Democracy Now: Rights Group: Israel’s West Bank System Like Apartheid

[HamdenRice]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/9/headlines#9

Meanwhile, Israel’s leading civil rights organization, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, has broken a taboo by describing Israeli policies in the occupied West Bank as being “reminiscent of the Apartheid regime in South Africa.” A spokesperson for the group said the organization decided to drop its previous reluctance to use the South Africa comparison because things are getting worse in the Occupied Territories.

<end quote>

Interesting given the discussions on this forum over the last week or so. Looks like Israel's leading civil rights organization now signs on to the comparison.

[Mosby]

1. Full report

http://www.acri.org.il/pdf/state2008.pdf

This statement caught my eye:

"A spokesperson for the group said the organization decided to drop its previous reluctance to use the South Africa comparison because things are getting worse in the Occupied Territories."

So calling the occupation apartheid will make the situation better?

Really?

In my years of work in mediation and conflict resolution we learned that using inflammatory language, smears and unwarranted behavioral labels always tends to escalate the situation. Maybe it works differently in the ME?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. The use of "apartheid" certainly makes the description more ACCURATE.

And "truth" should have some place in this discussion.

[Vegasaurus]

3. There is no "truth" to apartheid in relation to Israel

and using it certainly does not advance the Palestinians' cause.

[HamdenRice]

4. Analytic clarity can make the situation better

This isn't inflammatory language. It's accurate language. And understanding the situation is the first step to resolving it.

[Kurska]

5. No you seem to be of the opinion that everyone accepting YOUR definition would be a first step

If everyone would just accept that goblins cause gravity, then we'd be so much closer to fixing quantum physics. You can't make a nonfactual statement factual by saying it is, logic doesn't work that way.

Nor can I make a factual statement nonfactual by saying it's wrong, Thats what argument, debate and analysis are for. Proclaiming yourself right because you said you are isn't going to garner many supporter my friend.

[HamdenRice]

6. How is it my definition?

It is the conclusion of:

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the country's leading human rights organization;

Bishop Desmond Tutu, South African Nobel Peace Prize winner;

John Dugard, the Thurgood Marshall of South Africa and UN human rights rapporteur for Israel/Palestine;

Edwin Cameron, Justice of South Africa's high court and AIDS campaigner;

Ronnie Kasrils, Minister of Intelligence of South Africa;

Dennis Davis, South African Cape high court Justice;

and so many more.

How is this just my definition or conclusion?

Why not face the fact that some of the most knowledgeable, respectable and selfless human rights experts in Israel and South Africa -- all of whom support Israel's right to exist and only want to make it a better place -- have come to the same conclusion, try to come to terms with it, and help figure out a way forward.

[Kurska]

7. I could drag up countless names of people, many highly respected who don't think it's similar

I won't however, because in the end the validity of the statement comes in the form of the truth of it, not who believes in it. If you want to argue that israel is a apartheid state, why don't you formulate a argument? You seem to respect their opinions, so why don't you try parroting one to me if you find it so difficult.

It's your definition and their definition, but it's not my definition or as a matter of fact, the majority of the American people.

I don't see how any of this is related to israel releasing funds to help ease the gazan credit crunch, heck they are doing it when they are being bombarded daily by rockets FROM Gaza.

[Kurska]

9. Ahh wrong article sorry

The last edit was posted to the wrong article the "I don't see how any of this is related to israel releasing funds to help ease the gazan credit crunch, heck they are doing it when they are being bombarded daily by rockets FROM Gaza."

[Mosby]

8. Using the apartheid label to describe the conditions in the OTs

is a way to de-legitimize Israel's defensive response to terrorism. To make the apartheid analogy work at all one must strip away all context and history of the conflict, but I guess that's the goal--after all, throwing around inflammatory labels like apartheid is no way to solve or ameliorate the IP conflict.

[Vegasaurus]

10. Send a memo to the militants

let them know that their people's misery and "apartheid" is the direct result of their violence and resistance.

Life would improve for the Palestinians in a nanosecond, if the militants would give up their goal of killing Jews and taking back the land that is currently Israel.

[oberliner]

12. Here is an interview excerpt with Dennis Davis that you might find enlightening

IPS: Israel has been accused of adopting policies that are reminiscent of apartheid South Africa. Is this a fair comparison?

Dennis Davis: I think the only issue is with the movement of people. This is remarkably similar to certain forms of influx control (in the old South Africa). And it's so much more sophisticated. We didn't have computers. And the separate roads and separate number plates (for Palestinians and Jews in the West Bank) is unquestionably a more sophisticated form of restriction of movement of the kind that we had. The fact that you've got those definitions at some of those controls, of what constitutes an Israeli and what constitutes somebody else, is not entirely unreminiscent of what we had. I was deeply disturbed by that because I hadn't realised how stark that parallel was.

IPS: So you feel the comparison is valid?

DD: It is unfortunate that people now run from that into an immediate conclusion that this is an apartheid state. We met Israel's Chief Justice and what is clear is that there is a pretty relaxed form of (judicial) standing by which Palestinians can petition the High Court of Justice in Israel. That's impressive. That obviously didn't exist in South Africa. And within Israel itself, there aren't zones the way we had group areas (for blacks and whites). Arabs who live here can also vote and have rights of citizenship.

This is not so much a discrimination based on ethnic identity in the broad sense of Arab versus Jew. It does seem to me to be a very intricate form of social control.

IPS: Apartheid was based on racial superiority.

DD: There's no racial superiority here. There's no pervading ideology that confirms the inferiority of Palestinians.

http://www.telfed.org.il/content/israel-in-a-weak-parallel-with-apartheid

So what conclusion are you claiming Dennis Davis has reached?

And I'd love to see a link to where John Dugard has expressed a desire to "make Israel a better place".

[HamdenRice]

25. delete - wrong place

[subsuelo]

11. The situation fits the definition of Apartheid

As defined by the ICC:

"inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised 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." (Wikipedia)

Since Israel has become an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination, committing crimes of humanity against the native Palestinians, the use of the term 'Apartheid' is appropriate.

Sorry some don't like to hear the truth of it, but it is what it is. It is Apartheid.

[oberliner]

13. It doesn't and the human rights group does not claim otherwise

This group does not make the same accusations that you do.

[delad]

14. If it walks like and duck and talks like a duck...

it's obviously an elephant. West Bank; Palestinians have access to 60% of territory which is criss-crossed by Israeli only (army/jew/whatever) roads, the rest of it out of bounds. This results in Palestinians living in series of disconnected bantustans where exit and entry are controlled by the Isreali army (border police). The West BAnk economy is dependent on international donors. Isreal has control of its borders. Palestinians have nominal/minimal control over their bantustans but Israeli army word is the law. Palestinians in general have no recourse to the law (e.g. house demolition, assaults by Israelis/IOF, etc), exceptions do not prove the rule. Israelis recieve the full protection of the Israeli army and acts of terror by settler groups are rarely brought to court. Peaceful protests by Palestinians are brutally and violently put down.
People continue to harp on about how Israel must be allowed to defend itself from Palestinian terror but when was the last attack that originated from the W/B? Oh, it's because of the security measures in place? So they have to be made permenant in that case.
One state, one man, one vote. Otherwise get the fuck out.

[oberliner]

15. You don't support an independent Palestinian state next to Israel?

Wouldn't an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, along the lines of what was proposed in the Arab Peace plan, result in the end of the problems you are describing?

Would you oppose such a two-state solution?

[delad]

16. I wouldn't oppose a 2 state solution along the lines of the api n/t

[oberliner]

17. What made you change your mind?

You had initially written "no" in response to my question.

Why the switch?

[delad]

18. I didn't change my mind

If you look at your lead sentence and your final question, they are different. By answering your final question it looked as if i didn't agree with what is stated in your opening line. I wanted to avoid any confusion by stating my opinion clearly (hence i deleted the "no n/t").

[oberliner]

19. I'm not sure I see the difference between the two questions

The Arab Peace Plan calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to Israel.

Edit to add: I realize they are not identical questions, but I wonder what distinction you are drawing between the two.

[delad]

20. There seems to be some confusion here, allow me to clear it up.

I believe that the API is the best plan anybody's put forward recently. End of story.
The distinction in your questions lies in how they are answered, in one you're asking me if i don't believe in something, in the other you are asking if i believe in something. You see, I've been living in KOrea for the last 3 years and a negative question (You don't...?) is always answered with a no if you agree (ie "you don't like ice-cream?" if i do like ice-cream than my answer will be "no"). I hope this clears it up (as clear as pea-soup I'm sure).

[oberliner]

21. Thank you for the clarification

So you would support a two-state solution and you believe the Arab Peace Initiative is the best proposal out there right now to achieve that goal?

Separate question: Do you think a single-state solution is preferable to a two-state solution? (That is what it appeared you were saying earlier in the thread)

[delad]

22. Ahh, the penny drops. I see where you were going with that

Tbh, in a perfect world a one state solution is always best (ie globally a one state, one peolple, freedom of movement for all, etc etc) would get my vote. However, we don't live in a perfect world so we have to make do. I think a two-state solution would be best for both peoples, but given Israel's reluctance to deal honestly with the Palestinians (i.e. by maintaining an aparthied regime in the W/B) I'm not sure how viable the struggle for a two state solution really is. This is what i was saying earlier on about the one-state, that if Israel insists on maintaining its control over the W/B (despite lack of any threat emanating from the region) than it should have to do so legally and not as an occupying force.

The Arab Peace Initiative has been on the table for 8 or 9 years now, Annapolis has gone nowhere, various peace initiatives have done nothing for anybody. And at the end of the day, Israel *still* occupies Palestinian land by use of force. If Israel is unwilling to release its chokehold, then a one state solution should be foisted upon Israel. I hope i've made my position clear.
Can i ask you in return, which would you prefer and why?

[oberliner]

23. I support a two-state solution

Two states living side by side at peace with one another is what I support.

I like some of the principles outlined in the Geneva Accord/Initiative, that, unfortunately, seems not to have much energy behind it lately.

To me, that is a solution has the potential to bring peace and prosperity both to Israelis and Palestinians.

Here is a link to the Geneva Accord website:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/

Thanks for clarifying your position!

[delad]

24. no problem. n/t

[HamdenRice]

26. Editor, Sunday Times of S.Africa re W.Bank: "Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here"

Quoted in a very interesting story in Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000976.html

Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. "When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.

"The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible - and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.

"Under apartheid, whites and blacks met in certain places. The Israelis and the Palestinians do not meet any longer at all. The separation is total. It seems to me that the Israelis would like the Palestinians to disappear. There was never anything like that in our case. The whites did not want the blacks to disappear. I saw the settlers in Silwan - people who want to expel other people from their place."

[Vegasaurus]

27. Talk to the militants

who have ruined so many lives.

Before their "violent uprisings" (when it was just day to day mundane terror, not rampant suicide bombings), there was total freedom of movement and much connection between the Palestinians and Israelis.

They worked together, shopped together, often ate together in the same restaurants and even at the same tables!

The "separation" is the result of ongoing attempts and successes at murdering and terrorizing Israelis.

What the Israelis want to have disappear is TERROR.

If the militants stopped their TERROR, there would be none of these issues.

[HamdenRice]

30. Well, at least we both agree that Israel has adopted a form of apartheid

and that is progress in the debate. When you move from saying "it's not apartheid" to "talk to the militants" because their actions explain why we adopted apartheid ("The 'separation' is the result of ..."), then at least you have come to grips with the reality of the situation.

The next step would be to get you to acknowledge that the adoption of apartheid is never justified. It wasn't justified by South Africa's state of war with Angola and Mozambique, or the "armed struggle" of the ANC, and it isn't justified by the security situation in I/P.

[oberliner]

31. Israel has not adopted a form of apartheid

And none of the experts you cite claim otherwise.

[shira]

32. a "form" of apartheid

1. Does any "form" of apartheid exist in every arab country surrounding Israel? Yes or No?

2. Does apartheid exist WITHIN Israel? Consider that Palestinians live WITHIN the green line. These are Palestinians every bit as much as any in the W.Bank or in Gaza. Are they suffering from apartheid? I ask because Jimmy Carter and others say no. How about you? Yes or No?

[oberliner]

28. Response to Makhanya in The Times of South Africa

Israel does not have apartheid

Mondli Makhanya, in “The never-ending face-off” (July 27), is wrong when he describes Israeli policies towards Palestinian Arabs as a form of apartheid.

These accusations defame the Jewish state, and also diminish the victims of the real apartheid — the men, women and children of our beloved South Africa — who suffered for centuries under arrogant, heartless colonialism, and then for decades under the brutal apartheid policies of racial superiority, oppression and separation inflicted by the National Party. If everything is apartheid, then nothing is apartheid.

In Israel, all citizens — Jew and Arab alike — are equal before the law. Israel has none of the apartheid legislative machinery devised to discriminate against and separate people. It has no Population Registration Act, no Group Areas Act, no Mixed Marriages and Immorality Act, no Separate Representation of Voters Act, no Separate Amenities Act, no pass laws or any of the other myriad apartheid laws.

http://www.thetimes.co.za/article.aspx?id=814070

[Vegasaurus]

29. The "Israel is an apartheid nation practicing genocide" believers

have never let a good fact get in the way of their hyperbole.