This commentary is a response to “‘Apartheid’ doesn’t categorize Israel,” which ran in The Daily Cougar on Wednesday.
Israeli Apartheid Week, hosted by Students for a Democratic Society at UH, is the most important Palestinian solidarity event of the year. It is an international effort to bring attention to apartheid, occupation and human rights abuses in Israel/Palestine.
The SDS, which I am a part of, is glad its support of IAW has initiated dialogue and discussion on campus, though there has been much controversy concerning the nature and accuracy of our claims.
In Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Cougar, Michael Green authored an article in the Opinion section alleging that IAW amounts to nothing more than hate speech and that SDS is being hypocritical in its support of this activity. These accusations are false.
The first claim Green made was that Israel is not an apartheid state.
According to the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and countless other international bodies, Israel is indeed an apartheid state. It completely fits the definition of apartheid, which is “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”
For instance, Palestinians in the occupied territories are controlled by Israel and yet do not have any say in government policies.
Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are no more than secondary citizens who are not allowed to access a large section of public resources because of their race and their legal inability to serve in the Israeli military.
The protocol in which the Israeli government and military deal with Palestinian free speech both within Israel and in the occupied territories is in stark contrast to the way they deal with Jewish Israelis who express themselves as they wish.
Non-violent protestors without the protection of international or Israeli activists have repeatedly been injured, arrested and even killed. The events of Land Day and the weekly demonstrations in the West Bank are evidence of this fact.
On Wednesday, SDS hosted some local activists who were involved in the South African struggle against apartheid. They explained in great detail the reason they support the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, along with many South Africans today including Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.
Secondly, Green inaccurately depicted Israeli policy in the West Bank as only in answer to a “security” threat of some sort. For instance, he made the claim that the apartheid wall in the occupied territories was only used to stop suicide bombing and protects Israelis and Arabs alike.
While security is one aspect, the primary purpose of the wall is not security whatsoever.
The supposed security wall, as SDS explained during its street theater event Tuesday, has been deemed illegal by the UN and other international bodies. It cuts off Palestinians from their land, jobs, homes and families.
If it were indeed a security wall as Israeli propaganda claims, then it would be on the 1967 borderline between Israel and Palestine. Instead, it weaves in and out of the West Bank, encircling Palestinian towns and villages, cutting off resources so that the illegal settlements can better use them and basically creating an inhumane, unsustainable situation for the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Finally, the accusation that IAW and its hosts support racist and hateful speech is absolutely untrue; IAW is not anti-anyone. SDS supports the event because it feels the current situation in Israel/Palestine is unsustainable for both peoples, and we would like to see equal rights for all citizens, an end to the occupation and a dismantling of the apartheid wall that has adversely affected so many lives.
Many of our members come from diverse backgrounds, among them Israeli. There is nothing racist, hateful, or anti-Semitic about standing in solidarity with the rest of the world to support racial equality and human dignity.
Dana El Kurd is a political science and economics sophomore and may be reached at [email protected]
Your statement
“If it were indeed a security wall as Israeli propaganda claims, then it would be on the 1967 borderline between Israel and Palestine.”
is incorrect for three reasons:
1. There is no borderline between Israel and the West Bank – only an armistice line
2. There is no state presently called “Palestine”
3.Under Security Council Resolution 242 Israel is not required to withdraw to the armistice line but only to “secure and recognized boundaries”
The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza have only themselves to blame for their present plight.
They had 19 years to form their sovereign state in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967 when not one Jew lived there. They did not do so.
They also rejected offers made to them by Israel in 2000 and 2008 so your claim that Israel intends to maintain its regime in the West Bank over the Arabs who live there is again utter nonsense.
You also neglect to mention that Israel has the right in international law to settle in the West Bank pursuant to Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate and article 80 of the United Nations Charter. Was that due to ignorance or deliberately omitted from your article?
Your statement that “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are no more than secondary citizens who are not allowed to access a large section of public resources” is utter nonsense. There are 13 Arabs in the present Israeli Parliament out of 120 members.Some like Tibi show no allegiance to their country yet are free to speak their minds without penalty. There are Arab judges and Arab diplomats and deputy ministers. They travel on the same buses and shop in the same shopping centers.When Lieberman suggested swapping Israeli towns like Um Al Faham for areas of the West Bank – the screams from the Arab population refusing to be separated from Israel was overwhelming.There was no way they wished to be reunited with their West Bank brethren in an Arabs only state (the 23rd such apartheid state).
Your statement “For instance, Palestinians in the occupied territories are controlled by Israel and yet do not have any say in government policies.” is false. 95% of the West Bank Arab population are under the governmental control of the Palestinian Authority and vote for the Palestinian Parliament (when they decide to have elections) They have an army and a President and their own security forces and a seat of Government in Ramallah, They may have a limited say in what the Government does because to criticise Abbas and his henchmen will bring swift reprisals.Fear reigns supreme among the West Bank Arabs where their Government is concerned.
The Palestinian Authority has been unable to rise to the challenge of the two state solution after 17 years of failed diplomacy and has reached its use by date.
If the West Bank Arabs wish to be freed from Israeli occupation they should be agitating for Jordan’s return to the West Bank to divide sovereignty of it with Israel. The West Bank Arabs would then become Jordanian citizens as occurred between 1950 – 1988 and be part of an Arab State that would then exist on about 80% of historic and British Mandate Palestine.
The Arabs need to end their eternal whingeing and claiming victimhood for generation after generation. End the only refugee problem in the world that has not been addressed in the last 62 years by resettlement and acceptance into countries that welcome refugees and allow them to rebuild their lives in a peaceful environment.
You would be doing something far more constructive running a “Resettle Arab Refugees Week” than venting your spleen at Israel which after all has an Arab population that is 20% of the current population.
The fact that 57 Islamic countries cannot find it in their heart to resettle these Arab refugees (with the notable exception of Jordan) after 62 years indicates to me who is practising Apartheid.
The fact that Abbas and Co want every Jew to clear out of the West Bank is also more evidence of who supports Apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
“They had 19 years to form their sovereign state in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza between 1948 and 1967 when not one Jew lived there. They did not do so.”
They were a part of Jordan.
“They travel on the same buses and shop in the same shopping centers.”
Never saw an Arab in West Jerusalem, but there are plenty in the East. Also, what about the bus station near Damascus Gate that runs lines parallel to the Israeli buses? Egged buses use the central station and buses for Arabs run out of the station on Suleiman Street.
“They have an army and a President and their own security forces and a seat of Government in Ramallah, They may have a limited say in what the Government does because to criticise Abbas and his henchmen will bring swift reprisals.Fear reigns supreme among the West Bank Arabs where their Government is concerned.”
You are correct. Many live in fear of Fatah and the IDF alike.
“The fact that 57 Islamic countries cannot find it in their heart to resettle these Arab refugees (with the notable exception of Jordan) after 62 years indicates to me who is practising Apartheid.”
Do they not have a right to return to lands taken from them? That the Israelis won’t give it back is the root of the very issue.
“You also neglect to mention that Israel has the right in international law to settle in the West Bank pursuant to Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate and article 80 of the United Nations Charter. Was that due to ignorance or deliberately omitted from your article?”
What deliberate omission is this? They don’t because under interntional law it’s illegal to settle in occupied territories. I’m not sure what Article 80 has to do with, so please enlighten us. League of Nations mandates are also no longer relevant because the League no longer exists, and many of the settlements are illegal even by Israeli law. As B’Tselem notes, “The vast majority of jurists in Israel and abroad hold the opinion that the Fourth Geneva Convention is binding on Israel in the territories it occupies, and that Article 49 indeed prohibits the establishment of settlements.”
This agrees with the conclusion of the UN’s legal body, the International Criminal Court, that the settlements are illegal, which has been supported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Moreover, the European Union has also concluded that new settlements are in violation of international law.
“Also, Israel is the only country in the region that offers asylum to Darfur refugees.”
They accepted 500 and deported any others (although it was proportionally higher than the number accepted by the U.S.). Still, to make this claim as to why Israel shouldn’t have its human-rights track record criticized is absolutely absurd. Every country does good, and every country bad. There are some awesome Israelis out there and incredible places in Israel, from Masada to the kibbutzim in the Negev. I enjoyed my time there immensely. There are two sides to the issue, though, and until each side can recognize this progress will not be made. It just so happens that in the Daily Cougar comments people seem to wear blinders against the plight of the Palestinian people.
John
You are right. The West Bank Arabs became Jordanian citizens when the West Bank was unified with Jordan from 1950 – 1967 by vote of the Jordanaian Parliament composed of equal numbers of Arabs from the East and West Banks that resolution stating
“In the expression of the people’s faith in the efforts spent by His Majesty, Abdullah, toward attainment of natural aspirations, and basing itself on the right of self-determination and on the existing de facto position between Jordan and Palestine and their national, natural and geographic unity and their common interests and living space, Parliament, which represents both sides of the Jordan, resolves this day and declares:
First, its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain, on a basis of constitutional representative government and equality of the rights and duties of all citizens….”.
West Bank Arabs in fact remained citizens of Jordan until 1988 when their nationality was unilaterally revoked by Jordan. Jordan then ceded any claim to the West Bank which was contrary to Article 1 of the 1952 constitution stated :
“The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent Arab State. It is indivisible and no part of it may be ceded….. “
The current situation of the West Bank Arabs is the direct result of Jordanian actions and any solution to their current plight must involve Jordan as well as Israel.
A return to the status quo existing at 1967 for West Bank Arabs must involve Jordan being brought back to the negotiations to replace the Palestinian Authority whose 17 years of negotiating to create a new Arab state where none has ever existed in history has proved and will continue to prove a complete waste of time.
I am amazed that you have never seen an Arab in West Jerusalem. Have you been to the Malka Shopping Centre, the Knesset, Hadassah Hospital, the Shrine of the Book, the Islamic Museum? Have you never caught a taxi or seen Arab labourers hard at work? Arab terrorists seemed to have been able to board and blow up buses in West Jerusalem as well as pizza parlours, markets and restaurants and stab civilians walking on the streets. Talk about biased blinkers.
It is clear you have no idea of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter which preserves the rights contained in the Mandate even after the League of Nations was dissolved. You are not on your own. Obama and his State department are either ignorant of the ramifications or are deliberately burying any knowledge of Jewish acquired and vested legal claims to settle in the West Bank.
In this they are presently being aided and abetted by media outlets such as Reuters. You might find my following article of interest to support that claim.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20781
The UN’s legal body that made the finding that the settlements are illegal in international was the International Court of Justice not the International Criminal Court. That finding was
1. An advisory opinion that is not binding on anyone
2. Was made without consideration of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter because these documents were never submitted to it by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when the Court’s advisory opinion was being sought in 2004.
For so long as there is a demand that millions of Arabs be allowed to emigrate to Israel there can be no peaceful resolution to the conflict because it is not going to possibly happen without another war that Israel loses. Compensation – yes (and that also goes for Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries) – Return – no.
“West Bank Arabs in fact remained citizens of Jordan until 1988 when their nationality was unilaterally revoked by Jordan.”
From my understanding, citizenship was voluntary and not undertaken in a blanket act.
“A return to the status quo existing at 1967 for West Bank Arabs must involve Jordan being brought back to the negotiations to replace the Palestinian Authority whose 17 years of negotiating to create a new Arab state where none has ever existed in history has proved and will continue to prove a complete waste of time.”
Notice the rhetoric employed here — ‘where none has ever existed’ — a subtle way of suggesting that lack of precedence means lack of legitimacy. Such rhetorical devices are frequently employed by those seeking to marginalize ethnic groups seeking self-determination, be they Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, Ossetians in northern Georgia or Palestinians in the West Bank. The fact of the matter is that Jordan does not have the political capital or momentum to overtake the PA’s governance. To suggest that this is critical in the peace process shits the goal posts to an ultimately untenable position.
“I am amazed that you have never seen an Arab in West Jerusalem. Have you been to the Malka Shopping Centre, the Knesset, Hadassah Hospital, the Shrine of the Book, the Islamic Museum? Have you never caught a taxi or seen Arab labourers hard at work? Arab terrorists seemed to have been able to board and blow up buses in West Jerusalem as well as pizza parlours, markets and restaurants and stab civilians walking on the streets. Talk about biased blinkers.”
I have not seen an Arab in West Jerusalem (in fact my Arab seeker broke right before my trip), but I’m sure they have performed service industry jobs, construction work and terrorist attacks as you seem to suggest. What an amazing argument. I’m pretty sure Serbs have talked about Albanians in such a way, and it’s not too different from how the Sinhalese sometimes depict Tamils. The “Look! Really! They build our buildings, do our dirty work and drive our cabs and attack our children!” line of argument.
“The UN’s legal body that made the finding that the settlements are illegal in international was the International Court of Justice not the International Criminal Court.”
My mistake. Regardless, the consensus of the international legal community is that the settlements are illegal, and this has been reflected in numerous UN Resolutions. Re: Article 80 — it deals with the trusteeship of territories, yes, but time and again jurists have ruled against Israel in regards to the settlement. Just sounds like they’re rubbing you the wrong way.
John
You are wrong. All West Bank Arabs became Jordanian citizens in 1950.It was not a matter of choice but followed the unification of the West Bank with Jordan. They should now be returned to the status quo that existed in 1967. That is the only solution that has any chance of working.
“The fact of the matter is that Jordan does not have the political capital or momentum to overtake the PA’s governance. To suggest that this is critical in the peace process shits the goal posts to an ultimately untenable position.”
The untenable position is the creation of a new state between Jordan and Israel. 17 years of negotiating to do so proves this conclusively. The only way for the West Bank Arabs to break free of Israeli control is to once again become Jordanian citizens .I think you meant “shifts” although the Arabs may well be doing what you so subtly suggested.
“I have not seen an Arab in West Jerusalem (in fact my Arab seeker broke right before my trip), but I’m sure they have performed service industry jobs, construction work and terrorist attacks as you seem to suggest.
Quite puerile John. If the Arabs had no work you would be crying out “discrimination” and “apartheid”
The Arabs in the Knesset are parliamentarians and their constituents. The Arabs in Hadassah hospital are patients treated in the same wards as Jews by the same doctors. The Arabs in the High Court are Arab lawyers and their Arab clients and in many cases Jewish lawyers representing Arabs.
“Regardless, the consensus of the international legal community is that the settlements are illegal, and this has been reflected in numerous UN Resolutions”
What consensus and on what basis do you make this claim. The UN resolutions are General Assembly resolutions and have no binding weight. It is all dross and fairy floss. Israel has acquired and vested rights in international law pursuant to the Mandate and article 80. Point to any decision of any Court that has looked at these two international documents and concluded otherwise.
“Re: Article 80 — it deals with the trusteeship of territories, yes, but time and again jurists have ruled against Israel in regards to the settlement. Just sounds like they’re rubbing you the wrong way.”
Time is immaterial. Again show me one of your “jurists” that has ever looked at article 80 or even knows of its existence.
Running with the hounds indicates a failure to rationally decide independently what the facts are. Keep your blinkers on but don’t expect to erroneouly ramble on and not be challenged every time you seek to express your opinion.
VIDEO: Before you boycott Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c
We at Texans for Israel would like to help interested students boycott Israel properly.
First, you need to get rid of your laptop. The Intel chip that allows it to run was developed in Israel. If you are really bent on taking down the awful war machine that happens to have the most museums per capita in the world, you must power down immediately. If you happen to have a PC, make sure it does not run a Windows operating system, because the three most recent were developed by Microsoft Israel.
If you are forced to use your computer, make sure you do not use AOL Instant Messenger, Gmail chat or any other instant-messaging system. The patents for these systems were developed in Israel, and we wouldn’t want to support that under any circumstances.
Next to go should be your cell phone. The first cell phones were developed in Israel, and it would be a tragedy if we made this a boycott of convenience. If we are really committed to bringing down the nation that produces more scientific papers per capita than any other country, we can’t be brought down by our imperialistic cell phones.
If you are concerned about the environment, boycotting Israel could be difficult. Many solar power plants use technology that was invented by Israelis, and many of them were even installed by these terrible people. On the upside, the increased fossil fuels you will use will support freedom fighters such as Hamas and al-Qaida who are dedicated to bringing down the evil country that has the most Ph.D.s per capita.
If you are a farmer, particularly in dry areas of Texas, do not use drip irrigation on your fields. This method of irrigation that saves thousands of gallons of water per year was developed in Israel.
If you go to a hospital, you are going to have to take many special precautions to ensure that you are not aiding Israel. If you have a gastrointestinal disease, make sure that the doctors do not use a “pill cam” to diagnose you, as these were developed in Israel. If you are going to be screened for breast cancer, make sure you request a method that uses plenty of radiation. The radiation-free scanning method was developed in Israel, and exposure to radiation is a small price to pay to take down the Jewish state.
If you are involved in any human rights issues on campus, boycotting Israel will be very difficult. Israel has the best women’s rights record in the Middle East and is the only country in the region in which gay marriages are recognized. Also, Israel is the only country in the region that offers asylum to Darfur refugees.
So there you have it. You are now armed with all the necessary information to destroy the country that has given us Bar Refaeli, Natalie Portman and voicemail. Good luck!
Don’t be naive’. The Leftist-fascists of SDS are schooled in the art of political extortion by domestic terrorism. They and their co-conspirators routinely assault peace officers and commit acts of mayhem during their kristalnaght-style, anti-Semitic gutter riots (masquerading as “peace” protests) to achieve their political agenda.
EVIDENCE: Behold the Leftist-fascist Hall of Shame;
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame
The SDS proudly carry the sordid pedigree of the Weathermen domestic terrorists. They don’t merely engage in hate speech… SDS orchestrates political extotion by domestic terrorism and should be prosecuted as such.
Great article! Human rights violations will not go unchallenged. Thank you for your work promoting peace and justice EVERYWHERE!
Oh and @Texans for Israel: The BDS Campaign is not designed to “destroy Israel”, it is designed to put pressure on a nation that continually commits egregious crimes against humanity, in order that Israel change those policies. It is in Israel’s best interest to abide by international law and it is in the United State’s best interest not to be complicit in the war crimes and ethnic cleansing.
I, too was confused at the beginning by the call for BDS and how such measures would help end the atrocities. This video segment is great and might help you as well become more educated on the issue.
http://palcast.org/2009/08/805
And this radio broadcast: http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/audio-challenging-noam-chomskys-opposition-to
SDS=Totally Awesome Dudes and Dudettes! haters gonna hate, but SDS is powered by a love of justice, hatred of oppression and gallons of Root Beer. SDS FTW!
Haters of gallons of root Beer, unite!
I love justice, and hate oppression and gallons of Root Beer, too.
Root Beer – the beer preferred by persons with no roots.
Maybe that is why there is so much Jew hatred in the world. Jews have roots going back 3500 years. Root beer is certainly not required drinking for them.
Yet their tiny State – Israel – according to their antagonists manages to instil brute fear into 300 million Arab Moslems and their 22 exclusive “Arabs only” States. Give us a break.
SDS needs to take on the real problems in this world and be true to its name – challenging those 22 undemocratic and male dominated homophobic Arab States who still (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan) refuse to recognize the existence of the Jewish State 62 years after its birth and admission to the family of nations.
“Arab Apartheid Week” would indeed be a great program for SDS to sponsor. I guess thousands of gallons of root beer could be downed during endless meetings trying to get this project off the ground and after its successful rejection because it would upset the Arab world too much and lead to boycott and divestment by the Arab States to the financial detriment of democratic countries like the USA and the European Union.
Please provide me academic or legal citations showing that Article 80 is relevant to the decision. So far you have only provided your own claims and an article you wrote.
“What consensus and on what basis do you make this claim.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-big-question-what-are-israeli-settlements-and-why-are-they-coming-under-pressure-1692515.html
“Was this process legal?
The most straightforward answer is: in international law
no and in Israeli law yes. Oddly, one of the first people to say that it would be illegal in international law was Theodor Meron, the legal adviser to the Israeli foreign ministry immediately after the Six Day War. In secret advice which went to the then Prime Minister Levi Eshkol he argued that it contravened various conventions prohibiting the settling of civilians on occupied territory.
Meron, who went on to become one of the world’s most eminent international jurists, has never wavered from that view. The US has been somewhat equivocal over the years about the legal position. But the large majority of Western countries (including Britain), the UN, and the International Court of Justice, which restated its view in a 2004 advisory opinion on the military’s separation barrier, say that settlements are illegal, whether in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.”
Of course some things are nonbinding, but that red herring ignores that it’s a decision made my jurists. If they don’t consider your super special evidence, well, too bad. They’re the professionals — not you. Maybe you should write them a letter.
John
You want some legal opinions on Article 80 then here they are:
1. The International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on the effect of article 80 in the Namibia case on 21 June 1971:
“When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations.”
Strange that the International Court never took the time to look at this decision in 2004 until you understand the UN never raised the Mandate or article 80 of its own Charter when seeking the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s security barrier. Cover up or ignorance? Either way it stinks.
2. Professor Paul Riebenfeld:
“The League of Nations was officially liquidated in April 1946 and with it the Mandate system. The continued validity,however, of rights derived from a Mandate after the expiry of the League and the Mandate system, was spelled out in the Charter of the United Nations in its Article 80, which in the literature is often referred to as “the Palestine clause”. The reason is that this provision which is part of Chapter XII, dealing with International Trusteeship, was drafted as a result of Zionist representations at the San Francisco Conference in order to protect, in addition to the existing rights of any states, also those of “any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.” It mentions “peoples”. The rights referred to were in particular those of the Jewish people as the beneficiary of the Palestine Mandate, in an international system based on the membership of States”
3. Judge El Araby of the International Court of Justice in regard to the legal status of the West Bank in the Israeli security barrier advisory opinion:
“,,, the international legal status of the Palestinian Territory merits more comprehensive treatment”…
“A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on one or more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently sidestepped….”
“The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain”
John
Now I have given you some sources dealing with the Mandate and article 80 – you need to give me your sources refuting the relevance of those two pieces of international law.
The article in the Independent that you cited does not deal with the Mandate and article 80. I will bet the reporter never heard of either. I doubt if the Israeli lawyer quoted had ever heard of or been aware of the Mandate and article 80.
When you can pinpoint some legal authority who has considered the Mandate and article 80 and come to a contrary view to the legal authorities I have cited above, then maybe there can be a further dialogue between us.
But until you do, please be open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is an argument in international law that those Jewish settlements in the West Bank may be indeed legal.
John
I hope you haven’t fainted or suffered an even worse fate since my previous post. I am still waiting for you to supply any legal sources to contradict those I supplied to you concerning article 80 and its application to the current conflict concerning the legality of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.
Good to see such lively interaction here. Civil dialogue and respectful debate pave the road to the future. Can a simple cardboard robot succeed where world leaders and educators have failed? Tune into Pax_101 on Facebook or follow @Pax_101 on Twitter and decide for yourself. It’s an experiment in Israeli-Palestinian peace-brokerage and social media. Let’s keep peaceful debate and conflict resolution going! Ultimately, peace is in everyone’s interest.
I tried to find you on Facebook, but couldn’t. Pax (Romana?)
Where is George Orwell when you need him?
______ _______ _______ _________
This week, college campuses throughout North America have declared “Israel Apartheid Week,” where Israel is berated as an allegedly apartheid entity.
But, wait a minute…
Presently, the newly constituted Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is preparing a state of Palestine based on new Middle East rules of Apartheid and institutionalized discrimination:
1. The P.A. claims the right of every Arab community to return to Arab villages lost in the 1948 war.
2. While 20 percent of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, the P.A. will not allow even one Jew to live in its midst.
3. P.A. law mandates that anyone who sells land to a Jew is liable to the death penalty
4. Those who murder Jews are honored on all official media outlets of the P.A.
5. P.A. maps depict all of Palestine under Palestinian rule
6. P.A. maps of Jerusalem once again delete the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem
7. P.A. documents claim all of Jerusalem.
8. The P.A. denies the right of Jewish access to Jewish holy places in their midst.
9. The Palestinian State Constitution denies juridical status to any religion besides Islam.
10. The P.A. will not allow the creation of any system of human rights or civil liberties in a future state.
If that is not the formula for a totalitarian apartheid state of Palestine, then what is?
Like I said, “Where is George Orwell when we need him?”
__________ ___________ __________ ___________
Let us organize an annual “Arab Apartheid Week,” which would highlight the decrepit state of human and political rights throughout the Arab world.
There is a solid case to be made that the Arab states remain the last great outpost of despotism and tyranny on earth, and people need to be reminded as much. Indeed, the Arab world today is a living encyclopedia of outmoded forms of government, from sultanates such as Oman and emirates such as Qatar, to thuggish dictatorships such as Syria and dynastic monarchies along the lines of Jordan. It may be a political scientist’s dream, but it is a nightmare for the hundreds of millions of Arabs chafing under oppression and tyranny.
Basic and fundamental freedoms such as personal autonomy and individual rights are routinely trampled upon, and ethnic and religious minority groups suffer extreme discrimination and
intolerance. Just ask Coptic Christians in Egypt, Baha’is in Iran or Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia for starters.
This was borne out most recently by a report issued by Freedom House, the independent Washington-based group that advocates for freedom worldwide. Its annual survey, “Freedom in the World 2010,” would make for eye-opening reading for all those who cry “apartheid” whenever they see a flag with a Star of David.
Consider the following findings:
Of the 18 countries in the Middle East that Freedom House surveyed, only one is considered to be “free.”
And just who might that be? Yep, you guessed it: Israel.
Not a single Arab country – not one! – did Freedom House consider “free.” Three Arab states – Morocco, Lebanon and Kuwait – were labeled “partly free,” while 13 other Arab states as well as Iran merited the dubious distinction of being branded as “not free.”
In effect, then, this means that of the approximately 370 million human beings currently residing in the Middle East, only 2 percent enjoy true freedom – namely those who live in the Jewish state.
So much for “Israeli apartheid.”
NOT SURPRISINGLY, in a press release announcing the report’s publication, Freedom House concluded that “the Middle East remained the most repressive region in the world.” It is this message that Israel and its supporters need to begin highlighting. By casting a spotlight on the subjugation, oppression and tyranny that typify nearly the entire Arab world, we can open some eyes out there and educate the Western public as to who really shares their democratic values.
As Prof. Bernard Lewis has written, the Arab states are little more than “a string of shabby tyrannies, ranging from traditional autocracies to new-style dictatorships, modern only in their apparatus of repression and indoctrination.”
An annual Arab Apartheid Week, held on campuses and at community centers, could be an effective vehicle for driving home this fundamental truth.
Doing so will reframe the debate. More importantly, it will help Westerners to finally begin recognizing the Arab regimes for what they are: a dangerous mix of despotism and dictatorship.
“For instance, Palestinians in the occupied territories are controlled by Israel and yet do not have any say in government policies.”
Half-true. Out of 120 members in Knesset, 13 are Arab, and one is a former advisor to Yasser Arafat. Further, those of Palestinian descent living in Israel are guaranteed full voting rights. Comversely, you could say Israelis cannot vote in Palestinian elections, or we would not have Hamas as a ruling party in Gaza.