Does Israel Practice Apartheid?

Details

Written by Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC) Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa (HSRC)

Published: 25 February 2011 25 February 2011

Hits: 3707 3707

What is Apartheid and does Israel practice Apartheid?

The following executive summary of the South African academic study concludes that Israel DOES practice Apartheid and relates Israel's practices with the "three pillars" of Apartheid:

The Report finds that Israeli practices in the OPT exhibit the same three 'pillars' of apartheid:

The first pillar "derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews".

The second pillar is reflected in "Israel's 'grand' policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel's extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians".

The third pillar is "Israel's invocation of 'security' to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group."

An excellent summary of the South African report is ICAHD's "Is Israel an Apartheid State"

Stinking Collective Punishment in West Bank Village Nabi Salah

Details

Written by Yossi Bartal for the Alternative Information Center (AIC) Yossi Bartal for the Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Published: 25 February 2011 25 February 2011

Hits: 3465 3465

During the weekly demonstration in the West Bank village of Nabi Salah against the creeping annexation of their lands by the area settlements, the Israeli army imposed a particularly stinking collective punishment.

For several long minutes, soldiers emptied the containers of skunk water on houses in the centre of the village, also spraying the roofs of homes on which the residents collect rain water. The soldiers further sprayed the village cemetery with the skunk water. Israel’s massive use of tear gas and skunk water in the centre of the village was done with no intention of dispersing the demonstration, which had already ended by this time, but to stink up the homes of the residents and to contaminate their water sources.

Read more: Stinking Collective Punishment in West Bank Village Nabi Salah

Veto of Israeli Settlement Resolution Puts U.S. on Wrong Side of History

Details

Written by Josh Ruebner Josh Ruebner

Published: 25 February 2011 25 February 2011

Hits: 3530 3530

The veto reinforces how anachronistic and out-of-step U.S. policy is with both the aspirations of people in the Middle East and with the international community.



February 24, 2011 

When U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice thrust a solitary American arm into the air last Friday to cast the Obama Administration’s first-ever Security Council veto in defense of Israel’s illegal settlements, the United States regrettably placed itself squarely on the wrong side of history as movements for freedom and democracy revolutionize the Middle East.

This veto -- the fortieth cast by the United States since 1967 in defense of Israel’s illegal military occupation of Arab lands and the illegal policies it pursues to maintain it -- represents much more than the United States yet again acting to shield Israel from accountability for its blatant violations of international law.

The 14-1 veto of the mildly-worded draft resolution reaffirming that Israel’s settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem “are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace” laid bare the contradictions in the Obama Administration’s approach to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. It revealed the growing isolation and irrelevancy of the United States in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of international law. The vote also demonstrated the failure of U.S. diplomacy to adapt to a new Middle East in which grassroots movements increasingly demand that governments are held accountable to human rights standards.

The U.S. veto exposed an Obama Administration deeply confused about how to pursue Israeli-Palestinian peace. Having spent its first two years in office decrying Israeli settlement activity -- President Obama stated in his June 2009 address to the Muslim world in Cairo that “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” -- and pushing for its cessation to set the right tone for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the United States found itself hard-pressed to explain its veto.

Paradoxically, Rice reserved the Obama Administration’s harshest condemnation of Israeli settlements to explain the U.S. veto, affirming that “we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” which she termed “folly.”

If Israeli settlements are “folly” and the Obama Administration continues to accept the validity of a 1978 State Department legal memorandum concluding that Israeli settlements are “inconsistent with international law,” then the only rational explanation for deploying the U.S. veto is to attempt to keep Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking under the sole purview of the United States. While the patron is allowed to criticize its client, like an over-indulgent parent brooding over its spoiled child, it will countenance no outside criticism.

In all likelihood, Palestinians pushed ahead with the draft Security Council resolution -- despite last-minute bargaining efforts by the United States for a compromise Security Council presidential statement and reported U.S. threats to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority -- to test its new-found hypothesis that a U.S.-led “peace process” cannot succeed due to the inherent biases of U.S. policy.

The Palestine Papers -- 1,600 documents, maps, and minutes from Israeli-Palestinian negotiations leaked to Al Jazeera from within the Palestinian negotiating team -- demonstrate conclusively that regardless of the occupant in the White House, the United States is far from being the “honest broker” it claims to be. The papers reveal the United States bending over backwards to understand and accommodate Israeli considerations and limitations, while dismissing Palestinian concerns and twisting their arms to accept Israel’s demands.

The embarrassment caused by the Palestine Papers resulted in the resignation of long-time lead Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. But the fallout is such that reportedly no Palestinian can now be found to accept the position of negotiator as supplicant. Furthermore, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has disbanded the Negotiations Support Unit, which provided research and position papers to the Palestinian negotiating team.

The Palestinian decision to dismantle its negotiating infrastructure and to take its case directly to the international community is the logical outcome of its frustration with two decades of a U.S.-sponsored “peace process” that yielded neither an end to Israel’s colonization of Palestinian land nor the attainment of Palestinian rights.

Amid the ferment of freedom and democracy movements sweeping the Middle East from Morocco to Bahrain, the United States finds itself a spectator -- unwilling to take sides between protesters and governments -- to the teetering and downfall of U.S.-backed autocratic regimes. No wonder then that Palestinians have concluded that they no longer have to tether their hopes for freedom from Israeli occupation to U.S. leadership.

The U.S. veto of the Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements reinforces how anachronistic and out-of-step U.S. policy is with both the aspirations of people in the Middle East and with the international community’s unanimous approach toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States must place itself on the right of history by ending its diplomatic support for Israel’s colonization and occupation of Palestinian land.

Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. He is a former Analyst in Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service.

Merkel rebukes Israeli PM Netanyahu for failing to advance peace: 'You haven't made a single step'

Details

Written by Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem

Published: 25 February 2011 25 February 2011

Hits: 3229 3229

Israeli paper reports that PM was told in fractious phone call: 'You haven't made a single step'

Binyamin Netanyahu Binyamin Netanyahu was rebuked after expressing disappointment that Germany voted for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Photograph: Reuters

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has sternly rebuked the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in an unusually fractious telephone call, according to media reports.

Netanyahu had done nothing to advance the peace process, Merkel said in a conversation this week, reported in the Israeli daily Haaretz.

The Israeli prime minister telephoned Merkel on Monday to say he was disappointed that Germany had voted for a UN security council resolution condemning settlements that was vetoed by the US.

According to a German official quoted by Haaretz, Merkel was furious. "How dare you?" she said. "You are the one who has disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."

A spokesman for the Israeli prime minister said he could not confirm the report.

The quoted comments reflect growing impatience in Europe with the impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian talks and a belief that Israel is stalling or impeding progress. With the exception of the US last Friday's resolution was backed by all the security council members including Britain, Germany and France.

Despite the resolution being carefully worded to reflect American policy on settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the US wielded its veto for the first time under Barack Obama's presidency.

Reaction among Palestinians has been angry. Demonstrations have been held across the West Bank, in Ramallah, Nablus and Bethlehem.

Netanyahu told Merkel that he was planning a new initiative to be disclosed in the next few weeks. "I intend to make a new speech about the peace process in the next two to three weeks," he was quoted as saying.

An Israeli government official confirmed that a fresh statement by Netanyahu on negotiations was in preparation but declined to say when it might be delivered.

During a visit to Israel this month the German chancellor warned that "the stalemate in negotiation is dangerous. There is no room for excuses."

She dismissed the notion that Europe was becoming more hostile to Israel. "Europe will not turn its back on Israel and neither will the United States. We feel uncomfortable because things are not progressing. In an honest and straightforward manner I will tell you that you are missing an opportunity. History will not give you many more."

At a joint press conference on Thursday with the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, Netanyahu said he expected Poland to be robust in defending Israel when it took over the presidency of the European Union on 1 July.

"We have two expectations: upgrading Israel's standing in the EU and upgrading the truth," he said. "Israel is fighting for its right to exist, to live in security and exist at all, against ceaseless waves of attacks."