Aprils's Fools: A Jaunt through the Amnesty International "Apartheid" Course on Israel.
By A Rosen (and moi)
Good news!
Amnesty International is now offering an Israel Apartheid course. The course is fully interactive with videos, quizzes, even an interactive map that shows the region in real time.
I am now certified to be able to discuss human rights abuses in the region.
Well here is what I learned from the course. Slide by slide.
Editing to say- I’d love feedback on this. So if there are mistakes I can correct before sharing to other social medai :)
The course opens with a video introduction.
The video introduces the claim that the course aims to educate users about.
Primarily the claims are
-Jewish Israeli citizens have innate privilege given to them by law
-Palestinians are being forced off their land
-The situation is reminiscient of South Africa’s apartheid
Next, the definition of apartheid.
Amnesty brought three pieces of legislations: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Convention on the Suppression and the Punishment of Apartheid and the Rome Statue
I did find it interesting that the course used the Rome Statue when that piece of legislation is hardly from being internationally accepted. After all, only the green countries on the map have ratified Rome
The Amnesty Course reminded me that Apartheid was the targeting of a racial, national, ethnic group by inhumane acts.
However, they reminded me that according to their definition
Which is interesting since the above cited legislation makes it clear that apartheid is where a group is targeted.
By redefining the crime of apartheid, I wonder what new situations it will be applicable to.
For example, the United States has a White Supremacy issue. If the US government decided to surveil some people who identity as white because of their online actions, or in person joining of certain groups noted for white supremacy. And if it went further and jailed white people who they considered posed a threat, would this be apartheid? After all, white people are being targeted and the 95% of those who aren’t, are simply cooperating with the oppressive regime.
You could play the semantics game with any group. Radical Islamists in the United States may also face jail or surveillance or, for those on visas, deportation, based on their online or in person activities. The Muslims who are not fundamentalist, radicals would simply be “cooperating with the oppressive regime.”
In Israel, what we call “cooperating with the oppressive regime” is simply Palestinians and Arabs living their normal lives and participating in society.
In other words, In apartheid South Africa, there were enforced seperate beaches for whites and blacks.
And in Israel there is no enforced separation. But Arabs who swim at “Jewish beaches” are simply “cooperating with the oppressive regime.”
Anyway, this fresh and unique approach to defining apartheid allows Amnesty to malign Israel even where there are Arab politiicians, doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, etc….
Very unique. I was looking forward to learning more.
Amnesty jumped right into the situation under Apartheid South Africa to illustrate what apartheid looks like. Including
- Violation of Civil and Political Rights: Blacks in Apartheid South Africa not being allowed to vote or participate meaningfully in politics
- Descent-Based Identification: Blacks in Apartheid South Africa had to carry identification with them that detailed their race and where they could and could not live
- Land Dispossession and Segregation: Blacks in Apartheid South Africa could only own land in 7% of the territory
- Repression and Killing: During the peaceful Soweto Uprising more than 1200 people were killed
Now I was even more curious how they would apply these four qualities to Israel where Israeli citizens of all races, creeds, colors and backgrounds can vote and run for office, there is no descent-based identification and an Arab ID card and Jewish ID card look the same, Arab Israelis can own and purchase land anywhere in the region, except in the Palestinian run Area A, B and Gaza, and the Intifada- Palestinian “resistance” far from being peaceful consisted of a protracted campaign of terrorism and insurgency. Also Palestinians killed thousands of Palestinians during the intifada and Palestinian citizens have the right to vote in their PA elections.
But maybe the 2 million Arabs who were Israeli citizens were simply cooperating with the oppressive regime…
Amnesty begins to apply these four characteristics of apartheid to Israel.
It begins by going into the history of the region…beginning at…1947
I mean, I think it would be helpful to give the background about why the UN decided to vote the partition plan.
Like the fact that until 1930s it was supposed to be a binational state, but ongoing “inhuman acts” and “seperation” by the Arabs in Mandate Palestine led to the British to see partition as the only solution.
And the fact that prior to the UN plan, several other partitions had already been rejected.
I wonder if that would help course takers understand the decision made by the UN in 1947.
Nevertheless, the history beyond that discussed the 1948 war and the dispossession and the annexation of Jordan of the West Bank and growth of Israel. It also mentioned the Oslo Accords as the framework for peace.
Then Amnesty reviewed the different regions where Palestinians live in the region. Including
Some pertinent information that Amnesty left out “by mistake” is that East Jerusalemites all the have the ability to get Israeli citizenship. Which can’t be revoked at any moment.
If they have the ability to get citizenship, but choose not to, it can be considered apartheid. Because they are simply choosing not to cooperate with the oppressive regime as stated above
When it comes to the West Bank
I think it would be pertinent to say that Israel didnj’t apply civil law to Palestinians in 1967, because Jordan agreed to continue to civilly administer the territories and Palestinians there still had Jordanian citizenship. In 1988, Jordan uniltarally pulled citizenship.
It’s also interesting that they go through the Oslo Accords
But didn’t mention any of the factors that stopped negotiations or prevented transfer of the rest of the area to Palestinians.
Considering that military occupation is allowed in international law according to the Geneva Convention, it should be pertinent if this situation is enforced racial discrimination and separation or military rule for a very specific purpose that doesn’t have an easy resolution.
In a similar vein no rational for the seperation wall is given.
Was it to promote Jewish supremacy and racial segregation? Is it possible it was a specific security decision in response to ongoing events in the region?
Similarly the treatment of Gaza
leaves out whether the “hostile entity” definition was legitimate. But readers can suss that one out for themselves.
Here was Hamas charter when Hamas took over in Gaza. What do you think? Hostile or not?
They also neglect to quantify the “severe restriction” which to me. When I think “severe restrictions” I think starvation, lack of resources,.
Whereas the blockade (also allowable by Geneva) on Hamas ruled Gaza looks more like this. “severe restriction” is after all hard to quantify.
But now, finally Amnesty will get into the meat and potatoes of apartheid.
It will do this by proving there is discrmination in the same four categories they quantified with regards to Apartheid South Africa.
- Violation of Civil and Political Rights:
- Descent-Based Identification:
- Land Dispossession and Segregation:
- Repression and Killing:
First the report delineates some inequities in Israel. Afterwards, in the next section, it will apply them to the four categories above
Here are some of their observations
#1 Amnesty makes the claim that Palestinian citizens of Israel can’t vote or take part meaningfully in politics
I guess this is true, if the percentage of Arab voters, similar to the percentage of Jewish voters, who chose to vote were merely cooperating with the oppressive regime
And of course, Arabs in the Knesset were also not exercising a fundamental right to participate in the political process but instead cooperating with the oppressive regime
Amnesty also ignores the obvious fact that if it weren't for Israel's Arab parties, the Oslo Accords which brought about facilitating real Apartheid (against Jews) in Judea and Samaria. wouldn't have occurred.
#2 Amnesty shares some statistics
Well yes. Before the state of Israel, Jewish Palestinans owned about 7% of the land, Arab Palestinians owned about 13% of the land and 80% was one form of state land or another.
As of 2021, 93% of the land in Israel is state and public land, which all citizens of Israel benefit from and can purchase
#3 The Absentee Property Law.
That did happen- 75 years ago- and in conjuction and agreement with Jordan’s Absentee property law. Basically, Israel appropriated abandoned Arab property in Israel and Jordan appropriated abandoned Jewish property in the West Bank.
On the subject of Jordan, its interesting to note this doesn't make them an Apartheid state-nor does Lebanon's refusal to give citizenship to Palestinian Arabs, Kuwait expelling over 300,000 and not giving them a "right of return", etc.
#4 Money allocated for Covid demonstrated discrmination
After all
only 1.7% of the funds were given to local Palestinian authorities.
I mean Amnesty leaves out that that rest were allocated mostly to mixed areas, where there are no local authorities only for Palestinians because Palesitnian Arabs and Jews live together and share the funds.
It’s weird they would want to see money going to seperate Palestinian leaders and locales, and not want to see integration. Since the thesis here is that seperation is apartheid.
#5 The Bedouin in the Negev
who are by and large integrated, with some tribes still struggling to synthesize modern lifestyles with their nomadic traditions.
Israel has been struggling with this as well, as it wants to provide eseential services- education, medical, infastructure and civil- to Bedouin and can only do so in recognized towns.
In contrast to other countries, such as Lebanon, who allow the Bedouins to maintain the nomadic lifestyle, by simply not granting them citizenship and excluding them from civil services, Israel has set up new Bedouin cities with the essential services already in place. And has worked towards greater integration of populations.
It’s interesting to me that Amnesty sees integration of Arab populations as evidence of cooperation wtih the oppressive regime and non-integration as evidence of seperation/apartheid.
But as far as appropriation and land ownership, Israel did rely on the Ottoman land reform and registered land to determine private land ownership. Ottoman deeds can still be accessed through a central registry.
the issue is that Bedouin did not traditionally own the land they lived on. Which in the industrial period of course makes provision of services difficult, since Israel needs state land to build infastructure for state need.
The largest percentage of Bedouin tribes are integrated or have worked out deals with Israel related to their traditional lands- and the situation with the remaining tribes does need a solution that is equitable to all. Its also worth noting Israel actually does enforce separation-Bedouins in Israel don't have to sell land from their localities to Jews, and Jews can't buy *land.
In my [Rosen's] opinion, neither- neglecting these populations and leaving them to their own devices living a nomadic lifestyle on traditional land nor forcing them to integrate is a good solution.
#6
The only definitions that legally make a difference when it comes to laws, policies and practices are whether someone in a citizne of Israel or not a citizen of Israel.
Actually there is one case where being Ärab changes things- and thats army enrollment. non-Arabs are drafted and Arabs can choose to enlist or not.
#7
Actually Israel does take steps against violence in the West Bank.
#8
Protest- definition-
Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, a senior Hamas official told MEMRI TV that "this is not peaceful resistance."
"When we talk about peaceful resistance, we are deceiving the public," Zahhar said.
#9
People of Palestinian descent from countries that recognize Israel worldwide can enter Israel like any other citizen of these countries. In other words, a US citizen and a US citizen of Palestinian descent are equal in the eyes of Israeli law
Palesitnian citizens of Israel don’t have inferior legal status.
As per Oslo, 90% Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have self government and those in East Jerusalem can choose their citizneship.
#10-
Actually-peaceful protests take place all the time in Judea and Samaria and within Israel.
As long as their are no munititions being thrown, Israeli police don’t interfere
Amnesty closes the report with a call to action and then a quiz.
As far as the call to action- I would recommend interested parties in the West who want to take actions to speak to Palestinians, Palestinian citizens of Israel and Israeli citiznes.
I would encourage them to promote real solutions as well.
A label is only good if it can effect change. But because, “tearing down the apartheid wall”and creating a single state is quite likely to lead to intense violence and worsening of the conflict, let’s try to set goals, set timelines and promote real solutions.
---
Extra Sources
*
כאן צריך להזכיר שמי שהכשיר את האפליה החד־צדדית, זו שמאפשרת לערבים לגור היכן שיחפצו ובמקביל אוסרת את הבחירה הזו על יהודים, הוא בית המשפט הגבוה לצדק. זה קרה בעקבות עתירה שהגיש בשנת 1988 אליעזר אביטן, קצין משטרה בדימוס, שביקש לרכוש מגרש ביישוב הבדואי שגב שלום, ובתנאים שרוכשים הבדואים, ונתקל בסירוב שלצדו ההודעה שמדובר ביישוב לבדואים בלבד. אביטן עתר לבג"ץ, ונדחה על ידי השופטים תיאודור אור, מאיר שמגר ויעקב מלץ.
המדינה, שנדרשה להגן על עמדתה, הסבירה אז לבית המשפט, בין השאר, ש"הבדואים מהווים במדינת ישראל מיעוט אתני בעל צביון וייחוד", ושהיישובים הבדואיים נועדו, בין השאר, לאפשר לבדואים לעזוב את הפזורה, מה שיאפשר למדינה להרוס את הבתים הבלתי חוקיים שהם בנו בשטח (אני מקווה שאתם יכולים לשמוע ברקע את צחוקו של שר ההיסטוריה).
ומה קבע בית המשפט? ש"לעתים יש צורך להפלות בין מי שאינם שווים, כדי להגן על החלש או הנזקק, לעודדו ולקדמו", וגם, ש"קיים אינטרס ברור למדינה, משיקולים ציבוריים, לעודד את התיישבות הבדואים", וש"מאידך גיסא, אין למדינה כל אינטרס ליתן לעותר ולשכמותו הקלות או לעודדם להתיישב ביישוב שבו מדובר".
מישהו יכול להסביר לי למה למדינה יש אינטרס להקצות יישובים לבדואים יותר ממה שיש לה אינטרס להקצות יישובים ליהודים? רגע, זה לא הכל. הנה עוד נימוק אחד שכתב השופט תיאודור אור. "די שבמתן מגרש לעותר, או לאחרים שאינם בדואים, יהיה לפגוע בבדואים אחרים מהיישוב, או שהדבר יסכן את בואם של בדואים נוספים אל היישוב או את התמדתם להתגורר בו, כדי שלצורך השגת המטרה של יישוב קבע של הבדואים, לא
-Maariv
Comments
Post a Comment