Israel is long overdue to undergo the same racial reckoning and transformation that the United States underwent in the 1960s and South Africa passed through in the 1990s. The dual system of law that prevails in the occupied West Bank and favors Jewish settlers to the detriment of Palestinians is unacceptable in the 21st century. Israel's settlers must decide if they will abide by international law and leave the occupied territories or stay on -- as offered by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad -- provided they live under Palestinian law.
Two states with security and rights for Israelis and Palestinians is within our grasp today. We must be dogged in our determination to achieve this outcome with the utmost speed. Delay plays into the hands of rejectionists and those who would use time not to advance peace but
to further settle the West Bank and East Jerusalem, rendering impossible a contiguous and viable Palestinian state.
If a Palestinian state becomes impossible and Palestinians appear consigned to a permanent apartheid-like reality then many of us who overcame daunting odds in South Africa will feel obliged to throw our support to one state based on equality for all. Let us, then, determine to make two states for two peoples work during the Obama administration.
I have no doubt I will be castigated for my plain speaking on behalf of Palestinian rights, Israeli security, and an end to the Israeli occupation. The rhetoric surrounding this conflict is ferocious. Mary Robinson, who on August 12 was awarded with the Medal of Freedom, is currently being vilified by organizations such as AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America for vigorously speaking out on behalf of Palestinian human rights. She deserves better and the White House is right to defend her from proponents of a fantasized Israel that reputedly can do no wrong.
She is not alone. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Adviser David Axelrod are also under attack. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu derided them as "self-hating Jews." Israeli settlers regularly refer to President Obama as a "kushi," a vicious and derogatory term for a black man. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, one of the great moral leaders of our time, has been accused of "anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slurs" by the Zionist Organization of America and last week the ADL's Abraham Foxman referred to him as an "Israel basher." This language is the tip of the iceberg. The anti-Semitism label is so overused it is in jeopardy of losing power as a meaningful term.
The willingness of the White House to award Robinson and Tutu with the Medal of Freedom leaves me to wonder if the Obama administration is sending such organizations a message that Obama will not be intimidated and will stand firm in advancing America's national interest in a settlements freeze and, more broadly, in a just Middle East peace.
This week's overheated pro-Israel rhetoric exposes the zealotry of the speaker or organization, but the routine invocation of such labels also serves to intimidate many good people from involving themselves in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Far too many people who were outspoken advocates on behalf of ending apartheid in South Africa have taken to the sidelines in this dispute lest they be accused of being anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, or self-hating Jews. The terminology is cruel and painful to those on the receiving end even though most know the term is employed only as a political weapon to silence. I believe the silencing tactic has worked to delay Palestinian freedom.
President Obama was right when he declared in his Cairo speech, "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights." As he suggested, it was nonviolence that carried the day and advanced rights and justice in South Africa and other struggles.
I would only add that the seeds of a mighty and transformative nonviolent struggle are indeed already visible from the West Bank to the Gaza coast. I have met with Palestinians and Israelis who regularly put their lives on the line to assert nonviolently the injustice of Israeli expansionism and home demolitions. Must we wait for a humanitarian boat of the Free Gaza Movement to be fatally rammed or a Sharpeville massacre in the Palestinian village of Bil'in before we highlight the nonviolent courage of Palestinians and Israelis protesting Israel's siege of Gaza and the land-grabbing barrier that illegally seizes Palestinian agricultural land in the West Bank? Too many young people, most of them Palestinian, have been killed and maimed in Bil'in already.
Israel's ill-advised attempt to establish demographic facts in East Jerusalem by throwing Palestinian families out of their homes does not advance long-term Israeli interests, but leads more and more people around the world to question whether Israel is honestly interested in
making peace with its Palestinians neighbors.
Israel must make the choice in the weeks ahead whether it intends to continue ruling over the Palestinians indefinitely or will step back from the dual system of law and apartheid it appears poised to embrace under the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
John Dugard is a professor of law, a former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the chairman of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza.
"At least 13 people were killed and more than 100 wounded in gunfights between Hamas forces and Islamist extremists from a Palestinian group calling itself Jund Ansar Allah, when the latter defied the Hamas rulers of Gaza on Friday by declaring an "Islamic emirate" in the territory.
The fighting began when Hamas forces surrounded a mosque in the southern Gaza town of Rafah where about 100 members of Jund Ansar Allah were holed up, including some armed with suicide belts and rifles, according to residents of the area
Hamas deals with a hostile terrorist group allied with al Qaeda -- ostensibly, doing /exactly/ what the US would ask of them -- and you ridicule Hamas for that?
Are you rooting for the terrorists? Seriously?
When Palestinian authorities crack down on terrorists, they prove that they are savages unfit to have any sovereign rights.
When Palestinian authorities do not crack down on extremists, they are obviously supporting terrorism.
It's awfully convenient. The only little catch being that by applying the same standards to Israel, it would be considered totally uncivilized and unfit to rule the West Bank and Gaza as well. But thankfully, Israel never has to worry about having equal - or for that matter, any - moral standards applied to itself by the right wing.
LOL. As usual Palestinians give up on yet another chance for real peace.
"Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
And only a few months after Netanyahu issued his.
Are the moderators really unaware that "Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" is a common racial epithet used against Palestinians?
The answer would be, "Yes."
The best suggestion to solve this problem was made in 1922 when Transjordan was created to serve as a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits and as a homeland for those Arabs unwilling to live among the Jews. Most Jordanians have much more in common with the Palestinians than with the ruling family in Jordan. The time has come for the realization of the Palestinian homeland in Jordan, where it belongs.
The Pharisees are alive and well here.
The Arabs living in Israel are an occupied population, those who weren't intimidated into moving --and the West Bank is illegally occupied territory, so the two things are not remotely comparable.
Actually, Israel is occupied territory, all of it.
"According to these folks Israel must give up any claims to the territory and all Jews must leave. Yet if someone made the same suggestion concerning Arabs inside Israel there uproar would be incredible. "
The Pharisees are alive and well here. The Arabs living in Israel are an occupied population, those who weren't intimidated into moving --and the West Bank is illegally occupied territory, so the two things are not remotely comparable. Actually, Israel is occupied territory, all of it.
This is beyond laughable.
Mr. Dugard, If Palestinians REALLY gave up their militant practices and revanchist fantasies they would've long ago had their state. As early as 1948 and as late as 2000 Camp David.Think about it.
If you are all so tired of the Palestinians get off their land and go back to where you came from. I`m sure they are tired of being ethnically cleansed, and robbed of everything including life. Israelis are delusional for thinking this pipe dream can last forever. The world is losing patience with Israel.
The Palestinains are not illegally occupying anyones land, israel is.
Zionism isn't going anywhere, you're deluding yourself. There is a Jewish state now and it's here to stay. Now it's time for the Palestinians to recognize that fact in exchange for some concessions.
The idea that anyone who is called an antisemite by a person or group is consequently stifled and unable to engage in debate is without merit. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh complaining, as he frequently does, that anyone who criticizes President Obama is eventually called a racist, and that this naturally prevents legitimate debate and unfairly suppresses his ideas, which would of course garner more support if the battle of ideas were 'fair'. It is an inversion of the victim-oppressor dynamic which the word 'racist' refers to, such that by claiming to be a victim of being called a racist, one negates the very meaning, or existence, of racism in favor of one’s present victimhood – the sorry state of having been called a racist.
If you know what racism - or antisemetism - is and how it works, and you are sensitive to the history, fears and concerns of the target of your criticism, and believe you are still unfairly castigated, simply ignore the label. Continue your critique. If someone points out to you why something you said might cause offense, take their advice. They may know more than you. But don't let a label stop you from talking, and please do not cultivate an ideology of victimhood over this issue.
Why does the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC use such language? They are not on the record as being against human rights. Instead of citing their usage of the term ‘antisemetism’ as evidence of their absurdity in this instance, please explain what the accusations refer to, and specify why they are incorrect. I don’t doubt that they are, in many cases. However, without explaining why exactly Abraham Foxman is wrong, your argument here is about the usage of the term 'antisemite', or ‘Israel-hater’ and the like, and not about why they are used wrongly.
"The anti-Semitism label is so overused it is in jeopardy of losing power as a meaningful term."
For whom? It has not lost its meaning or power for Jews, who continue to suffer from the effects of centuries upon centuries of what that word refers to. Are you really trying to say that press releases from the ADL are rendering antisemetism inert and meaningless?
When human rights organizations, social justice activists and respected UN officials are all labeled as "anti-Semites" and subjected to "anti-defamation" defamation, then yes, the term's meaning is watered down.
In Israel all citizens Arab and Jewish alike have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought----unlike non Muslims in the Palestinian controlled areas and the surrounding Arab countries. But this bigot calls Israel an Apartied state. If I am not mistaken, Israel offered to pull out of the W. Bank and share E. Jerusalem in 2000 and the Palestinians responded by starting a war. This author's hatred is only exceeded by his lack of knowledge.
That is ethnic cleansing. Allowing settlers to retain all rights and protections of citizens while excluding Palestinians in the occupied territories from most of those rights, and progressively moving further and further off of their own land is apartheid.
It is EXACTLY like south Africa, and yet, as Desmond Tutu points out, worse in many ways.
The Zionists were responsible for running 750,000 Palestinians out of their homes /in the span of less than a year/. The Arab response, as bad as it was, was a reaction to Zionist atrocities.
And in many cases, Jewish "refugees" were /paid/ to come to Israel after 1948, both in cash and in property seized from indigenous Palestinians.
The US needs to hear more from you and from others who are actually knowledgeable about this subject. I Hope and pray that you are right about the Obama administrations steadfast plans to see the settlements brought to a swift and just end. We will never see middle eastern peace until this objective is achieved, and the US must PUSH HARD to achieve it.
The settlements must go the way of slavery, apartheid, and segregation. They are diametrically opposed to the values that virtually define the US.
In Iran, for example, Iranian Jews are given explicit constitutional civil protections. They are also guaranteed a seat on the Parliament.
Is that your idea of "apartheid discrimination?"
People like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu would tend to disagree.
the settlements are the EMBODIMENT of apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
Egypt and Jordan must play greater role in P affairs. They realize it now. In summer 2008 Egypt offered to send troops to Gaza as part of Arab security force. Hamas refused.
Reviving the idea of Jordian-W. Bank federation has considerable appeal among common P-nians thirsty for calm and stability. It worked for 19 years from 1948-1967. It can work again now.
Why do you hate the Palestinians so much that you constantly want to see them made slaves to some other power?
A homeland for Palestinians was created in 1922 when over 70% of the Jewish homeland was taken to form Transjordan. Transjordan was established to be a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits and to serve as a homeland for those Arabs unwilling to live among the Jews. Ordinary Joranians have much more in common with Palestinians than with the ruling family, so it makes sense to finally utilize Jordan as the Palestinian homeland it was created to be.
You are lying. Anyone can talk to a Palestinian and learn the truth. The name "Palestine" has been used for that region for centuries, at least.
The document that in effect created Israel, the Balfour Declaration, referred to part of the area that Israel now inhabits as Palestine. So, following your logic, if there was no Palestine then you people are in the wrong place and need to leave. Immedietley.
There has been a Palestine for centuries and all your illogic does not negate any of it.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
They wanted it all.
"...Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_division
The Arabs rejected the 1947 Partition Plan because it was recommendatory only - no status in law - and blatantly unjust regarding the native Palestinians who comprised 70% of the population (despite massive Ashkenazi Jewish immigration from abroad) and owned 93% of the land. The Jewish state was to take up 56% of Palestine!! You also neglect to note that between passage of the Partition Plan and the declaration of the Jewish state on 15 May 1948, Jewish militia had already expelled at least 300,000 Palestinians. Furthermore, the Partition Plan had proved so utterly unworkable that at the behest of Truman, the UN General Assembly was in the process of having it shelved in favour of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine. Forced to intervene to stem the ongoing expulsion of Palestinians, the out-numbered and out-gunned Arab state armies were defeated in the ensuing war and Israel seized 78% of Palestine, evicted a further 450,000-500,000 Palestinians and demolished about 450 of their towns and villages.
Yes, this is the lie that the Arab countries told their populations. The fact is that the Arab countries announced soon after the UN Partition vote that they attack Israel. They waited until March 15 to avoid a war with Britain, which did not complete its withdrawal of its soldiers until that date.
Revisionist history is one thing. Outright lying or ignorance is another.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png/240px-UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png
This was the extent of Jewish settlement
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Map_of_1947_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine.png/240px-Map_of_1947_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine.png
Padded the claim just a little
http://www.100megsfree4.com/lastone/politics/palestine.jpg
I really do not know of any sensible and rational human being that would have accepted the partition plan. If they did they would not be adequately representing their people.
But the facts remain.
There are two options available to Palestin Arabs:
1. Some sort of autonomy connected to Jordan.
2. Independent de-militarized state which gradually can develop means of proving to its neighbors ( Jordan, Israel, Egypt) its peaceful intentions.
There is NOTHING else available.
And that especially excludes old fantasies periodically revived by Palestinains such as: bi-national state, demographic take over, military conquest, Islamic Waqf etc.
When you actually figure out how to recognize facts and take note of the reality that the whole rest of the world perceives, let us know. In the meantime, we'll be over here with the other 100+ nations that already recognize Palestine.
First, according to your article Israel does not "appear poised to embrace... apartheid", but rather you state that Israel already has such a system in place. But that's neither here nor there.
More importantly, what does this conclusion mean in policy terms? How exactly might Israel "step back from the dual system of law and apartheid", in the context of the existing final-status negotiations already nearly completed? Do you favor what has already been negotiated, or are you opposed to certain positions taken by the Israeli or Palestinian negotiators? In the face of the offerings of both the Arab peace plan and Netanyahu's recent speech elucidating his government's conditions for a final-status agreement, what do you recommend each side - Israel, the PA, the US, the EU, and Arab states - do in concrete terms to reach a sustainable peace agreement?
I've plugged it here before, but I'll do it again - Walter Russell Mead's take on a workable solution to the conflict:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63719/walter-russell-mead/change-they-can-believe-in
Proof: Zero talk of Palestinian state during 19-year Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank.
this can work again.
Just because Israel wasn't in a position to need to stereotype the Palestinians as terrorists before 1967 doesn't mean that Palestinians weren't trying to get independence from Jordanian occupation.
Query:
Have you bothered actually /talking/ to Palestinians? Seriously?
Property title search:
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
Kingdom of Jordan
Israel
Under international law, the 1947 Partition Plan provides the legal basis for the West Bank and East Jerusalem along with the Gaza Strip to form a Palestinian state.
East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank.
Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
Article 26: The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab states.
Palestinian Arabs here give up their claim for the West Bank!!!
Mu post acknowledeg the de facto (as opposed to de jure) disparities suffered by the Palestinians in Israel. So what's your point, besides reflexively bashing Israel.
Israeli Arabs are not moved into East Jerusalem because they haven't the political clout or the single-minded, some would say myopic mindset and cultural imperative many religious Israeli Jews have to move in and live and build settlements in and around East Jerusalem and the West Bank, regardless of Israeli law. To say settlers are "being moved" into E.J. downplays their individual agency in the process, which is quite active. Besides, the mere existence of anti-discrimination laws does not necessarily preclude actual discriminatory actions in any society, as minorities in many nations are unfortunately aware.
For the simple reason that it never belong to them.
Fact:The ONLY time they were given a chance to own it was in 1948. Unfortunately ( for them) Palestinian Arabs chose to reject it in favor for attacking Israel.
Fact: As late as the 1960s Palestinian leadership EXPLICITLY recognized Jordanian claim to West Bank..
Certainly, Palestinains prefer to get as much land as possible. But whatever part of West Bank Palestinains get would be due to mutually agreed upon agreement between Israel and representatives of Palestinains.
Everything else is fairy tales and agitprop..
Israel was created against the will of the area's inhabitants by a rigged UN resolution and has no validity. Israel is an outlaw state that needs to disappear -- either by being absorbed into a single democratic state for both Jews and Arabs -- or by being overwhelmed eventually by the ever-growing Palestinian population.
There will come a point where America will not be able to defend this little Prussia on the Jordan.
We've already wasted billions and billions and alienated billions of people defending this outrageous apartheid state.
Time to pull the plug on aid and tell the israelis to either do what we say or defend themselves with their own resources.
And since the Jews owned only 6% of the land of Palestine at the time of partition, and since there is no legal means under internatlional law for them to take any of the 93% of the land of Palestine owned by the Palestinian natives; how then does Israel have any right to even one sq. ft. of land that was not already owned by the Jews before partition?
Fact: Jews ARE area's inhabitants. Have been so for 3000 years.
Fact: Israel came into existence and defended itself for decades with a single dollar from U.S. Remember 1948 and 1967?
Fact: Israel is strong and highly successful state while most Middle Eastern states are stuck in 17th Century economy and political systems.
Therefore, Israelis can now yawn at people who harbor these revanchist fantasies.
Deal with it.