Richard Goldstone writes (New York Times opinion article, 31 October 2011): The Palestinian Authority’s request for a full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increased 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, demonise and delegitimise it. The latest ‘tribunal’ calling Israel an apartheid state is not really a ‘tribunal’ 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 Non-governmental Organisation 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 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 characterised as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, lives 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. Nothing in Israel comes close to the definition of “apartheid” 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 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”. Israeli Arabs – 20% 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. Far from wanting to dominate the Palestinians, the Israelis seek the creation of a Palestinian state 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-defence, even if the 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. Israeli security measures are not “apartheid”, but self-defence 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 neighbours 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 long-standing enmity. The Israel–Apartheid comparison “precludes” peace and harmony The mutual recognition and protection of 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. END ARTICLE Here are some related Beyond Images Briefings Briefing 257 – 8 June 2010 Briefing 241 – 10 May 2009 Briefing 222 – 19 October 2008
|
|||||
