Crossing Swords: Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs on the SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel

In July this year, a group of South Africans headed off to Israel on a tour (SA Human Rights Delegation) which would later cause a great degree of consternation within the Jewish community. Critics argued that the tour was not balanced; that the itinerary overwhelmingly focused on the Palestinian narrative, ignoring almost completely the mainstream Israeli one. Worse still, argued some of the critics (including the authors of this blog), most of the tour delegates already held irascibly vexatious opinions on Israel - they went with their minds made up and were fed an all too familiar diet.

Organisers of the tour countered that the reality of life in the Palestinian territories had been ignored for too long – and more space was needed in the Jewish community for debate about the occupation. They claimed that they aimed to simultaneously express solidarity with grassroots activists in Israel, such as the Jewish Struggle Coalition, as well as improve the often acerbic relations between the South African Jewish and Muslim communities.

This blog has already engaged with the Delegation. Doron Isaacs, one of the organisers of the delegation, penned a reply to our criticism which we cordially published. We also had a somewhat positive discussion with another co-organiser, Nathan Geffen, in the comments of one of our critical posts.

It is against this backdrop that we introduce to you a new feature that we hope to repeat at regular intervals – a debate which we have entitled "Crossing Swords". This first instalment of this feature stars Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak as the two protagonists. I couldn’t imagine two better equipped personalities to represent the two split camps regarding the Delegation that visited Israel.

Both Joel and Doron will author three contributions to the debate. Each contribution will be posted approximately four days apart. We want to get you, the audience, involved so at the end of the three installments Doron and Joel have agreed to address three of the best questions which we will select from the comments. Doron has agreed to start things off.

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.

Contents

• Doron Isaacs entry 1
• Joel Pollak entry 1
• Doron Isaacs entry 2
• Joel Pollak entry 2
• Doron Isaacs closing entry
• Joel Pollak closing entry
• Q&A - part 1 of 3
• Q&A - part 2 of 3
• Q&A part 3 of 3

Part 1 – Doron Isaacs entry 1

Dear Joel,

The Human Rights Delegation has prompted a fair amount of criticism from members of the Jewish community. A little less publicly there has been a big current of support. Our discussion can focus on the delegation itself or on its organisers, but I’d suggest we focus on the reality in Israel and the occupied territories, or as Israelis call it, the "matsav".

To deal first with the criticisms. "The tour lacked balance and context": not so, we spent more time with Israeli victims, state officials, members of civil society and academics than we did with their Palestinian counterparts. This was due to practical constraints, but is nevertheless true. All Israelis and Palestinians who hosted the group reject the use of violence. "The tour did not consider Israeli security needs": false, in an interview in the Jewish Report Geoff Budlender reported learning about the "very deep impact" that the suicide bombings have had on the Israeli people[1]. "The members of the delegation single out Israel": laughable, these are among South Africa’s most vigorous internal critics, and as one example, I can provide references to campaigns and criticisms by one of the tour’s organisers, Nathan Geffen, in regard to Zimbabwe, China, Ghana, Iran, Swaziland, Darfur, the US, Uganda, Namibia, Saudia Arabia and Iraq during Saddam’s reign. "The group aimed to delegitimise Israel": wrong, we have consistently said we reject the notion of calling for Israel’s destruction[2].

In fact, recent growth in discussion of a so-called one-state solution makes urgent, from the Israeli point of view (quite apart from the daily suffering of Palestinians) the need to end the occupation[3]. In the view of many of the members of the delegation, this would help safeguard Israel’s future.

I think most people are bored of hearing criticism and defense of the delegation.

I’d like to deal rather with our political paradigm. In so doing I will criticise the commonly expressed view that Israel is eager to end the occupation but is hamstrung by security imperatives, and that this willingness was amply demonstrated by the withdrawal from Gaza. Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s senior adviser and bureau chief, and the man credited with conceiving of the disengagement, has made clear that Gaza was about prolonging the occupation, not ending it: "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians… It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating partner ... There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation."[4]

Undoubtedly, there are security considerations. In the same interview Geoff Budlender said that one could not dispute the fact that the separation wall had been effective in putting an end to suicide bombings. But the barrier includes around 11% of the West Bank on the Israeli side – a unilateral act which impedes negotiations – and requires any Palestinian living there to get a permit. The difficulty in acquiring permits is resulting in the area being depopulated by Palestinians.

The Occupation of the West Bank is driven by the settlements. Dismantling them will entail domestic political strife that no Israeli Prime Minister has the majority to confront. As the Council for Peace and Security – a body of 1000 military and diplomatic veterans – has said in regard to the checkpoints needed to protect the settlements: "When all elements of the equation are considered, the barriers have a negative and even dangerous effect upon Israel’s security."[5]

Can you agree that were it not for the settlements the occupation would have ended by now?

Warm Regards,

Doron.

Notes

[1]Moira Schneider ‘Israeli visit "depressing and inspiring"’ SA Jewish Report 7/17/2008.
[2] Moira Schneider ‘High Powered SA Rights Group off to Israel’ SA Jewish Report 3/7/2008.
[3] Sari Nusseibeh ‘The One-State Solution’ Newsweek 20/09/08 http://www.newsweek.com/id/160030; Steven Gutkin ‘Palestinians Despair of Independence Effort’ The Associated Press 21/09/08 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jlgsgPgwZ2Kczmg9vIU0IOMXuaYgD93AK33G1; Jonathan Freedland ‘The Two-State Solution is Nearly Dead’ The Guardian 17/08/2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast. [4] Ari Shavit ‘The Big Freeze’ Haaretz 10/11/2005 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929.
[5] Council for Peace and Security: Letter from the Council to: The Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ehud Barak, The Foreign Minister, Ms. Tzipy Livni’ 28/04/2008 http://www.peace-security-council.org/flashes.asp?id=726

Back to contents

---

Part 2 - Joel Pollak entry 1

Dear Doron

I commend you for engaging in this debate. I know it has been hard to persist in the face of some harsh responses to your activities and your views. While I disagree with your opinions, I will defend your right to express them in this or any other forum.

You seem eager, however, to put the issue of the "human rights delegation" to rest. I do not think you can dispose of it so easily, since your delegation is what prompted this debate in the first place.

Let's face a few facts. The delegation was organised by three individuals--Andrew Feinstein, Nathan Geffen and yourself--who had already stated on previous occasions that Israel bore most or all of the blame for the continuing conflict.

You claim that you spent more time meeting with Israelis than with Palestinians. Yet the Israelis you met with overwhelmingly shared the left-wing views of your delegation. And Israeli terror victims did not feature prominently in your itinerary.

In the final analysis, your group could not agree to endorse the two-state solution. I leave it to you to explain how this squares with your claim that the entire group rejects calls for Israel's destruction. Yours was not an even-handed mission, Doron.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. You might have called the trip a "solidarity" mission to express your support for Palestinian and Israeli peace activists. Not everyone would have liked it, but most would have understood it.

By calling your trip a "human rights delegation," you invoked a particular set of ideas and doctrines. Despite the best efforts of the anti-Israel demagogues at the UN Human Rights Council, the principles of human rights still retain their meaning.

Human rights apply to everyone equally, and therefore no inquiry into human rights in the Israel-Palestinian conflict can begin and end with Israeli violations against Palestinians. Nor can it ignore the serious rights deficiency of Palestinian society.

One lesson that the South African "miracle" taught the rest of the world--through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for example--is that the strictures of human rights apply to the weaker side in a conflict as much as they do to the stronger side.

Human rights activists in Israel and the West Bank often forget this basic principle. Palestinian leaders have ignored it altogether, and in doing so have undermined their own nation-building efforts while prolonging the conflict with Israel.

If, as Nathan Geffen claims, "[r]eversing the erosion of Palestinian human rights is in all our interests",[ 1] then it is important to confront violations of Palestinian rights by Palestinians themselves. Your delegation did not address these.

Another important principle is that the right to life stands above all others. That is why the security barrier is necessary. It has saved hundreds of lives on both sides and set limits to the conflict. There is no sense in denying that.

As for the occupation, I am surprised I need to remind you that it began after Israel repulsed Jordan's unprovoked attack in 1967. It continued because the Arab states refused to negotiate land for peace. The settlements were not the cause.

The settlement project has indeed damaged the rule of law in Israel. It has also made the resolution of the conflict more difficult. But it is not the main obstacle to peace. The Gaza disengagement--and the violent response--were proof enough.

You are entitled to your views about the motivations of Israeli policy--though I wonder why you rely on Internet quotes rather than your own knowledge--but you ought not disguise one-sided advocacy in the language of human rights.

Shanah tovah u'metukah

Joel

Notes

[1] Geffen, N. 2008. "Achieving Our Objectives." 5 Aug. URL: http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=23&page=1

Back to contents

---

Part 3 - Doron Isaacs entry 2

Dear Joel,

Thanks, I also commend you for participating in this debate. Some think that views like mine can be ignored or silenced; a proposition that is naïve, undemocratic, and bad for communal life. Those who debate with me, even harshly, open up a discussion that is essential. All that I have objected to are physical threats and untruths.

You repeat criticisms I’ve already answered. We did not "begin and end with Israeli violations against Palestinians". As explained in my previous post, we spent time dealing with the gravest of Palestinian violations against Israelis, terrorist attacks. We also met with Israel victims of such attacks. Your implication that we dismiss the separation barrier out of hand is directly contradicted by my previous post. Using the Gaza disengagement as evidence that settlements don’t drive the occupation is undercut by what is now understood to have been the tactical sacrifice of Gaza for the larger prize of the West Bank, as confirmed in the Dov Weisglass interview.

Your other criticism is that we didn’t address Palestinian violations against Palestinians, and I accept that. Important, yes, but the idea that this omission means we somehow missed the boat is silly. In the West Bank, less than 8% of Palestinian deaths have been caused by other Palestinians, a not insignificant amount, but clearly a small minority[1]. We also did not deal with the serious discrimination against Israeli Arabs, evidenced by separation barriers built between Jewish and Arab communities within Israel.[2] As ACRI has reported: "For many years, the Arab population in Israel has suffered from deprivation and discrimination in the distribution of public resources in all areas of life."[3] This is not to mention refugees, asylum seekers and Bedouins. There is violation of Jewish Israeli human rights by Israel that we didn’t deal with either, like infringement of the right to health. Within Israel, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 persons reached 1.94 in 2007 – the lowest figure in the developed world.[4] Violation of the right to privacy, through wiretapping, has increased dramatically.[5] All of the above must be seen against the backdrop of the Occupation, which drains resources and undermines democracy.

You make a historical claim about 1967 that warrants discussion. Indeed, after Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan did attack Israel first, and must be apportioned serious blame, but the opening of the IDF archives is producing a new literature about the six-day war, and has made clear that the Generals intended conquering the West Bank anyway.[6] There was, according to Tom Segev, "no existential danger to the state",[7] and "no justification for the panic that preceded the war, nor for the euphoria that took hold after it".[8]

We disagree on whether settlements drive the Occupation, but not on whether they constitute an impediment to its resolution. Any Israeli Prime Minister serious about peace must confront this, and he or she will do so at enormous political and personal risk. Coalitions are fragile, serious confrontation between segments of Jewish Israeli society is not unthinkable, and assassination has its precedent. One must recognise and be sympathetic to these things. What will nevertheless prompt this brave and crucial leadership? Yes, a bona fide partner; but more is needed. The economy, tourism and diplomatic relations remain strong despite the Occupation. International approval and a clean conscience – being the only short-term incentives – do not stack up against the risks, and thus there is an interest in maintaining the status quo. I support one tactic, moral pressure, focused on the Occupation, never the state’s existence. The Human Rights Delegation was an instance of this.

Shana Tova

Doron

Notes

[1] Most killing of Palestinians, whether by the IDF, or by Palestinians themselves, has occurred in Gaza, which we didn’t visit. Of all the 5464 Palestinians killed in conflict-related violence between October 2000 and September 2008, 4823 were killed by Israeli security forces (2970 in Gaza, 1784 in the WB and 69 in Israel), 57 were killed by Israeli civilians and 593 were killed by Palestinians (458 in Gaza and 135 in the WB). (Excluded from these figures are Palestinians who died after medical treatment was delayed due to restrictions of movement, and Palestinians killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person.) During the same period 1061 Israelis were killed (726 civilians and 335 military). Statistics at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp.
[2] Yael Padan and Shuli Hartman, "Fences, Walls and Environmental Justice" Bimkom – Planners for Planning Rights http://www.bimkom.org/dynContent/articles/walls,%20fences,%20justice.pdf.
[3] ‘The State of Human Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories – 2007 Report’ The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) at 17, http://www.acri.org.il/pdf/state2007.pdf.
[4] Ibid at 5.
[5] Ibid at 54.
[6] Tom Segev 1967 (New York: Metropolitan, 2007) at 300.
[7] Ibid at 337.
[8] Ibid at 16

Back to contents

---

Part 4 - 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.

Back to contents

---

Part 5 - Doron Isaacs instalment 3

Dear Joel,

I’ll deal briefly with some of your specific arguments before closing.

I’ll begin on this odd point about Palestinians giving Israelis equal rights in the West Bank. I agree (incidentally, some Palestinian groups do propose this) and the details should be negotiated within the two-state framework. But what do you want now, that the Palestinians accept that the settlers live on their illegally expropriated private land? Should they offer settlers to be occupied with them? Didn't you hear that Palestine is not a state?

I must respond to your questioning my sources. Segev acknowledges the threats of destruction, including threats of "Holocaust" and "death" on Egyptian radio[1]. He explains comparisons of Nasser with Hitler as prompted by "Nasser’s speeches, Radio Cario broadcasts, and the anti-Semitic cartoons in the Egyptian press."[2] In this regard he concludes: "The existential anxiety that gripped Israelis when the crisis erupted was real."[3]

But there is a crucial difference between the genuinely-felt, yet misplaced, anxiety of the public, and the factual reality. While "concern was growing" that "the Egyptians would try to hit the nuclear reactor" or "initiate a general attack"[4], the overall assessment of both the American and Israeli military and intelligence establishments was that there was no existential threat[5]. Yigal Allon’s own assessment was that "the only crisis was psychological".[6] One of Israel’s most serious historians cannot so easily be delegitimised.[7]

~*~

I think this debate has shown that people with different outlooks on the world come to different conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You have presented yourself as someone committed to human rights. Interestingly, you support John McCain for President, and have written in the Cape Times supporting Sarah Palin. McCain has an 82% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, the US’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organisation.[8] You seem to identify strongly enough with McCain to have him in your Facebook profile picture. I don’t mean to disparage your support for McCain, but merely to point out that it contradicts your claims to human rights credentials.

You are an apologist for Israel. I am not an apologist for Palestine. I think Palestinian politics is violent, divided, corrupt, and reflects contempt for human rights. But these things – not unique in the world – do not justify the indefinite denial of freedom. The idea that a prolonged occupation is legitimate – and even more so, with settlements – is contrary to my belief system. There are problems within Israeli society and there are problems within Palestinian society. A military occupation is a different category of problem.

It is moreover true that freedom from occupation would improve the chance of dealing with the problems you raise. The fact that I accept your view that internal Palestinian human rights abuses deserve to be condemned is beside the central point: domination of one group by another cannot be justified by saying that the dominated group is bad. The Occupation cannot be justified by recourse to problems within Palestinian society.

The abuse of human rights and the domination of the weak by the powerful are the central problems of our world. Antisemitism – alive and well in some radical anti-Zionist circles – is a classic example, and must be vigorously countered. Violent attacks on Israel – my repeated condemnation of which you’ve been reluctant to accept – are equally barbarous and unjustifiable. These threats to what we know and love are easier to recognise and therefore oppose. It is always hardest to recognise our own faults, but this is a test of one’s commitment to human rights. We therefore cannot go on making excuses for Israel’s increasingly oppressive Occupation.

Regards,

Doron

Notes:

[1] Segev pp 287 & 342.
[2] Ibid p 284.
[3] Ibid p 285.
[4] Ibid p 235.
[5] In 1966 the US assessment was that Israel would win a war "within days or weeks". (Segev pp 235 & 337). Before the war the US assessment was that Israel had "complete military superiority over every combination of Arab forces". (May 1966, USNA, Box 19, Memos to the President, cited in Segev p 253). Rabin and the Generals predicted it would take five or six days.
[6] Segev pp 235 & 337.
[7] Curious that while you debate with me about the genesis of the Six-Day War, you campaign for McCain who supports a war in Iraq which was indisputably based on misinformation and falsified intelligence.
[8] ACU 2007 U.S. Senate Votes, http://www.acuratings.org/2007senate.htm. Interestingly, he is far from the least conservative Republican.

Back to contents

---

Part 6 - Joel Pollak instalment 3

Dear Doron,

You claim that we disagree because we have "different outlooks on the world." Not so: we disagree because you do not understand human rights law. You believe the weaker party always has a higher moral claim than the stronger. But such prejudice has no meaning in human rights law (or any other law). By putting power before right, you empty human rights of their content.

You resort to personal attacks. I am disappointed--given the vicious comments you have faced, which I condemn--but I am not surprised. In August, you accused UCT student Samantha Beckbessinger of writing "apologia for oppression." [1] She had agreed with you that the occupation "should be ended." [2] But because she criticised your "one-sided approach" to the issue, [3] you accused her of "gutter reporting." [4] Now you question my commitment to human rights because I support John McCain and Sarah Palin. I support them precisely because of their record on human rights. In 2005, McCain opposed the Bush administration on the use of torture in military interrogations. [5] In 2006, it was clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would lead to civil war and genocide. McCain alone called for more troops. He was right.

Sarah Palin has also spoken out for women’s rights in the Islamic world and against Iranian Holocaust denial. [6] I can forgive your ignorance of American politics, but I reject your assumption that human rights belong exclusively to the political left. Equally, I reject the "straw man" you set up by implying that criticising Palestinian human rights abuses amounts to justifying the Israeli occupation.

You evade the question of equal rights for Jews in a Palestinian state by misquoting me, claiming I suggested giving "Israelis equal rights in the West Bank." You then ask, sarcastically: "Should they offer settlers to be occupied with them?"

U.N. Res. 181, the legal basis for both Israeli and Palestinian statehood, requires Arabs to respect Jewish rights in their state (as Arab rights are respected in Israel). [7] Furthermore, the resolution requires each side to declare the equal rights of minorities prior to independence.

Israel fulfilled this condition in its declaration of independence:

"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." [8]

If Israel could offer Arabs equal citizenship, even as Arab armies were mobilising to destroy the new Jewish state, why is it too much to ask that Palestinian leaders accept the human rights of Jews, occupation or no? If Palestinian leaders did so, would that not greatly advance their cause? Why, then, do you mock the idea?

You are determined to prove Israel did not face an existential threat in the 1967 war, though this is irrelevant to the actual point--namely, the origin of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. You revert to your single, controversial source. I have met Tom Segev and I respect his work, but his claims about the 1967 war are simply not authoritative. You really ought to read a little more widely.

You claim that you are "not an apologist for Palestine." I agree, because a true friend of the Palestinian cause would have the courage to speak candidly about Palestinian failures without using the Israeli occupation as an excuse. I am proud to stand up for both Palestine and Israel, and I pray that we shall soon see the day when both shall live in peace and freedom.

Chag sameach,

Joel [1] Isaacs, D. 2008. "Misrepresenting the facts." Quid Pro Quo [weblog], 8 Aug. URL: http://quidproquoza.blogspot.com/2008/08/doron-isaacs-israelpalestine.html 
[2] Beckbessinger, S. 2008. "A weak debate." Quid Pro Quo [weblog], 4 Aug. URL: http://quidproquoza.blogspot.com/2008/08/samantha-beckbessinger-israelpalestine.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Isaacs, Ibid.
[5] Miller, G. and Reynolds, M. 2005. "McCain Wins Agreement From Bush on Torture Ban," Los Angeles Times, 16 Dec., A-1. URL: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/16/nation/na-torture16
[6] Palin, S. 2008 "Palin on Ahmadinejad: 'He Must Be Stopped'," New York Sun, 22 Sep. URL: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahmadinejad-he-must-be-stopped/86311/
[7] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 29 Nov. 1947. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
[8] Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948. Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

Back to contents

---

Comments

[Sean Wasserman]

To Joel:
The focus of your argument in all three postings is an explanation of various problematic issues in palestinian society - human rights abuses, violence, non-acceptance of an israeli minority. But what is striking is that you have yet to put forward a direct opinion on the occupation of palestinian land and people by israel. My impression from your entries is that you support such a situation and justify it in terms of the bad behaviour of palestinians. Is this true?

Human rights are universal, and an immoral act, such as those committed by israel on a daily basis (the wall, closures, differential areas based on ethnicity, pass system, collective punishment), need to be criticised. You are simply wrong about this issue - the more powerful force does have a greater responsibility to behave in a moral way, because it naturally has more capability of committing atrocities. We have not seen a higher moral ground from israel in its administration of the occupation. This may be difficult for you to acknowledge, but now is the time to face this question directly.

[Jonathan Berger]

Dear Joel,

Three questions:

1) While I agree that human rights apply to all, it is - in my view - simply absurd to consider rights violations on both sides without seriously taking into account the fact of a belligerent occupation (referred to as such by the Israeli High Court of Justice). Do you agree? If so, what impact does the fact of the occupation - one side being an occupier and the other the occupied - have on considerations of human rights violations?

2) If Jews - especially those who settled on the West Bank in violation of international law - are to be offered full citizenship of an independent Palestine, should all Palestinian refugees not be entitled to return to Israel? if not, why not?

3) How can you seriously argue that John McCain and Sarah Palin have strong human rights records? Amongst other things, McCain refuses to acknowledge that health care is a right and considers a progressive tax policy as unfair. He strongly opposed the Supreme Court decision regarding habeus corpus for detainees at Guantanamo, and has called for judges who "do not legislate from the bench" - meaning judges in the mould of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Palin's record is even worse. As mayor of Wasilla, she made rape survivors pay for their own rape kits. She supported a ban on certain books in the local library. She opposes all abortions, including those following rape or incest. Finally, both McCain and Palin support constitutional amendments to take away the rights of same-sex couples to get married - McCain supports state constitutional amendments, whereas Palin supports both state and federal amendments.

Regards,
Jonathan Berger
(member of the Human Rights Delegation)

[Nathan Geffen]

Dear Joel

1. Would you agree that the policy of separation on the West Bank as evidenced by the five examples below is a violation of Palestinian civil rights?

* Palestinians cannot travel on route 443, nor many other roads in the West Bank.
* The separation barrier cuts deep into the West Bank, often hugging against Palestinian villages so as to make land available for settlement expansion.
* The movement of Hebron Palestinians is severely curtailed. They cannot access the city's main road nor can those living on this road exit their front doors etc.
* Palestinians and Israelis living on the West Bank are subject to separate legal systems.
* A complex permit system operates restricting Palestinian movement to many places including religious sites in the Old City of Jerusalem as well as to their agricultural lands.

2. If so, what do you suggest be done to change Israeli policy with respect to the above?

Regards
Nathan Geffen

[Ze-ev]

Lets see:

"Violent attacks on Israel – my repeated condemnation of which you’ve been reluctant to accept". Doron; Yasser Arafat would also condemn suicide bombings against Israel. However, almost immediately afterwards he would appear on arab television praising the jihad.

Its easy to speak meaningless words but eventually your actions give you away. Yasser didn't have anyone fooled when he condemned suicide bombings. Especially considering that some of the terrorists were coming from his own organization. In the same vein your words have no meaning as well. Your anti-Israel actions drown out your facade of caring for Israel.

Doron, your mention of McCain within the context of this argument is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to try redirect the argument to disguise how ridiculous and flawed your arguments really are.

You argued "But what do you want now, that the Palestinians accept that the settlers live on their illegally expropriated private land?"

My grandparents had to leave Iran not because they wanted to leave the place of their birth but because as Jews Iran made it unbearable for them to live there.

They did not have the opportunity to sell their home and possessions and had to leave it all behind. Leaving a place where they had acquired significant wealth and come to Israel with hardly anything.

My grandparents are still alive. Living evidence of how Jews who posed no threat to their country were driven out of arab lands. Can you get my grandparents home back please doron?? and if not why aren't you fighting for their rights.