Meet Labor's Latest Faction

OMFG, what next?

"Labor senator Kimberley Kitching - a close ally and friend of Bill Shorten - is moving to create a bipartisan parliamentary group that will defend 'Judeo-Christian' and 'Western-liberal democratic' values as she launches her credentials as a new style of social conservative within the Labor Party." (Kitching caters for Labor's conservative core, Greg Brown, The Australian, 8/10/18)

"While most Labor MPs have backed this position [of not moving Australia's embassy to Jerusalem], others associated with Labor have been pressuring the party to switch its policies in favour of the move. Henry Pinskier, chair of the Labor-aligned John Curtin Research Centre has been campaigning for the move. 'He [Morrison] should move it. Finish what he started, stop back sliding, show some spine,' Mr Pinskier tweeted earlier this month. 'Get this done Josh before you lose government. Don't be swayed by what Indonesia or Malaysia say. A country that has no ties to Israel diplomatically cannot and should not dictate Australia's foreign policy interest.' Labor's senators Kim Carr and Kimberley Kitching and MPs Michael Danby and Mike Kelly are listed on the think tank's board of advisers. John Curtin Research Centre director Nick Dyrenfurth yesterday said Mr Pinskier's views did not represent the official position of the think tank. 'Henry's comments are made in a private capacity only,' Mr Dyrenfurth told The Australian. Mr Danby has said Mr Morrison will look like a 'worthless dud' if he does not make some policy changes on Iran and Jerusalem as a result of his policy review." (Embassy move: voters far from convinced, Primrose Riordan, The Australian, 28/11/18)

Strike a light!

If these misbegottens had a shred of honesty, they'd stop hiding behind the phony "Judeo-Christian" label, change the name of their lair to the Vladimir Jabotinsky Centre, and openly declare themselves for what they are - Zionists.

Meet Danby's Preferred Candidate

You're the federal Opposition's unofficial shadow minister for Israel and you've ruled the seat of Melbourne Ports with a rod of Zion for what seems like... maybe 2,000 years, right? But lately you've gone a bit feral, what with your taxpayer-funded ads for Israel in the Australian Jewish News and that last pilgrimage to Israel when you really should have been warming your place on the parliamentary benches in Canberra. And so, to cut a long story short, Shorten's given you your marching orders. Tough titties, I know.

But you're not going gently into that good night, are you? No way! After all, as Bob Carr has opined, you're more Ben Gurion than Ben Gurion himself. So it's time for you to anoint a successor, right? He'll be no Michael Danby, of course, but a true blue son of Zion nonetheless. Step forward, Nick Dyrenfurth, executive director of the John Curtin Research Centre. (See Labor MP Michael Danby's preselection meeting undemocratic, candidate says, Paul Karp, theguardian.com, 16/7/18)

Pauline Hanson MK

Hating Hansonism in Australia:

"We know that in the Holocaust's aftermath, 58% of Australians opposed Jews being granted asylum down under... Today it is hard to imagine Australia without its significant Jewish contribution. Twenty years ago, Hanson spread her anti-Asian agenda, suggesting some 'invasion' was to blame for job and economic insecurity facing Australians. She was wrong. Australians of Asian extraction are well integrated and good citizens. In 2016, with similar job and economic insecurity abounding, Hanson has now raised the bogey of Islam." (Not in our name: Melbourne's Jewish community does not support One Nation, Nick Dyrenfurth & Dean Sherr, theguardian.com, 16/12/16)

Hearting it in Israel:

"The Palestinians will have to make concessions... This means finally accepting that the 1948 Palestinian refugees will only return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel." (The enemy within: the far-Left hijacked the Palestinian cause, Nick Dyrenfurth, The Australian, 11/11/09)

A Strange Choice of Book Reviewer

Let's say your the literary editor of the Sydney Morning Herald's Saturday arts supplement, Spectrum. 

Let's assume you're well-informed and genuinely interested in debate.

Let's say you've decided (for reasons best known to yourself) that, of all the latest books on Palestine/Israel that need reviewing, it just has to be Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth's Boycotting Israel is Wrong.

Who are you going to commission to do the job?

Jake Lynch, Stuart Rees, Peter Slezak, Antony Loewenstein, Nick Reimer, Marcelo Svirsky? All conversant in the politics of Palestine/Israel, and all supporters of the pro-Palestine boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign.

OK, you're not Spectrum's literary editor. Susan Wyndham is, and she's commissioned Dennis Altman, professorial fellow in the Institute for Human Security & Social Change at LaTrobe University to review Mendes & Dyrenfurth (Shaky support for two states, 20/6/15)

Problem is, according to freelance journalist Michael Brull, a close observer of these things, Altman is dismissive of the call to boycott Israel. (But what about Zionism?, Michael Brull, Overland, Autumn 2010)

Now I've been unable to access the Altman article Brull refers to on Overland's website. It seems to have been withdrawn for some reason. But, assuming that Brull is correct, and Altman takes a dim view of BDS, or worse, why then commission him of all people to review an anti-BDS book?

Certainly, anyone who begins his review this way has got to be a bit of a worry:

"Anyone who writes about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is asking for trouble; even that statement will itself draw criticism. Few issues bring out such deeply polarised views, leaving little room for genuine empathy with the range of positions involved on the ground."

OMG... genuine empathy for the range of positions involved? Yes, yes, Mr Netanyahu, I do empathise with your position, I really do... you're absolutely right about... and... and... but...

Ditto for this:

"I largely agree with the comment they [Mendes & Dyrenfurth] cite from David Remnick... that: 'Israel exists; the Palestinian people exist... Within these territorial confines two nationally distinct groups, who are divided by language, culture and history cannot live... wholly together'."

Well, weren't South Africa's Whites and Blacks ONCE so divided?  Now where do they live if not wholly together?

And this:

"Thus Boycotting Israel gives us a great deal of detail about some of the excesses of the BDS movement, including the attacks on the Max Brenner chocolate shops..."

Attacks? You're kidding me? What attacks?

But more than that, Altman avoids the real reason why Zionist propagandists such as Mendes and Dyrenfurth have gone to the trouble of writing a book smearing the BDS campaign.

It's because one of the three aims of the BDS campaign is the right of return to their homes and lands, in Israel (im)proper, of the Palestinian refugees of 1948.

Mendes & Dyrenfurth have referred to this fundamental tenet of international law sneeringly as "a so-called Right of Return." (The BDS campaign's flaws and failings, M&D, Australian Jewish News, 5/5/15) And Dyrenfurth recently said on the ABC's Radio National that "The most problematic aim of the PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel) statement relates to the right of return for Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war... if there was a mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper... that would mean the end of Israel..." (Is boycotting Israel ethical or anti-Semitic?, Religion & Ethics Report, 17/6/15)

What he meant was the end of Israel as a Jewish supremacist state, that is one which allows people like Mendes & Dyrenfurth, simply by virtue of their having Jewish mothers,* to swan in or out of Israel (im)proper as they please, while denying the same right to its original, indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants, ethnically cleansed in 1948. IOW, to discriminate in favour of Jews but against non-Jewish Palestinians.

[*Through Israel's Law of Return]

Viva Australian Student Activism 1

To the student activists who ruffled Tony Jones' feathers on Q&A on Monday night, I dedicate this little walk down memory lane.

All but forgotten now, but well worth recalling as a bold example of 1970s grassroots politics, was the brave attempt by progressive Australian Union of Students (AUS) activists to make Palestine core university business.

Interestingly, I could find only one reference to the AUS campaign on the net - of the kind, as you'll see, that screams out for a corrective. It's by - groan - Zionist academics, Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth of Monash University:

"These anti-Zionist fundamentalists loved the gun not the olive branch, and they quickly captured the pro-Palestinian agenda. In 1974 and again in 1975, the extremist-influenced Australian Union of Students (AUS), passed motions calling for the elimination of the State of Israel, and its replacement by a democratic secular state of Palestine. The latter was a disingenuous euphemism for an ethno-religious Islamic Arab state given that most Palestinian Muslims are highly religious and overwhelmingly reject secular and democratic ideas." (How the Far Left hijacked the Palestinian cause, Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth, onlineopinion.com.au, 18/11/09)

Stuff and nonsense, of course, proving that Zionism and scholarship don't mix.

The following unattributed account of the AUS Palestine campaign, The Palestine debate in AUS, was written for the Macquarie University student newspaper, Arena (27/4/77). I'll be posting it here in three parts (with typo corrections and additional material where necessary. :

"THE MIDDLE EAST DEBATE 1974-1976 AUS DROPS THE BANNER

"In 1974 and 1975 the Australian Union of Students took a series of motions and foreshadowed motions to its membership for debate and resolution. The motions were related to the state of Israel, the nature of Zionism and the plight of the Palestinian people. The ensuing controversy shook AUS to its foundations. The debate took the issue of Israel into the wider Australian community and for the first time students and others were able to hear the Palestinian point of view from both its Australian champions and two Palestinian students* who visited Australia in 1975 under the auspices of AUS. [*Eddie Zananari and Samir Cheikh of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS)]

"This paper deals briefly with the background and history of the debate and the wide-ranging consequences it has had on the Union's ability to debate controversial policy or hold a controversial position. While this paper may not be the last word on the matter, it attempts to cover at least some of the material and activity of the past 3 years for the information of delegates to Council.

[MERC: The 1974 motions read: 1) That AUS informs the National Union of Israeli Students (NUIS) that AUS does not recognise the existence of the State of Israel or of the NUIS as the official student in that region. 2) That AUS recognise the GUPS as a legal student union in that area of the Middle East known as Israel (in reality occupied Palestine). 3) That AUS having met in full Council, no longer believes that NUIS should be recognised as a member of ASA, and rather, believes that the GUPS and Arab Student Unions or any non-Zionist student organisation should be recognised in their place. 4) That AUS condemn the exploitation and degradation of the Palestinian people as carried out by the Arab nations and by Israel. 5) That AUS open a dialogue with the PLO in Beirut with a view to disseminating literature on the resistance through the organs open to AUS. 6) That AUS examine the student unions of the Arab regimes, to ascertain whether they are progressive organisations or simply apologists for their various reactionary regimes. 7) That AUS calls for the release of all members of the Palestinian resistance held in jails in occupied Palestine (Israel), the Arab countries and Greece. This includes all Jewish political prisoners not officially members of the PLO held in occupied Palestine. 8) That AUS support the liberation forces of Palestine. 9) That the Palestinian people have the historical, cultural, and moral right to the land of Palestine, presently embraced by Israel. 10) That any realistic settlement of the 'Middle East Problem' must accommodate the rights of the Palestinians in order to have any chance of resulting in permanent peace.]

"1974 - AN OVERWHELMING RESULT IN FAVOUR OF ISRAEL

"The public reaction to AUS January Council policy on Israel in 1974 was immediate. On January 20, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) issued a press release signed by its president, Arnold Roth. In the press release, Roth threatened that Jewish students would withdraw their membership en masse and give $1.00 per head to the cause of fighting the AUS motions: 'AUS has decided to wish Israel out of existence. It chooses to take an absurdly unrealistic view of the Middle East to reject the only democratically elected and representative student body in the Middle East, namely the National Union of Israeli Students, and in its place recognise the General Union of Palestinian Students, an Egyptian 'front' organisation...' (AUJS Press Release, 20/1/74) Further on the press release stated that, having accepted the aims and activities of the PLO, including terrorism, AUS had 'placed itself beyond any reasonable resemblance to representing the views of the mass of Australian students.' (ibid) Roth had acted hastily and without the assent of his executive. Later he modified AUJS' position and announced it would attempt to debate and defeat the resolutions rather than withdraw from AUS.

"The pro-Palestine motions asserted the justice of the Palestinian claims to Israel; recognised the GUPS as the representative body of the area of Israel instead of NUIS; proposed AUS establish dialogue with the PLO; gave support to the liberation forces of Palestine and called for the release of members of the Palestinian resistance imprisoned in Israel for their activities. The foreshadowed motions recognised the rights of Palestinians and Israelis, calling for the rights of national liberation for both Jews and Arabs, proposing a separate mini-state.

"While the arguments for the pro-Palestine motions were fairly consistent, the opposition was split. Arguing for the motions, activists debated the issues of Zionism, its philosophy and practice. They called attention to the plight of the Palestinian people and formulated the democratic secular state in which Jews and Arabs could live equally as the ideal solution to the problems of the Palestinian refugees and persecuted Jews. The opposition split its attack. Much of it centred on the right of AUS to take the controversial position it had. It accused AUS leaders of anti-semitism while a third argument (the most used) justified Zionism as a national liberation movement for the Jewish people. That argument agreed that everything in Israel was not perfect and that the Palestinians had a grievance. However, it disagreed with AUS' 'extreme' line, posing the solution of a mini-state for the Palestinian people.

"THE PAPER WAR

"The debate, conducted through National U [the AUS paper], campus papers and leaflets, raged in the weeks before the vote was taken [March 1974?] and afterwards. The national press joined in, sometimes reporting, sometimes castigating AUS for daring to question the status quo in Israel. Left Zionists made flattering comparisons between Israeli parliamentary democracy and life and the reactionary Arab regimes surrounding Israel. They admitted Israel had made mistakes but that given time it would rectify them without any help from AUS: 'The Jewish leadership failed to recognise the emergence of Arab nationalism until after the event and this created a vacuum in the official Israeli policy which Israel is still trying to rectify today.' (AUS Position Paper 1974: The Middle East: An Alternative View, prepared by Peta Jones of UNSW Delegation)

"Right Zionists were less subtle. In a supplement to the Australian Jewish Times dated February 21, 1974 a few lines represented AUS policy as supporting terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian guerilla forces; pledging to disseminate propaganda supplied from Beirut; and claiming AUS was therefore unrepresentative of students. It announced that a demonstration was to be held at UNSW. As reported in National U, the Palestinian refugee problem was dismissed by one of the speakers as of little consequence. In a piece of street theatre, the AUS leadership was portrayed as a group of bloodthirsty dilettantes looking for a 'cause'. The 'cause' was represented by an actor dressed as a Palestinian complete with headdress, dark glasses and gun. (Torch Rally at UNSW, Geoff Tanks, NU, 11/3/74)

"One of the major emphases given by both 'left' and 'right' was to the question of anti-semitism. Since it was difficult, if not impossible to detect anti-semitism in any of the arguments presented verbally or on paper by the pro-Palestinian faction, a new definition was applied. Zionists claimed the interests of all Jewish people were inextricably bound up in Zionism, which had its roots in the Jewish religion and culture. Hence any criticism of the Zionist political movement was per se anti-semitic: 'I find the very idea of 'anti-Zionism' just incredible. Why aren't there any 'anti-Vietnamese national liberationist' groups around the world. Of course not! How can you legitimately oppose the self-emancipation of a people? Obviously you can't... except when it comes to the Jewish people.' (Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, Augustine Zycher, Arena, 13/3/74)

"A reply to this argument in the same publication pointed out: 'It has often been claimed... it is inconsistent... (to support)... Arab nationalism and not... Israeli nationalism... Any socialist worth his (sic) salt must distinguish between two types of nationalism. There is what can be called oppressive nationalism and... on the other hand oppressed nationalism... It cannot be expected, as the Zionists would like to claim, that the new Left would adopt a consistent view towards all nationalism because... (they)... do not wish the new Left to support Nazi nationalism.' (Why AUS is right on the Middle East, John Bechara)."

NB: The 1974 motions did not win majority support among students. That campaign, however, was but a prelude to the more substantial and eventful campaign of 1975. My next post will continue with the account of that campaign.

Love Me, I'm a Liberal Zionist

I cry when they shoot Palestinians
Tears run down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Rabin
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Sheikh Yassin got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal Zionist

I read New Republic & Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorised Geras & Mendes
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Israel
There's no one more white & blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal Zionist.

(With apologies to Phil Ochs)

Monash Uni academic Nick Dyrenfurth, writing in The Age, June 23, 2012:

"Admittedly, my pro-asylum seeker stance is guided by my heart. Seventy-three years ago, my Jewish grandmother escaped Nazi Germany for England then Australia, seemingly paying a bribe to a pesky people smuggler (that is, a Gestapo officer) in order to exit the barbarism engulfing the continent. I'll be forever grateful that she jumped that 'queue'. We shouldn't forget that on leaky unauthorised boats are valuable citizens who will improve our own lives: a job-creating Burmese entrepreneur, an Iranian researcher working towards a cancer cure, or a talented Afghan novelist. Might there even be a Tamil public servant destined to implement policy for, shock horror, a future Coalition government?" (Why the moralising left is losing the refugee debate)

Nick Dyrenfurth (& Philip Mendes), writing in The Australian, November 11, 2009:

"More and more Israelis and diaspora Jews understand that Israel will not only have to freeze West Bank settlements, but eventually dismantle at the very least all settlements east of the security barrier. Equally the Palestinians will have to make concessions that facilitate peaceful relations. This means finally accepting that the 1948 Palestinian refugees will only return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel." (The enemy within: The far-Left hijacked the Palestinian cause)

Mendes & Dyrenfurth's Win-Win Plan

Reading The Australian can sometimes be awfully confusing. That was certainly the case with me after perusing the edition of 11 November. The word 'fundamentalist' seemed to crop up wherever I looked - with the result that I'm now at a complete loss as to who the real fundamentalists are. Are they the Zionists or the anti-Zionists?

On the one hand there was The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan telling us it's the Zionists: "How to push Israel to end all their settlement provocations and fundamentalist intransigence in Jerusalem and the West Bank?" he asked. [Answer: "[I]n a rational environment, the US would look to the massive aid that American taxpayers send to Israel..."(Israel reality check)]

On the other hand, co-authors Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth were drumming up a right little storm with their repetition (x5) of the 'f' word: "anti-Zionist fundamentalists"... "the fundamentalists"... "the fundamentalist agenda"... "the fundamentalists"... and "the fundamentalists." (The enemy within: The far-Left hijacked the Palestinian cause)

See what I mean?

Anyway, my confusion aside, what Philip Dyrenfurth & Nick Mendes particularly wanted to get across to the reader was their "win-win plan" for the fabled Middle East Conflict. And here it is in a nutshell: "More and more Israelis and diaspora Jews understand that Israel will not only have to freeze West Bank settlements, but eventually dismantle at the very least all settlements east of the security barrier. Equally the Palestinians will have to make concessions that facilitate peaceful relations. This means finally accepting that the 1948 refugees will only return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel."

Pure genius, Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth! You've found at long last the Holy Grail of Middle East Peace. Here, the pair of you, take a Nobel Peace Prize each from the jar. You deserve it.

But you know what they say about the devil being in the detail, so let's take a closer look at the lads' award-winning win-win plan: Israel already has 78% of historic Palestine, leaving 22% for a Palestinian 'state'. However, according to Philip Dyrenfurth & Nick Mendes' win-win plan, Israel is to get another 12.8% of that 22%, containing all those settlement blocs now conveniently west of the security barrier (or as your anti-Zionist fundamentalist would call it - the Separation Wall), and a further 25.2% in the form of the Jordan Valley. Subtract Israel's settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley from the 22% of historic Palestine known as the West Bank and that leaves precisely 14% for a Palestinian 'state'. Now that's a win-win plan for sure!

But you know what? It's really even more win-win than that. You see, according to Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth's win-win plan, all those Palestinians, who just mysteriously decided to go walkabout in 1948 when they saw a heavily-armoured Zionist win-win plan rumbling towards their village, and just as mysteriously couldn't seem to find their way back home afterwards (and who now number around 5 million), well they all get to go and rub shoulders in the 14% of historic Palestine to be known as the Palestinian 'state'. Now there's a win-win for you! Israel gets to keep 86% of historic Palestine, all Palestinian refugees are shoe-horned into the remaining 14%, and, hey presto, there are no more refugees with any reason to still call Jaffa, Haifa, Acre and hundreds of other towns and villages in Israel home.

But there's more - win-win that is. Nick Mendes & Philip Dyrenfurth didn't even mention occupied East Jerusalem, home to Islam's third holiest shrine, the Haram ash-Sharif. But not to worry, another Israeli contender for the Nobel Peace Prize has come up with a win-win plan for that: "Yehuda Glick is a 44-year-old American-born Jew who spends most of every day preparing for the arrival of the Messiah in Jerusalem. Since he became the executive director of the Temple Institute, Mr Glick's main task has been to supervise the manufacture of the utensils the high priests will need when the day arrives. Crowns and other instruments made of solid gold fill glass cases in the Temple Institute museum in Jerusalem's Old City. Other artefacts include an array of copper urns, trumpets made of silver and garments to be worn by the High Priest, woven from golden thread. Musical instruments, including hand-made harps and lyres, lie ready to be brought to life upon the Messiah's appearance... Jews call [the Haram ash-Sharif] the Temple Mount... Their religion holds that a third temple will be built [there] upon the arrival of the Messiah... Today the Temple Mount is dominated by the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the gold-topped Dome of the Rock. 'Al-Aqsa can stay', Mr Glick said, pointing to the mosque. 'It's not even on the Temple Mount proper. But we intend to just build over the Dome of the Rock... '" (Jews raise millions to be ready for coming of the Messiah, Jason Koutsoukis, Sydney Morning Herald, 14/11/09)

Sadly though, as Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth remind us, "the [anti-Zionist] fundamentalists of course will never accept this [or Mr Glick's] win-win plan. Such is the nature of black-and-white revolutionary socialism."

Israeli Apartheid: The Jury's In

Nick Dyrenfurth, an associate editor of the journal Labor History, and Philip Mendes, a senior lecturer in the department of social work, faculty of medicine, at Monash University, are so adamant that Israel is not an apartheid state they've asserted it twice in the last 5 months (in The Australian of course):

"[I]f there is one recent furphy progressives should vocally object to it is the quite disgraceful slur on Israel doing the rounds of the hard-left and parts of academe. Apparently Israel is an apartheid state founded on the principles of colonialism and racism, if not a genocidal impulse to exterminate the Palestinian people... As the signatories to a recent Stanford University Scholars for Middle East Peace open letter suggest: 'To equate Israel with apartheid displays a profound ignorance of the horror that was South Africa as well as contempt for democracy in Israel'." (Left behind on building bridges in Middle East: Being on the Left doesn't always, and should not mean, being anti-Israel, observe Nick Dyrenfurth & Philip Mendes, 13/5/09)

"[I]t is simply arrant nonsense to call Israel an apartheid state. While the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has some superficial similarities with apartheid in South Africa, the analogy cannot reasonably be applied to Green Line Israel given the civil and political rights enjoyed by its Arab citizens*. Moreover, Israel does not involve a small white population exploiting a much larger black majority: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a race-based conflict." (Racism risk in calls for Israeli boycott: Philip Mendes & Nick Dyrenfurth oppose the efforts of anti-Zionist campaigners here, 19/9/09)

Inconveniently for Nick and Philip, I'm afraid the jury's in. Here's part of the introduction to South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council's recent academic study Occupation, Colonialism, Apartheid?: A re-assessment of Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law:

"Regarding apartheid, the [research] team found that Israel's laws and policies in the OPT fit the definition of apartheid in the International Convention on the Suppression & Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. Israeli law conveys privileges to Jewish settlers and disadvantages Palestinians in the same territory on the basis of their respective identities, which function in this case as racialised identities in the sense provided by international law. Israel's practices are corollary to 5 of the 6 'inhuman acts' listed by the Convention. A policy of apartheid is especially indicated by Israel's demarcation of geographic 'reserves' in the West Bank, to which Palestinian residence is confined and which Palestinians cannot leave without a permit. The system is very similar to the policy of 'Grand Apartheid' in apartheid South Africa, in which black South Africans were confined to black homelands delineated by the South African government, while white South Africans enjoyed freedom of movement and full civil rights in the rest of the country.

"The Executive Summary of the report says that the three pillars of apartheid in South Africa are all practiced by Israel in the OPT. In South Africa, the first pillar was to demarcate the population of South Africa into racial groups, and to accord superior rights, privileges and services to the white racial group. The second pillar was to segregate the population into different geographic areas, which were allocated by law to different racial groups, and restrict passage by members of any group into the area allocated to other groups. And the third pillar was 'a matrix of draconian 'security' laws and policies that were employed to suppress any opposition to the regime and to reinforce the system of racial domination, by providing for administrative detention, torture, censorship, banning and assassination'.

"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'." [* See my 14/6/08 post A Certain Jewish Tree-Planting Group]

Sorry to tell you this, Nick 'n Phil, Israel not only qualifies as an apartheid state, but appears worse than the defunct South African variety:

"I suppose you're going to ask me the question, which regime was worse? I find it difficult to answer this question as a white South African because, although I lived in South Africa throughout the apartheid period, I was obviously not subjected to the discriminatory laws that were leveled and aimed at blacks. But what is interesting is that every black South African that I've spoken to who has visited the Palestinian territory has been horrified and has said without hesitation that the system that applies in Palestine is worse. And there are a number of reasons for this.

"I think, first of all, one can say there are features of the Israeli regime in the occupied territory that were unknown to South Africans. We never had a wall separating black and white. I know it's called the apartheid Wall, but that's really a misnomer because there was no wall of that kind in South Africa. And as I've said, there were no separate roads. These are novel features of Israel's apartheid regime.

"Secondly, the enforcement of the regime is much stricter. We have repeated military incursions into the West Bank, let alone Gaza... and arrests are made and Palestinians are shot and killed. And what is interesting is that in South Africa, political activists were tried by the regular criminal courts of the land in open proceedings. Whereas in Israel, Palestinians are tried by military courts which have emergency rules and regulations inherited from the British, but they are not proper courts.

"I think perhaps the most important distinguishing feature is that there are no positive features about Israel's apartheid. The South African apartheid regime did attempt to pacify the black majority by providing it with material benefits. And so schools were built; universities were built; hospitals and clinics were built by the apartheid regime. Special factories were built in the black areas in order to encourage workers to work in the African areas... Whereas in the case of Israel's apartheid, Israel makes virtually no contribution to the welfare of the Palestinian people. It leaves it all to the donor community." (Hisham B Sharabi Memorial Lecture: Apartheid & Occupation under International Law, John Dugard*, normanfinkelstein.com, 30/3/09) [*former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the OPT and visiting distinguished professor of law at Duke University]

[Related posts of mine: Yes, Virginia, Israel is an Apartheid State (1/11/08); Conscripting Gandhi (18/7/08) - where Alan Gold takes the sjambok to Mandela the terrorist!]