Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In 2

The jury's in again*: Israel is an apartheid state - no if's, but's, and maybe's. And yes, it's from the river to the sea:

"The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) is an international citizen-based Tribunal of conscience created in response to the demands of civil society (NGOs, charities, unions, faith-based organisations) to inform and mobilise public opinion and put pressure on decision makers. In view of the failure to implement the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the failure to implement resolution ES-10/15 confirming the ICJ Opinion, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 July 2004, and the Gaza events of December 2008-January 2009, committees were established in different countries to promote and sustain a citizen's initiative in support of the rights of the Palestinian people. The RToP is imbued with the same spirit and espouses the same rigorous rules as those inherited from the Tribunal on Vietnam (1966-1967), which was established by the eminent scholar and philosopher Bertrand Russell... The Tribunal has no legal status; it operates as a court of the people.

"The Israeli Government was invited to present its case before the Tribunal but chose not to exercise this right and provided no answer to correspondence from the RToP.

"Following the hearings and deliberations of the jury, the findings of the third session of Russell Tribunal on Palestine, held in Cape Town on 5-6 November 2011, are summarised as follows.

I. Apartheid

"The Tribunal finds that Israel subjects the Palestinian people to an institutionalised regime of domination amounting to apartheid as defined under international law. This discriminatory regime manifests in varying intensity and forms against different categories of Palestinians depending on their location. The Palestinians living under colonial military rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subject to a particularly aggravated form of apartheid. Palestinian citizens of Israel, while entitled to vote, are not part of the Jewish nation as defined by Israeli law and are therefore excluded from the benefits of Jewish nationality and subject to systematic discrimination across the broad spectrum of recognised human rights. Irrespective of such differences, the Tribunal concludes that Israel's rule over the Palestinian people, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to a single integrated regime of apartheid.

"The state of Israel is legally obliged to respect the prohibition of apartheid contained in international law. In addition to being a crime against humanity, the practice of apartheid is universally prohibited. The Tribunal has considered Israel's rule over the Palestinian people under its jurisdiction in the light of the legal definition of apartheid. Apartheid is prohibited by international law because of the experience of apartheid in southern Africa, which had its own unique attributes. The legal definition of apartheid, however, applies to any situation anywhere in the world where the following 3 core elements exist: (i) that two distinct racial groups can be identified; (ii) that 'inhuman acts' are committed against the subordinate group; and (iii) that such acts are committed systematically in the context of an institutionalised regime of domination by one group over the other.

Racial Groups

"... On the basis of expert evidence heard by the Tribunal, the jury concludes that international law gives a broad meaning to the term 'racial' as including elements of ethnic and national origin, and therefore that the definition of 'racial group' is a sociological rather than biological question... From the evidence received, it was clear to the jury that 2 distinct, identifiable groups exist in a very practical sense and that the legal definition of 'racial group' applies to all circumstances in which the Israeli authorities have jurisdiction over Palestinians.

Inhuman Acts of Apartheid

"Individual inhuman acts committed in the context of such a system are defined by international law as crimes of apartheid. The jury heard abundant evidence of practices that constitute 'inhuman acts' perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities. These include:

"Widespead deprivation of Palestinian life through military operations and incursions, a formal policy of 'targeted killings', and the use of lethal force against demonstrations.

"Torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians in the context of widespread deprivation of liberty through policies of arbitrary arrest and administrative detention without charge. The jury finds that such measures frequently go beyond what is reasonably justified by security concerns and amount to a form of domination over the Palestinians as a group.

"Systematic human rights violations that preclude Palestinian development and prevent the Palestinians as a group from participating in political, economic, social and cultural life.

"Palestinian refugees who remain displaced are also victims of apartheid by virtue of the ongoing denial of their right to return to their homes, as well as by laws that remove their property and citizenship rights.

"Policies of forced population transfer remain widespread, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territory.

"Civil and political rights of Palestinians including rights to movement, residence, free opinion and association are severely curtailed.

"Palestinian socio-economic rights are also adversely affected by discriminatory Israeli policies in the spheres of education, health and housing.

"Since 1948 the Israeli authorities have pursued concerted policies of colonisation and appropriation of Palestinian land. Israel has through its laws and practices divided the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian populations and allocated them different physical spaces, with varying levels and quality of infrastructure, services and access to resources. The end result is wholesale territorial fragmentation and a series of separate reserves and enclaves, with the 2 groups largely segregated. The Tribunal heard evidence to the effect that such a policy is formally described in Israel as hafrada, Hebrew for 'separation'.

A Systematic & Institutionalised Regime

"The inhuman acts listed above do not occur in random or isolated instances. They are sufficiently widespread, integrated and complementary to be described as systematic. They are also sufficiently rooted in law, public policy and formal institutions to be described as institutionalised. In the Israeli legal system, preferential status is afforded to Jews over non-Jews through its laws on citizenship and Jewish nationality, the latter of which has created a group privileged in most spheres of public life, including residency rights, land ownership, urban planning, access to services and social, economic and cultural rights... The Tribunal heard expert evidence detailing the relationship between the State of Israel and the quasi-state Jewish national institutions (the Jewish Agency, World Zionist Organisation, and Jewish National Fund) that embed and formalise many of the material privileges granted exclusively to Israeli Jews.

"Regarding the West Bank, the Tribunal highlights the institutionalised separation and discrimination revealed by the existence of 2 entirely separate legal systems: Palestinians are subject to military law enforced by military courts that fall far short of international fair trial standards; Israeli Jews living in illegal settlements are subject to Israeli civil law and a civil court system. The result is a vastly different procedure and sentence for the same crime, committed in the same jurisdiction, by members of a different group. An apparatus of administrative control implemented through pervasive permit systems and bureaucratic restrictions adversely affects Palestinians throughout territories under Israeli control. In contrast to the explicit and readily available South African legislation, the Tribunal draws attention to the obscurity and inaccessibility of many laws, military orders and regulations that underpin Israel's institutionalised regime of domination.

"Much of the evidence heard by the Tribunal relating to the question of apartheid is also relevant to the separate crime against humanity of persecution, which can be considered in relation to Israeli practices under the principle of cumulative charges. Persecution involves the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights of the members of an identifiable group in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. The Tribunal concludes that the evidence presented to it supports a finding of persecution in relation to the following acts:

"The siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip as a form of collective punishment of the civilian population; The targeting of civilians during large-scale military operations; The destruction of civilian homes not justified by military necessity; The adverse impact on the civilian population effected by the Wall and its associated regime in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; The concerted campaign of forcible evacuation and demolition of unrecognised Bedouin villages in the Negev region of southern Israel.

III. Legal Consequences

"Apartheid and persecution are acts attributable to Israel and entail its international legal responsibility. Israel must cease its apartheid acts and its policies of persecution and offer appropriate assurances and guarantees on non-repetition. In addition, Israel must make full reparation for the injuries caused by its internationally wrongful acts, with regard to any damage, whether material or moral. With regard to reparation, Israel must compensate the Palestinians for the damage it has caused, with compensation to cover any financially assessable damage for loss of life, property, and loss of profits insofar as this can be established.

"States and international organisations also have international responsibilities. They have a duty to cooperate to bring Israel's apartheid acts and policies of persecution to an end, including by not rendering aid or assistance to Israel and not recognising the illegal situation arising from its acts. They must bring to an end Israel's infringements of international criminal law through the prosecution of international crimes, including the crimes of apartheid and persecution.

IV. Recommendations

In view of the above findings, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine resolutely urges all relevant parties to act in accordance with their legal obligations.

Accordingly, the Tribunal urges:

"The state of Israel to immediately dismantle its system of apartheid over the Palestinian people, to rescind all discriminatory laws and practices, not to pass any further discriminatory legislation, and to cease forthwith acts of persecution against Palestinians;

"All states to cooperate to bring an end to the illegal situation arising from Israel's practices of apartheid and persecution. In light of the obligation not to render aid and assistance, all states must consider appropriate measures to exert sufficient pressure on Israel, including the imposition of sanctions, the severing of diplomatic relations collectively through international organisations, or in the absence of consensus, individually by breaking bilateral relations with Israel.

"The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to accept jurisdiction as requested by the Palestinian authorities in January 2009, and to initiate an investigation 'as expeditiously as possible' as called for by the 'Goldstone Report', into international crimes committed in Palestinian territory since 1 July 2002, including crimes of apartheid and persecution;

"Palestine to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

"Global civil society... to replicate the spirit of solidarity that contributed to the end of apartheid in South Africa, including by making national parliaments aware of the findings of the Tribunal and supporting the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS);

"The UN General Assembly to reconstitute the UN Special Committee against Apartheid, and to convene a special session to consider the question of apartheid against the Palestinian people. In this connection the Committee should compile a list of individuals, organisations, banks, companies, corporations, charities, and any other private or public bodies which assist Israel's apartheid regime with a view to taking appropriate measures;

"The UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ as called for by the current and former UN Special Rapporteurs for human rights to the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as by the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, to examine the nature of Israel's prolonged occupation and apartheid;

"The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to address the issue of apartheid in its forthcoming review of Israel in February 2012;

"The government of South Africa, as the host country for the third session of the RToP, to ensure that no reprisals of any sort are taken by the state of Israel against the witnesses that testified before the Tribunal..." (Dr. Hanan Chehata, middleeastmonitor.org.uk, 7/11/11)

It goes without saying that the the above finding was not reported by any Australian ms media outlets that I'm aware of.

[*See my 21/9/09 post Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In.]

Only Reflect

John Howard renews his vows: "Renowned champion for Israel and former Australian prime minister John Howard was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Jerusalem last Sunday. Hebrew University president Professor Menachem Magidor flew from Israel to bestow the honour in person. 'The gesture of this degree is something I will value for the rest of my life', Howard told a 200-strong crowd gathered at the Sofitel Wentworth Hotel gala dinner hosted by friends of the Hebrew University. 'I have an enormous respect and affection for the State of Israel... I'm proud of the voting record of my country, Australia, in the United Nations during the 11-&-a-half years of my prime ministership. It was deliberate because I believe, in so many ways, the State of Israel was being pushed around by the rest of the world, and on many occasions by countries that have no understanding of democracy'." (An honour for John Howard, The Australian Jewish News, 5/12/08)

As delusional as ever, of course. The late Australian journalist Matt Price had the bugger's number: "Asked... to reflect on the Vietnam War during his visit to the country, the Prime Minister displayed the sort of knee-jerk defensiveness not often seen since Geoffrey Boycott's retirement from international cricket. 'I supported our involvement at the time and I don't intend to recant', was how the PM opened. 'In public life you are accountable for the decisions that you take'. Had Howard stopped there he might have sounded half sensible - declaring his stance and resisting the temptation to rewrite history. But the PM rattled on: 'I mean, I didn't hold any position of authority then but I supported the reasons for Australia's involvement and nothing has altered my view that at the time on the assessments that were made then I took that view and I took that view properly and I don't intend to indulge this preoccupation that many have in recanting everything that they supported when they were in positions of authority'. Ignoring the tortuous prolixity of this sentence, it was also revealingly feverish. Surely leadership demands reflection as well as backbone, and, where necessary, concession, even reversal... And then this breathtaking admission about taking positions in public life: 'If I ever develop reservations, well I hope I would have the grace to keep them to myself because I think you take a position and you've got to live by that and be judged by it, and that's my position'. So when it comes to war, it seems, recantation is for whimps. What must Howard, the history buff's history buff, think of Robert McNamara, US defence secretary during much of Vietnam, whose stupendous recantation was delivered 30 years later? '(We) acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation', wrote McNamara. 'Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions*, but of judgment and capabilities'." (For PM, recanting is one for the wimps, The Australian, 23/11/08)

[*Pull the other!]

Howard's earlier justifications for his romance with Israel are as lame and cliched as his nonsense about Israel being "pushed around by the rest of the world." When asked by the AJN in 2006 to elaborate on his government's "extraordinary support for Israel," this is as good as it got: "Well, it's support based on merit. I've always admired Israel's extraordinary fortitude and resilience in being able to survive the constant attacks despite the determination still of many countries to destroy it. Like anybody of my generation, I was very conscious of the Holocaust and the appalling treatment of the Jewish people by the Nazis and anybody of my age certainly can't not be influenced by that. But the essential justice of the cause of Israel's survival has always been quite manifest as far as I'm concerned." (Howard's way, 22/9/08)

After first choking on Howard's references to "merit" and "essential justice," I am led to reflect that what is "quite manifest" here is that "the history buff's history buff" is totally ignorant of modern Middle East history.

Finally, in this age of spin and cant, it is worth recalling what genuine reflection, based on a solid ethical foundation and real knowledge of its subject, looks like. Here's the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell: "The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was 'given' by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East." (Statement to the International Conference of Parliamentarians, 3/2/70)