Herewith is Joel Pollak's second instalment in our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Earlier this week Doron Isaacs penned his second entry. To read the opening introduction to this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.
The following link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate
Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
Dear Doron,
I'm glad you admit that your delegation "didn't address Palestinian violations against Palestinians". I don't think 593 murders of Palestinians by other Palestinians can be so easily brushed aside.[1] Political violence, honor killings, illegal detentions, and torture all cast a long shadow over Palestinian society.
The contempt many Palestinian leaders have for Palestinian human rights is exceeded only by their contempt for the human rights of Jews. I often ask pro-Palestinian activists: If you are serious about human rights and the two-state solution, why not offer Jews equal rights within the West Bank?
Think of the advantages. The justification for closures, for restricted roads, for the security barrier's route--for all the things your delegation complained about--would disappear. International opinion would swing even more firmly behind the Palestinians, who would gain a strong advantage at the negotiating table.
Imagine Palestinian leaders were prepared to welcome Jews as citizens and protect them from harm in the West Bank. The once-hated settlements could create jobs, investment and tax revenue for the Palestinian economy. Palestinians would cultivate tolerance--not just towards Jews but also towards each other.
But the Palestinian leaders do not offer equal rights to Jews, nor do they protect Jewish religious sites. Even Christian Palestinians have been fleeing in the face of pogroms carried out by radical Islamic groups.[2] Hamas and Fatah continue their anti-Jewish incitement, and "moderate" leaders shower praise on terrorists
Israel, by contrast, is a beacon of human rights for both Arabs and Jews. You cite contrary claims by ACRI[3], which has become so left-wing that leading human rights scholars in Israel, such as Amnon Rubinstein and Ruth Gavison, have distanced themselves from it. In truth, Israel is a free society, and growing freer.
The Israeli government has implemented affirmative action programmes to benefit Arabs in the civil service. The state has begun to close funding gaps between Jewish and Arab municipalities. Recent decisions by Israel's High Court of Justice have affirmed that discrimination is illegal. And so on. Problems remain, but progress has been real.
You support "moral pressure" on Israel. Fine--we both want Israel to be an exemplary society. But where is your "moral pressure" on Palestinians? Are they less worthy of your agitations? Until Palestinian leaders are properly held to account, they will take few of the steps needed to make peace and build a state.
I must object to your method of arguing historical points. Your sources seem as one-sided as your delegation's itinerary. Are you aware that historian Michael Oren has debunked Tom Segev's claims about the 1967 war? He notes, for example: "Segev's book is all but devoid of Arab calls for Israel's destruction and the slaughter of its citizens".[4]
You also seize upon quotes whose significance is questionable, and rest your entire argument on them. One example is the Weisglass quote, which you keep resurrecting, as if a single interview by a single adviser "confirmed" the claim that Israel only disengaged from Gaza because it hoped to keep the West Bank.
In fact, the Gaza withdrawal was accompanied by the evacuation of several settlements in the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, was elected in 2006 on a "convergence" platform that called for further withdrawals. He has since offered Palestinians near-total control, with land swaps.
Yet you claim that it is "now understood" (by whom?) that Israel was unwilling to cede the West Bank. Amazingly, you refuse to assign any responsibility to the Palestinian leadership for the sad state of the peace process. Both sides need the courage to compromise. The rest of the democratic world recognises that; why can’t you?
G'mar chatmiah tovah,
Joel
[1] For the sake of argument, I am assuming the veracity of your figures, even though they do not go far enough in distinguishing Palestinian civilians and combatants. To exclude Palestinians "killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person" is to ignore those using other weapons, for instance.
[2] See, for example: Abu Toameh, K. 2007. "Gaza's Christians fear for their lives." Jerusalem Post, 18 June. URL: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813061916&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[3] Association for Civil Rights in Israel
[4] Oren, M. 2007. "Who Started It?" Washington Post, 10 June. BW13.
Editors note: I am aware that none of the internal anchor text links are working. The problem is on Typepad's side (the blog provider) and I hope it will be fixed soon.
The story so far
Doron Isaacs works as the Coordinator of Equal Education, a community-based civil society formation working for educational quality and equality in South African schools. He has degrees from the University of Cape Town in business and law. In 2003 he was Secretary General of Habonim-Dror Southern Africa. Thereafter he became active in student politics on issues including HIV-AIDS, judicial independence and Israel-Palestine. While studying law Doron provided legal support to the Treatment Action Campaign. He established the Student Society for Law & Social Justice in 2007 which now has branches in most law faculties in South Africa. Doron was a co-organisers of the SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel & the Occupied Palestinian Territories in July 2008. He has family and friends in Israel and visits regularly. | Joel Pollak is the author of the forthcoming book "The Kasrils Affair: Jews and Minority Politics in Post-Apartheid South Africa”. He is a former speechwriter for Tony Leon of the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition in South Africa. He is currently studying international human rights law at the Harvard Law School where he is chairperson of the Alliance for Israel. In 2007 Joel spent his summer volunteering at the Association for Human Rights in Israel. During his time in South Africa, he received a Master of Arts with Distinction in Jewish Studies from the University of Cape Town. Whilst studying in Cape Town Joel was involved in many interfaith activities aimed at encouraging dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He blogs at the popular Guide to the Perplexed. |
"Are you aware that historian Michael Oren has debunked Tom Segev's claims about the 1967 war?"
As has Benny Morris in his review at The New Republic of Segev's book on '1967':
"But apart from the descriptions of various aspects of the war's aftermath, 1967 is one vast, tendentious historical misjudgment. Unfortunately, this has become one of Segev's calling cards... As for Tom Segev, his book points readers and scholars in no worthwhile direction. Its argument is not merely wrong; it also makes a small contribution of its own to the contemporary delegitimation of Israel."
I'm afraid I can't find the entire review online anymore. Can anyone else?
But you can see Morris reply to the false claim about the generals planning an attack on Jordan in the following interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBoAmylupHM&feature=related
Posted by: TC | October 10, 2008 at 06:20
Thanks TC, great link.
Posted by: Steve | October 10, 2008 at 08:51