Why ‘apartheid’ is not part of the solution

[Little Tich]

By: Melanie Takefman

Source: Times of Israel

Bradley Burston’s post in Haaretz comparing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank to apartheid made waves, and like many others, I noticed. Burston is a writer I follow and appreciate, and I usually agree with his views.

This time, too, I agreed with most of what he wrote with one critical exception: his espousal of the a-word. Burston wrote that we need courageous acts to “defeat the regime of racism and denial of human rights.” That’s true, but using the word apartheid word is not courageous. The word doesn’t apply to Israel, and it obscures the real problems here. Furthermore, accepting this analogy will not change the situation or end the occupation from within, an urgent priority if Israel wants to remain democratic.

As an activist and former spokesperson for one of Israel’s leading human rights organizations, I have encountered the apartheid analogy many times over the past 10 years. Foreign journalists often asked me to comment on this expired South African legal system. But why should I talk about someone else’s problems when I have plenty to say about our own? Since the Second Intifada, Israel’s policy of segregating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank has become entrenched in separate roads, legal systems, and in other avenues of life, strangling Palestinians’ freedoms and their ability to live normative lives. These policies and actions are also killing our democracy. But they don’t make for sexy headlines. It’s easier to borrow a convenient, loaded term — no matter how mismatched it is to the situation — and paste it on to our complicated problems.

Apartheid was a system of racial segregation implemented in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. Israel occupies another people and denies them basic human rights. Thus our situation is vastly different from the South African one. Because the Palestinian Authority never became a full, sovereign state, Palestinians in the West Bank live in purgatory under the administration of a half-baked government; they do not have rights as Israeli citizens, but they are also not citizens of their own state. This is in contrast to Palestinian citizens of Israel who have equal rights to Israeli Jews (in theory, but that’s a different issue). It’s in the West Bank where Israeli residents of settlements and Palestinian non-citizens live by different laws, which are generally beneficial to the former and harmful to the latter. Thus, Israel’s segregation is not by race, but by nationality. Yet, it’s more complicated than that. My point is: Let’s stop the futile comparisons and start focusing on our own problems, not those of others.

Read more: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-apartheid-is-not-part-of-the-solution/

Link to post here on DU with Bradley Burston's article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134110603#post2

Note: I personally don't agree with the author of the article on this issue, but she's involved with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, so...

[oberliner]

1. "I personally don't agree with the author of the article on this issue..."

Which part?

[Little Tich]

2. Simply put, I think apartheid is a very fitting description for what's going on in the West Bank.

It's not just an analogy, it's a general description of a system, and if there never would have been any apartheid in South Africa, it would have been necessary to invent another word for that system.

[shira]

4. Which part of the W.Bank? All or part? Areas A and B are under PA administration

All Palestinians within the W.Bank get to vote their leaders in when the PA allows for it. The PA decides whether to grant its own citizens in areas A & B equal rights, gay & women's rights, freedom of expression, etc... Not that I ever see Israel- apartheid advocates condemning that, despite claiming they promote progressive values. But the point is, this is the situation the world agreed to at Oslo back in the 90's, including the Palestinians.

Do you want to argue the world gave its blessing back in the 90's to an Apartheid situation?

It's also disingenuous to tar & feather Israel with the Apartheid accusation when Israel has offered the Palestinians their own state numerous times. Meaning logically, that the Palestinian leadership obviously prefers the current (Apartheid) situation to having a state of their own.

Obviously, that's absurd so you're wrong about all this.

[Little Tich]

6. All Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are under martial law, and have no democratic

rights whatsoever.

Being allowed limited self-rule by the Head of IDF Central Command, Nitzan alon, still doesn't count as Palestinians actually having democratic rights. This would have been nothing more than your average brutal occupation, but when Israel started transferring its own civilian population into the occupied territories in violation of the Geneva Convention, and these civilians are given all the civil and democratic rights that the local civilian population is denied - Then it's apartheid.

Don't forget that in apartheid South Africa, only whites were South African citizens, the rest were citizens of their respective Homelands.

[shira]

7. Total nonsense & demonstrably so. Provide a source for that argument...

I'll wait, but I predict you have nothing.

Rather than respond with more BS, you should acknowledge this is your own unique viewpoint.

[Little Tich]

8. Wikipedia: Martial Law

Source: Wikipedia

Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is usually imposed temporarily when the government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services).

Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents may occur after a coup d'état (such as Thailand in 2006 and 2014); when threatened by popular protest (China, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); or to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970). Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters; however, most countries use a different legal construct, such as a state of emergency.

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).

(Snip, under heading "Israel&quot

Following the 1967 war, in which the Israeli army captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a military administration over the Palestinian population was put in place.

(end snip)

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Note: I've posted this Wikipedia article before...

[shira]

9. And how does this apply today? It doesn't. Come on now. n/t

[Little Tich]

10. The Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank have remained under martial law since 1967.

What is there to prove?

[shira]

11. Prove that. I'll wait. n/t

[shira]

12. Okay, here are 3 sources that prove you utterly wrong...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012513125011309135.html

Israeli martial law, which governed Palestinian Arabs from the establishment of the state to 1966, was based on British Mandate-era emergency regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

In 1966, martial law was lifted completely, and the government set about dismantling most of the discriminatory laws, while Arab citizens were granted the same rights as Jewish citizens under law.[41]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html

Until 1966, Palestinian citizens were governed under martial law.

[Little Tich]

14. Martial law for Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has been lifted?

When did this happen, and why wasn't I informed?

Oh, wait...

Your sources are detailing the lifting of Martial law for Israeli Arab citizens, and have nothing to do with East Jerusalem or the West Bank.

Try again, try harder, eventually you will get it...

[shira]

15. It doesn't exist. I've asked you for proof many times....

You've offered nothing.

[Little Tich]

16. At first I thought that you merely didn't realize the significance of martial law

for all Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but I've realized that you're actually denying the fact that they're living under martial law at all. To alleviate your state of denial, I have a few paragraphs from a Haaretz article and a few more links to go. These links contain a lot of extras that we may not agree upon, but the only argument that's important is that the Palestinians in the occupied territories are under martial law, and therefore don't have any democratic rights.

Guide for the Perplexed: The EU's New Settlement Guidelines

Source: Haaretz, Jul 20, 2013
(snip)

So what is the problem with Israel's claim to what it calls Judea and Samaria and what most of the world calls the West Bank?

Almost no one accepts Israel's claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the territories gained in 1967 because they did not previously belong to any country or that its citizens can voluntarily choose to move into occupied territory. The International Court of Justice in The Hague also rejected these claims when it ruled on Israel's West Bank separation barrier in 2004. It is clear that because the settlements were established by government edict and with a hefty amount of funds allocated from the state budget, their establishment falls under the definition of a population transfer in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

Israel is trying to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it did not annex the West Bank into its sovereign borders or apply Israeli civil law and administration there. Palestinian residents of the West Bank were not granted Israeli citizenship. Israel enacted military rule in the West Bank and operates by this authority. When, for example, Israel confiscates land for security purposes, it does so under the international laws of occupation (found in the Hague Conventions) that impart specific powers to military commanders in occupied territory. On the other hand, Israel claims that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the West Bank, so the restrictions included in the Geneva Convention do not apply. The result is that Israel sometimes acts in the territories as if they are part of its sovereign territory: establishing Israeli cities, communities and factories and applies Israeli law to Israeli citizens living in this territory. However, Israel simultaneously treats that West Bank as occupied territory, administering it under martial law, with the original inhabitants of the occupied territory, the Palestinians, not given the same status as Israeli citizens. While at the same time Palestinian inhabitants are not given the full rights of residents of an occupied territory, including the prohibitions preventing the occupying power from dispossessing them in favor of its own citizens. The Europeans are not willing to let grants they earmark for Israel to fund this policy.

Why consider the territories occupied, as they weren’t actually taken from any state to which they belonged?

The civilians living in the West Bank can be considered occupied, because they live under military rule imposed by a state of which they are not citizens, and the fact that the West Bank was not a Palestinian state prior to its present status does not change that fact. There is no doubt that the West Bank is located beyond Israel’s recognized borders, and are under military rule, and because of these facts, the civilian population that lives therein can be considered occupied. In many instances throughout the world, territories have been occupied from states that did not rightfully rule them: Morocco occupied the Western Sahara from Spain; Indonesia occupied East Timor after Portugal. This did not make those territories any less “occupied.” In addition, those two nations also unilaterally annexed the territories in question, and this also did not make them any less occupied. East Timor was eventually granted independence, and Western Sahara is considered occupied to this day. The fact that Israel occupied the West Bank from Jordan and Egypt, nations to which it did not belong, does not matter. What matters is that there is a population, living beyond the borders of a state living under military rule, being denied the basic right of self-rule and self-determination.

(end snip)

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.536887


More articles discussing martial law in the West Bank:

Haaretz, Nov 20, 2014: Why Palestinians Should Demand to Be Ruled by Israeli Law
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.627586

B'Tselem, 8 Sep 2011: Military law
http://www.btselem.org/demonstrations/military_law

ACRI: Information Center for Demonstrators in the Occupied Territories
http://www.acri.org.il/en/protestright/

[shira]

17. Looked at your B'tselem link and it states the following...

Although the settlers live in the same geographical area in which martial law is imposed,...

The settlers live only in area C of the W.Bank. Israelis aren't allowed in areas A and B according to Israeli law.

Out of all Palestinians in Gaza, the W.Bank, and E.Jerusalem the Palestinians in area C make up less than 5% of all Palestinians west of the Jordan River. This is a fact easily confirmed.

Let's see if we agree that no more than 5% of Palestinians are under martial law before moving on, okay?

[Little Tich]

18. All Palestinians who live in the occupied territories are subect to martial law.

All Israelis in the occupied territories are subject to civil Israeli administration.

I'm not even sure what your argument is. You are soo refuted...

[shira]

19. You're spewing nonsense. Your own B'tselem link proves you wrong...

But to prove it even more, let's take Gaza for example...

How are Gazans subject to martial law for the last 10 years?

This is where you admit you're wrong...

[shira]

5. Oh by the way, the Palestinian people admire Israel's democracy....

Palestinians also worked in Israel and watched Israeli television. They saw that, for its own citizens, the Israeli system had distinct virtues. This is not easy for even ardent Palestinian democrats to acknowledge.

Yet since 1996, Dr. Shikaki has been polling Palestinians about what governments they admire, and every year Israel has been the top performer, at times receiving more than 80 percent approval. The American system has been the next best, followed by the French and then, distantly trailing, the Jordanian and Egyptian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/middleeast/02LETT.html?pagewanted=1

Hmm....



The "apartheid" government is admired more by Palestinians than any other government system on the planet.

Try explaining that one. I can't wait...

[font color = "red"]#BDS propaganda fail[/font]

Wrap your mind around Black South Africans saying at the height of Apartheid they admire White South Africa's Democracy more than any other system on the planet. That's what's happening here.

Is your mind blown yet?

Of course, I expect you to deny this and argue "revisionist history", "Ernst Zundel", etc... but here's more evidence for it:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/poll-75-of-israeli-arabs-support-jewish-democratic-constitution-1.219373

And more...
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7959.htm

It takes REAL BALLS to admit this in authoritarian societies that are insanely hostile to Israel.

[shira]

13. So how do you explain Palestinians admiring Israel in post #5 above?

Other than denial, please.

[geek tragedy]

3. She seems to be drawing a distinction without

a difference. And the trend lines are all pointing in the wrong direction.

[shira]

20. In the lucky country of Australia apartheid is alive and kicking

The richest land on Earth writes Aboriginal people out of history and pushes them to the margins. Like South Africa 30 years ago

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/australia-apartheid-alive-aboriginal-history

[Little Tich]

21. Actually, living conditions and level of disenfranchisement for Aboriginals are much worse

than mentioned in the article.

I don't think it's apartheid though, but most white australians consider them subhuman, and avoid them whenever possible. An Aboriginal couldn't get a job at McDonalds even if he promised to work for free, and their rich cultural heritage is derided.

Apparently things are improving, but I wouldn't know. All I see is a group of Australians that are easily identified by colour who are born with an unfair disadvantage, and nobody gives a shit.