Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
South African Jewish judge Richard Goldstone may have contributed more than any other individual to the deligitimization and demonization of Israel. He led a fact-finding mission created by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate human rights law violations related to the Gaza War and concluded that Israel had committed premeditated crimes against civilians in Gaza. In April, he completely pulled back, saying that Israel didn't actually set out to target civilians, unlike Hamas, for whom it's the goal.
And today he has an op-ed in the New York Times that takes things further. He discusses the use of terms such as "apartheid" to describe Israeli policy and explains why it's inaccurate. For context, Goldstone was one of the judges who undermined apartheid from within the system:
One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.
While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.
Some other key quotes from the op-ed:
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute...
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.
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.
The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.
It's an important op-ed because the non-governmental organizations have used "apartheid" claims to launch boycotts, divestment, sanctions and other forms of political warfare against Israel. Will having a respected anti-apartheid judge such as Goldstone condemn apartheid rhetoric make it harder for groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to use said rhetoric? I imagine it might.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
Has he yet explained why he issued a report that he almost immediately retracted? Was it edited by someone else who left his name on it? Was he under UN pressure to write something "balanced" to offset the findings that Israel's neighbors are appalling, loathsome, noxious and the worst people currently extant on the planet?
It certainly doesn't do anything for his reputation. Now everybody's mad at him. And not in a "badge of honor" way.
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
Kennedy Smith: Has he yet explained why he issued a report that he almost immediately retracted? Was it edited by someone else who left his name on it? Was he under UN pressure to write something "balanced" to offset the findings that Israel's neighbors are appalling, loathsome, noxious and the worst people currently extant on the planet?
It certainly doesn't do anything for his reputation. Now everybody's mad at him. And not in a "badge of honor" way. · Nov 1 at 5:04am
Well, in his original op-ed walking back the report, he says he was hamstrung by Israel's lack of cooperation ... although that doesn't justify the errors.
Sep '11
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
I'm hesitant to comment on this post--because of my perception that anything even faintly deviating from undying support for Israel--my Israel, right or wrong--gets one instantly, and permanently, labeled "anti-Semitic."
But...what parallels there are should at least give a thoughtful person pause. In theory the West Bank is not part of Israel--but it is, de facto, under Israeli control. The Israelis control the borders, the Israelis control access, and if the Israelis choose--without regard to the Palistinians--the self-described "Jewish state" will build settlements in the West Bank that are then deemed to be part of Israel.
I don't know if it is official government policy to refer to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria," but apparently a significant number of Israeli Jews do. The perception is that many Israelis view the West Bank (and Gaza) as part of "the Jewish state" and want the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza moved out. One way or another.
That may not precisely fit the definition of "apartheid"--but it seems close to wishing for a little ethnic cleansing.
Aug '11
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
Goldstone is slowly recovering from his apparently temporary brain damage.
Labeling Israel with the term "Apartheid" actually demeans and trivializes the experience of non-whites in South Africa and it would behoove them to speak out and acknowledge this.
Aug '11
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
John Murdoch: I don't know if it is official government policy to refer to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria," but apparently a significant number of Israeli Jews do. The perception is that many Israelis view the West Bank (and Gaza) as part of "the Jewish state" and want the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza moved out. One way or another.
That may not precisely fit the definition of "apartheid"--but it seems close to wishing for a little ethnic cleansing. · Nov 1 at 8:34am
This is simply not the case. Most Israelis are in favor of a 2 state solution. The ones that aren't are not suggesting that it be cleansed of anyone. They believe the West Bank it is a part of the Jewish homeland and that they have the right to live there as well. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that there are already 1 million Arab citizens of Israel, and certainly no one is suggesting they be booted out. The only Ethnic cleansing that is likely to occur is that of Jews from a future Palestine (as they were from every other Arab state)
Edited on Nov 1, 2011 at 8:47amMay '10
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
We should also note that losing territory is often the consequence of launching a war to take someone else's territory.
Israel owns it fair and square. Like a loser-pays tort reform law.
Sep '11
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
Kennedy Smith: We should also note that losing territory is often the consequence of launching a war to take someone else's territory.
Israel owns it fair and square. Like a loser-pays tort reform law. · Nov 1 at 9:31am
Isn't the "apartheid" argument that Israel did seize the West Bank--but does not want the citizens of the West Bank? Israelis I have known have described the problem of demographics: create one country with the post-1967 borders, and the Palestinians out-vote the Jews. What to do?
That's the root of the perception of "apartheid"--Israel has created a "state" that isn't enough of a state to manage its own affairs, but enough of a state to keep the Palestinians from voting in Israeli elections. The analogy to the South African homeland system is disturbing.
Apartheid was much, much more: but the analogy is apt enough to give a thoughtful person pause.
May '10
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
Ideally Israel could hand over the territories to Jordan and Egypt, but those countries somehow don't want the "Palestinians" around.
Mar '11
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
I suspect that if one took the other side of that bet you could profit handsomley.
Dec '10
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
John Murdoch
Apartheid was much, much more: but the analogy is apt enough to give a thoughtful person pause. · Nov 1 at 9:42am
The real apartheid parallel is that the Palestinian Authority has kept the law from the Jordanian-occupation era that specifies the death penalty for any Arab who sells real estate to a Jew, and that the PA has announced that it cannot tolerate the idea of Jewish residents of the West Bank once it achieves statehood. That, and of course the fact that Jewish residents of the West Bank have to live in walled communities under constant threat of murder.
One notes that Israel withdrew all of its citizens from Gaza in a futile effort to achieve peace. Perhaps apartheid is not the right model: the Palestinian radical elements seem to be shooting not for separation but for a completely Judenrein zone between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
Dec '10
Re: Goldstone: No Apartheid in Israel
Goldstone has apparently discovered Zymurgy's First Law of Evolving System Dynamics: