The latest from Lia Tarachansky:
-
-
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 2
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 2
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 22
- Rafah march for deteriorating hunger strikers as family appeals for … 0
- Rafah’s nicest tunnel: Siege meets surf in Gaza 5
- Iranian talks fail after neocon ‘blitz’ — as Obama dispatches … 27
- Saving Illinois from Senator Kirk 8
- Human rights activists will hardnose the highway from Woodstock to … 0
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 709
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 471
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 418
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 387
- March of the Flags 344
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 322
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- March of the Flags 126
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 116
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 85
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look for war with Iran in 2013 (22)
- Citizen: Kathleen, more like attack Gaza again around that time, then, over New Year’s attack Iran?
- Citizen: Gee, wasn’t China already our de facto real enemy, along with Ali Baba in Afghanland, when the neocons...
- Citizen: Jeff Klein, maybe he conflated “dirty bomb” with clean bomb? I read 20% is enough for a dirty...
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security reasons’ (2)
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (118)
- Hostage: What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”. The...
- lyn117: If the quote from David Ben-Gurion is accurate “the old will die and the young will forget,” it...
- lyn117: “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews” Right, next you’ll be arguing that...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (85)
- seafoid: I think the title should be Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity AFTER Zionism The ideology has nothing...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (2)
- Citizen: Kirk sits at the candy desk in the senate, has supported blocking arab male immigration into the USA, and...
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look for war with Iran in 2013 (22)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
Interesting comments on the parallel systems of criminal law.
I’m curious as to title law.
It was also interesting that even when referring to the West Bank, the human rights attorney (certainly selected for his commitment to justice) described the situation as approaching apartheid, not apartheid, and “containing features of apartheid”.
Important comments.
“It was also interesting that even when referring to the West Bank, the human rights attorney (certainly selected for his commitment to justice) described the situation as approaching apartheid, not apartheid, and “containing features of apartheid”.”
Yes Witty, when something contains features of apartheid and looks like apartheid, then it is apartheid.
How about a characterization as “approaching anti-semitism, not anti-semitism, and “containing features of anti-semitism”? Important comments? Certainly a popular way of talking these days among some people?
Richard,
Interesting indeed. Desmond Tutu says that Palestinians under occupation are much worse off than blacks under South African apartheid. The attorney here reveals a common theme among “liberal zionists” – criticize to a point; but never assign Scary Titles like fascism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing etc. They are close, and maybe getting closer to doing so, but Mr. Sfard ( like many others) makes me think that it will be 10-15 years of full-fledged -no- doubt -about-it apartheid before they are willing to admit to reality.
How about ‘Apartheid in Fluctuating Degrees’?
This acceptable to you, Master Richard Witty, sir?
Honestly dude, you really are a dimwit to think your passive-agressive semantic nit-picking will deflect from the crimes against humanity that israel practices daily on a Palestinian population.
Just give it up, Richie. By now you know all too well that israel’s occupation has turned its very moral core rotten. And even though israel’s war booty and military muscle keep increasing, yet the very fiber of its moral communities are becoming undone stitch-by-stitch.
It’s an ugly sight watching israel die by the proverbial one-thousand-pinpricks, Richard, but you MUST face the facts as they stand TODAY, not yesteryear: israel is a sick and doomed society – no escape from this big picture when israel’s sickness is so well documeted.
You’re more useful to your people, Richard, if you do like what Adam and Phil are doing: Sound off the foghorns, sirens and alarms when the ship is clearly sinking!
Because it gives you wiggle room as you try to sow seeds of ambiguity to strengthen any of your morally untenable positions?
As a lawyer he may take the pure legalistic approach in defining apartheid.
It is interesting how he described the situation as ‘containing features of apartheid’, along with the example he cited where a completely different set of laws applies to Palestinians.
Important comments.
Yeah. Desmond Tutu I only compared what Israel was doing on the West Bank to apartheid, and didn’t equate it directly to the apartheid he lived under.
Of course, he called it worse than apartheid.
Interesting comments on the parallel systems of criminal law.
Interesting!?! Really!?! Did we watch the same video? Because Interestingwas not the first word that popped into my head while watching it. Despicable was more like it. It made me sick to my stomach to see how the discrimination and segregation against Palestinians by their Israeli overlords was so well planned. It is totally abject to treat other human beings in such a way. How is Israel “humanizing the other” with such policies is beyond me.
Tell us Richard, do these Israeli policies help “Israel to legitimize itself” or do they help “Israel to delegitimize itself”? I’m curious to know.
“certainly selected for his commitment to justice”
But no. I would say he displays a greater commitment to Israel than justice. A kindred spirit Richard..
He’s prepared to overlook the 30+ different laws that Israel applies to non-jews (Palestinian Israelis) and jewish Israelis – different laws for different groups: the hallmark of apartheid.
His explanation of the law as it applies to Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is also inadequate: for Palestinians there are no limits on the length of detention before going before a court, nor on extension of detention. B’Tselem report there are currently 199 Palestinians being held in administrative detention, no charges, no judges, no jury – just because “we can”. Because Israeli PMs approve. Because US Presidents approve.
Title law is also non-existent for Palestinians. The refugees whose land and villages were stolen, whose homes and property was looted in 1948 and 1967, and all those who have been turfed off their land in the 62 years between 1948 and now, because Israel declares an area a “closed military zone” or zones it a “green space” and hands it to the JNF so they can plant some trees and conceal the crimes of ethnic cleansing.
And for those reasons (the 30+ laws in Israel and administrative detention in the OPTYs), Lia Tarachansky kinda dropped the ball on this report. I would have liked to hear the Israeli lawyer’s response to those issues.
B’Tselem’s latest statistics on administrative detention.
link to btselem.org
I”m plesed to agree with Richard Witty on something – I found Michael Sfard’s comments quite illuminating. I had heard many times about the different systems of law, but this is the first time I’ve seen them explained, and explained quite well. I also would like to hear more about the interweaving of Ottoman, Mandatory, Jordanian and Israeli law with respect to land title.
My thumbnail sketch of the apartheid comparison is this. The relationship between Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank is clearly quite similar to apartheid – complete separation, control by an ethnic minority of disproportionate resources, and a legal system dedicated to protecting the rights of that minority. Desmond Tutu has described it as worse than apartheid, and I don’t think there is any ground to dispute that.
The relationship between Jewish citizens and non-Jewish citizens within Israel itself is not as bad as apartheid but is morally wrong for the same reason. It simply is unacceptable in the 21st century to distinguish between citizens based on ancestry. Apartheid lite should be a relic of history just like SA apartheid. The fact that the discriminatees have much longer roots on the land than the discriminators makes it even worse.
Finally, those expressing outrage regarding the Israel-apartheid comparison should familiarize themselves with the close friendship, military and nuclear cooperation between Israel and apartheid SA, culminating in the warm Israeli welcome given to SA PM Vorster, who not only was an unrepentant defender of apartheid but also spent years in prison following WWII for his pro-Nazi activities.
Apartheid really does provide excellent points of comparison with today’s Israel. No, they are not identical, but it is difficult to see how a Jewish State should continue to exist, with its inherently unequal treatment of people based on ethnicity and ancestry, while apartheid is rightly viewed as an evil system whose eradication was necessary.
While the system in the occupied territories is by definition an Apartheid system, the system within Israel proper between the Palestinian citizens and the Jewish citizens is Apartheid in practice.
For all intents and purposes Arab Knesset members have no political power or capital. When they are in influential positions they are excluded on purpose for ideological and ethnic reasons. For example, when Israel was deciding on “disengaging” from Gaza in 2005, Ahmad Tibi’s party was in a position to sway the vote against disengagement. The Knesset erupted in an uproar and Jewish MKs accused him and his party of being traitors and demanded that a different system be setup to conduct the voting.
In so-called mixed cities, Palestinians live in enclaves, in separate neighborhoods, receive lower budgetary allotments and face discriminatory policies regarding construction, zoning and renovation permits, not to mention a complete disparity in social services and public works. That’s one of the main reasons why Arab neighborhoods in mixed cities like Haifa and Jaffa look run-down, while Jewish neighborhoods have better upkeep, green lawns and new roads.
So, while on the surface there is a basic semblance of equality, city ordinances and policies tell a different story as does a quick study of Knesset decisions and legislative practices.
In the video, attorney Michael Sfard describes the differential treatment of a settler and a Palestinian who commit the same crime: the settler is tried in Israel in a civil court; the Palestinian in an Israeli-run military court.
Aside from Witty’s semantic hairsplitting over apartheid, this situation is definitely indicative of martial law. How can the Palestinian Authority negotiate for peace, when it doesn’t even run its own courts? It’s a quisling government; a puppet regime.
Sfard laid it all out: separate neighborhoods; separate roads, separate water systems, separate legal regimes. South Africa’s Group Areas Act segregated towns and neighborhoods, but there were no separate legal systems or roads. If anything, Israel’s illegal rule of the West Bank goes beyond the original, now defunct apartheid. It’s Apartheid 2.0, if you will — new, improved, and strictly kosher.
the scarlet letter A is on everyone’s lips now, which is the point
I have enormous respect for Michael Sfard, and I know the view he espouses in this clip – that Israel is approaching apartheid but isn’t there yet – is extremely common, even among people (like him) who actually know a lot about the condition of the Palestinians. But I can’t for the life of me understand this assessment. Sure, if you define apartheid as “the system they used to have in South Africa,” then of course there are many differences and there always will be. And if you think apartheid exists only when a minority dominates a majority, then we’re not quite there yet in terms of the population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
But international law – specifically, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid – doesn’t require that conditions be identical to those in pre-1994 South Africa, nor does it apply only in cases of minority rule – in fact, the words “minority” and “majority” donn’t even appear in the text. People who want to argue about this issue really should read the Convention, specifically the definition that makes up Article II:
On the basis of that definition, can there really be any question about whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
When Sfard was asked that question, it was clear that while his lips told one story, his body language told another.
Yes, Avi. I noticed that too.
Avi said : When Sfard was asked that question, it was clear that while his lips told one story, his body language told another.
And I would add his mind was probably telling another story. Any thoughtful and intelligent Israeli human rights lawyer, such as he comes across in the interview, knows full well that making a public statement about Israeli apartheid before a foreign television crew is not going to be well received within this tight-knit legal community. He knows full well that making such statement is not, at the very least, going to help him achieve his legal goals when he is challenging this system of apartheid in court. Hence his carefully worded statement.
But just like most legal experts what is important is not what they say but what they write. If one is to look at what Michael Sfard writes in the confine of the litigations he is involved in, one gets a different picture. And the recognition that Israel policies in the OPT is apartheid is explicit. In his petition before the High Court of Justice on January 7th 2007 here is what he had to say:
Article 7 of his legal brief : We have said “the process for the legal cementing of institutionalized,
methodical and deliberate discrimination”, to which we will now add the
broader context – it is a process which is designed to tighten the control of
one national group over another. Here lies our disgrace at its worst: The
combination of the two is precisely the legal definition of apartheid.
Article 43 of his legal brief : In addition, regardless of whether we classify the matter as emanating from the
international law of human rights or from the general principles of
international law, the Petitioners shall claim that the Directive creates an
apartheid regime, as well as a regime of persecution of a national group,
both of which constitute international crimes.
The entire legal brief can be found here : Petition for order nisi and interlocutory order
There is no doubt here that in Michael Sfard’s mind if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.
‘(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country.’
Such as Israel’s Law of Return? Bingo — crime of apartheid.
Quod erat demonstrandum. This ain’t complicated, folks.