Apartheid and the occupation of Palestine

[Jefferson23]

As the Russell Tribunal convenes to discuss apartheid, Israel has already surpassed South Africa's racist era.

John Dugard Last Modified: 04 Nov 2011 09:00

This week, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will consider the question of whether Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) constitute the crime of apartheid within the meaning of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. This Convention, which has been incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is not confined to apartheid in South Africa. Instead it criminalises, under international law, practices that resemble apartheid.

The Russell Tribunal was initiated in the 1960s by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to examine war crimes committed during the Vietnam War. It has now been revived to consider Israel's violations of international law. It is not a judicial tribunal, but a tribunal comprising reputable jurors from different countries, that seeks to examine whether Israel has violated international criminal law and should be held accountable.

In essence, the Russell Tribunal is a court of international public opinion. It will hear evidence in Cape Town on the scope of the 1973 Apartheid Convention, on apartheid as practiced in South Africa, on Israeli practices in the OPT, particularly the West Bank, and on the question whether these practices so closely resemble those of apartheid as to bring them within the prohibitions of the 1973 Apartheid Convention. The Israeli government has been invited to testify before the tribunal, but, at this stage, has not replied to the invitation. Most of the evidence will inevitably, therefore, be critical of Israel.

Israel cannot be held accountable for its actions by any international tribunal as it refuses to accept the jurisdiction of either the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. The Russell Tribunal seeks to remedy this weakness in the international system of justice by providing for accountability by a court of international opinion. It does not seek to obstruct the peace process. On the contrary, it wishes to promote it. But there can be no peace without justice. This is a basic principle that Richard Goldstone, who has written an op-ed criticising the Russell Tribunal (Israel and the Apartheid Slander, New York Times, October 31, 2011), has devoted much his life to, as prosecutor before the Yugoslavia Tribunal.

remainder in full: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111395153781378.html

[azurnoir]

1. interesting article

it points out how Israel escapes international justice by simply refusing to sign on to international treaties as most civilized Western nations do

as to Goldstone's denial of apartheid he starts out with the usual tired trope of how there is no apartheid in Israel but then goes on to include the OPT in which he points out such things as Blacks being left to die at roadsides because they were Black in Apartheid South Africa no that does not happen in Israel or the OPT where people have died at checkpoints because they were Palestinian but obviously that doesn't count

all in all I think Justice Goldstone does himself no favors with this stuf he will still be condemned for his work with the UNHRC and has lost the respect of many liberals on the other side

[bemildred]

2. Kind of made me think of "Darkness at Noon", though it's easy to pick nits in that analogy.

I rather sympathize with the Judge, a well-meaning guy who walked into a buzz-saw with the best intentions of doing good.

[azurnoir]

3. Goldstone is in a damned if he doesn't and still damned if he does situation n/t

[bemildred]

4. So then, he is damned.

Once you step over the boundary, violate the taboo, there is no going back, no do-over, no forgiveness.

[azurnoir]

5. sigh apparently so

which is why I wonder why he bothers but one has to try I guess

[bemildred]

6. Well, it's easy for us cynics(*), we don't expect much to start with.

But if you have faith, and you lose it, that can be a crushing blow.

* -- Not including you unless you want to be included.

[azurnoir]

7. ah sir I am indeed a cynic a cynical cynic if you wish n/t

[King_David]

10. Maybe he believes

Ha ha

Hard for you to understand I guess.

[azurnoir]

11. Maybe he believes what? That he will be forgiven?

so you are now ok with his participation in the UNHRC's investigation of OCL and his subsequent report?

[King_David]

12. He's recanted publicly

Everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame. .

He realises the findings were bogus.

He's all but said that . The others on the commission were insignificant,

I don't recall any of their names.

[bemildred]

13. So, are we clear on how it works now?

It does not matter what he does at this point, except that whatever he says will be fodder for the noise machine, and if he says nothing he will still be fodder for the noise machine. And it is at that point, when you realize that that is the situation, that you are just an object in the noise machine, that you lose faith, you realize that the cause and the noise machine are one, and you have to decide what to do about it.

Rubashov decides that he still believes in the cause, however it may have been distorted, and metaphorically throws himself on his sword because he cannot abandon that hope, and confesses, and is executed. He cannot just walk away from the cause he has dedicated his life to. That's what made me think of Goldstone, the recantation, even though he clearly knows, or ought to know, that it's too late. If he was truly self-interested, he could go commercial at this point, there is plenty of money to be made, but I don't expect he is that sort of guy.

So again, a dramatization of the conflict between thinking (what one knows) and feeling (what one wants).

[azurnoir]

15. with all due respect sir

I was quite clear on that all along my reply was in direct responce to a comment by another poster from whom I wanted clarification

[bemildred]

16. True. Mea culpa. nt

[azurnoir]

17. Thanks n/t

[bemildred]

18. Only credit where it is due.

Sometimes one is having so much fun that one quite forgets where one started.
:-)

[Boojatta]

8. "as most civilized Western nations do"

Is Israel Western? If it is, then why is it, and if it isn't, then why isn't it?

What are some examples of Western nations that aren't civilized? Are there any non-Western nations that aren't civilized?

Do all nations that sign on to international treaties fulfill their obligations under the treaties that they sign on to? If some nations sign on but don't fulfill their obligations, then how do they "escape international justice"?

[azurnoir]

9. lol answers in order

Is Israel Western?

we have an Israeli poster who seems to think so, and culturally it has more in common with the West than say Egypt or Iran wouldn't you say?

What are some examples of Western nations that aren't civilized? Are there any non-Western nations that aren't civilized?

No not at all, yes Somalia would be one example

Do all nations that sign on to international treaties fulfill their obligations under the treaties that they sign on to? If some nations sign on but don't fulfill their obligations, then how do they "escape international justice"?

Iran should suffice as an answer for both questions as it is currently being sanctioned with more to come including a possible attack on it

[Boojatta]

14. Thank you.

Many DU members who post various claims simply ignore questions that I post in reply.