http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/ 2006/11/29/1129edcarter.html
APARTHEID
Israelis adopt what South Africa dropped
By JOHN DUGARD
Published on: 11/29/06
Former President Jimmy Carter's new book, "Palestine: Peace Not
Apartheid," is igniting controversy for its allegation that Israel
practices a form of apartheid.
As a South African and former anti-apartheid advocate who visits the
Palestinian territories regularly to assess the human rights
situation for the U.N. Human Rights Council, the comparison to South
African apartheid is of special interest to me.
On the face of it, the two regimes are very different. Apartheid was
a system of institutionalized racial discrimination that the white
minority in South Africa employed to maintain power over the black
majority. It was characterized by the denial of political rights to
blacks, the fragmentation of the country into white areas and black
areas (called Bantustans) and by the imposition on blacks of
restrictive measures designed to achieve white superiority, racial
separation and white security.
The "pass system," which sought to prevent the free movement of
blacks and to restrict their entry to the cities, was rigorously
enforced. Blacks were forcibly "relocated," and they were denied
access to most public amenities and to many forms of employment. The
system was enforced by a brutal security apparatus in which torture
played a significant role.
The Palestinian territories - East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza
- have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Although
military occupation is tolerated and regulated by international law,
it is considered an undesirable regime that should be ended as soon
as possible. The United Nations for nearly 40 years has condemned
Israel's military occupation, together with colonialism and
apartheid, as contrary to the international public order.
In principle, the purpose of military occupation is different from
that of apartheid. It is not designed as a long-term oppressive
regime but as an interim measure that maintains law and order in a
territory following an armed conflict and pending a peace settlement.
But this is not the nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Since 1967 Israel has imposed its control over the Palestinian
territories in the manner of a colonizing power, under the guise of
occupation. It has permanently seized the territories' most desirable
parts - the holy sites in East Jerusalem, Hebron and Bethlehem and
the fertile agricultural lands along the western border and in the
Jordan Valley - and settled its own Jewish "colonists" throughout the
land.
Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories has many features
of colonization. At the same time it has many of the worst
characteristics of apartheid. The West Bank has been fragmented into
three areas - north (Jenin and Nablus), center (Ramallah) and south
(Hebron) - which increasingly resemble the Bantustans of South Africa.
Restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by a rigid permit system
enforced by some 520 checkpoints and roadblocks resemble, but in
severity go well beyond, apartheid's "pass system." And the security
apparatus is reminiscent of that of apartheid, with more than 10,000
Palestinians in Israeli prisons and frequent allegations of torture
and cruel treatment.
Many aspects of Israel's occupation surpass those of the apartheid
regime. Israel's large-scale destruction of Palestinian homes,
leveling of agricultural lands, military incursions and targeted
assassinations of Palestinians far exceed any similar practices in
apartheid South Africa. No wall was ever built to separate blacks and
whites.
Following the worldwide anti-apartheid movement, one might expect a
similarly concerted international effort united in opposition to
Israel's abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians. Instead one finds
an international community divided between the West and the rest of
the world. The Security Council is prevented from taking action
because of the U.S. veto and European Union abstinence. And the
United States and the European Union, acting in collusion with the
United Nations and the Russian Federation, have in effect imposed
economic sanctions on the Palestinian people for having, by
democratic means, elected a government deemed unacceptable to Israel
and the West. Forgotten is the commitment to putting an end to
occupation, colonization and apartheid.
In these circumstances, the United States should not be surprised if
the rest of the world begins to lose faith in its commitment to human
rights. Some Americans - rightly - complain that other countries are
unconcerned about Sudan's violence-torn Darfur region and similar
situations in the world. But while the United States itself maintains
a double standard with respect to Palestine it cannot expect
cooperation from others in the struggle for human rights.
John Dugard is a South African law professor teaching in the
Netherlands. He is currently Special Rapporteur (reporter) on
Palestine to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
--