I read with disbelief Judge Richard Goldstone's Op-ed in the New York Times titled "Israel and the Apartheid Slander."
Luckily for the ANC and the international community, Goldstone's legal opinion on Israel is a bit too late to save the white regime in South Africa. But what if Judge Goldstone had written this Op-Ed back in the 70s, when the White regime of South Africa was reeling under international pressure (while trading nuclear bomb-making technology with Israel) -- could his advice have saved the apartheid regime from collapse?
Here are three things could have saved apartheid in South Africa had they followed Goldstone's Not-So-Golden Rules:
1) Goldstone says:
The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
This could have certainly helped South Africa's apartheid leaders. Instead of declaring certain areas as White-only, while others as Black, the White regime could have "invaded" and "occupied" Black regions. Then, we would not have heard about racial separation but simply a military occupation waiting for a peace process. Just like the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank and, yes, Gaza. The Whites could have then launched a peace process with the ANC and dragged it out forever.
This would have given White settlers time to gobble up more prime territory from Black regions. It's not racial, it's simply an occupation. And in war, all sorts of nasty things happen. Right, Judge Goldstone?
2) Goldstone says:
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves.
This could have also helped South Africa's apartheid leaders. For regions that should be exclusively White, the Afrikaners simply needed to expel Black populations, the way Israel did to Palestinians in years preceding 1948 war, and keep a token Black population for world opinion.
Then they would have had a democracy with a decisive White majority -- and Judge Goldstone would have thought the Blacks had chosen it themselves!
To maintain this decisive White majority, South African leaders could have opened the door to immigration and give instant citizenship to any person who passed the Whiteness test. All the while, they could have created intolerable political, economic, and social conditions for the remaining Black population, with an occasional existential threat so the Blacks of South Africa could never develop any feeling of safety or security, ensuring a continuous trickle out of South Africa. This way, the Afrikaners could have their White democracy and still brag about shared values with the West.
After a while, the world would have forgotten about the fate of those poor Black people who were expelled from their homes. I mean, over 4 million Palestinians--descendents of those expelled by Israelis who wanted to establish a Jewish majority democracy in Palestine--continue to rot in refugee camps. They didn't even merit a mention by Judge Goldstone.
3) Goldstone says:
Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence.
And if African countries kept fighting and coming to the aid of Black South Africans, Apartheid leaders could have played the helpful "size" card. They could have told the world that the Whites just want a tiny peaceful (albeit nuclear) country. They could remind the world how this tiny White country needed help to survive in a hostile Black Africa that wanted to see South Africa destroyed. After all, Black people have all of Africa, so why can't they leave White South Africa alone?
To me, the dissimilarities between Israeli and South African apartheid don't support Judge Goldstone's defense, if any, they show a more sinister apartheid in Israel/Palestine barely camouflaged to deny its victims justice and to give Israelis the necessary tools to spin public opinion. If apartheid came in software packages, Israeli Apartheid is version 2.0 with bugs removed and lessons learned from the collapse of the White regime of South Africa.
I am glad Goldstone did not lend his legal wisdom to the Afrikaners. Else, today we would be hearing of an occupation and a peace process in South Africa, along with Black refugees and ANC militants, instead of celebrating the end of apartheid and white racial supremacy.
Judge Richard Goldstone has just squandered his great legacy.
Hazim Bitar is a Palestinian filmmaker living between Jordan and the US. His film credits include Fish Above Sea Level, Into The Belly of The Whale, Jerusalem's High Cost of Living, and Uncivil Liberties: Secret Trials in America.
What a bunch of BS. Extrapolating historical circumstances leads to ridiculous arguments. For example, what would have happened if Israel would not have declined to let refugees return, but instead would have murdered all the Palestinians living in pre 1967 Israel? Of course, then there would be no “apartheid” at all and no issue of ROR. How convenient.
Occupation is occupation, it is not apartheid. Both have to end, but they are just not the same. It is understandable that Palestinians want to label what Israel is doing as apartheid in order to garner international support for international action like in the case of SA. But that will not fly because the situation is quite different. Only direct negotiations will work.
All this nitpicking over apartheid.
Just call what Israel is doing to Palestines Genocide.
Cause that’s what it is..slow or fast, genocide is genocide.
“Cause that’s what it is..slow or fast, genocide is genocide.”
Of course it is genocide, except that the number of Palestinians is growing, so it is a genocide in reverse.
But thanks for highlighting how you misuse terms for propaganda purposes. This is exactly what is being done by labeling an occupation “apartheid”. As Goldstone shows, the differences are too huge for this claim to make sense.
“Of course it is genocide, except that the number of Palestinians is growing, so it is a genocide in reverse.”
Nope. It is genocide. It is the deliberate policy of the Jews occupying Palestine to destroy, in whole or part, the ethnic identity of the Palestinians.
i’m not following your argument eee. you’re saying had israel committed a thorough genocide there would not be apartheid today…and this is “Extrapolating historical circumstances” which..according to you it is a ridiculous argument? (we might be in agreement there!) how does this pretend example become analogous with the way something is labeled in the real world, which seems to be your complaint. could you flush this out for us a little further.
“Occupation is occupation, it is not apartheid.”
Nonsense. The apartheid regime the Jews living in Palestine have put in place is merely the method by which your evil occupation is put into place.
Annie,
Let’s do this step by step. If Israel in 1947-48 would have murdered all the Palestinian refugees, there would not be an issue of ROR and there would be no discrimination whatsoever against Arab Israelis in Israel, because there would be no Arab Israelis. Do you agree?
i’ll go step by step if you start at the beginning not revisionist history. can we place the revisionist history in where you did, as a retort. i see no revisionist history in arguing about what is going on today. goldstone’s argument today against describing what is going on is grounded in the ‘intent’. what you’ve done is created ‘extra facts’ that never happened. so i cannot start out imagining another circumstance, not unless you can tell me what the ‘extra facts’ are you think we’ve added to come to the conclusion we’ve come to.
You mean, eee, like, if I walk into town bare feet and buy a red hat and see a Laurel & Hardy movie in a shopping window TV screen, tomorrow my car’s mileage would be an even number?
We agree.
>> i’m not following your argument eee.
He appears to be suggesting that Palestinians should feel fortunate and grateful that they’re actually still around to suffer at the hands of the oppressive Israeli regime.
Come on. Don’t you see that what Bitar is doing in this post is exactly revising history to make a point? His whole post is playing “what if” with the history of SA!
Are you guys so blind as to not see that this is what Bitar is doing in this post? If you don’t like my line of reasoning, why are you supporting his? Just because you like the conclusions?
quit hyperventilating your aghasts and just spit it out. i asked you to flush this out initially. so make your point. do not ask us ‘don’t we see what bitar is doing’ . copy and paste whatever text you think supports your argument and show us.
and what ‘line of reasoning’ are you even talking about? there is no line between make believe what if history and debate on what is really happening today.
this is like hasbara on overdrive! copy paste your allegations!
Why would I need to repost this post? It is full of “what ifs”.
Here is just one of many:
“Instead of declaring certain areas as White-only, while others as Black, the White regime could have “invaded” and “occupied” Black regions.”
“Come on. Don’t you see that what Bitar is doing in this post is exactly revising history to make a point? His whole post is playing “what if” with the history of SA!”
I think this is another example of your curse of having Hebrew as a native tongue. What the author is doing here is not “revising history” but eviscerating Goldstone’s arguments by pointing out that the things which he points to in an attempt to save your Zionist fantasy land would be laughed at if proposed by the South African regime to excuse their actions.
With answers like that you wonder why you are so powerless? I suggest you stick to flash mobs.
While eee will stick to white phosphorous and attacking “anti-Semitic” olive trees.
>> Occupation is occupation, it is not apartheid.
And resistance to occupation is resistance to occupation, it is not terrorism. (Zio-supremacists can’t comprehend this because they employ “common sense”, which bears no resemblance to its eponym.)
Eljay,
I really don’t care what you call it. It does not matter to me what label you attach to Palestinian violent activities. If you try to kill me, I will do my best to kill you first. That is just common sense. It is a pity you cannot grasp it.
“The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.”
Oh my god. Goldstone totally rolled over. Making excuses. As if Israel’s separation, confiscation, control of water is not to permanently benefit Israeli’s and any Jew who wants to come be an automatic citizen.
Goldstone “agreed in concept” only
Let’s not forget
link to foxnews.com
Co-authors back Goldstone report, blast critics
Published April 14, 2011
|o-authors of a scathing U.N. report on Israel’s conduct during its 2008-2009 offensive in Gaza said Thursday they stand by their work, hitting back at critics who’ve pushed to have its findings withdrawn after the report’s lead author, Richard Goldstone, aired doubts about one of its central conclusions.
In a statement published on the website of Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Goldstone’s three colleagues said there was “no justification” for any move to review or rescind the 575-page report — which among other things accuses Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in its campaign against Hamas militants. The report also condemned Hamas for targeting Israeli civilians by firing rockets at Israeli cities.
Wish the Guardian or another MSM outlet would dig even deeper. .
Goldstone family drawn into row over Gaza report
link to guardian.co.uk
Three weeks ago, Goldstone announced that his family had asked him not to attend his 13-year-old grandson’s bar mitzvah because militantly pro-Israel Jews said they would picket the synagogue during the ceremony. The synagogue elders had also expressed concern about the threat of disruption. Although the source of the threats was unclear, they were linked by Goldstone’s supporters in the Jewish community to the South African Zionist Federation and the chief rabbi.
“It’s the establishment behind this,” said Steven Friedman, a professor of politics at Rhodes university who is a critic of the South African Jewish leadership’s unbending support for Israel. “The chief rabbi orchestrated the whole thing. There is a sustained attempt to vilify Goldstone by the Zionist Federation. The only reason he’s coming now is it’s a public relations disaster. They were getting a roasting in the press in the South Africa.”
The moral of this story is that those entrusted to carry out investigations, especially criminal investigations, should be chosen for their qualifications but just as importantly, for their independence and invulnerability to blackmail, pressure or bribery from any of the parties being investigated.
Duh.
So his argument boils down to: ‘Israel hasn’t admitted to racial supremacist goals [whereas South Africa did], therefore it’s not apartheid’. The argument is ridiculous of course.
But Goldstone, more than most, should know the premise is also ridiculous. South Africa did not publicly proclaim an intent to “benefit” Whites and “harm” Blacks, but, like Israelis, framed their apartheid system as an issue of constructive ‘separation’ and mutual ‘self-determination’ (because ‘we can’t live together’). It also “agreed in concept to the existence of” Black “states”, in fact, SA promoted them as an integral component of its apartheid system.
And the assertion that Israeli leaders don’t proclaim the intent to maintain Jewish racial supremacy is only partially true, depending on which of their statements you listen to. They deny practicing apartheid and discrimination, but those denials are belied by their other statements about the “demographic threat” to the “state of the Jewish people” which would “cease to exist” if rightful (non-Jewish) residents returned to their lands. These statements can only be read to mean that Jewish control is an essential feature of the state.
Goldstone is allowing Israel to absolve it’s own responsibility for apartheid simply by employing euphemism, while amazingly pretending that South Africa did not try to do the same.
The logic that enables apartheid, naziism, fascism, all suppression, is the dehumanization of the other.
And, really only that.
Do you find Goldstone dehumanizing Palestinians in his commentary? I didn’t hear it.
Is this before or after he said Israel was justified in slaughtering Palestinian children, because the army claims 350 deaths resulting from bombs deliberately dropped on homes, schools and hospitals were “accidents?”
Does Goldstone apply the same rules to Palestinian rocket attacks? No? Golly gee gosh, you mean he doesn’t treat Palestinians and Israelis equally?!