying the two situations "are exactly the same". Rather, there are "certain similarities" as well as "differences": "It is Israel's own version of a system that has been universally condemned".

Goldstone would appear not to have read studies by the likes of South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council and others, who conclude that Israel is practicing a form of apartheid. The term has been used by the likes of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, President Jimmy Carter, and Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111274233586837.html

This op-ed piece is by Ben White.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/benwhite

[Violet_Crumble]

1. I hadn't read Mr Goldstone's article till now...

I was with him on the situation in Israel itself, but strongly disagree with him when it comes to the West Bank, where I do believe there is an apartheid-style system in place.

[oberliner]

2. Have you read Ben White's book on the subject?

It's from 2009: Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide.

Curious to know your thoughts on his perspective on this subject.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. No, I haven't read that one...

Is it worth keeping an eye out for?

[oberliner]

4. I'm not a Ben White fan

I have debated the merits of his book with others in the past - was curious to know if you had read it or had an opinion about it.

Since you haven't, I certainly would not recommend that you do so.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I've only read a few articles by Ben White. On the whole, they seemed very oversimplified and

one-sided, and did not inspire me to read further. The criticism of Goldstone is an example. The word 'apartheid' is often used rather metaphorically, and I admit that I've sometimes used the word a bit freely myself - for anything from Israel's policy in the West Bank, to some Arab states' policies with regard to gender, to the current British government's attitude to people on benefits. But I don't think that literal comparisons between Israel and South Africa are valid, or serve much of a purpose. In general, there is too much tendency to base policies for one situation in one country at one time, on what happened in other situations in other countries at other times; and it's usually counterproductive.

However, this recent article - which I found as a result of checking out what he'd written due to this thread is surprisingly thoughtful, and brings out important points, and I might even have posted it as an OP if I'd seen it within the time window for posting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/01/palestinian-political-leadership

I still don't feel inspired to read the book, however.

[shira]

5. Good replies to the Ben White article in al-Jazeera...

In response to your comments below, while I cannot speak for the others on the board, my response comes from the fact that Ben White's comments are essentially so off the wall.

White makes his claim about Apartheid based on Israel's existence. He goes back to the 1948 war to support his argument. By doing so, he exposes the reality that the issue is not the settlements, not the occupation of the West Bank, but Israel's existence.

Essentially, he's trying to deligitimize the entire state by tarring it with the term Apartheid. This is the same game that other Palestinian advocates have tried to do when labelling Israel as a Nazi state, accusing it of committing the horrid crime of genocide, against the Palestinians.

Such arguments are not based on criticism of Israel's actions, but attempting to delegitimize the entire nation and demonizing its people. If we follow White's argument to the end, the only solution is the dismemberment of the Jewish state.

Sorry to rain on your parade guys but Israel is Jewish state and will remain that way. As for supposed discrimination against non-Jews within the state. There are no laws granting superior status to non-Jews above Jews. Non Jews participate in all areas of the public and private sectors making the blanket accusations of Apartheid quite ridiculous. In fact its the other way around. Jews have 3 year mandatory service so the discrimination is the other way around.

Yes the Palestinians are currently stateless and have no real voting rights in the West Bank and Gaza. This a bad situation but completely solvable. This can be solved by a) Hamas allowing honest elections between it Fatah in Gaza b) Palestinians accepting the two-state solution as offered to them by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert and turned these offers down. You can't claim to be denied rights when you turned down those exact same rights when offered to you.