Background: “End the Occupation” has long become the slogan for the peace movement however this has also largely been seized upon by those who wish to delegitimize Israel and bring about the end to the Jewish State. The common exploitation of this aphorism by diversely motivated parties has by default placed those legitimately seeking an end to the conflict to be erroneously perceived as firmly hostile to Israel.
The term “occupation” with respect to Israel has become a generic term under which fall a wide range of categories: Israel’s military presence since 1967 in predominantly Palestinian inhabited territories that were previously under governance or occupation by Arab states; military rule of local inhabitants in those territories under the authority of the “Civilian Administration”, a means of local government under the authority of the Israeli army; urban expansion of Jerusalem and the creation of large settlement blocks over the green line initiated by successive Israeli governments; Jewish settlement and the creation of towns and villages in Palestinian rural areas; pervasive wildcat and illegal settlement by zealots and extremists.
This wide ranging generic classification has become a source of confusion in pointing to the root causes of the current impasse and in understanding the core issues at stake. The debate in Israel and with Israel’s partners - whether they be Diaspora Jewry or allies who wish to see an end to the conflict - must focus on the two key issues of occupation that need to be addressed: Settlement and Security.
There is a clear distinction between security needs and settlement activity over the green line. Both the belligerent wing of the settlement movement and extreme anti-Israel activists use the term “Settlement” (Hebrew- hitnahalut) and “Occupaton” respectively, in a way that merges these two separate issues to create an indistinct, overall, false merger in order to serve the interests of each side.
The extreme left and anti-Israel lobby will use “occupation” denoting the reason for human rights abuses, the denial of Palestinians to self determination and will point to the military presence in occupied territory as the means for executing these policies while discounting Israel’s vital security needs. From this reasoning, settlement is thus seen as a colonization process whereby the army’s presence is derivative of such and therefore servicing that interest
.
Conversely the settlers will use the term “settlement” falsely as a term that vindicates Israel’s presence in occupied territory, not purely as a messianic pursuit or a means to low-cost housing, but as the vanguard of the military presence critical for the security needs of the entire state of Israel. This notion is borrowed from the historical process before the war of independence when the “tower and stockade” overnight structures were used to create a de facto presence on the ground and served as a military defense strategy until the formal military command could manage defenses in the area.
While it is true to say that the Israeli military does indeed service the settlements , today its presence in and around those settlements are primarily a byproduct of security needs until such time as an agreement is reached, and secondarily an answer to the exposure of those settler populations who have become more a liability both financially and strategically rather than an asset in answering security needs.
But it is precisely the point of confluence of settlement and military rule that undermines Israel’s legitimate security needs, its democratic foundations, and its moral standing among nations. The incidents of this are multifold: The clearest example of this can be seen in the case of the separation barrier. The Likud government which incorporated the concept of a greater Israel in its platform was reluctant to build a barrier despite exigencies arising from the second intifada in its early phase. The reason for this was the deliberate blur or merger the settlement lobby wished to create between Israel based on 1967 boundaries and the greater Israel in occupied territory. Only when security needs demanded drastic action following the extreme nature of Palestinian premeditated suicide bombings in Israel’s cities, the separation barrier was set into motion. Rather than attempt to run the barrier along 1967 lines, the barrier conveniently includes settlements over the green line yet transverses Palestinian owned land thus separating rural populations from their livelihood and cutting access to roads while including Jewish populations that reside over the green line within access to Israel. So here we have a classical example of discrimination of a certain population at the expense of another which has arisen at first from a genuine security need but has been remolded by ideological pressure. Rather than adhere to a pure military concern by running the barrier along the green line which is a natural border in terms of land ownership, the barrier violates privately owned land boundaries and worse, requires arrangements for local Palestinian land owners to cross it through special entry points when the security objectives were to reduce the access of this population from mainland Israel.
The resultant outcome is what is generally referred to internationally as a “land grab” – the 10% of the West Bank which is on the Israeli side of the barrier. The International Court of Justice has ruled that it is in violation of international law. The discriminatory nature of its route and the resultant human rights issues arising from it, have together lent credence to the theory that the Government of Israel (GOI) pursues both deliberate discrimination against Palestinians and uses security as a camouflage while arrogating Palestinians from their land. The barrier has provided a great deal of safety for Israelis and is one of several important instruments in curbing terror however the legitimacy of that argument has been laid to waste by the illegitimacy of its implementation. The distance between this and slogans such as the “Apartheid Wall” is a very short one. Add to this the general unwillingness to address details and the entire project is considered a shameful blot rather than a bulwark against terror. This is the point of confluence at its worst and this is “Occupation”.
The point of confluence is demonstrated today in a multitude of variations ranging from the Jordan Valley, critical for Israel’s security but dotted with Israeli settlement, to the relatively minor case recently of Nebi Saleh, a small Palestinian town in the middle of the West Bank. A spring adjacent to the town is located on land owned by a local Palestinian. Settlers from the settlement Halamish have taken control of the spring and prevented locals from accessing their land. The result: Palestinian protest, reactive incursion of Israeli security forces and harassment of the town’s inhabitants. This too is “Occupation”, a confusion of settlement and security both linguistically and literally.
If we are to see an end to the conflict, if we wish to retain a democratic Israel with a viable Jewish majority, if we wish to avoid not only the label of apartheid but avoid the creation of real de facto apartheid and if we assume that Israel’s security is a non-negotiable item that must be considered in any constellation, the only removable part that comes as a first requisite in unraveling occupation is “settlement”. This is the key issue that must now be addressed in the discourse within Israel and between Israel and its supporters. Not “Occupation” in its confused totality. The unhinging of settlement from occupation must begin even in a symbolic manner and the form that beckons is a moratorium or freeze in the first instance.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Closing letter from Jonathan Zausmer in the debate with Doron Isaacs following the SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel and the West Bank
Dear Doron
The ongoing labour of life here has prevented an earlier response to your lengthy letter, however a response was needed so, late as it may be, here it is. In this reply I will try to summarise briefly (compared to our previous texts, that is) the key arguments and make some closing statements and I urge you to do the same. I will address the matter of the controversial nature of the delegation (HRD), issues you raise pertaining to Israel’s continued presence in the occupied territories with some perspectives for the future and some concluding words.
I believe you do yourself (and me) a disservice by playing the personal injury card. It must surely be evident to you that having embarked on such a public journey which would clearly produce contentious and heated debate from many directions, you are obliged to answer and address the many questions that arise. I have not made attacks as you say. I have raised questions: questions that need answering because without clear answers they undermine your personal credibility and the nature of the mission itself. I also stated and meant clearly, not cynically that I stand to be corrected and wish to be corrected. This stands in clear contrast to some of the inexcusable and vulgar verbal assaults that have been thrown publicly at you in SA without bothering to ask, enquire or examine the facts. I will therefore spell out for us some of the points relating to these uncomfortable yet necessary queries and ask some further questions. Of course you have no obligation to answer but in view of the fact that the HRD has taken a strong moral and ethical standpoint vis a vis Israel and the Palestinians, I really believe that by clearing the air, we will all only benefit from clearly stated public record relating to these matters in the knowledge that the ethical foundations of the HRD itself (I do not refer to its constituent members) are all in place.
I must mention firstly that it is not clear to me who the founders are and in what framework this enterprise came to be. I address you in this correspondence because it seems that only you are described on the website as a co-organiser. It’s possible that I have not traversed all the written information regarding this. Purely as a matter of interest, I am curious as to how the HRD came about, who the other co-organisers are, who the founders are and whether this concept originated within a political or non- political movement or as a personal initiative of one or several people. Another question that must be addressed I think is the funding: in view of the fact that this was a serious undertaking involving logistics, air-tickets, accommodation, aimed not only for private edification but also for public statement, it would help to make the financial source transparent. I say this because the information that I have (merely hearsay with no confirmed fact) is that the same donor to the Kasrils “Not In My Name” campaign provided the finance for the HRD. I apologise in advance if this is mere idle rumour and will happily accept a categorical refutation with great relief, however I think it may be wise to get this problem out of the way as you can clearly understand that this would not look good for fairness if this indeed was the case.
Regarding the Gordimer letter your answer has not brought me satisfaction in this respect. Gordimer, her interactions with other authors and her moral standpoint are not the issue here. Doron Isaacs is. The letter you signed states clearly “We believe that you would do more to change the awful situation in Palestine/Israel by withdrawing from the Festival than by attending” This is an attempt to effect a cultural boycott, let us make no mistake. At a secondary level you suggest that if she attends it where and with whom she should interact. You signed this a month before the HRD set out on its journey, the program, objectives and itinerary of which were clearly in motion. As the organiser (founder/ initiator: please clarify) this suggests that your mind was made up before you set about any fact-finding process. It suggests that possibly you worked from the position of concluding in advance who the guilty party is before you set about arranging the schedule of the HRD. You can understand that while your intentions were no doubt in good faith, in the eyes of some, you tarnished the credibility of the delegation and your own position as organiser indicating that the purpose of the delegation was to look for proof and to confirm what you already believed to be fact.
As you have pointed out previously, the delegates all have impeccable and impressive records yet let us consider for a moment how we are all influenced by what we read, hear, see and discuss and the timing of all of the above. If we take a group of people, many of whom are not familiar with the facts on the ground in Israel and the West Bank and expose them on one day to the horrors of the holocaust at the Yad Vashem institute and then take them on another day to the bigoted and hateful ravings of Baruh Marzel and his followers we may all conclude that the irony of history reveals how the persecuted have become themselves the persecutors. Now let us consider a scenario where after the Yad Vashem visit, the delegation goes to the site of Merkaz Harav yeshiva, where only few months before your delegation arrived a terrorist killing of teenagers took place. If they were to hear the story of the boy who was hiding in the annex of the library trying to explain to the emergency services how his friends were being shot behind the door and pleading for help, maybe the conclusion is that Jewish people are still victims of gratuitous hatred and violence?
The HRD was not a Jewish delegation. It was a human rights delegation made up of a variety of people, some of who were Jewish. For those who come from within the Jewish milieu maybe they are exposed excessively to the Jewish narrative and need to see the Palestinian reality from close up: as Judge Davis put it “Two stories have to be told”. But what of those who come from the milieu which I believe is the predominant one in the press, at universities and in mainstream political thinking in South Africa which accuses Israel as a perpetrator of human rights abuses and apartheid? Was the Israeli narrative clearly delivered here? Was the perpetual abuse of Israelis’ human rights by Palestinian terror historically endorsed by its institutions, recognised and internalised? Were the security issues on the ground related to in depth from the Israeli perspective?
It is my opinion that despite the deeply important experience of meeting with the bereaved families’ forum, one must also pay attention to those Israelis who remain outside of this group, and who take a less optimistic perspective regarding the violent realities that continually play themselves out in this part of the world.
Though you take care to provide details of your Israeli hosts and lecturers “how does this square with the lectures we heard from Hillel Cohen and Amos Goldberg…” you ask, rather than absolving yourself of the responsibility of reasonable objective perspective, I learn from this that you have taken the predominant position of interacting with like-minded parties in preference to listening to the mainstream Israeli narrative in depth alongside Palestinian perspectives which are often outlined extensively by various Israeli scholars. What better way to convey the Palestinian narrative than through the scholarly works of empathetic Israelis? Where was the other side of this picture? I believe there wasn’t one. We are not comparing museum to museum, lecturer to lecturer, High Court judge to High Court judge as you attempt to reason. We are looking at how content should be presented fairly – not selectively - to a diverse forum whose members report back to their respective communities, constituencies and reading public.
In answer to your argument referring to the second intefada and the current status on the West Bank I will briefly relate to some of the points you raise and clarify the issues.
The Mitchell Report does not as you say “go a long way to falsifying” my “version” of events nor does it lend support to Bar-Tal’s later revisitation of those events. Its independent record of events at the time illustrates clearly how Bar-Tal’s selective list of several attacks by Palestinians is not the whole story. In fact we know that the Mitchell Report was fairly inconclusive and pretty much blames both sides. However, the Mitchell Report was completed on the 30th April 2001 before the publication of the Husseini “Trojan Horse” interview on June 24 2001 and more importantly before the Barghouti interview on Sept 29 2001. Your attempt to discount the profound significance of this historical record without using fact but rather some kind of psychological interpretation speculating his need to “take credit” is very weak indeed. For one, let it be known to you as it is accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis that Marwan Barghouti is a highly regarded leader, one to be taken very seriously indeed. Though he sits in an Israeli jail on 5 counts of murder, we may well see his release when a path to a true peace process opens up. I am going to refer you and our readers to the full interview which has been translated on the Israel Foreign Affairs website because it really outlines clearly the premeditated nature of the violence, the scale and breadth of which were aimed at truly destabilising the State of Israel in its entirety. What I quoted in my previous letter was a mere snippet of a very detailed piece of evidence in this discussion.[1] Incidentally, Barghouti was not alone in his clear documentation of engineering the second intefada. Self affliction for causing it is mainly the product of Israeli scholars such as Bar-Tal who work on revisionist history (or as they say in the lexicon of current music, a “remix”). Palestinian leaders did not, for the most part, even try to hide this fact[2].
You have brought to the table some very interesting statistics. You say that 58% of Palestinians support a 2 state solution and this has declined over the last years. But how does this line up with the fact that when Israel disengaged from Gaza (when the statistic was higher), the residents there voted in a party who call for the destruction of Israel, use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their platform and have since engaged in a policy of rocket attacks on civilians? This is peaceful coexistence? Those are the facts, not the polls. My only interpretation regarding this anomaly is that there is support for a 2 state solution but without peaceful coexistence. You also do not mention that in that same poll taken in March 2008 “An overwhelming majority of 84% support and 13% oppose the shooting attack that took place in a religious school in West Jerusalem(Merkaz Harav). Support for this attack is greater in the Gaza Strip (91%) compared to the West Bank (79%)” If ever there was a vindication of the paradigms discussed in my opening letter, this is it.[3]
You relay a newspaper interview with Dov Weisglass at the time of the disengagement from Gaza as proof that Israel has not made the paradigm shift to withdraw and dismantle settlements but rather to entrench them further. I suggest you look at a more formidable personality, Sharon’s deputy at the time and our current prime minister Ehud Olmert – a hard line right wing stalwart who did not support the peace treaty with Egypt. In an interview on the 30th September 2008, he clearly proposes a two state solution, settlement removal, compensation of land and a fair resolution for Jerusalem[4] . His successor in the Kadima party, Ms Livni, another ex-Likud stalwart, recently refused to form an interim coalition government because of unreasonable attempts to prevent her negotiating a compromise for Jerusalem: we can see how the swing of several conservative sectors in Israel has made a full turn. So I do believe the paradigm shift in Israel has taken place or at least is in process.
I am encouraged by your reference to the Council for Peace and Security (CPS). In fact their position represents almost everything that I consider the correct approach to our situation so in many respects you and I share a lot of common ground on this issue. I don’t think though, that we can use this body as blanket argument for the complete and immediate removal of the occupation and the concept that settlement is the driving force behind the occupation. In response to my position that the separation barrier is one of a series of measures that saves lives you quote the CPS recommending the “removal of barriers and blocks throughout the West Bank…..security risks of the above are minimal, having regard for Israel’s other operational capabilities”. I want to clarify what the clear meaning of this statement is: The CPS does not call for the complete dismantling of the separation barrier (though it supports vociferously the High Court rulings regarding its route and I obviously agree with that). It calls for the dismantling of the many checkpoints within the West Bank that are the source of so much frustration, anger and humiliation. Its important to note too that when they say “Israel’s other operational capabilities” they are in my opinion, referring to, amongst other means, the presence of security personnel deep in West Bank cities who continue to rout out planned terror assaults at source and which comes at hard moral cost of invading the sanctity of people’s homes. You quote the CPS as saying that “a Palestinian state is not a threat” In principle I agree with this but since the inception of the CPS in 1998 matters have complicated this statement so we need to read what the CPS says in the next sentence following your quote “ with necessary security provisions”[5]. This is no easy task.
You write that I have said that ending the occupation will lead to the creation of yet another jihadist state. This is not what I said. To be accurate I said that we can assume with a high level of confidence that a full removal of the occupation could (not will) lead to another jihadist state[6] inferring that without a comprehensive process with necessary prerequisites in place we could have another jihadist state. To underscore how dangerous the risk for a complete end to the occupation is we need only to look at Gaza which has a border with Egypt of 15 km yet despite Egypt’s friendly status with Israel and repeated attempts at preventing arms being smuggled into Gaza a steady stream of armaments pours through and find their way into the rocket war against southern Israel. Now consider the impact of a border of 200km with Jordan and a sovereign Palestine into which all the elements needed for long range Katyusha type missiles (used successfully by Hizbolla in the last war with Lebanon) can be smuggled through. There would not be a town or strategic site in Israel that is not vulnerable. The complex rural terrain and crowded urban environments in the West Bank become a huge barrier to prevention of terror if a withdrawal of Israeli troops takes place. What I am saying is that if every settlement, legal and illegal, were removed tomorrow, the IDF would still remain on the Jordanian border (occupying Palestinian land) and on all the strategic high ground and possibly in certain urban areas until and if a full peace is proven and effective. Opponents to the occupation say that Israel justifies anything in the name of security. There is some truth in this and we cannot always use the security argument for contraventions of the 4th Geneva Convention and human rights infractions. But the other side of this coin is that we stand to lose everything if we do not take the security threats into account. Now let’s look at what you say: “Were there no settlements today on the West Bank, there would be no Occupation….. The settlements drive the occupation”. Where are the building blocks for this bold statement? I have scrutinised your texts and simply cannot find them.
Concluding Remarks
You incorrectly write that I accuse you and the delegation of hypocrisy. If you read the text, you will see that I have never said that. Nor have I ever mentioned that it is not the right of any person, group or country to criticise or question policies and actions of others. I too like many citizens of the world have strong opinions about the actions of individuals and countries that are far removed from Israel. What I do say is twofold: One is that we must look within and figure out from where we are coming with our criticism, turn down the sanctimonious volume-knob a notch or two on our PA system before we try to export our own particular brand of self-righteousness if we are to be taken seriously. The other point is that we must choose our battles judiciously if we are to be effective. The case of Darfur and human rights disasters in Africa in general are relevant because the sheer scale of violation is beyond comprehension and it is pertinent to South Africa. You point out that Zackie Achmat and Nathan Geffen have a powerful record and continue an ongoing struggle in pursuit of human rights in South Africa, China, Darfur and elsewhere. I want to add that the work and achievements of TAC – from my limited knowledge from afar- is humbling, must be respected and serves as a model way beyond South Africa. We must remember though, that the HRD was not a TAC delegation (as it was not a Jewish delegation), though many activists made up its members. It was a body of highly respected members with records of achievement in many disciplines. Not only was it a human rights delegation but a South African human rights delegation and I think that comes with a specific identity of its own which gives it special authority while carrying special responsibilities as to its goals and its findings.
When you say that that the delegation chose Israel in the framework of a 5 day interlude in members’s lives I ponder why Israel and not say, Darfur. A human rights mission of this scale with members of this stature and with financial backing such as this has as far as I know never been sent to Darfur from South Africa. The government of South Africa as you may well know has a very poor record regarding Darfur. It has consistently backed the government of President El Bashir, opposed and diluted resolutions critical of the Sudanese regime and has abused its position on the UN security council regarding the matter of the Darfur[7]. While it contributed troops to the AU one would think that as Africa’s leading economic powerhouse together with the moral responsibility that comes with its history in defeating apartheid we would see some leadership. Today the slaughter in Southern Sudan is estimated at between 300,000 to 500,000 with millions more refugees. Would not the impact here be greater than a mission to Israel-Palestine?
The question you raise pertinently as to whether Israel is always singled out is not answered by the fervent works of some of the delegations members. One of the reasons Israel is most often on the agenda is its very easy access and despite its myriad of problems, the relative safety of the participants in missions and delegations who elsewhere may be kidnapped or executed or simply disappear. But let us be honest: there is another reason and that is the piquant issue of the Jewish nature of the state and the moral ironies that now beset it. While I make no comparisons, the AUT (Britain’s association of university teachers) and its successor the UTU adopted singularly discriminatory measures in an attempt to impose an academic boycott on Israel while ignoring gross human rights violations across the globe. These decisions were revoked in 2005 and recently in 2008 under legal threat citing prejudicial and discriminatory practises.
Having said that, I stated in my first letter to you that if this is the road we must go down to engage leaders, thinkers and social activists from South Africa, so be it. You are right in suggesting that I would prefer that people ignore Israel. You are also right that I am particularly sensitive to one word in the cacophony of anti Israel slander that inundates us: “Apartheid”. Yet even if I don’t wish to deal with this, I must deal with it because as you have taken care to document the many instances of Israelis and others who use this analogy, the debate rages on in our country as to our future, the peace process, the dreadful circumstances in the occupied territories, our moral dilemmas and our security needs. The word “Apartheid” is bandied around here and elsewhere without understanding its meaning, the depth of its implications and the destructive consequences in using this terminology. The way to deal with criticism is to engage and to look at the details. The most dangerous public discourse is one which is based on slogans, platitudes and catchphrases.
You challenge me by suggesting that my “attitude to Palestinians is one of mistrust and that my “conception of them is a threat” and that I did not voice empathy in my previous letter. So let me answer you directly. I am deeply troubled by the current status of Palestinians. My daily work takes me frequently into direct contact with Palestinians and Arab residents of Israel who identify with the Palestinian people and I neither see them as a threat nor feel any mistrust. I see Palestinian people as no different to people anywhere in the world, however my personal experience and knowledge of our environment in the middle east leads me to take great care when considering the political processes that occur and their implications. I have no implicit mistrust of Iranians but I am concerned by the threat of a nuclear empowered Iranian theocracy. Freedom and statehood for the Palestinian people by no means implies stable government in Palestine and peaceful coexistence. We need only look to the one serious attempt at democracy in our region besides Israel, namely Lebanon to see how fragile the regime is and how regional fanaticism can take hold even in an environment that shows a potential for hope and freedom belying the notion that “people with hope are less likely to engage in violence”. Yet I must say that neither we, Israelis must be excused from scrutiny. We now see rampant violence from rogue settlers, and a preponderant no-vision-for-peace reaction in the political arena following the trauma of the second intefada, the success in bringing it to an end and the mutation of Palestinian nationalism into separate geographical and ideological entities. Precisely because of our relative strength it is incumbent on us to act, albeit with caution, in order to create solutions.
Though I struggle to find the logical foothold in your position that settlement drives the occupation and your cry to end the occupation as the solution to our problems, I respect your willingness to engage and to tackle the issues methodically, carefully documenting your sources. You have taken valuable time to respond to my arguments without any obligation except one of moral responsibility and true commitment and without any public reward. You have brought valuable information to the debate giving us much to think about. While there may have been productive discussions following the HRD I have also observed a destructive wake following it however those who hurl abuse must be held accountable: not you or the delegation. Whether the HRD has left a lasting public impression that offers a certificate of “kashrut” for the Kasrilian doctrine roundly condemning Israel, or whether it has differentiated itself enough to affirm a secure Israel alongside a free Palestine by focusing on worthy criticism of both sides, I leave for our readers to judge.
It is my hope that this debate will provide a document outlining the issues and the many facets of our current dilemmas. For those who blindly accuse us in Israel of “Apartheid” or under the slogan “End the Occupation” elaborate full deligitimization of Israel with accusations of every heinous crime, our document offers a reference point that outlines the complexity of the issues, and Israel’s existential needs. Conversely, those that recede into the shell of denial and who cling solely to the belief of biblical entitlement to territory under dispute will see that there is a heavy moral cost and real questions of sustainability for the future. I have observed in the various internet based forums and in letters in the Jewish press in South Africa that many young Jewish people neither have the knowledge nor an ability to articulate a skilful defence of Israel in the face of a plethora of verbal challenges from the media and academic environments as they move from schools into institutions of higher learning. I hope the arguments presented provide a sound basis for verbalising a viable defence for Israel, understanding that our existence is a critical, urgent and morally justified need for the Jewish people yet that we are also morally imperfect – like South Africa and most countries in the world.
Jonathan Zausmer
Kohav Yair, Israel
[1] http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/9/Interview%20by%20Marwan%20Barghouti%20to%20Al%20Hayat%20-%2029-Sep
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Mp6Yal2mA
[3] http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27ejoint.html
[4] http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3603841,00.html
[5] http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp
[6] See my previous response (JZ)
[7] http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/02/13/letter-deputy-minister-foreign-affairs-south-africa
The ongoing labour of life here has prevented an earlier response to your lengthy letter, however a response was needed so, late as it may be, here it is. In this reply I will try to summarise briefly (compared to our previous texts, that is) the key arguments and make some closing statements and I urge you to do the same. I will address the matter of the controversial nature of the delegation (HRD), issues you raise pertaining to Israel’s continued presence in the occupied territories with some perspectives for the future and some concluding words.
I believe you do yourself (and me) a disservice by playing the personal injury card. It must surely be evident to you that having embarked on such a public journey which would clearly produce contentious and heated debate from many directions, you are obliged to answer and address the many questions that arise. I have not made attacks as you say. I have raised questions: questions that need answering because without clear answers they undermine your personal credibility and the nature of the mission itself. I also stated and meant clearly, not cynically that I stand to be corrected and wish to be corrected. This stands in clear contrast to some of the inexcusable and vulgar verbal assaults that have been thrown publicly at you in SA without bothering to ask, enquire or examine the facts. I will therefore spell out for us some of the points relating to these uncomfortable yet necessary queries and ask some further questions. Of course you have no obligation to answer but in view of the fact that the HRD has taken a strong moral and ethical standpoint vis a vis Israel and the Palestinians, I really believe that by clearing the air, we will all only benefit from clearly stated public record relating to these matters in the knowledge that the ethical foundations of the HRD itself (I do not refer to its constituent members) are all in place.
I must mention firstly that it is not clear to me who the founders are and in what framework this enterprise came to be. I address you in this correspondence because it seems that only you are described on the website as a co-organiser. It’s possible that I have not traversed all the written information regarding this. Purely as a matter of interest, I am curious as to how the HRD came about, who the other co-organisers are, who the founders are and whether this concept originated within a political or non- political movement or as a personal initiative of one or several people. Another question that must be addressed I think is the funding: in view of the fact that this was a serious undertaking involving logistics, air-tickets, accommodation, aimed not only for private edification but also for public statement, it would help to make the financial source transparent. I say this because the information that I have (merely hearsay with no confirmed fact) is that the same donor to the Kasrils “Not In My Name” campaign provided the finance for the HRD. I apologise in advance if this is mere idle rumour and will happily accept a categorical refutation with great relief, however I think it may be wise to get this problem out of the way as you can clearly understand that this would not look good for fairness if this indeed was the case.
Regarding the Gordimer letter your answer has not brought me satisfaction in this respect. Gordimer, her interactions with other authors and her moral standpoint are not the issue here. Doron Isaacs is. The letter you signed states clearly “We believe that you would do more to change the awful situation in Palestine/Israel by withdrawing from the Festival than by attending” This is an attempt to effect a cultural boycott, let us make no mistake. At a secondary level you suggest that if she attends it where and with whom she should interact. You signed this a month before the HRD set out on its journey, the program, objectives and itinerary of which were clearly in motion. As the organiser (founder/ initiator: please clarify) this suggests that your mind was made up before you set about any fact-finding process. It suggests that possibly you worked from the position of concluding in advance who the guilty party is before you set about arranging the schedule of the HRD. You can understand that while your intentions were no doubt in good faith, in the eyes of some, you tarnished the credibility of the delegation and your own position as organiser indicating that the purpose of the delegation was to look for proof and to confirm what you already believed to be fact.
As you have pointed out previously, the delegates all have impeccable and impressive records yet let us consider for a moment how we are all influenced by what we read, hear, see and discuss and the timing of all of the above. If we take a group of people, many of whom are not familiar with the facts on the ground in Israel and the West Bank and expose them on one day to the horrors of the holocaust at the Yad Vashem institute and then take them on another day to the bigoted and hateful ravings of Baruh Marzel and his followers we may all conclude that the irony of history reveals how the persecuted have become themselves the persecutors. Now let us consider a scenario where after the Yad Vashem visit, the delegation goes to the site of Merkaz Harav yeshiva, where only few months before your delegation arrived a terrorist killing of teenagers took place. If they were to hear the story of the boy who was hiding in the annex of the library trying to explain to the emergency services how his friends were being shot behind the door and pleading for help, maybe the conclusion is that Jewish people are still victims of gratuitous hatred and violence?
The HRD was not a Jewish delegation. It was a human rights delegation made up of a variety of people, some of who were Jewish. For those who come from within the Jewish milieu maybe they are exposed excessively to the Jewish narrative and need to see the Palestinian reality from close up: as Judge Davis put it “Two stories have to be told”. But what of those who come from the milieu which I believe is the predominant one in the press, at universities and in mainstream political thinking in South Africa which accuses Israel as a perpetrator of human rights abuses and apartheid? Was the Israeli narrative clearly delivered here? Was the perpetual abuse of Israelis’ human rights by Palestinian terror historically endorsed by its institutions, recognised and internalised? Were the security issues on the ground related to in depth from the Israeli perspective?
It is my opinion that despite the deeply important experience of meeting with the bereaved families’ forum, one must also pay attention to those Israelis who remain outside of this group, and who take a less optimistic perspective regarding the violent realities that continually play themselves out in this part of the world.
Though you take care to provide details of your Israeli hosts and lecturers “how does this square with the lectures we heard from Hillel Cohen and Amos Goldberg…” you ask, rather than absolving yourself of the responsibility of reasonable objective perspective, I learn from this that you have taken the predominant position of interacting with like-minded parties in preference to listening to the mainstream Israeli narrative in depth alongside Palestinian perspectives which are often outlined extensively by various Israeli scholars. What better way to convey the Palestinian narrative than through the scholarly works of empathetic Israelis? Where was the other side of this picture? I believe there wasn’t one. We are not comparing museum to museum, lecturer to lecturer, High Court judge to High Court judge as you attempt to reason. We are looking at how content should be presented fairly – not selectively - to a diverse forum whose members report back to their respective communities, constituencies and reading public.
In answer to your argument referring to the second intefada and the current status on the West Bank I will briefly relate to some of the points you raise and clarify the issues.
The Mitchell Report does not as you say “go a long way to falsifying” my “version” of events nor does it lend support to Bar-Tal’s later revisitation of those events. Its independent record of events at the time illustrates clearly how Bar-Tal’s selective list of several attacks by Palestinians is not the whole story. In fact we know that the Mitchell Report was fairly inconclusive and pretty much blames both sides. However, the Mitchell Report was completed on the 30th April 2001 before the publication of the Husseini “Trojan Horse” interview on June 24 2001 and more importantly before the Barghouti interview on Sept 29 2001. Your attempt to discount the profound significance of this historical record without using fact but rather some kind of psychological interpretation speculating his need to “take credit” is very weak indeed. For one, let it be known to you as it is accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis that Marwan Barghouti is a highly regarded leader, one to be taken very seriously indeed. Though he sits in an Israeli jail on 5 counts of murder, we may well see his release when a path to a true peace process opens up. I am going to refer you and our readers to the full interview which has been translated on the Israel Foreign Affairs website because it really outlines clearly the premeditated nature of the violence, the scale and breadth of which were aimed at truly destabilising the State of Israel in its entirety. What I quoted in my previous letter was a mere snippet of a very detailed piece of evidence in this discussion.[1] Incidentally, Barghouti was not alone in his clear documentation of engineering the second intefada. Self affliction for causing it is mainly the product of Israeli scholars such as Bar-Tal who work on revisionist history (or as they say in the lexicon of current music, a “remix”). Palestinian leaders did not, for the most part, even try to hide this fact[2].
You have brought to the table some very interesting statistics. You say that 58% of Palestinians support a 2 state solution and this has declined over the last years. But how does this line up with the fact that when Israel disengaged from Gaza (when the statistic was higher), the residents there voted in a party who call for the destruction of Israel, use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their platform and have since engaged in a policy of rocket attacks on civilians? This is peaceful coexistence? Those are the facts, not the polls. My only interpretation regarding this anomaly is that there is support for a 2 state solution but without peaceful coexistence. You also do not mention that in that same poll taken in March 2008 “An overwhelming majority of 84% support and 13% oppose the shooting attack that took place in a religious school in West Jerusalem(Merkaz Harav). Support for this attack is greater in the Gaza Strip (91%) compared to the West Bank (79%)” If ever there was a vindication of the paradigms discussed in my opening letter, this is it.[3]
You relay a newspaper interview with Dov Weisglass at the time of the disengagement from Gaza as proof that Israel has not made the paradigm shift to withdraw and dismantle settlements but rather to entrench them further. I suggest you look at a more formidable personality, Sharon’s deputy at the time and our current prime minister Ehud Olmert – a hard line right wing stalwart who did not support the peace treaty with Egypt. In an interview on the 30th September 2008, he clearly proposes a two state solution, settlement removal, compensation of land and a fair resolution for Jerusalem[4] . His successor in the Kadima party, Ms Livni, another ex-Likud stalwart, recently refused to form an interim coalition government because of unreasonable attempts to prevent her negotiating a compromise for Jerusalem: we can see how the swing of several conservative sectors in Israel has made a full turn. So I do believe the paradigm shift in Israel has taken place or at least is in process.
I am encouraged by your reference to the Council for Peace and Security (CPS). In fact their position represents almost everything that I consider the correct approach to our situation so in many respects you and I share a lot of common ground on this issue. I don’t think though, that we can use this body as blanket argument for the complete and immediate removal of the occupation and the concept that settlement is the driving force behind the occupation. In response to my position that the separation barrier is one of a series of measures that saves lives you quote the CPS recommending the “removal of barriers and blocks throughout the West Bank…..security risks of the above are minimal, having regard for Israel’s other operational capabilities”. I want to clarify what the clear meaning of this statement is: The CPS does not call for the complete dismantling of the separation barrier (though it supports vociferously the High Court rulings regarding its route and I obviously agree with that). It calls for the dismantling of the many checkpoints within the West Bank that are the source of so much frustration, anger and humiliation. Its important to note too that when they say “Israel’s other operational capabilities” they are in my opinion, referring to, amongst other means, the presence of security personnel deep in West Bank cities who continue to rout out planned terror assaults at source and which comes at hard moral cost of invading the sanctity of people’s homes. You quote the CPS as saying that “a Palestinian state is not a threat” In principle I agree with this but since the inception of the CPS in 1998 matters have complicated this statement so we need to read what the CPS says in the next sentence following your quote “ with necessary security provisions”[5]. This is no easy task.
You write that I have said that ending the occupation will lead to the creation of yet another jihadist state. This is not what I said. To be accurate I said that we can assume with a high level of confidence that a full removal of the occupation could (not will) lead to another jihadist state[6] inferring that without a comprehensive process with necessary prerequisites in place we could have another jihadist state. To underscore how dangerous the risk for a complete end to the occupation is we need only to look at Gaza which has a border with Egypt of 15 km yet despite Egypt’s friendly status with Israel and repeated attempts at preventing arms being smuggled into Gaza a steady stream of armaments pours through and find their way into the rocket war against southern Israel. Now consider the impact of a border of 200km with Jordan and a sovereign Palestine into which all the elements needed for long range Katyusha type missiles (used successfully by Hizbolla in the last war with Lebanon) can be smuggled through. There would not be a town or strategic site in Israel that is not vulnerable. The complex rural terrain and crowded urban environments in the West Bank become a huge barrier to prevention of terror if a withdrawal of Israeli troops takes place. What I am saying is that if every settlement, legal and illegal, were removed tomorrow, the IDF would still remain on the Jordanian border (occupying Palestinian land) and on all the strategic high ground and possibly in certain urban areas until and if a full peace is proven and effective. Opponents to the occupation say that Israel justifies anything in the name of security. There is some truth in this and we cannot always use the security argument for contraventions of the 4th Geneva Convention and human rights infractions. But the other side of this coin is that we stand to lose everything if we do not take the security threats into account. Now let’s look at what you say: “Were there no settlements today on the West Bank, there would be no Occupation….. The settlements drive the occupation”. Where are the building blocks for this bold statement? I have scrutinised your texts and simply cannot find them.
Concluding Remarks
You incorrectly write that I accuse you and the delegation of hypocrisy. If you read the text, you will see that I have never said that. Nor have I ever mentioned that it is not the right of any person, group or country to criticise or question policies and actions of others. I too like many citizens of the world have strong opinions about the actions of individuals and countries that are far removed from Israel. What I do say is twofold: One is that we must look within and figure out from where we are coming with our criticism, turn down the sanctimonious volume-knob a notch or two on our PA system before we try to export our own particular brand of self-righteousness if we are to be taken seriously. The other point is that we must choose our battles judiciously if we are to be effective. The case of Darfur and human rights disasters in Africa in general are relevant because the sheer scale of violation is beyond comprehension and it is pertinent to South Africa. You point out that Zackie Achmat and Nathan Geffen have a powerful record and continue an ongoing struggle in pursuit of human rights in South Africa, China, Darfur and elsewhere. I want to add that the work and achievements of TAC – from my limited knowledge from afar- is humbling, must be respected and serves as a model way beyond South Africa. We must remember though, that the HRD was not a TAC delegation (as it was not a Jewish delegation), though many activists made up its members. It was a body of highly respected members with records of achievement in many disciplines. Not only was it a human rights delegation but a South African human rights delegation and I think that comes with a specific identity of its own which gives it special authority while carrying special responsibilities as to its goals and its findings.
When you say that that the delegation chose Israel in the framework of a 5 day interlude in members’s lives I ponder why Israel and not say, Darfur. A human rights mission of this scale with members of this stature and with financial backing such as this has as far as I know never been sent to Darfur from South Africa. The government of South Africa as you may well know has a very poor record regarding Darfur. It has consistently backed the government of President El Bashir, opposed and diluted resolutions critical of the Sudanese regime and has abused its position on the UN security council regarding the matter of the Darfur[7]. While it contributed troops to the AU one would think that as Africa’s leading economic powerhouse together with the moral responsibility that comes with its history in defeating apartheid we would see some leadership. Today the slaughter in Southern Sudan is estimated at between 300,000 to 500,000 with millions more refugees. Would not the impact here be greater than a mission to Israel-Palestine?
The question you raise pertinently as to whether Israel is always singled out is not answered by the fervent works of some of the delegations members. One of the reasons Israel is most often on the agenda is its very easy access and despite its myriad of problems, the relative safety of the participants in missions and delegations who elsewhere may be kidnapped or executed or simply disappear. But let us be honest: there is another reason and that is the piquant issue of the Jewish nature of the state and the moral ironies that now beset it. While I make no comparisons, the AUT (Britain’s association of university teachers) and its successor the UTU adopted singularly discriminatory measures in an attempt to impose an academic boycott on Israel while ignoring gross human rights violations across the globe. These decisions were revoked in 2005 and recently in 2008 under legal threat citing prejudicial and discriminatory practises.
Having said that, I stated in my first letter to you that if this is the road we must go down to engage leaders, thinkers and social activists from South Africa, so be it. You are right in suggesting that I would prefer that people ignore Israel. You are also right that I am particularly sensitive to one word in the cacophony of anti Israel slander that inundates us: “Apartheid”. Yet even if I don’t wish to deal with this, I must deal with it because as you have taken care to document the many instances of Israelis and others who use this analogy, the debate rages on in our country as to our future, the peace process, the dreadful circumstances in the occupied territories, our moral dilemmas and our security needs. The word “Apartheid” is bandied around here and elsewhere without understanding its meaning, the depth of its implications and the destructive consequences in using this terminology. The way to deal with criticism is to engage and to look at the details. The most dangerous public discourse is one which is based on slogans, platitudes and catchphrases.
You challenge me by suggesting that my “attitude to Palestinians is one of mistrust and that my “conception of them is a threat” and that I did not voice empathy in my previous letter. So let me answer you directly. I am deeply troubled by the current status of Palestinians. My daily work takes me frequently into direct contact with Palestinians and Arab residents of Israel who identify with the Palestinian people and I neither see them as a threat nor feel any mistrust. I see Palestinian people as no different to people anywhere in the world, however my personal experience and knowledge of our environment in the middle east leads me to take great care when considering the political processes that occur and their implications. I have no implicit mistrust of Iranians but I am concerned by the threat of a nuclear empowered Iranian theocracy. Freedom and statehood for the Palestinian people by no means implies stable government in Palestine and peaceful coexistence. We need only look to the one serious attempt at democracy in our region besides Israel, namely Lebanon to see how fragile the regime is and how regional fanaticism can take hold even in an environment that shows a potential for hope and freedom belying the notion that “people with hope are less likely to engage in violence”. Yet I must say that neither we, Israelis must be excused from scrutiny. We now see rampant violence from rogue settlers, and a preponderant no-vision-for-peace reaction in the political arena following the trauma of the second intefada, the success in bringing it to an end and the mutation of Palestinian nationalism into separate geographical and ideological entities. Precisely because of our relative strength it is incumbent on us to act, albeit with caution, in order to create solutions.
Though I struggle to find the logical foothold in your position that settlement drives the occupation and your cry to end the occupation as the solution to our problems, I respect your willingness to engage and to tackle the issues methodically, carefully documenting your sources. You have taken valuable time to respond to my arguments without any obligation except one of moral responsibility and true commitment and without any public reward. You have brought valuable information to the debate giving us much to think about. While there may have been productive discussions following the HRD I have also observed a destructive wake following it however those who hurl abuse must be held accountable: not you or the delegation. Whether the HRD has left a lasting public impression that offers a certificate of “kashrut” for the Kasrilian doctrine roundly condemning Israel, or whether it has differentiated itself enough to affirm a secure Israel alongside a free Palestine by focusing on worthy criticism of both sides, I leave for our readers to judge.
It is my hope that this debate will provide a document outlining the issues and the many facets of our current dilemmas. For those who blindly accuse us in Israel of “Apartheid” or under the slogan “End the Occupation” elaborate full deligitimization of Israel with accusations of every heinous crime, our document offers a reference point that outlines the complexity of the issues, and Israel’s existential needs. Conversely, those that recede into the shell of denial and who cling solely to the belief of biblical entitlement to territory under dispute will see that there is a heavy moral cost and real questions of sustainability for the future. I have observed in the various internet based forums and in letters in the Jewish press in South Africa that many young Jewish people neither have the knowledge nor an ability to articulate a skilful defence of Israel in the face of a plethora of verbal challenges from the media and academic environments as they move from schools into institutions of higher learning. I hope the arguments presented provide a sound basis for verbalising a viable defence for Israel, understanding that our existence is a critical, urgent and morally justified need for the Jewish people yet that we are also morally imperfect – like South Africa and most countries in the world.
Jonathan Zausmer
Kohav Yair, Israel
[1] http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/9/Interview%20by%20Marwan%20Barghouti%20to%20Al%20Hayat%20-%2029-Sep
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Mp6Yal2mA
[3] http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27ejoint.html
[4] http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3603841,00.html
[5] http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp
[6] See my previous response (JZ)
[7] http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/02/13/letter-deputy-minister-foreign-affairs-south-africa
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Doron Isaacs responds in the 2nd round of the debate
17 September 2008
Dear Jonathan,
I hope this finds you well. Here then is my response to your second letter.
Let me say at the outset that if this debate is to continue in the meaningful way it began, it cannot be considered acceptable to make cynical attacks on my ‘intellectual integrity’. Suggesting that I ‘have a predisposition to make [my] judgment and deliver sentence long before the court has convened’ is not a good way to open a letter to someone who continues to treat you with courtesy. For me the court convened years ago and I continue to sit transfixed and listen to the arguments. At a certain point it became clear to me that conviction and action required me to participate in that discussion. On the basis that this correspondence intends to make a genuine contribution to that process I am obliged to respond.
My first letter made clear my strong attachment to Israel and my uncompromising opposition to attacks against its people. In choosing a theme I neglected to respond to all the points you raised – it would be a mistake to see that decision as me conceding the issues I didn’t deal with. To make this clear, I will begin here by dealing with some of the issues I have neglected to fully respond to thus far.
YOUR OBJECTIONS TO ASPECTS OF THE DELEGATION
The Gordimer letter, not related to the delegation, rejects the “violence manifesting itself on both sides” and counts the loss of life on both sides. It is not a call for general boycott, a position I have not taken. It addresses itself to Nadine Gordimer, awarded the Nobel Prize for her humane writing, someone who not long ago publicly called on Susan Sontag to boycott Israel, and asks her why she is supporting a festival at which not one Palestinian was invited to speak. The letter says that writers like her should travel to Israel to engage with people but not miss the opportunity to address crucial issues. It implicitly accepts her visit and urges her to take the chance to engage with activists – she called to thank a signatory to a similar letter and through him did arrange additional meetings.
You consider the picture on the website – at www.humanrightsdelegation.org – to be ‘inflammatory’. I don’t. You previously compared the image to that of a ‘Nazi’, a statement which is definitely inflammatory. That soldier is standing with his hands in his pockets. He is looking down unthreateningly and curiously at the children, who are amusing themselves and smiling. The picture shows the way that the Occupation is interwoven into life. Let us pause for a minute and consider that soldiers dressed like that are probably the only Israelis those children have ever seen. The picture is poignant and relevant.
You accuse the delegation’s itinerary of lacking neutrality. I think that this attack falls short for a number of reasons. Firstly, the itinerary contained a lot of input from the official Israeli perspective. Do your complaints take account of our discussions with the Chief Justice of Israel, the former Deputy Attorney General, and the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem? We didn’t meet equivalent people on the Palestinian side. I can’t think of a better person than the Chief Justice to present Israel’s case to a group of South Africans, many of whom were lawyers. Are you ignoring the meeting with families whose children were killed in bombings and shootings? Whilst we tried as much as possible to meet with and hear from Palestinians, the reality is that the tour was organised and hosted by Israeli organisations and their representatives, with whom we spent the majority of our time, including major mainstream left-wing groups like Peace Now, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Yesh Din.
We’ve also been wrongly accused of not providing a context. How does this square with the lectures we heard by Hillel Cohen and Amos Goldberg of Hebrew University and Ben Gurion University of the Negev respectively, and the lengthy tour through Yad Vashem? Again, we were not lectured by Palestinian academics and did not visit a Palestinian museum.
Surely all those who automatically defend Israel’s every action also need context - need to know of the dispossession, the inability to move, the unemployment, the hunger, the forced entry into homes, the indignity at the hands of settlers and the IDF, that Palestinians suffer daily?
In the case of Sderot, we felt that a visit there would have required us to deal properly with the political and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, something that we did not touch on at all. I do understand that this omission has been hard to accept for Israelis, and perhaps we didn’t anticipate that in advance, but we felt at the time that meeting with victims of terrorism, perpetrated by Palestinians from the West Bank, was an appropriate way to give that perspective given that we focused on the West Bank and Jerusalem. It was indeed a powerful meeting. This is why Geoff Budlender, for example, has written publicly about the “very deep impact” and “terrible suffering” caused by suicide bombings.[1]
Why do critics of the delegation continually try to find little holes and omissions, whilst ignoring the substance of our criticism? Can the arguments not be dealt with – and here I must concede that you have often been an exception – on their merits? Would recognising that our eyes are open to Israeli suffering and Palestinian crimes make our condemnation of the occupation irresistible?
RETURNING TO THE SECOND INTIFADA
Let me now turn to dealing with your response in regard to the events on the Second Intifada in the wake of Camp David. In doing so I will from time to time need to comment on your use of sources.
You have quoted from the Mitchell Report, a report put together by a fairly impressive group of internationally known figures: George J. Mitchell, Chairman (Former member and Majority Leader of the US Senate), Suleyman Demirel (9th President of the Republic of Turkey), Thorbjoern Jagland (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway), Warren B. Rudman (Former Member of the US Senate), and Javier Solana (High European Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, EU).
The Report goes a long way towards falsifying your version of the outbreak of that intifada. Whilst it does not explicitly endorse the view that Professor Bar-Tal has advanced (which I summarised in my previous response) that the majority of the responsibility can be attributed to Israel, it clearly demonstrates that it is problematic to suggest that this was a premeditated and orchestrated armed Palestinian effort, directed by Arafat, in which the preponderance of violence was inflicted upon Israelis, and whose aim it was to destroy the diplomatic process.
You quoted from the Mitchell Report that the Israeli Government claimed there were 9000 attacks against Israel. That is of course a claim, made by one side, and serious scholarship must of course not invoke, as facts, claims by either side to a conflict. In any case, by the Israeli Government’s own admission, according to the Mitchell Report, ‘for the first three months of the current uprising, most incidents did not involve Palestinian use of firearms and explosives.’[2]
The Report then goes on to say:
‘Altogether, nearly 500 people were killed and over 10,000 injured over the past seven months; the overwhelming majority in both categories were Palestinian. Many of these deaths were avoidable, as were many Israeli deaths. Israel's characterization of the conflict, as noted above, is overly broad, for it does not adequately describe the variety of incidents reported since late September 2000. Moreover, by thus defining the conflict, the IDF has suspended its policy of mandating investigations by the Department of Military Police Investigations whenever a Palestinian in the territories dies at the hands of an IDF soldier in an incident not involving terrorism. In the words of the GOI, "Where Israel considers that there is reason to investigate particular incidents, it does so, although, given the circumstances of armed conflict, it does not do so routinely."’[3]
The Mitchell Report also gives support to what I have said about the inability of people like us – liberal people who grew up believing in the brotherhood of man – to see the suffering and hardship of Palestinian life. Before making that point, the Report begins in the following measured terms:
‘Despite their long history and close proximity, some Israelis and Palestinians seem not to fully appreciate each other's problems and concerns… Some Palestinians appear not to comprehend the extent to which terrorism creates fear among the Israeli people and undermines their belief in the possibility of co-existence...’[4]
That, I am sure, we would both agree with, but the Report also says:
‘Some Israelis appear not to comprehend the humiliation and frustration that Palestinians must endure every day as a result of living with the continuing effects of occupation, sustained by the presence of Israeli military forces and settlements in their midst, or the determination of the Palestinians to achieve independence and genuine self-determination.’[5]
You may consider that the delegation falls into the former category of not appreciating Israeli fears, but as I showed in my previous response, it does not. However, what most critics of the delegation have demonstrated through their own writing is that they fall into the latter category. In your first letter to me you accepted that the Palestinian experience is marked by a “lack of freedom of movement”, “suffering and humiliation”, “indignities” and “unemployment”.[6] But this empathy is nowhere in your second letter.
You fill a page with the record of Palestinian attacks against Israelis, in order to prove that in his recounting of bombings, Professor Bar-Tal omitted to mention the eight Israelis killed by the terrorist bus driver. Nobody can deny that this catalogue of crimes makes for depressing and painful reading, but you say not a single word about violence and death suffered by Palestinians.
You also use this list to claim that ‘we clearly see a completely different picture, depending on the time frames’. Besides missing the point, the statement is also false. It misses the point, because I was engaging you on the origins of the Second Intifada, and thus focused logically on a certain timeframe. And it is false because even if we take the entire period between 2000 and the present, notwithstanding the litany of horrific suicide bombings, there are four times more Palestinian deaths. From 29 Sept 2000 until 31 August 2008 there were 4880 Palestinians killed by Israelis and 1061 Israelis killed by Palestinians.[7] Of those killed there were 949 Palestinians children and 123 Israeli children. Clearly, whilst the picture on both sides is horrific, and the loss of any one life is incalculable, it remains far safer to be an Israeli than a Palestinian.
I share your outrage at the lynching in Ramallah on Oct 12, 2000 and at the record of suicide bombings. You are right that the particularly brutal nature of these events created wounds, perhaps still open, not even yet scars. Your conclusions, however, do not follow. We cannot conclude from this, as you say many have, that ‘Palestinians actually would like to see the murder and destruction of all Jewish Israelis if ever given the chance’. There are those Palestinians, but they are in the minority and there is a duty on responsible commentators to recognise that.
It also does not follow, as you claim, that ‘our partner in peace wishes neither a 2 state solution nor peaceful coexistence’. In a research survey done in March 2008, 66% of Palestinians supported and 32% opposed the Saudi initiative which calls for Arab recognition of and normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for ending the Occupation and recognising the establishment of a Palestinian state.[8] In the same survey, 55% supported mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people as part of a permanent status agreement.[9] Specifically in regard to the model for a ‘solution’ which you raised, 58% of Palestinians prefer the two-state solution and 27% prefer the one-state solution.[10]
Despite the hardships of the last eight years – which have seen a decline in Palestinian belief in peace and coexistence, just as on the Israeli side – the above results show that the majority of Palestinians still want to live in peace with Israel. These numbers were better before the Intifada, when almost three quarters (73%) would support reconciliation between the two peoples after reaching a peace agreement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state recognised by Israel.[11]
Depressingly, support for terrorism is high. Findings show a significant increase in the level of support for armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel with 67% supportive and 31% opposed. Average support for such attacks on Israeli civilians stood at 40% in 2005.[12] This survey also reveals that Palestinians regard incursions by the IDF in the same way Israelis regard violent Palestinian attacks – as terrorism – and of course support for such operations is very high in Israeli society. The harshness of the occupation, the building of the separation barrier, the collapse of economic conditions, and a lack of any political progress and the resulting despair in the peace process feed into this hardening of attitude among Palestinians. As an illustration 68% believe that the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state during the next five years are non-existent or weak.[13]
The fundamental point remains that there is a majority of Palestinians, around 60%, who support the ‘two states for two peoples’ concept. According to the Steinmetz Centre’s Peace Index for March 2008, support for that concept on the Israeli side is 68%.[14]
In regard to your extracts from the speech by Arafat and the interview with Faisal Husseini, you have not provided proper references that one can access. In fact for the Arafat piece you provide no reference, and for the Husseini one you reference an Arabic newspaper which neither you nor I would be able to read. I have tried quite extensively to locate these extracts in standard news sources and cannot find them.[15] Organisations like Camera, Memri, HonestReporting and the like are not reputable sources of information that any serious person would rely upon, particularly not in regard to translations from Arabic. There are plenty of equivalent organizations on the Palestinian side, but one can never rely on such organisations, whether they are pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli or whatever – most often they are worse than the media they purport to monitor.[16] As you have suggested, “behind the walls of quotations and resources are revealed the very biases we aim to avoid.”
Nevertheless, I must assume for the purposes of this discussion that those quotes are bona fide. To read that Arafat or Husseini said some shocking things is not surprising. I have never defended the Palestinian leadership and I think we should all be critical of them, particularly those who returned with Arafat from exile, for their poor leadership, their corruption, their toleration of and involvement in violence, and their reluctance to champion a truly progressive politics. We have not been shy in the public meetings we have held back in South Africa to criticise this Palestinian leadership. One of the delegation, Farid Esack, a professor of religion at Harvard, writing about the trip for the Al Qalam, a Muslim monthly, complained of being subjected on the trip to “the insufferably boring lamentations of some Fatah apparatchiks”.[17]
At the same time let us remember that some Zionist leaders also planned in maximal terms whilst speaking moderately in international forums. Almost all Israel’s current leaders say that Jerusalem is the eternal undivided capital of Israel, even though this is a non-starter for serious negotiations. But let us take Ben Gurion as our example. This extract dealing with Ben Gurion’s leadership is from former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami – someone you cited in your recent letter:
“Israel would always reject the admittedly ambiguous peace overtures of the PLO on the ground that they were part of a ‘strategy of phases’, the final objective of which was to take over the whole of Palestine and eventually do away with the State of Israel altogether. But the copyright for the strategy of phases might lie elsewhere: it was conceived by the leaders of the Yishuv in the mid 1930s, it was inherent in the notion they had of the real meaning of partition, as the first stage to wider territorial accomplishments. By endorsing partition as it was proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, Ben-Gurion did not necessarily mean to relinquish Zionist claim for the entire Eretz-Israel.”[18]
Partition, or peace, was, as Ben Gurion put it, “a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation.”[19] It was on this basis that he agreed to successive partition plans. As he wrote to his son Amos in 1937, “The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.”[20]
Ariel Sharon too understood well how to dress territorial ambitions in the clothes of political moderation. In October 2005 Dov Weisglass gave a startlingly frank interview to Ari Shavit of Haaretz in which he admitted that the disengagement from Gaza was aimed at deepening the Occupation in the West Bank. Weisglass was Ariel Sharon’s long-time friend and lawyer, and for the 30 months leading up to the disengagement served as his bureau chief and senior adviser.
“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
“The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation.”
Shavit reminded him that the disengagement plan included a few small settlements in the West Bank, to which Weisglass responded:
“The withdrawal in Samaria is a token one. We agreed to [it] only so it wouldn't be said that we concluded our obligation in Gaza.”
“[I]n regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a first-ever American statement that they will be part of Israel.”
Shavit suggested that given what Weisglass was saying the settlers should have been the number one supporters of the disengagement. Weisglass agreed:
“They should have danced around and around the Prime Minister's Office.”
“The political process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The political process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.”
Shavit said that this sounded like the maneuver of the century. Weisglass didn’t enjoy the word, but he did like the compliment:
“When you say ‘maneuver,’ it doesn't sound nice. It sounds like you said one thing and something else came out. But that's the whole point.”[21]
Therefore, in sharing your disgust at what Palestinian leaders have said, and particularly at the warlike phrasing, I am conscious that the language of maximalist territorial ambition is a bi-national talent and curse.
The Barghouti quote is even less interesting; that a politician like him would want to take credit for the Intifada is not surprising. It is silly to discuss the Intifada as either spontaneous combustion or planned arson. Sure, Palestinians have leaders and they played a role in shaping it. But the fundamental point is that because of worsening conditions on the ground it was always likely that there would be an eruption of popular feeling.
AGAIN: IS SECURITY THE DRIVER OF THE OCCUPATION?
You spend considerable time arguing that the continuation of the occupation is driven by security concerns and suggest that were I to pay attention to these I might understand this better.
Let me rely then on a body of people with considerable military experience: The Council for Peace and Security. This is a non-political group of people which was formed in 1988, bringing together some thousand members, each with a rich background in fields associated with security and diplomacy. Members include former high-ranking officers of the IDF, former holders of equivalent positions in the Mossad and Shin Beth Security Services, the Israel Police, retired diplomats, directors of Government Ministries and academics from various fields. It considers the support of the Middle East Peace Process to be a necessary component of National Security.[22]
The Council states: “Continued occupation of the Territories and control over the Palestinians is damaging the democratic character of the State of Israel. It is weakening the army, undermining its ability and its preparedness to respond to military threats.”[23]
You quoted me correctly as having previously written to you to say that rather than protecting Israel the restrictions on Palestinian movement, and complete freedom of movement for settlers, “possibly endangers Israel, and benefits settlers.” Here is what the Council for Peace and Security says:
“Barriers and blocks on internal roads in Judea and Samaria are one element of the means taken for day to day security. However, these barriers have serious negative effects. They humiliate the Palestinians and motivate a desire for revenge, interfere with the ability to rebuild the Palestinian economy and are a cause of loss of hope. They also adversely affect Israel’s international image and cast doubt upon the professionalism, social skills and morale of Israeli troops. When all elements of the equation are considered, the barriers have a negative and even dangerous effect upon Israel’s security.”[24]
You say the system is critical to “security and saving lives”. These 1000 Israelis with considerable military and intelligence experience say otherwise. They recommend the “removal of barriers and blocks throughout the West Bank” and state that the “security risks of the above steps are minimal, having regard for Israel’s other operational capabilities.”[25]
You say ending the Occupation will lead to the creation of “yet another jihadist hate-state”. The Council for Peace and Security say: “A Palestinian State is not a threat”.[26]
Their letter ends with a stern warning:
“Israel is the strongest party in the dispute and should therefore take the first step, without demanding the prior condition of “Palestinian war on terror”. Waiting for a “more suitable” reality will put Israel in a far more difficult position, in which the “two states for two nations” solution will no longer be feasible.”[27]
Your defense of the Separation Barrier amounts to producing a list of seven instances where planned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians were thwarted. In most of these cases, particularly in places like Nablus, the Separation Barrier does not seem to have played a role. But I accept that the Separation Barrier makes Israelis feel safer and has helped to stop certain attacks. However, there remain three serious problems with your defense of the Barrier: Firstly, you do not address the issue of the route; Secondly, you do not address the issue of proportionality – the increase in Israeli security has to be balanced with the destruction of Palestinian communities; and Thirdly, you ignore other possible causes for the drop in suicide bombings – this might not be entirely explained by the Barrier.
You accept that “the settlers do benefit from this newfound freedom and freedom and exploit it to the full” and that this has “undermined deeply the credibility of successive Israeli governments”. You claim that since the 2005 Gaza pullout the settlements no longer drive policy. You seem to accept that this was a driver of policy before the disengagement. As the Weisglass interview shows, post Gaza pullout the needs of the West Bank settlers drive policy as much as ever.
Ultimately, no amount of mental acrobatics can escape the fundamental point: Were there no settlements today on the West Bank, there would be no Occupation. Israel would find other, better, less expensive, less oppressive ways of maintaining its security. The settlements drive the occupation.
TERMINOLOGY: WHO SAYS ISRAEL LOOKS A LITTLE LIKE APARTHEID?
You say: “Terms such as “Apartheid”, “Ethnic Cleansing”, “Nazi”, “Holocaust” are used without discretion.” You claim that “one of the outcomes of the human rights delegation has been the irresponsible application of this kind of terminology by journalists, commentators and leaders…” In fact, and I may be mistaken, but I have seen no use, irresponsible or otherwise, of the terms “Nazi” and “Ethnic Cleansing”, except for your strange interpretation of the picture of the Israeli soldier and the children as being Nazi-like. The Holocaust has been present in the normal, necessary sense as a fundamental event in the background.
When people lump all these terms together, as you have done, with little regard to whether they have in fact been used or not, they are attempting to do two things. Firstly, they want to paint us as glib purveyors of cheap slogans, and thus not careful and serious people. Secondly they want to create the impression that all of the above terms of equally ridiculous, specifically because there is intense worry over the use of one term: “Apartheid”. This term has in fact been discussed quite frequently in the context of the delegation and I will therefore deal with it at length.
As I will make clear later, I don’t find the Israel-Apartheid analogy to be particularly appealing. That is why, although I have referenced it, I have never personally invoked it. But first, I want to dispel the impression that Mondli Makhanya and Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge were the first respectable people to ever make this comparison. They are not quite the chalutzim you might see them as.
There is a significant record of noteworthy Israelis making this comparison. Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing, "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories", in an essay published in Haaretz.[28] Ami Ayalon, Israeli admiral and former leader of the Shin Bet, in discussing the Separation Plan, said “Israel must decide quickly what sort of environment it wants to live in because the current model, which has some apartheid characteristics, is not compatible with Jewish principles.”[29] Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz, said that the state of Israel is “practicing its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.”[30] Former Knesset member Yossi Sarid explicitly compared an array of Israeli practices to apartheid in a Haaretz column entitles "Yes, It's apartheid" on April 25, 2008.[31]
An academic paper by Professor Oren Yiftachel, Chair of the Geography Department at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, predicted that Israel's unilateral disengagement plan will result in “creeping apartheid” in the West Bank, Gaza, and in Israel itself.[32] Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist and the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, predicted that the interim disengagement plan would become permanent, with the West Bank barrier entrenching both the isolation of Palestinian communities and the existence of Israeli settlements. He warned that Israel is moving towards the model of apartheid South Africa through the creation of "Bantustan" like conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[33] Danny Rubinstein, a columnist at Haaretz also reportedly likened Israel to apartheid during a United Nations conference at the European Parliament in Brussels, stating: “Israel today is an apartheid State with four different Palestinian groups: those in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israeli Palestinians, each of which had a different status.”[34]
Most significantly perhaps was a Haaretz editorial, in the context of the visit by former US President Jimmy Carter earlier this year, in which the Apartheid analogy was made directly:
“Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel’s control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years.”[35]
Not only Jewish Israelis have used the Apartheid comparison. The Economist, in an article on the debate over withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, asserted that “Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority.”[36] British journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft noted that, historically, Israeli officials had mulled the possibility of adopting the South African apartheid model as one that the state of Israel itself might emulate. In the late 1970s “(t)hey didn't wish to copy what was once called 'petty apartheid', the everyday harassment of black South Africans, but 'grand apartheid', the Nationalists' attempt to conjure away the problem of minority rule by dividing the country into supposedly autonomous cantons or 'homelands'.”[37] Perhaps most gruesome – or amusing, because he meant it as a compliment – is the direct comparison by a relative expert in Apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, who in 1961 said: “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”[38]
To be sure, serious people have made rebuttals of the analogy. You cite Benjamin Pogrund, a former member of Habonim and Deputy Editor of the Rand Daily Mail, now living in Israel and involved with Yakar. Whilst the thrust of Pogrund’s Haaretz piece was to rebut the Israel-Apartheid analogy he did not attempt to defend the Occupation. The title gives some indication of this: “Catastrophic, but not apartheid”. In fact, he conceded that “there is no question that our occupation policies and practices can be compared with apartheid.”[39]
To come back to the present: Despite the long list of precedents, the delegation made little use of the Apartheid analogy. For every case of the analogy being used by one of the delegation, there is an instance of it being questioned by another. The delegation's final formal statement made no mention of comparisons with apartheid and Dennis Davis, a member of the delegation, said he thought the use of the term in the Middle East context was “very unhelpful”[40] and that said despite “stark parallels” to apartheid, “it's incredibly unhelpful to say you can simply take this to be apartheid and therefore the South African struggle is the same and the South African solution is the same. That's a very lazy form of reasoning.”[41] Fatima Hassan, another member of the delegation, said she thought the comparison was a “red herring”.[42] Farid Esack has written that, after the trip, he “could not avoid the conclusion that the simple Zionism=Apartheid equation is also a simplistic one.” [43]
I agree with Davis that the apartheid analogy can be unhelpful. Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B’Tselem, has grappled with when this analogy helps or hinders the search for peace and justice:
“I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers -- there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not.”[44]
I prefer to treat the Occupation fairly and on its own terms. I have always felt uncomfortable with those who that take a term which emerged for the 1948 South African elections, in a specific historical context, and act as if it can adequately describe what is happening in 2008 in Israel/Palestine. I also know that often the outcomes of such comparisons are discussions like these, which turn on terminology rather than on the actual situation which needs to be addressed. I prefer to describe the actual situation as I did in my previous letter to you. I also believe that the Occupation is serious enough not to need any additional dramatisation.
VIGILANT EVERYWHERE: WHO REALLY HAS DOUBLE STANDARDS?
You advise as follows: We ‘must stay vigilant – on our own soil’. Well, the world, as you say, is full of ironies. The members of the delegation do little other than defend and protect human rights on their own soil. A five day trip to Israel and the West Bank is a brief interlude in lives that are defined by their struggles, before and after Apartheid, for social justice and peace in South Africa. The members of the delegation were selected precisely for their vigilance on their own soil, and particularly in recent years. Those who attack the delegation have no such record of personal commitment for human rights on their own soil. I do take you seriously when you offer to ‘track and follow every infraction of human rights and to act to remedy each one’ and I would welcome an update on this front. The concept of a human right, as you know, is one not distinguished by nationality or religion.
You also ask me whether as a South African I would welcome a human rights mission that drew harsh conclusions in regard to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa, even one that said it was ‘worse than Apartheid’. For the past eight years South Africans have been engaged in a struggle to save lives in the struggle against AIDS. It has been devastating but also inspiring: whilst hundreds of thousands have died, activism has cut medicine prices to a fraction and resulted in a national roll-out of AIDS medicines. Basic strategies in this struggle have included the use of moral pressure on government and drug companies and international solidarity. Not only have we welcomed the citizens of the world demonstrating outside South African embassies worldwide, but we have helped to organise those demonstrations. Not only have we tolerated accusations that there is more death and poorer health now than during Apartheid but we have been the ones making those accusations. Not only have we accepted editorials in foreign newspapers about the failure of our government’s approach to AIDS, we have instigated them. The list of examples of how the politics of morality and shame and have been fearlessly and successfully employment by AIDS activists is long and impressive. Would we oppose a delegation of internationally respected doctors coming to South Africa and condemning that which deserves to be condemned? No, we would welcome them. Simply put, people’s lives are more important than the need of middle-class people to feel comfortable and proud of their country. Ultimately anyway, it is the spirit of this activism, despite the embarrassment it may bring to the government, that makes me proud to be South African.
You accuse us of hypocrisy, although I have shown you we are consistent. In truth, there is hypocrisy in what you are asking for. On the one hand you want everyone in the world to stay vigilant on their own soil, and on the other you bemoan the world’s silence “in the face of one the most horrendous violations of human rights in Darfur” and “as Mugabe drains the life out of his own country”. Which is it? Should we protest human rights violations around the world or stick to our own? Or do you not mind people raising objections to what happens around the world as long as they ignore Israel? Is it your view that unless Israel is worse than Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan it is not deserving of public criticism?
To this some might respond that Israel is always singled out, and that if everyone was criticised fairly that would be fine. I want to use the example of only two members of the delegation to illustrate that Israel is not so special as we might think, and that many other places come in for sustained criticism. I will use as my examples Nathan Geffen and Zackie Achmat, two of the members of the delegation, both of whom have a long history in TAC, the main vehicle of AIDS activism. Achmat was its founding Chairperson and Geffen was its first National Manager, later Director of Policy, and now Treasurer.
For years, TAC has criticised the Mugabe government. TAC has organised several solidarity events with people campaigning for democracy in Zimbabwe, the most recent being a demonstration in Gauteng in July, but also in CT in April. Achmat organized a Social Justice Coalition's rally for Zimbabwe on 25 June 2008.[45] Achmat and Geffen have given several radio interviews and published articles condemning Mugabe.[46] Achmat, Geffen and TAC's main international solidarity work deals with Zimbabwe and one could provide endless examples of this.
Soon after the delegation Geffen flew to Mexico for the International AIDS Conference where he spoke in the main plenary, to several thousand people about China's arrest of AIDS activist Hu Jia.[47] This was on the day the Beijing Olympics opened. TAC has also protested China’s oppressive labour practices.[48] Again, I could provide further examples.
TAC has issued a statement condemning arrests of AIDS activists in Ghana[49] and called on people around the world to bombard the Ghanaian consulate with faxes. Similar action has been taken against Iran, and Geffen also issues a report against Iranian treatment of dissidents at the above-mentioned conference. Achmat has been a life-long critic of the Iranian revolution and theocracy. It's one of the reasons he is poorly treated by the Muslim community. On 16 April 2003, TAC issued a statement calling for a democratic Swaziland. They have also supported actions of the Swaziland democracy movement.
Achmat and Geffen have both been outspoken in regard to Darfur. In his 2004 Ashley Kriel Memorial Lecture, one of the most important annual lectures in the country, Achmat said: "Darfur will be a test for our government but more importantly a test for civil society. We failed this test to ensure democracy in Zimbabwe. We cannot fail the people of Darfur and Sudan."[50] Geffen organized a large TAC group to go to the Holocaust Centre to learn about the Darfur Conflict.
Looking through the TAC materials and publications one easily finds Achmat and Geffen criticizing human rights abuses by the US, Uganda, Namibia and Saudi Arabia. Geffen was also involved in a group that worked to reduce human rights abuses in Iraq during the period of Saddam Hussein.[51] If you would like a similar record for other members of the delegation I am sure it could be provided.
And so the position is clear: As is stated in the delegation’s Mission Statement:
“We believe that human rights are interconnected and indivisible. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We know that global stability is important for all of our prosperity. Similarly, we are committed to upholding international law and human rights.”
The criticism Israel has received from the delegation is not derived from malice, a strange fixation, an ignorance of suffering around the world, or an avoidance of domestic concerns. It is because such criticism is deserved.
MINDSETS AND POLITICS
You correctly say that mindsets have to change. A lot of what I saw in the West Bank with the delegation made clear how much Palestinian mindsets do need to change. As members of the delegation have written, the culture of martyrdom we saw in Nablus was deeply disturbing. But I would like to challenge you, a modern, progressive person, with privileges and education that few on the West Bank enjoy, to consider your own mindset. Your basic attitude to Palestinians is mistrust, and your conception of them is as a threat. That kind of thinking cannot survive genuine people-to-people encounters where individuals get to see each other’s lives and understand each other’s dreams. In this regard South Africa is an example of both what can be achieved, and the dangers of not doing it. Many people have crossed previously unbridgeable divides. Those who did it 30 years ago were considered dangerous radicals. Today most white South Africans have still never been into a township, do not know a poor black person other than their domestic worker, and still, sitting in their comfortable, well-protected homes, regard the black masses as a threat, rather than as a suffering people needing support. The challenge to all of us – not only the Palestinians – is to take active steps, today, to break down those mental and physical walls.
People living in desperate conditions need a viable peaceful political course of action, otherwise they will turn to violence. That decision to turn to violence is never justified, but there is a certain inevitability to it. I would prefer to give the Palestinians hope. People with hope are far less likely to engage in violence. Hope comes in many small ways: the “dialogue on both sides” that you propose, the “removal of the daily hardships Palestinians undergo” that you recommend, the presence of Israelis working with Palestinians against the effects of the Occupation, a clear political horizon that arcs towards freedom of movement and away from ongoing settlement expansion, moderate leadership which can find a foothold in its society by pointing to moderate leadership on the other side, and yes, international solidarity from groups like the delegation, who, while being implacably opposed to calls for the destruction of Israel, support an end to the Occupation. There are only two alternatives to this kind of politics. The one is a very violent uprising. The other is extreme repression needed to contain such violence. Both seem unacceptable to me, and yet they are given if things continue down the present course.
This correspondence has given me the opportunity to clarify and think through some of my own difficulties and I want to thank you for that.
Regards,
Doron
[1] Moira Schneider interview with Geoff Budlender ‘Israeli visit “depressing and inspiring” SA Jewish Report 7/17/2008.
[2] Government of Israel, First Statement, Mitchell Report, April 30, 2001.
[3] The Mitchell Report April 30, 2001, available at http://www.mideastweb.org/mitchell_report.htm; See also, Alex Fishman, "The Intifada, the IDF and Investigations," Yediot Aharonot (in English, Richard Bell Press, 1996, Ltd.), January 19, 2001.
[4] Mitchell Report supra.
[5] Mitchell Report supra.
[6] Jonathan Zausmer ‘An open letter to Doron Isaacs in response to the South Africa Human Rights Delegation’s visit to Israel and the occupied territories’ 23 July 2008 available at http://themovingdebate.blogspot.com/2008/08/human-rights-delegation.html.
[7] Of the Palestinians killed, 4823 (4754 in the OPT and 69 in Israel) were killed by Israeli security forces and 57 (54 in the OPT and 3 in Israel) were killed by Israeli civilians. Of the Israelis killed, 726 were civilians (236 in OPT and 490 in Israel) and 335 were security personnel (245 in OPT and 90 in Israel). See B’Tselem Statistics at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp; See also UN Office For Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Report Centre at http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection§ion_id=97&static=0&format=html.
[8] PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 27, 13-15 March 2008, available at http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27e1.html#peace.
[9] Ibid.
[10] PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 28, 5-7 June 2008, available at http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p28e.html#head2.
[11] PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 3, 19-24 December 2001, available at http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2001/p3a.html.
[12] PSR Poll #27 supra.
[13] PSR Poll #27 supra.
[14] Tel Aviv University: Tami Steinmetz Centre for Peace Research PEACE INDEX March 2008, visit http://www.tau.ac.il/peace/.
[15] I have found a South African press briefing which deals with Arafat’s comments in the Johannesburg mosque, although it does not include the more extreme comments you quote. It also explains that the only record is a tape which sounds like Arafat and was handed to the press by members of the South African Jewish community http://70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/1994/news0518.
[16] In fact, in the run up to the delegation the Media Review Network, a local pro-Palestinian media group, sent us 23 copies of Uri Davis’ book Israel: An Apartheid State (1987), which we politely declined to circulate.
[17] Farid Esack ‘Seeing through the eyes of the other’ 12 August 2008, available as a reprint from Published in ZAM Africa Magazine, September 2008, 12/3 http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=21&page=1.
[18] Shlomo Ben-Ami Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy (London: Phoenix, 2005) at 24.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid at 25.
[21] Ari Shavit ‘The Big Freeze’ Haaretz 10/11/2005 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929 (this is the reference for all the above Weisglass quotes).
[22] Management of the Council for Peace and Security: President: Maj Gen (Ret.) Danny Rothschild; Managing Director: Police Maj Gen (Ret.) Shaul Givoli; Treasurer: Brig Gen (Ret.) Yitzchak Elron; Legal Counsel: Col (Ret.) Mati Atzmon; Audit Committee: Col (Ret.) Danny Razgor; Lt Col (Ret.) Oded Eytan; Members: Prison Commissioner (Ret.) Orit Adato; Col (Ret.) Shaul Arieli; Brig Gen (Ret.) Giora Goren; Maj Gen (Ret.) Amos Lapidot; Maj Gen (Ret.) Zeev Livne; Lt Col (Ret.) Yoel Marshak; Mr Reuven Merchav; Brig Gen (Ret.) Ilan Paz; Brig Gen (Ret.) Giora Forman-Ram; Adv Talia Sasson; Maj Gen (Ret.) Nathan Sharoni; Dr Nachman Tal; Maj Gen (Ret.) Aviezer Yaari; Brig Gen (Ret.) Gadi Zohar; Mr Yossi Alpher; Mr Avner Azulai; Brig Gen (Ret.) Shlomo Brom; Col (Ret.) Yuval Dvir; Brig Gen (Ret.) Yaakov Even; Brig Gen (Ret.) Yehuda Golan; Brig Gen (Ret.) Michael Navon; Prof Yehiam Prior; Brig Gen (Ret.) Zvi Shor – for short biographies see http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp.
[23] Council for Peace and Security, About Us, http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp.
[24] Council for Peace and Security ‘Necessary Security Measures in Judea and Samaria - The Council's Position - LETTER FROM THE COUNCIL FOR PEACE AND SECURITY TO: The Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ehud Barak, The Foreign Minister, Ms. Tzipy Livni’, Council Flashes 28/04/2008 http://www.peace-security-council.org/flashes.asp?id=726.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Council for Peace and Security, About Us, http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Michael Ben-Yair ‘The War’s Seventh Day’ Haaretz, 03/03/2002, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=136433.
[29] Ami Ayalon ‘Israel warned against emerging apartheid’ Daily Dispatch December 5, 2000 http://www.dispatch.co.za/2000/12/05/foreign/IISRAEL.HTM
[30] Shulamit Aloni ‘Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel’ Counterpunch January 8, 2007 http://counterpunch.com/aloni01082007.html.
[31] Yossi Sarid ‘Yes, It is Apartheid’ Haaretz 25/04/2008 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977947.html.
[32] Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben Gurion University of the Desert (2005) Neither two states nor one: The Disengagement and "creeping apartheid" in Israel/Palestine in The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe 8(3): 125-129 http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/forum2005/AWG83Yiftachel.pdf.
[33] Meron Benvenisti ‘Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel’ The Guardian, April 26, 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/26/comment.
[34] Yaakov Lappin ‘Zionist Federation cancels Haaretz journalist: Danny Rubinstein reportedly likens Israel to apartheid South Africa’ Ynetnews.com 31/8/07 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444320,00.html#n.
[35] Haaretz Editorial 15/4/2008 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html.
[36] ‘Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle’ The Economist August 11, 2005.
[37] Geoffrey Wheatcroft ‘No Fairy Tale:The forgotten history of Zionism’ Times Literary Supplement Feb.22, 2008 pp.3-5,7-8, p.8.
[38] Chris McGreal ‘Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria’ The Guardian 2006-02-07 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel; Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961.
[39] Benjamin Pogrund ‘Catastrophic, but not apartheid’ Haaretz 02/05/2008.
[40] Donald Macintyre ‘“This is like apartheid”: ANC veterans visit West Bank’ The Independent 2008/07/11 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html.
[41] Q&A: 'Israel In a Weak Parallel with Apartheid' Interview with Dennis Davis, High Court Judge in Cape Town http://www.worldpress.org/link.cfm?http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43404.
[42] Donald Macintyre ‘“This is like apartheid”: ANC veterans visit West Bank’ supra.
[43] Farid Esack ‘Seeing through the eyes of the other’ 12 August 2008, available as a reprint from Published in ZAM Africa Magazine, September 2008, 12/3 http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=21&page=1.
[44] Golan-Agnon, Daphna, Next Year in Jerusalem, New York: The New Press, 2002. p. 206.
[45] http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2361.
[46] http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2164.
[47] I can provide the text, slides and video of this upon request. Also see:
http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2340 where TAC called for Hu Jia to be freed.
[48] http://www.tac.org.za/newsletter/2005/ns29_03_2005.htm#jobs.
[49] http://www.tac.org.za/newsletter/2002/ns21_10_2002.txt.
[50] Zackie Achmat ‘First Ashley Kriel Memorial Lecture’ 2004 http://www.ijr.org.za/recon-recon/memoryhealing/ashley-kriel-memorial-lecture-by-zackie-achmat-final-version.doc/view.
[51] http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00541.html.
Dear Jonathan,
I hope this finds you well. Here then is my response to your second letter.
Let me say at the outset that if this debate is to continue in the meaningful way it began, it cannot be considered acceptable to make cynical attacks on my ‘intellectual integrity’. Suggesting that I ‘have a predisposition to make [my] judgment and deliver sentence long before the court has convened’ is not a good way to open a letter to someone who continues to treat you with courtesy. For me the court convened years ago and I continue to sit transfixed and listen to the arguments. At a certain point it became clear to me that conviction and action required me to participate in that discussion. On the basis that this correspondence intends to make a genuine contribution to that process I am obliged to respond.
My first letter made clear my strong attachment to Israel and my uncompromising opposition to attacks against its people. In choosing a theme I neglected to respond to all the points you raised – it would be a mistake to see that decision as me conceding the issues I didn’t deal with. To make this clear, I will begin here by dealing with some of the issues I have neglected to fully respond to thus far.
YOUR OBJECTIONS TO ASPECTS OF THE DELEGATION
The Gordimer letter, not related to the delegation, rejects the “violence manifesting itself on both sides” and counts the loss of life on both sides. It is not a call for general boycott, a position I have not taken. It addresses itself to Nadine Gordimer, awarded the Nobel Prize for her humane writing, someone who not long ago publicly called on Susan Sontag to boycott Israel, and asks her why she is supporting a festival at which not one Palestinian was invited to speak. The letter says that writers like her should travel to Israel to engage with people but not miss the opportunity to address crucial issues. It implicitly accepts her visit and urges her to take the chance to engage with activists – she called to thank a signatory to a similar letter and through him did arrange additional meetings.
You consider the picture on the website – at www.humanrightsdelegation.org – to be ‘inflammatory’. I don’t. You previously compared the image to that of a ‘Nazi’, a statement which is definitely inflammatory. That soldier is standing with his hands in his pockets. He is looking down unthreateningly and curiously at the children, who are amusing themselves and smiling. The picture shows the way that the Occupation is interwoven into life. Let us pause for a minute and consider that soldiers dressed like that are probably the only Israelis those children have ever seen. The picture is poignant and relevant.
You accuse the delegation’s itinerary of lacking neutrality. I think that this attack falls short for a number of reasons. Firstly, the itinerary contained a lot of input from the official Israeli perspective. Do your complaints take account of our discussions with the Chief Justice of Israel, the former Deputy Attorney General, and the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem? We didn’t meet equivalent people on the Palestinian side. I can’t think of a better person than the Chief Justice to present Israel’s case to a group of South Africans, many of whom were lawyers. Are you ignoring the meeting with families whose children were killed in bombings and shootings? Whilst we tried as much as possible to meet with and hear from Palestinians, the reality is that the tour was organised and hosted by Israeli organisations and their representatives, with whom we spent the majority of our time, including major mainstream left-wing groups like Peace Now, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Yesh Din.
We’ve also been wrongly accused of not providing a context. How does this square with the lectures we heard by Hillel Cohen and Amos Goldberg of Hebrew University and Ben Gurion University of the Negev respectively, and the lengthy tour through Yad Vashem? Again, we were not lectured by Palestinian academics and did not visit a Palestinian museum.
Surely all those who automatically defend Israel’s every action also need context - need to know of the dispossession, the inability to move, the unemployment, the hunger, the forced entry into homes, the indignity at the hands of settlers and the IDF, that Palestinians suffer daily?
In the case of Sderot, we felt that a visit there would have required us to deal properly with the political and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, something that we did not touch on at all. I do understand that this omission has been hard to accept for Israelis, and perhaps we didn’t anticipate that in advance, but we felt at the time that meeting with victims of terrorism, perpetrated by Palestinians from the West Bank, was an appropriate way to give that perspective given that we focused on the West Bank and Jerusalem. It was indeed a powerful meeting. This is why Geoff Budlender, for example, has written publicly about the “very deep impact” and “terrible suffering” caused by suicide bombings.[1]
Why do critics of the delegation continually try to find little holes and omissions, whilst ignoring the substance of our criticism? Can the arguments not be dealt with – and here I must concede that you have often been an exception – on their merits? Would recognising that our eyes are open to Israeli suffering and Palestinian crimes make our condemnation of the occupation irresistible?
RETURNING TO THE SECOND INTIFADA
Let me now turn to dealing with your response in regard to the events on the Second Intifada in the wake of Camp David. In doing so I will from time to time need to comment on your use of sources.
You have quoted from the Mitchell Report, a report put together by a fairly impressive group of internationally known figures: George J. Mitchell, Chairman (Former member and Majority Leader of the US Senate), Suleyman Demirel (9th President of the Republic of Turkey), Thorbjoern Jagland (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway), Warren B. Rudman (Former Member of the US Senate), and Javier Solana (High European Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, EU).
The Report goes a long way towards falsifying your version of the outbreak of that intifada. Whilst it does not explicitly endorse the view that Professor Bar-Tal has advanced (which I summarised in my previous response) that the majority of the responsibility can be attributed to Israel, it clearly demonstrates that it is problematic to suggest that this was a premeditated and orchestrated armed Palestinian effort, directed by Arafat, in which the preponderance of violence was inflicted upon Israelis, and whose aim it was to destroy the diplomatic process.
You quoted from the Mitchell Report that the Israeli Government claimed there were 9000 attacks against Israel. That is of course a claim, made by one side, and serious scholarship must of course not invoke, as facts, claims by either side to a conflict. In any case, by the Israeli Government’s own admission, according to the Mitchell Report, ‘for the first three months of the current uprising, most incidents did not involve Palestinian use of firearms and explosives.’[2]
The Report then goes on to say:
‘Altogether, nearly 500 people were killed and over 10,000 injured over the past seven months; the overwhelming majority in both categories were Palestinian. Many of these deaths were avoidable, as were many Israeli deaths. Israel's characterization of the conflict, as noted above, is overly broad, for it does not adequately describe the variety of incidents reported since late September 2000. Moreover, by thus defining the conflict, the IDF has suspended its policy of mandating investigations by the Department of Military Police Investigations whenever a Palestinian in the territories dies at the hands of an IDF soldier in an incident not involving terrorism. In the words of the GOI, "Where Israel considers that there is reason to investigate particular incidents, it does so, although, given the circumstances of armed conflict, it does not do so routinely."’[3]
The Mitchell Report also gives support to what I have said about the inability of people like us – liberal people who grew up believing in the brotherhood of man – to see the suffering and hardship of Palestinian life. Before making that point, the Report begins in the following measured terms:
‘Despite their long history and close proximity, some Israelis and Palestinians seem not to fully appreciate each other's problems and concerns… Some Palestinians appear not to comprehend the extent to which terrorism creates fear among the Israeli people and undermines their belief in the possibility of co-existence...’[4]
That, I am sure, we would both agree with, but the Report also says:
‘Some Israelis appear not to comprehend the humiliation and frustration that Palestinians must endure every day as a result of living with the continuing effects of occupation, sustained by the presence of Israeli military forces and settlements in their midst, or the determination of the Palestinians to achieve independence and genuine self-determination.’[5]
You may consider that the delegation falls into the former category of not appreciating Israeli fears, but as I showed in my previous response, it does not. However, what most critics of the delegation have demonstrated through their own writing is that they fall into the latter category. In your first letter to me you accepted that the Palestinian experience is marked by a “lack of freedom of movement”, “suffering and humiliation”, “indignities” and “unemployment”.[6] But this empathy is nowhere in your second letter.
You fill a page with the record of Palestinian attacks against Israelis, in order to prove that in his recounting of bombings, Professor Bar-Tal omitted to mention the eight Israelis killed by the terrorist bus driver. Nobody can deny that this catalogue of crimes makes for depressing and painful reading, but you say not a single word about violence and death suffered by Palestinians.
You also use this list to claim that ‘we clearly see a completely different picture, depending on the time frames’. Besides missing the point, the statement is also false. It misses the point, because I was engaging you on the origins of the Second Intifada, and thus focused logically on a certain timeframe. And it is false because even if we take the entire period between 2000 and the present, notwithstanding the litany of horrific suicide bombings, there are four times more Palestinian deaths. From 29 Sept 2000 until 31 August 2008 there were 4880 Palestinians killed by Israelis and 1061 Israelis killed by Palestinians.[7] Of those killed there were 949 Palestinians children and 123 Israeli children. Clearly, whilst the picture on both sides is horrific, and the loss of any one life is incalculable, it remains far safer to be an Israeli than a Palestinian.
I share your outrage at the lynching in Ramallah on Oct 12, 2000 and at the record of suicide bombings. You are right that the particularly brutal nature of these events created wounds, perhaps still open, not even yet scars. Your conclusions, however, do not follow. We cannot conclude from this, as you say many have, that ‘Palestinians actually would like to see the murder and destruction of all Jewish Israelis if ever given the chance’. There are those Palestinians, but they are in the minority and there is a duty on responsible commentators to recognise that.
It also does not follow, as you claim, that ‘our partner in peace wishes neither a 2 state solution nor peaceful coexistence’. In a research survey done in March 2008, 66% of Palestinians supported and 32% opposed the Saudi initiative which calls for Arab recognition of and normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for ending the Occupation and recognising the establishment of a Palestinian state.[8] In the same survey, 55% supported mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people as part of a permanent status agreement.[9] Specifically in regard to the model for a ‘solution’ which you raised, 58% of Palestinians prefer the two-state solution and 27% prefer the one-state solution.[10]
Despite the hardships of the last eight years – which have seen a decline in Palestinian belief in peace and coexistence, just as on the Israeli side – the above results show that the majority of Palestinians still want to live in peace with Israel. These numbers were better before the Intifada, when almost three quarters (73%) would support reconciliation between the two peoples after reaching a peace agreement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state recognised by Israel.[11]
Depressingly, support for terrorism is high. Findings show a significant increase in the level of support for armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel with 67% supportive and 31% opposed. Average support for such attacks on Israeli civilians stood at 40% in 2005.[12] This survey also reveals that Palestinians regard incursions by the IDF in the same way Israelis regard violent Palestinian attacks – as terrorism – and of course support for such operations is very high in Israeli society. The harshness of the occupation, the building of the separation barrier, the collapse of economic conditions, and a lack of any political progress and the resulting despair in the peace process feed into this hardening of attitude among Palestinians. As an illustration 68% believe that the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state during the next five years are non-existent or weak.[13]
The fundamental point remains that there is a majority of Palestinians, around 60%, who support the ‘two states for two peoples’ concept. According to the Steinmetz Centre’s Peace Index for March 2008, support for that concept on the Israeli side is 68%.[14]
In regard to your extracts from the speech by Arafat and the interview with Faisal Husseini, you have not provided proper references that one can access. In fact for the Arafat piece you provide no reference, and for the Husseini one you reference an Arabic newspaper which neither you nor I would be able to read. I have tried quite extensively to locate these extracts in standard news sources and cannot find them.[15] Organisations like Camera, Memri, HonestReporting and the like are not reputable sources of information that any serious person would rely upon, particularly not in regard to translations from Arabic. There are plenty of equivalent organizations on the Palestinian side, but one can never rely on such organisations, whether they are pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli or whatever – most often they are worse than the media they purport to monitor.[16] As you have suggested, “behind the walls of quotations and resources are revealed the very biases we aim to avoid.”
Nevertheless, I must assume for the purposes of this discussion that those quotes are bona fide. To read that Arafat or Husseini said some shocking things is not surprising. I have never defended the Palestinian leadership and I think we should all be critical of them, particularly those who returned with Arafat from exile, for their poor leadership, their corruption, their toleration of and involvement in violence, and their reluctance to champion a truly progressive politics. We have not been shy in the public meetings we have held back in South Africa to criticise this Palestinian leadership. One of the delegation, Farid Esack, a professor of religion at Harvard, writing about the trip for the Al Qalam, a Muslim monthly, complained of being subjected on the trip to “the insufferably boring lamentations of some Fatah apparatchiks”.[17]
At the same time let us remember that some Zionist leaders also planned in maximal terms whilst speaking moderately in international forums. Almost all Israel’s current leaders say that Jerusalem is the eternal undivided capital of Israel, even though this is a non-starter for serious negotiations. But let us take Ben Gurion as our example. This extract dealing with Ben Gurion’s leadership is from former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami – someone you cited in your recent letter:
“Israel would always reject the admittedly ambiguous peace overtures of the PLO on the ground that they were part of a ‘strategy of phases’, the final objective of which was to take over the whole of Palestine and eventually do away with the State of Israel altogether. But the copyright for the strategy of phases might lie elsewhere: it was conceived by the leaders of the Yishuv in the mid 1930s, it was inherent in the notion they had of the real meaning of partition, as the first stage to wider territorial accomplishments. By endorsing partition as it was proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, Ben-Gurion did not necessarily mean to relinquish Zionist claim for the entire Eretz-Israel.”[18]
Partition, or peace, was, as Ben Gurion put it, “a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation.”[19] It was on this basis that he agreed to successive partition plans. As he wrote to his son Amos in 1937, “The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.”[20]
Ariel Sharon too understood well how to dress territorial ambitions in the clothes of political moderation. In October 2005 Dov Weisglass gave a startlingly frank interview to Ari Shavit of Haaretz in which he admitted that the disengagement from Gaza was aimed at deepening the Occupation in the West Bank. Weisglass was Ariel Sharon’s long-time friend and lawyer, and for the 30 months leading up to the disengagement served as his bureau chief and senior adviser.
“The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”
“The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation.”
Shavit reminded him that the disengagement plan included a few small settlements in the West Bank, to which Weisglass responded:
“The withdrawal in Samaria is a token one. We agreed to [it] only so it wouldn't be said that we concluded our obligation in Gaza.”
“[I]n regard to the large settlement blocs, thanks to the disengagement plan, we have in our hands a first-ever American statement that they will be part of Israel.”
Shavit suggested that given what Weisglass was saying the settlers should have been the number one supporters of the disengagement. Weisglass agreed:
“They should have danced around and around the Prime Minister's Office.”
“The political process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The political process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.”
Shavit said that this sounded like the maneuver of the century. Weisglass didn’t enjoy the word, but he did like the compliment:
“When you say ‘maneuver,’ it doesn't sound nice. It sounds like you said one thing and something else came out. But that's the whole point.”[21]
Therefore, in sharing your disgust at what Palestinian leaders have said, and particularly at the warlike phrasing, I am conscious that the language of maximalist territorial ambition is a bi-national talent and curse.
The Barghouti quote is even less interesting; that a politician like him would want to take credit for the Intifada is not surprising. It is silly to discuss the Intifada as either spontaneous combustion or planned arson. Sure, Palestinians have leaders and they played a role in shaping it. But the fundamental point is that because of worsening conditions on the ground it was always likely that there would be an eruption of popular feeling.
AGAIN: IS SECURITY THE DRIVER OF THE OCCUPATION?
You spend considerable time arguing that the continuation of the occupation is driven by security concerns and suggest that were I to pay attention to these I might understand this better.
Let me rely then on a body of people with considerable military experience: The Council for Peace and Security. This is a non-political group of people which was formed in 1988, bringing together some thousand members, each with a rich background in fields associated with security and diplomacy. Members include former high-ranking officers of the IDF, former holders of equivalent positions in the Mossad and Shin Beth Security Services, the Israel Police, retired diplomats, directors of Government Ministries and academics from various fields. It considers the support of the Middle East Peace Process to be a necessary component of National Security.[22]
The Council states: “Continued occupation of the Territories and control over the Palestinians is damaging the democratic character of the State of Israel. It is weakening the army, undermining its ability and its preparedness to respond to military threats.”[23]
You quoted me correctly as having previously written to you to say that rather than protecting Israel the restrictions on Palestinian movement, and complete freedom of movement for settlers, “possibly endangers Israel, and benefits settlers.” Here is what the Council for Peace and Security says:
“Barriers and blocks on internal roads in Judea and Samaria are one element of the means taken for day to day security. However, these barriers have serious negative effects. They humiliate the Palestinians and motivate a desire for revenge, interfere with the ability to rebuild the Palestinian economy and are a cause of loss of hope. They also adversely affect Israel’s international image and cast doubt upon the professionalism, social skills and morale of Israeli troops. When all elements of the equation are considered, the barriers have a negative and even dangerous effect upon Israel’s security.”[24]
You say the system is critical to “security and saving lives”. These 1000 Israelis with considerable military and intelligence experience say otherwise. They recommend the “removal of barriers and blocks throughout the West Bank” and state that the “security risks of the above steps are minimal, having regard for Israel’s other operational capabilities.”[25]
You say ending the Occupation will lead to the creation of “yet another jihadist hate-state”. The Council for Peace and Security say: “A Palestinian State is not a threat”.[26]
Their letter ends with a stern warning:
“Israel is the strongest party in the dispute and should therefore take the first step, without demanding the prior condition of “Palestinian war on terror”. Waiting for a “more suitable” reality will put Israel in a far more difficult position, in which the “two states for two nations” solution will no longer be feasible.”[27]
Your defense of the Separation Barrier amounts to producing a list of seven instances where planned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians were thwarted. In most of these cases, particularly in places like Nablus, the Separation Barrier does not seem to have played a role. But I accept that the Separation Barrier makes Israelis feel safer and has helped to stop certain attacks. However, there remain three serious problems with your defense of the Barrier: Firstly, you do not address the issue of the route; Secondly, you do not address the issue of proportionality – the increase in Israeli security has to be balanced with the destruction of Palestinian communities; and Thirdly, you ignore other possible causes for the drop in suicide bombings – this might not be entirely explained by the Barrier.
You accept that “the settlers do benefit from this newfound freedom and freedom and exploit it to the full” and that this has “undermined deeply the credibility of successive Israeli governments”. You claim that since the 2005 Gaza pullout the settlements no longer drive policy. You seem to accept that this was a driver of policy before the disengagement. As the Weisglass interview shows, post Gaza pullout the needs of the West Bank settlers drive policy as much as ever.
Ultimately, no amount of mental acrobatics can escape the fundamental point: Were there no settlements today on the West Bank, there would be no Occupation. Israel would find other, better, less expensive, less oppressive ways of maintaining its security. The settlements drive the occupation.
TERMINOLOGY: WHO SAYS ISRAEL LOOKS A LITTLE LIKE APARTHEID?
You say: “Terms such as “Apartheid”, “Ethnic Cleansing”, “Nazi”, “Holocaust” are used without discretion.” You claim that “one of the outcomes of the human rights delegation has been the irresponsible application of this kind of terminology by journalists, commentators and leaders…” In fact, and I may be mistaken, but I have seen no use, irresponsible or otherwise, of the terms “Nazi” and “Ethnic Cleansing”, except for your strange interpretation of the picture of the Israeli soldier and the children as being Nazi-like. The Holocaust has been present in the normal, necessary sense as a fundamental event in the background.
When people lump all these terms together, as you have done, with little regard to whether they have in fact been used or not, they are attempting to do two things. Firstly, they want to paint us as glib purveyors of cheap slogans, and thus not careful and serious people. Secondly they want to create the impression that all of the above terms of equally ridiculous, specifically because there is intense worry over the use of one term: “Apartheid”. This term has in fact been discussed quite frequently in the context of the delegation and I will therefore deal with it at length.
As I will make clear later, I don’t find the Israel-Apartheid analogy to be particularly appealing. That is why, although I have referenced it, I have never personally invoked it. But first, I want to dispel the impression that Mondli Makhanya and Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge were the first respectable people to ever make this comparison. They are not quite the chalutzim you might see them as.
There is a significant record of noteworthy Israelis making this comparison. Michael Ben-Yair, attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996 referred to Israel establishing, "an apartheid regime in the occupied territories", in an essay published in Haaretz.[28] Ami Ayalon, Israeli admiral and former leader of the Shin Bet, in discussing the Separation Plan, said “Israel must decide quickly what sort of environment it wants to live in because the current model, which has some apartheid characteristics, is not compatible with Jewish principles.”[29] Shulamit Aloni, former education minister, Israel Prize winner, and a former leader of Meretz, said that the state of Israel is “practicing its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.”[30] Former Knesset member Yossi Sarid explicitly compared an array of Israeli practices to apartheid in a Haaretz column entitles "Yes, It's apartheid" on April 25, 2008.[31]
An academic paper by Professor Oren Yiftachel, Chair of the Geography Department at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, predicted that Israel's unilateral disengagement plan will result in “creeping apartheid” in the West Bank, Gaza, and in Israel itself.[32] Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli political scientist and the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, predicted that the interim disengagement plan would become permanent, with the West Bank barrier entrenching both the isolation of Palestinian communities and the existence of Israeli settlements. He warned that Israel is moving towards the model of apartheid South Africa through the creation of "Bantustan" like conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[33] Danny Rubinstein, a columnist at Haaretz also reportedly likened Israel to apartheid during a United Nations conference at the European Parliament in Brussels, stating: “Israel today is an apartheid State with four different Palestinian groups: those in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israeli Palestinians, each of which had a different status.”[34]
Most significantly perhaps was a Haaretz editorial, in the context of the visit by former US President Jimmy Carter earlier this year, in which the Apartheid analogy was made directly:
“Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel’s control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years.”[35]
Not only Jewish Israelis have used the Apartheid comparison. The Economist, in an article on the debate over withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, asserted that “Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority.”[36] British journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft noted that, historically, Israeli officials had mulled the possibility of adopting the South African apartheid model as one that the state of Israel itself might emulate. In the late 1970s “(t)hey didn't wish to copy what was once called 'petty apartheid', the everyday harassment of black South Africans, but 'grand apartheid', the Nationalists' attempt to conjure away the problem of minority rule by dividing the country into supposedly autonomous cantons or 'homelands'.”[37] Perhaps most gruesome – or amusing, because he meant it as a compliment – is the direct comparison by a relative expert in Apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, who in 1961 said: “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”[38]
To be sure, serious people have made rebuttals of the analogy. You cite Benjamin Pogrund, a former member of Habonim and Deputy Editor of the Rand Daily Mail, now living in Israel and involved with Yakar. Whilst the thrust of Pogrund’s Haaretz piece was to rebut the Israel-Apartheid analogy he did not attempt to defend the Occupation. The title gives some indication of this: “Catastrophic, but not apartheid”. In fact, he conceded that “there is no question that our occupation policies and practices can be compared with apartheid.”[39]
To come back to the present: Despite the long list of precedents, the delegation made little use of the Apartheid analogy. For every case of the analogy being used by one of the delegation, there is an instance of it being questioned by another. The delegation's final formal statement made no mention of comparisons with apartheid and Dennis Davis, a member of the delegation, said he thought the use of the term in the Middle East context was “very unhelpful”[40] and that said despite “stark parallels” to apartheid, “it's incredibly unhelpful to say you can simply take this to be apartheid and therefore the South African struggle is the same and the South African solution is the same. That's a very lazy form of reasoning.”[41] Fatima Hassan, another member of the delegation, said she thought the comparison was a “red herring”.[42] Farid Esack has written that, after the trip, he “could not avoid the conclusion that the simple Zionism=Apartheid equation is also a simplistic one.” [43]
I agree with Davis that the apartheid analogy can be unhelpful. Daphna Golan-Agnon, co-founder of B’Tselem, has grappled with when this analogy helps or hinders the search for peace and justice:
“I'm not sure if the use of the term apartheid helps us to understand the discrimination against Palestinians in Israel or the oppression against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I'm not sure the discussion about how we are like or unlike South Africa helps move us forward to a solution. But the comparison reminds us that hundreds of laws do not make discrimination just and that the international community, the same international community we want to belong to, did not permit the perpetuation of apartheid. And it doesn't matter how we explain it and how many articles are written by Israeli scholars and lawyers -- there are two groups living in this small piece of land, and one enjoys rights and liberty while the other does not.”[44]
I prefer to treat the Occupation fairly and on its own terms. I have always felt uncomfortable with those who that take a term which emerged for the 1948 South African elections, in a specific historical context, and act as if it can adequately describe what is happening in 2008 in Israel/Palestine. I also know that often the outcomes of such comparisons are discussions like these, which turn on terminology rather than on the actual situation which needs to be addressed. I prefer to describe the actual situation as I did in my previous letter to you. I also believe that the Occupation is serious enough not to need any additional dramatisation.
VIGILANT EVERYWHERE: WHO REALLY HAS DOUBLE STANDARDS?
You advise as follows: We ‘must stay vigilant – on our own soil’. Well, the world, as you say, is full of ironies. The members of the delegation do little other than defend and protect human rights on their own soil. A five day trip to Israel and the West Bank is a brief interlude in lives that are defined by their struggles, before and after Apartheid, for social justice and peace in South Africa. The members of the delegation were selected precisely for their vigilance on their own soil, and particularly in recent years. Those who attack the delegation have no such record of personal commitment for human rights on their own soil. I do take you seriously when you offer to ‘track and follow every infraction of human rights and to act to remedy each one’ and I would welcome an update on this front. The concept of a human right, as you know, is one not distinguished by nationality or religion.
You also ask me whether as a South African I would welcome a human rights mission that drew harsh conclusions in regard to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa, even one that said it was ‘worse than Apartheid’. For the past eight years South Africans have been engaged in a struggle to save lives in the struggle against AIDS. It has been devastating but also inspiring: whilst hundreds of thousands have died, activism has cut medicine prices to a fraction and resulted in a national roll-out of AIDS medicines. Basic strategies in this struggle have included the use of moral pressure on government and drug companies and international solidarity. Not only have we welcomed the citizens of the world demonstrating outside South African embassies worldwide, but we have helped to organise those demonstrations. Not only have we tolerated accusations that there is more death and poorer health now than during Apartheid but we have been the ones making those accusations. Not only have we accepted editorials in foreign newspapers about the failure of our government’s approach to AIDS, we have instigated them. The list of examples of how the politics of morality and shame and have been fearlessly and successfully employment by AIDS activists is long and impressive. Would we oppose a delegation of internationally respected doctors coming to South Africa and condemning that which deserves to be condemned? No, we would welcome them. Simply put, people’s lives are more important than the need of middle-class people to feel comfortable and proud of their country. Ultimately anyway, it is the spirit of this activism, despite the embarrassment it may bring to the government, that makes me proud to be South African.
You accuse us of hypocrisy, although I have shown you we are consistent. In truth, there is hypocrisy in what you are asking for. On the one hand you want everyone in the world to stay vigilant on their own soil, and on the other you bemoan the world’s silence “in the face of one the most horrendous violations of human rights in Darfur” and “as Mugabe drains the life out of his own country”. Which is it? Should we protest human rights violations around the world or stick to our own? Or do you not mind people raising objections to what happens around the world as long as they ignore Israel? Is it your view that unless Israel is worse than Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan it is not deserving of public criticism?
To this some might respond that Israel is always singled out, and that if everyone was criticised fairly that would be fine. I want to use the example of only two members of the delegation to illustrate that Israel is not so special as we might think, and that many other places come in for sustained criticism. I will use as my examples Nathan Geffen and Zackie Achmat, two of the members of the delegation, both of whom have a long history in TAC, the main vehicle of AIDS activism. Achmat was its founding Chairperson and Geffen was its first National Manager, later Director of Policy, and now Treasurer.
For years, TAC has criticised the Mugabe government. TAC has organised several solidarity events with people campaigning for democracy in Zimbabwe, the most recent being a demonstration in Gauteng in July, but also in CT in April. Achmat organized a Social Justice Coalition's rally for Zimbabwe on 25 June 2008.[45] Achmat and Geffen have given several radio interviews and published articles condemning Mugabe.[46] Achmat, Geffen and TAC's main international solidarity work deals with Zimbabwe and one could provide endless examples of this.
Soon after the delegation Geffen flew to Mexico for the International AIDS Conference where he spoke in the main plenary, to several thousand people about China's arrest of AIDS activist Hu Jia.[47] This was on the day the Beijing Olympics opened. TAC has also protested China’s oppressive labour practices.[48] Again, I could provide further examples.
TAC has issued a statement condemning arrests of AIDS activists in Ghana[49] and called on people around the world to bombard the Ghanaian consulate with faxes. Similar action has been taken against Iran, and Geffen also issues a report against Iranian treatment of dissidents at the above-mentioned conference. Achmat has been a life-long critic of the Iranian revolution and theocracy. It's one of the reasons he is poorly treated by the Muslim community. On 16 April 2003, TAC issued a statement calling for a democratic Swaziland. They have also supported actions of the Swaziland democracy movement.
Achmat and Geffen have both been outspoken in regard to Darfur. In his 2004 Ashley Kriel Memorial Lecture, one of the most important annual lectures in the country, Achmat said: "Darfur will be a test for our government but more importantly a test for civil society. We failed this test to ensure democracy in Zimbabwe. We cannot fail the people of Darfur and Sudan."[50] Geffen organized a large TAC group to go to the Holocaust Centre to learn about the Darfur Conflict.
Looking through the TAC materials and publications one easily finds Achmat and Geffen criticizing human rights abuses by the US, Uganda, Namibia and Saudi Arabia. Geffen was also involved in a group that worked to reduce human rights abuses in Iraq during the period of Saddam Hussein.[51] If you would like a similar record for other members of the delegation I am sure it could be provided.
And so the position is clear: As is stated in the delegation’s Mission Statement:
“We believe that human rights are interconnected and indivisible. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We know that global stability is important for all of our prosperity. Similarly, we are committed to upholding international law and human rights.”
The criticism Israel has received from the delegation is not derived from malice, a strange fixation, an ignorance of suffering around the world, or an avoidance of domestic concerns. It is because such criticism is deserved.
MINDSETS AND POLITICS
You correctly say that mindsets have to change. A lot of what I saw in the West Bank with the delegation made clear how much Palestinian mindsets do need to change. As members of the delegation have written, the culture of martyrdom we saw in Nablus was deeply disturbing. But I would like to challenge you, a modern, progressive person, with privileges and education that few on the West Bank enjoy, to consider your own mindset. Your basic attitude to Palestinians is mistrust, and your conception of them is as a threat. That kind of thinking cannot survive genuine people-to-people encounters where individuals get to see each other’s lives and understand each other’s dreams. In this regard South Africa is an example of both what can be achieved, and the dangers of not doing it. Many people have crossed previously unbridgeable divides. Those who did it 30 years ago were considered dangerous radicals. Today most white South Africans have still never been into a township, do not know a poor black person other than their domestic worker, and still, sitting in their comfortable, well-protected homes, regard the black masses as a threat, rather than as a suffering people needing support. The challenge to all of us – not only the Palestinians – is to take active steps, today, to break down those mental and physical walls.
People living in desperate conditions need a viable peaceful political course of action, otherwise they will turn to violence. That decision to turn to violence is never justified, but there is a certain inevitability to it. I would prefer to give the Palestinians hope. People with hope are far less likely to engage in violence. Hope comes in many small ways: the “dialogue on both sides” that you propose, the “removal of the daily hardships Palestinians undergo” that you recommend, the presence of Israelis working with Palestinians against the effects of the Occupation, a clear political horizon that arcs towards freedom of movement and away from ongoing settlement expansion, moderate leadership which can find a foothold in its society by pointing to moderate leadership on the other side, and yes, international solidarity from groups like the delegation, who, while being implacably opposed to calls for the destruction of Israel, support an end to the Occupation. There are only two alternatives to this kind of politics. The one is a very violent uprising. The other is extreme repression needed to contain such violence. Both seem unacceptable to me, and yet they are given if things continue down the present course.
This correspondence has given me the opportunity to clarify and think through some of my own difficulties and I want to thank you for that.
Regards,
Doron
[1] Moira Schneider interview with Geoff Budlender ‘Israeli visit “depressing and inspiring” SA Jewish Report 7/17/2008.
[2] Government of Israel, First Statement, Mitchell Report, April 30, 2001.
[3] The Mitchell Report April 30, 2001, available at http://www.mideastweb.org/mitchell_report.htm; See also, Alex Fishman, "The Intifada, the IDF and Investigations," Yediot Aharonot (in English, Richard Bell Press, 1996, Ltd.), January 19, 2001.
[4] Mitchell Report supra.
[5] Mitchell Report supra.
[6] Jonathan Zausmer ‘An open letter to Doron Isaacs in response to the South Africa Human Rights Delegation’s visit to Israel and the occupied territories’ 23 July 2008 available at http://themovingdebate.blogspot.com/2008/08/human-rights-delegation.html.
[7] Of the Palestinians killed, 4823 (4754 in the OPT and 69 in Israel) were killed by Israeli security forces and 57 (54 in the OPT and 3 in Israel) were killed by Israeli civilians. Of the Israelis killed, 726 were civilians (236 in OPT and 490 in Israel) and 335 were security personnel (245 in OPT and 90 in Israel). See B’Tselem Statistics at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp; See also UN Office For Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Report Centre at http://www.ochaopt.org/?module=displaysection§ion_id=97&static=0&format=html.
[8] PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 27, 13-15 March 2008, available at http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p27e1.html#peace.
[9] Ibid.
[10] PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 28, 5-7 June 2008, available at http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p28e.html#head2.
[11] PSR - Survey Research Unit: Public Opinion Poll # 3, 19-24 December 2001, available at http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2001/p3a.html.
[12] PSR Poll #27 supra.
[13] PSR Poll #27 supra.
[14] Tel Aviv University: Tami Steinmetz Centre for Peace Research PEACE INDEX March 2008, visit http://www.tau.ac.il/peace/.
[15] I have found a South African press briefing which deals with Arafat’s comments in the Johannesburg mosque, although it does not include the more extreme comments you quote. It also explains that the only record is a tape which sounds like Arafat and was handed to the press by members of the South African Jewish community http://70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/1994/news0518.
[16] In fact, in the run up to the delegation the Media Review Network, a local pro-Palestinian media group, sent us 23 copies of Uri Davis’ book Israel: An Apartheid State (1987), which we politely declined to circulate.
[17] Farid Esack ‘Seeing through the eyes of the other’ 12 August 2008, available as a reprint from Published in ZAM Africa Magazine, September 2008, 12/3 http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=21&page=1.
[18] Shlomo Ben-Ami Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy (London: Phoenix, 2005) at 24.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid at 25.
[21] Ari Shavit ‘The Big Freeze’ Haaretz 10/11/2005 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929 (this is the reference for all the above Weisglass quotes).
[22] Management of the Council for Peace and Security: President: Maj Gen (Ret.) Danny Rothschild; Managing Director: Police Maj Gen (Ret.) Shaul Givoli; Treasurer: Brig Gen (Ret.) Yitzchak Elron; Legal Counsel: Col (Ret.) Mati Atzmon; Audit Committee: Col (Ret.) Danny Razgor; Lt Col (Ret.) Oded Eytan; Members: Prison Commissioner (Ret.) Orit Adato; Col (Ret.) Shaul Arieli; Brig Gen (Ret.) Giora Goren; Maj Gen (Ret.) Amos Lapidot; Maj Gen (Ret.) Zeev Livne; Lt Col (Ret.) Yoel Marshak; Mr Reuven Merchav; Brig Gen (Ret.) Ilan Paz; Brig Gen (Ret.) Giora Forman-Ram; Adv Talia Sasson; Maj Gen (Ret.) Nathan Sharoni; Dr Nachman Tal; Maj Gen (Ret.) Aviezer Yaari; Brig Gen (Ret.) Gadi Zohar; Mr Yossi Alpher; Mr Avner Azulai; Brig Gen (Ret.) Shlomo Brom; Col (Ret.) Yuval Dvir; Brig Gen (Ret.) Yaakov Even; Brig Gen (Ret.) Yehuda Golan; Brig Gen (Ret.) Michael Navon; Prof Yehiam Prior; Brig Gen (Ret.) Zvi Shor – for short biographies see http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp.
[23] Council for Peace and Security, About Us, http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp.
[24] Council for Peace and Security ‘Necessary Security Measures in Judea and Samaria - The Council's Position - LETTER FROM THE COUNCIL FOR PEACE AND SECURITY TO: The Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ehud Barak, The Foreign Minister, Ms. Tzipy Livni’, Council Flashes 28/04/2008 http://www.peace-security-council.org/flashes.asp?id=726.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Council for Peace and Security, About Us, http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Michael Ben-Yair ‘The War’s Seventh Day’ Haaretz, 03/03/2002, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=136433.
[29] Ami Ayalon ‘Israel warned against emerging apartheid’ Daily Dispatch December 5, 2000 http://www.dispatch.co.za/2000/12/05/foreign/IISRAEL.HTM
[30] Shulamit Aloni ‘Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel’ Counterpunch January 8, 2007 http://counterpunch.com/aloni01082007.html.
[31] Yossi Sarid ‘Yes, It is Apartheid’ Haaretz 25/04/2008 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977947.html.
[32] Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben Gurion University of the Desert (2005) Neither two states nor one: The Disengagement and "creeping apartheid" in Israel/Palestine in The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe 8(3): 125-129 http://users.fmg.uva.nl/vmamadouh/awg/forum2005/AWG83Yiftachel.pdf.
[33] Meron Benvenisti ‘Bantustan plan for an apartheid Israel’ The Guardian, April 26, 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/26/comment.
[34] Yaakov Lappin ‘Zionist Federation cancels Haaretz journalist: Danny Rubinstein reportedly likens Israel to apartheid South Africa’ Ynetnews.com 31/8/07 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444320,00.html#n.
[35] Haaretz Editorial 15/4/2008 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html.
[36] ‘Israel's settlers: Waiting for a miracle’ The Economist August 11, 2005.
[37] Geoffrey Wheatcroft ‘No Fairy Tale:The forgotten history of Zionism’ Times Literary Supplement Feb.22, 2008 pp.3-5,7-8, p.8.
[38] Chris McGreal ‘Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria’ The Guardian 2006-02-07 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel; Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961.
[39] Benjamin Pogrund ‘Catastrophic, but not apartheid’ Haaretz 02/05/2008.
[40] Donald Macintyre ‘“This is like apartheid”: ANC veterans visit West Bank’ The Independent 2008/07/11 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html.
[41] Q&A: 'Israel In a Weak Parallel with Apartheid' Interview with Dennis Davis, High Court Judge in Cape Town http://www.worldpress.org/link.cfm?http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43404.
[42] Donald Macintyre ‘“This is like apartheid”: ANC veterans visit West Bank’ supra.
[43] Farid Esack ‘Seeing through the eyes of the other’ 12 August 2008, available as a reprint from Published in ZAM Africa Magazine, September 2008, 12/3 http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=21&page=1.
[44] Golan-Agnon, Daphna, Next Year in Jerusalem, New York: The New Press, 2002. p. 206.
[45] http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2361.
[46] http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2164.
[47] I can provide the text, slides and video of this upon request. Also see:
http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2340 where TAC called for Hu Jia to be freed.
[48] http://www.tac.org.za/newsletter/2005/ns29_03_2005.htm#jobs.
[49] http://www.tac.org.za/newsletter/2002/ns21_10_2002.txt.
[50] Zackie Achmat ‘First Ashley Kriel Memorial Lecture’ 2004 http://www.ijr.org.za/recon-recon/memoryhealing/ashley-kriel-memorial-lecture-by-zackie-achmat-final-version.doc/view.
[51] http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00541.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
