It's Almost Supernatural

Crossing Swords: Q&A finale with Pollak and Isaacs (3 of 3)

And finally, the concluding post of the Crossing Swords debate between Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak. It’s been a long series and the end of the year is a fitting time for its finale. Also fitting, is the final question from the floor, asking both Joel and Doron if we will ever see peace in our lifetimes.

The delegates of the SAHRD enjoy an excess of access to our media, partly because of the high degree of credibility that many of its members have earned in working within civil society towards the common good of our nation. The irony, argued by us at IAS, which triggered this very debate, is that it is a dearth of precisely these type of people, prepared to build a country from the bottom-up by strengthening and inventing institutions critical to a free and successful nation, that prevents the Palestinians from achieving their freedom.

We have already thanked both Joel and Doron (see our conclusion to this debate here: Q&A with Doron and Joel – Part 1 of 3) but we also need to send out a warm thank you to the people who make this debate possible – our readership. Thank you for taking the time to read the debate and a special thank you to those who got involved by writing to us or posting your thoughts and questions in the comments. The debate only exists because of the audience and we appreciate the views of everyone, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our decision to host it.

And so, without any further ado, we present to you, the closing 2 questions from the floor.

Question 6 for Joel

Doron has called you an apologist for Israel. Do you give blanket support to all Israeli policies and action? Can you name some instances where you have disagreed with Israel? (Anthony Posner)

No. Some examples: I opposed the route of Israel’s security barrier when it was first built, and I was vocal in my opposition to the Israeli use of cluster munitions in southern Lebanon in 2006.

Question 6 for Doron

The terrorist attacks existed before Israel conquered Judea and Samaria, so what indication is there that they will end if we leave? Hillel

Dear Hillel,

There is no guarantee that the attacks will end – we must be honest about that. But before I answer you further, I must provide some context.

From very early on Arabs have violently resisted Zionism. Once Zionist settlement passed the threshold from quaint and novel to significant and viable, local Arabs understood that its success would mean, even partially, their dispossession. One can say that the Arabs were xenophobic, that they underestimated totally Zionist military strength and resolve, that they lacked compassion for Jewish persecution, and that they attacked or resisted with violence when other options were available; but the main point they got: Zionism was on a collision course with them. A minority of Zionist leaders worked actively for a peaceful accommodation, but it was not to be.

So yes, the terrorist attacks, like the Hebron massacre in 1929, in which 67 Jews were killed “existed before”. But this was usually in the context of a conflict in which – then like now – casualties were higher on the Palestinian side. In the 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt Jews lost their lives in the hundreds, whilst the Arab death-toll was in the thousands.[1]

It is also worth noting that suicide bombing – the symbol of terrorist attacks as we know them – began on April 6, 1994 with a Hamas bus bombing in Afula, in which 9 people were killed. This tragedy took place 27 years into the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. In fact it occurred six weeks after Baruch Goldstein, on Purim, February 25, 1994, entered a mosque in the Cave of the Patriarchs, wearing, according to the Shamgar Report, “his army uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve officer on active duty”, and opened fire, killing 29 people.

One hundred Baruch Goldsteins do not justify one suicide bombing, just as one hundred suicide bombings do not justify one Baruch Goldstein. But such phenomena are not unrelated and can help to explain one another.

There are no guarantees. But just as violence has its roots in a political context, so too can wise and humane politics reduce the chance of violence. What I do know, is that staying guarantees that violence, by both sides, will never end.

Doron

Final Question for Both Joel and Doron

Will there likely ever be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? If so, will there likely be peace within our lifetimes? What will the eventual solution look like (1 or 2 states)? What evidence supports your answer? - TC

Response from Joel

  Yes, there will be peace within our lifetimes. I will even say, optimistically, within the next ten years. It will be a two-state solution, or perhaps a three-state solution (the Gaza-West Bank conflict may prove more intractable than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

There are two options. In the best case scenario, we will see an agreement emerge between the two sides. In the West Bank, the borders will generally follow some line between the security barrier and the 1967 boundary, with compensatory land swaps elsewhere in the Negev. Parts of East Jerusalem will be ceded to Palestine as a capital city. A few Palestinian refugees will return to Israel; the rest will have a limited right of return to the Palestinian state, or will be resettled in their current countries of residence, perhaps with the aid of some American-sponsored compensatory payments from Israel. In the worst-case scenario, talks will fail and Israel will withdraw to the line demarcated by the security barrier and declare the occupation over.

This will not formally end the conflict but will perhaps end military hostilities while the Palestinians create a society and a government that can, eventually, return to negotiations and finally bring matters to a close.

Joel

Response from Doron

Dear TC,

My personal view is that the two-state / one-state dichotomy is a false one. The Geneva Accord, a recent proto-solution, combines elements of political integration and separation, of independence and interdependence, of national self-determination and international cooperation. So for example, the states have independent governments, education systems, national symbols, language policies, fiscal bases, and security apparatus – the essentials of statehood – but there is co-governance over water, parts of Jerusalem, and other interests. One could imagine the two countries sharing a common labour market and monetary policy[2].

I would support any solution that the parties willingly agreed to in negotiations. I support the two-state model because it is the least unfeasible, and also because it is the stated preference of both sides.

The majority on both sides want to live in peace, and that means a lot and gives me hope. But in the short term I am pessimistic. Peace cannot come without justice.

As Rabban Gamaliel said:

“The world stands on three things: on truth, on justice, and on peace, as is said, ‘Execute truth, justice, and peace within your gates.’ (Zechariah 8:16) These three are interlinked: when justice is done, truth is achieved, and peace is established.” (Pirke Avot 1:18).

Rabbi Elazar put it more bluntly:

“The whole Torah depends upon justice.” (Exodus Rabbah, Mishpatim 30:19)

Peace requires choices many are not willing to make – choices than can only be made by those committed to justice. To do justice, Israelis – and those of us Jews who connect to them – must recognise not only, as Joel does, that there are things in Israel (like the Occupation) that are problematic, but also that choices, Israeli and Jewish, have willed, partly, these tragedies; that, as Ehud Olmert acknowledges, “we were wrong”[3]. Once Israel has accepted its share of responsibility it will do the difficult things that must be done for justice and peace. As the dominant party, the greater burden rests on Israel, but the exact same logic applies to Hamas, the PLO and the Palestinians.

Peace also means urgency. We must work for it now, and not waste a day.

Doron

Notes

[1]Benny Morris Righteous Victims (New York: Vintage, 2001) p 159.
[2]Geneva Accord Text available at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=351461&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y; Note: Some of the staunchest Zionists implicitly push for comparable diminutions of national sovereignty in their efforts to have Israel admitted to the European Union.
[3]Shahar Ilan ‘Olmert speech urging settlers to prepare for withdrawal sparks outrage’ Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036083.html

Debate Links:

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing
• Q&A - part 1 of 3
• Q&A - part 2 of 3
• Q&A part 3 of 3

[Correction] I initially said that the communal leadership had rejected Joel's offer to respond in the mainstream media to opinion pieces by the SAHRD. This is incorrect. They did not reject Joel's offer and he did respond in the Cape Times.

Crossing Swords - Q&A with Pollak and Isaacs Part 2 of 6

Here’s part 2 of the 3-part questions from the floor finale to our debate between Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs. Part 1 of the Q&A can be found here. If you haven’t read the full text of the debate you can find it by clicking on the blue button. The final 2 questions will be published on Friday.

Question 3 for Doron

The Hamas charter calls for the killing of every Jewish man, woman and child on the face of the earth, do you blame the settlements and occupation for this? - Lawrence

Dear Lawrence,

I am obliged to point out that the Hamas Charter does not call for “the killing of every Jewish man, woman and child on the face of the earth”.

It speaks of the “struggle against Zionism”[1] , of “defeating the enemies”[2], of eliminating Israel[3], and of raising “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”[4].

Those of us – all of us – who distrust Hamas must do so on the basis of fact, not propaganda.

Now there can be no doubt that the Charter is not only xenophobic, sectarian, and racist, but also ill-conceived, inaccurate, retrograde, and intellectually vacuous. Its use of classic unhinged antisemitic conspiracy theory would be laughable if it wasn’t so vile. The “enemies” – presumably the Jews – have managed to “take over control of the world media”[5], “stir revolutions in various parts of the globe”[6] including the “French and the Communist Revolutions”[7], establish and control the “Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith”[8], “take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize”[9], “established the League of Nations”[10], “stood behind World War II”[11] and “inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council”[12]. This has apparently “been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”[13]

It also contains this charming phrase from the Koran:

“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” [14]

(Incidentally, I recently heard Prof Faried Esack, a member of the Human Rights Delegation, remark publicly on the contemptibility of that verse.)

For good measure the Charter claims that the Jewish “merchants of war”[15] have been “behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds”.[16]

Do I blame the settlements and occupation for this bigotry? Of course not. I blame the bigots who wrote it.

Two additional points you might find interesting:

Firstly, it seems fairly possible, as explained in 1986 by the former military commander of the Gaza Strip, that at a time when Israel sought to undermine the secular PLO, it extended “financial aid to Islamic groups ... to create a force that would stand against the leftist forces which support the PLO”, i.e. that Israel assisted Hamas in the early days[17]. Of course Israel didn’t anticipate the killing Hamas would carry out.

Secondly, although there can never be any excuse for Hamas’ violence and grotesque antisemitism, they are capable of holding genuine political grievances. When they say that the situation “destroys houses, renders children orphans and issues oppressive judgements against thousands of young people who spend the best years of their youth in the darkness of prisons[18]” they are a little closer to the truth.

But they must learn. If they want to be supported as the victims of oppression, then they cannot preach oppression.

Doron

Question 3 for Joel 

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? - Jonathan Berger

You seem to misunderstand the term “belligerent occupation.” In international law, it does not describe the character of the occupation itself, but the manner in which the occupation came about—i.e. in a military conflict. In fact, the law of belligerent occupation allows the occupying power to do certain things that would ordinarily be forbidden in peacetime—such as evacuating civilian populations for “imperative military reasons” (see Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

For many years, the Israeli government refused to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention (which covers “belligerent occupation”) to the territories, partly because they did not belong to a legitimate sovereign power when they were captured by Israel. But Israeli courts have long applied the Convention to the occupied territories as customary international law, and have gone even further than the text of the Convention itself in establishing both the duties of and restrictions upon the Israeli occupying power. Israel has also taken the extraordinary step of giving Palestinians the right to petition the High Court of Justice directly, which is unprecedented. All this is not to say the occupation is a rosy affair, but to the extent that your use of the term “belligerent” is pejorative and not merely legal, it is inappropriate, at least given the legal nature of your question.

As far as human rights are concerned, Israelis and Palestinians have the same, equal human rights with or without an occupation. Some rights are inviolable, such as the right to life. And some are subject to “balancing” against security needs, in accordance with standards recognized by international law, such as the proportionality doctrine. Your view of Israel’s human rights performance is likely to be dictated by whether you believe Israel’s restrictions of certain Palestinian rights (such as the constraints imposed by the security barrier, for example) are proportional to the danger of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, or not.

One thing is certain: the fact that the Palestinians are on the losing side of this conflict does not excuse them from obeying the same human rights norms and doctrines as the Israelis.

Joel

Question 4 for Doron

I would like Doron to flesh out his powerful point about Israel not having adequate incentives to end the occupation and make peace with the Palestinians. He argues that moral pressure, which organisations like the SAHRD and their tour put on Israel, is his way of trying to change this situation. In a similar vein, he lobbied for Nadine Gordimer to boycott the international writer’s festival held in Israel earlier this year. But what if cultural and moral pressure do not bring peace? Say in 1 year or 2 years from now there is still not agreement? Would Doron support financial and diplomatic sanctions against Israel? In fact given his logic, I can’t understand why he does not call for such measures now. Surely serious economic pain and travel restrictions would be a very useful tool for allowing Israelis to internalise the cost of the occupation. So my question is, does Doron support financial and political sanctions against Israel and if not why not? Mike

Dear Mike,

I will explain the rationale for overt moral pressure, and then answer your question directly.

There are 191,000 settlers in East Jerusalem, plus 276,100 in the rest of the West Bank, totalling 467,100[19]. Of these, approximately 65,440 live East of – beyond – the Separation Barrier[20]. Whichever number you pick, it’s a lot more than the 8,195 removed, traumatically, from Gaza.

Currently, attempts to remove settlers from a single house in Hebron, for which the High Court has issued an evacuation order, are being met with threats of unprecedented resistance from settler leaders[21] and accusations by Rabbis that the State of Israel is an enemy of the people[22].

Within a broken political system the High Court is repeatedly petitioned for relief. Some, like Joel, put much store in it, but its reliability and reach are limited, and its rulings so routinely evaded in the West Bank that a mainstream journalist like Ofer Shelach is now calling the Court a “fig leaf” and Hebron “a place with no law”[23].

The possibility, even prospect, of violence between army and settler – between Jew and Jew – should give us all pause. It is foremost in the minds of Israel’s leaders, and it makes them less likely to pursue, let alone succeed in, a serious peace process. Shimon Peres recently told the British Parliament that withdrawal may lead to civil war[24]. Ehud Barak warned of the danger of another assassination[25]. But there is no two state solution without significant withdrawals. Olmert, free from the danger of having to actually do something, is now speaking this truth:

“We were wrong; we did not see the big picture...

“It will not work. It is already not working. It claimed a price from us which we do not have the moral strength to bear - and it will claim even heavier costs - which will unravel the fragile bonds which still preserve the social solidarity of Israeli society..

“This truth, unfortunately, will obligate us to rip away many portions of the homeland - in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.[26]”

As I said in the first salvo of this debate: even if all violence stops, which it must, the settlements are the structural barrier to peace. Despite the risks counted above, I think the settlers are relatively weak, and believe that the State of Israel wields enough rule of law, and has enough internal coherence, to affect withdrawal. But it will not happen on its own. It must be incentivised. This means supporting those who act and pressuring those who do not.

So I support various forms of non-violent political pressure. I think it is crucial to show that suicide-bombing will get Palestinians nowhere, but that peaceful political organising can yield results.

If an inclusive human-rights based campaign emerged to impose targeted economic sanctions on Israeli goods and services produced in the West Bank, I would support it.

Doron

Question 4 for Joel

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? - Jonathan Berger

No. First of all, the definition of a Palestinian refugee is absurdly broad. After the 1948 war, the UN applied a peculiar definition to Palestinian refugees—never used for any other group before or since—according to which anyone who had been resident in Palestine for two years prior to the war was eligible for refugee status. The descendants of these persons (and their descendants, too) are also considered refugees, according to this peculiar UN provision. Thus the number of Palestinian refugees has ballooned beyond several hundred thousand to the several millions.

An unrestricted right of return would completely overwhelm Israel and end its existence as a Jewish state. Israel could and should absorb some number of deserving refugees (perhaps those who can prove they were expelled from their homes by Israeli forces in 1947-48), but it should not be expected to commit political suicide.

Your question establishes a false equivalence between granting full citizenship to Jews as a minority in Palestine on the one hand, and granting Arabs majority status in Israel on the other. The former would be a reciprocal gesture, based on the fact that Arabs in Israel are full and equal citizens. The latter is simply the expression of Palestinian maximalist demands and cannot be taken seriously.

Joel 

Question 5 for Doron

"I support one tactic, moral pressure, focused on the Occupation, never the state’s existence. The Human Rights Delegation was an instance of this." How does the "moral pressure' exerted by The SAHRD differ from the "moral pressure" exerted by Ronnie Kasrils?" - Anthony Posner

Dear Anthony,

I know little about Ronnie Kasrils’ politics – I’m sure you know more than me. But I do know two things. He has a background as a member of MK, the liberation army of the ANC, and as a Jew. I can contrast the Delegation’s engagement with these traditions.

On the evening of Tuesday 8 July, in Budrus, a Palestinian village badly affected by the Separation Barrier, Barbara Hogan, Nozizwe-Madlala Routledge and Janet Love told their personal and political histories to an audience of Arab and Israeli activists. Love was an MK soldier, enrolled in Angola a few short years after matriculating from King David Linksfield. She later re-entered South Africa illegally and set up the ANC’s covert communication network under direction from Mac Maharaj. Hogan, the first white woman to be tried for high treason, was in the ANC underground before spending her nine years in prison. She was tortured repeatedly. Madlala-Routledge, an ANC activist in the Natal region, spent more than a year in solitary confinement. These three women are today Director of the Legal Resources Centre, Minister of Health, and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, respectively. That night in the West Bank, all three stressed that the armed struggle was not a significant force in South Africa’s liberation and cautioned against the use of violence in politics.

In terms of Jewish identity, people like me, Nathan Geffen, Dennis Davis, Jonny Copelyn and others are not merely “of Jewish decent”. We are actively involved in the Jewish community. We do not see ourselves as external critics of the Jewish community, but rather as concerned citizens of that community. We recognise that it is important that the Jewish community be convinced rather than reprimanded. That doesn’t appear to have been Kasrils’ attitude.

Kasrils – as brave as his role in the struggle was – has some hypocrisy hurdles. He was Deputy Minister of Defense during South Africa’s corrupt and obscene arms deal. He was a loyal member of Mbeki’s cabinet, keeping silent during the AIDS and Zimbabwe catastrophes, and the abuse of state apparatus for party-political purposes. None of this disqualifies him from a legitimate perspective on Israel, but it does reduce the moral influence he wields.

Doron

Question 5 for Joel

i. 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? a) Palestinians cannot travel on route 443, nor many other roads in the West Bank. b) The separation barrier cuts deep into the West Bank, often hugging against Palestinian villages so as to make land available for settlement expansion. c) 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. d) Palestinians and Israelis living on the West Bank are subject to separate legal systems. e)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. ii. If so, what do you suggest be done to change Israeli policy with respect to the above? (Nathan Geffen)

ia. Probably not. Most of these travel restrictions did not exist prior to the second intifada. The question is whether all of them are in fact justified by military necessity. I cannot be certain of this (can anyone?), but Israel’s courts have certainly been diligent in scrutinizing these developments and have ordered changes where necessary. Israel’s High Court of Justice has also imposed an additional standard: namely, that changes to the occupied territory be for the benefit of the occupied population. This is a more difficult test to meet, and one that the Israeli road network very likely fails in some respects, but again the courts have been responsive to meritorious challenges brought by Palestinians and by Israeli human rights groups. The fact is that these restrictions would disappear absent the threat of Palestinian terror.

b. No. Your description of the security barrier is inaccurate. It is meant as a defensive measure, not a land grab. Furthermore, the barrier has been closely monitored by the High Court of Justice, which has ruled that the route is to be strictly dictated by security concerns. There are many settlements that now find themselves on the “wrong” side of the barrier; if anything, the barrier has sent a signal that the ambitions some settlers may have harbored for a “Greater Israel” have been definitively ended.

c. Probably not. You do not specify which part of Hebron you mean. Eighty percent of Hebron falls under Palestinian control, according to the 1997 agreement with Israel. There are no such Israeli restrictions there. Perhaps you are referring to the remainder of Hebron that is under Israeli control, and which includes both Jews and Arabs. Movement along the main commercial road in that area was basically free until a deadly Palestinian suicide bombing in 2003. In response to that episode, and continued inter-communal violence, the Israeli military shut down that road. It has also repeatedly removed Jewish settlers who have tried to occupy abandoned Palestinian shops and homes along the road. One can perhaps argue that the Israeli military has been harsher towards Arab residents than to Jews in this area. Perhaps that is a violation of Palestinian civil rights. But since your question is not specific enough, I cannot be sure exactly what you mean.

d. No. Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank ought to be subject to different legal systems. That is what makes an occupation different from an annexation. Israel is required to respect the pre-existing laws of the territory, which was administered for nearly two decades (though not, perhaps, legally) by Jordan. Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel (and in the case of East Jerusalem, many consciously refused Israeli citizenship when it was offered to them after 1967). The fact that Palestinians have different laws is also the necessary outcome of the Oslo peace process, which established the Palestinian Authority. The PA has legislative powers of its own, and Israel ought to respect these as far as possible in preparation for the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state. Despite these two different legal systems, Palestinians are still granted the right to petition the Israeli courts, which may blur the legal distinctions but is beneficial overall in terms of the protections provided to Palestinian rights. Your question seems to imply that Israel imposed separate legal systems on Jews and Arabs, but that is simply not the case. Separate legal systems existed before the occupation, and will exist afterwards as well. There are difficulties that Palestinians face in that the ordinary criminal courts in the West Bank have been Israeli military courts, but the right to petition the Israeli High Court of Justice goes some way toward restoring a balance.

e. Probably not, as long as the permits and restrictions are not arbitrary but required by legitimate security concerns. One can expect visas and permits to persist—in a more formalized, bilateral manner—once an international boundary exists between Israel and Palestine as two sovereign states.

ii – The answer to all of these problems is the same. End Palestinian terror, negotiate a lasting peace, and build a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Joel

Click continue reading to view notes.

Crossing Swords - Q&A with Pollak and Isaacs 1 of 3

Over the last few months we have been hosting an online debate between Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs about the South African Human Rights Delegation’s controversial trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Doron was an organizer of the tour and Joel, a leading Zionist thinker and writer within the South African Jewish community, has been a major critic.

As part of this debate we promised readers of this blog the opportunity to pose some tough questions to both Joel and Doron about the mission and their views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all agreed to limit questions to 7 each. Thus Steve and I have done our best to choose questions that are not repetitive and go to the heart of the debate. We have also tried to get as much coverage of the issues as possible. Ensuring some level of interaction in this debate with our readers was very important to us and I think the questions and their answers make for a fascinating conclusion to what has been a very fierce debate. I am sure readers will continue to debate and analyze the responses at length in the comments section. I hope non regular commentors, who share different opinions, will also chip in.

Finally I would like to thank both Doron and Joel for taking part in this extremely time consuming and intellectually strenuous exercise. Both are busy people but have put in considerable effort and thought into their responses. They deserve much praise for their level of commitment to open debate within the South African Jewish community.

We hope this is not a once off event but perhaps may serve as a catalyst for more of this sort of thing in the future. There are some who have criticized us for providing Doron with a platform within the community to air what they see as his unacceptable views. This is the type of worldview that this blog is established to fight against. We have devoted many hours and ink to advocating for a balanced playing field for the Israeli-Arab conflict to be discussed in the South African media. Likewise we have tried to facilitate a balanced playing field for the Israeli-Arab conflict to be discussed in the South African Jewish community as well. Grappling with and debating complex, and at times, uncomfortable issues in a fair forum is in the long run surely the best way to strengthen South African Jewry.

Below are the questions and answers. Due to the length of this conclusion to the debate, we will post the questions and answers over a series of 3 posts. The final entry to this debate will appear before the end of this week. We asked Joel and Doron to limit each answer to 300 words but decided to tolerate excesses.

Question 1 for Joel

Please elaborate on your plan for awarding rights to Jews in the West Bank. Surely this cannot occur when the resources are so disproportionately allocated and in a situation where the settlements are Jew only areas. I could live with your proposal under certain conditions, for example 1 - Privately owned land that has been expropriated is returned 2 - Jews submit to Palestinian law - whatever they may be (assuming they protect minorities) 3 - Jews can then go live in Palestinian villages in the similar conditions that the Palestinians must live in Joel, what are your conditions? Please take into account an equitable distribution of resources within the occupied territories. The settlements are getting better access to water and electricity. If there is no land swap but rather the Jews live there as residents of Palestine (which I support) how then do we justify these Jewish blocs continuing to appear as if they are in Israel in terms of resources when they are really in Palestine. - Lynda

I’ll agree with you that private land that has been expropriated should be returned—with the exception of land that is being temporarily used for legitimate security reasons. So, for example, I would agree that private Palestinian land that has been used by Israeli settlements should be returned, but I believe that the use of private Palestinian land for the Israeli security barrier is legitimate and restitution would have to wait until such time as Palestinians snipers stop trying to shoot Israeli civilians and Palestinian suicide bombers stop trying to infiltrate Israeli cities. I also agree that Jews living in a future Palestinian state should be subject to Palestinian laws, just like any other citizen. I am puzzled, however, by your suggestion that Jews should “go live in Palestinian villages in the similar conditions that the Palestinians must live in.” I agree that Jews should be allowed to live in Palestinian towns if they wish. But I don’t think that Jews who become Palestinian citizens in the West Bank should be forced to leave their current communities (if that is indeed what you are suggesting), nor do I think they should be forced to accept any particular standard of living as the price of citizenship. You seem to have accepted certain propagandist arguments about the distribution of water and other resources in the West Bank. Israel is not stealing Palestinian water, and in fact pumps water from Israeli sources into Palestinian communities ( See http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_water.php). Water is also one of the only areas in which Israeli-Palestinian cooperation has continued in spite of the intifada. Moreover, Israel supplies Palestinian communities with electricity and other necessities. I would expect this sort of cooperation to continue under any future peace agreement.

Joel

Question 1 for Doron 

While you might believe the Palestinians you met with believed in non-violence, they still voted for HAMAS, whose platform calls for the destruction of Israel. Saying that this is just rhetoric or purely for economic reasons is as outrageous as saying that in 1933 the Germans ignored the anti-Semitism expressed by the Nazi party for which they voted en-masse. You deride Joel for supporting John McCain, but imagine if he allied with the AWB or Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn’t this discredit him entirely? Well the Palestinians have voted for genocidal, theocratic maniacs. Yet somehow, this has not discredited them. My question Doron is, what do you believe would be the ideal “human rights based” approach to HAMAS’s success at the polls?  - Shaun

Dear Shaun,

I agree it is outrageous to explain away Hamas propaganda. Therefore I have never done so. Hamas must be challenged on their antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, murderous attacks on Israelis, equating of Israelis with Nazis, diminishing of the Nazi Holocaust, and the conspiracy theories in their Charter.

But in deciding what an appropriate political response should be, Hamas’ desires – even on the worst reading thereof – must be weighed against what they are capable of achieving; i.e. the balance of forces. The violence Hamas can muster is capable of killing a number of innocent Israeli civilians – in 2002, by far the bloodiest year, the death toll was 141 – and thereby terrorising the entire Israeli population[1]. Every life should be protected, fully, and in doing that it is crucial that we understand that Hamas lacks totally the capacity to mount a violent campaign that would pose an existential problem for Israel. The existential danger, as Ehud Olmert has lately pointed out, lies rather in a continuation of the status quo[2].

Notwithstanding Hamas’ irrationality, driven by its religious fundamentalism and bigotry – fostered surely by the suffocating conditions of the Occupation – the organisation is not incapable of rationale self-interested behaviour. Ultimately, Hamas can offer its followers little unless it recognises the fact of Israel. The weakness of one’s political opponent offers the possibility that it may reform, if one acts strategically. Given this, and Israel’s unquestionable superiority, it would be well-advised to engage Hamas in negotiations.

This, of course, has been happening behind the scenes for some time. The Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture published a leaked document from Israeli-Hamas negotiations which took place in Europe last year. Its key provisions are a five-year mutual Armistice/Hudna whereby Israel will withdraw to an agreed temporary line, both sides will desist from any attacks, there will be a freeze on settlement-building, and a lift on Palestinian travel restrictions within and between the West Bank and Gaza. During this time a joint economic zone will be established[3]. The document’s status is unclear.

Publicly too, there have been glimmers of reform. The recent reaction to the Arab Peace Initiative (known as the Saudi Plan) was interesting. This plan, first adopted at the Beirut Summit in 2002 and again endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007, is a proposed solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. The initiative obtained the unanimous consent of all members of the Arab League. It is premised on Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state, and a “just solution” to the refugee problem. In exchange the Arab countries would “consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel” and “establish normal relations with Israel”. Joel apparently opposes this plan[4]. I think it should be vigorously pursued.

Anyway, on the day of Riyadh Summit, Ismail Abu Shanab (Hamas’ spokesperson and a member of the five-person executive committee of Hamas) sat for a two-hour interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. He said that his organisation would accept the initiative: “That would be satisfactory for all Palestinian military groups to stop and build our state, to be busy in our own affairs, and have good neighborhood with Israelis.” He also said Hamas will “cease all military activities”. Asked if he was speaking for the entire Hamas organisation, Shanab said, “Yes”. He also, for all practical purposes, gives up the wholesale return of refugees[5].

“There has been generation after generation (of war). Now there is a generation who needs to live in peace, and not worry about their safety,” said Shanab. “So it is a generation that wants to practice living in peace and postpone historical issues. We speak of historical Palestine, and practical reality[6].”

It may well be that this is pure spin, and that nothing good ever comes of it. Hamas’ public utterances are inconsistent, and I am not naïve about the insincerity of political spokespeople[7]. But because Hamas is so weak relative to Israel these cracks might be opened wider by careful engagement.

Even this week there was a de facto negotiation between Israel and Hamas in regard to opening up the Gaza crossing in exchange for a ceasefire[8].

Lastly, on a slightly different note: You think the support for Hamas discredits the Palestinian population – whose situation I sympathise with. You see this as a greater indictment than the active endorsement Joel gave to John McCain and Sarah Palin. But you're not comparing apples with apples. I'm saying Joel's support for McCain weakens his claim to being a person who cares about human rights. You seem to be suggesting that Palestinian support for Hamas is a legitimate reason to deprive them of basic human rights. I am not interested in depriving Joel of his human rights – I just want to point out that the fact that Joel campaigned for these people contradicts his rhetorical commitment to human rights.

Doron

Question 2 for 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? - Sean Wasserman

No. I believe the occupation must end. In terms of international law, the occupation is legitimate—both in terms of its origin (response to attacks against Israel by neighboring states), and in terms of the continued belligerence of anti-Israel forces operating within the territories in defiance of a peace process between the recognized representatives of both sides. However, there are aspects of the occupation that are morally reprehensible, legally questionable and politically destructive. Despite the gains made by Palestinians under occupation from 1967 to 1987—rapid economic growth, the introduction of tertiary education, and so on—it has not been a “benign” experience for Palestinians and has eroded both security and the rule of law in Israel as well.

Joel

Question 2 for Doron 

Do you agree with Mondli's Makhanya’s use of the word "evil" and Nozizwe Madlala Routlegde’s “worse than Apartheid” description of Israel? Do you believe this has helped the SAHRD gain credibility with Jews who do not seek Israel's destruction? " If no, then will you publicly condemn their comments? - Anthony Posner

Dear Anthony,

Makhanya and Madlala-Routledge were referring to the Occupied West Bank.

Their words are not words or phrases I have used. I think facts and detailed descriptions are the best method of communication, given the masses of cheap slogans and misinformation on offer.

I think those comments probably upset and alienated quite a number of Jewish people.

I also know that they generated an enormous amount of debate, some of which was positive.

I don’t think that anybody, especially not those who have made sacrifices for democracy and human rights, should be reduced to a sound bite. Both Makhanya and Madlala-Routledge have reflected at length[9].

Their comments can be disagreed with, but I will not condemn them. They were harsh, perhaps unfairly so, but do not contain an ounce of prejudice.

Doron

---

Q&As 3 and 4 will be posted on Tuesday and the final 3 will be posted on Thursday

---

Notes:

[1] It is worth noting that 150 people are murdered every three days in South Africa. See SAPS ‘Crime Statistics – Summary’ Table 1 pg 6 at http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/crimestats/2008/docs/introduction2008.pdf.
[2] Haaretz ‘Olmert: To honor Rabin, Israel must cede land’ at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036034.html (In the speech Olmert said “If God forbid, we procrastinate, we could lose support for a two-state solution… The decision must be taken now, without hesitation, before ... the narrow window of opportunity to plant [that] solution in the consciousness of our people and the nations of the world vanishes in front of our eyes.” He made similar comments to the Knesset, see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036083.html.)
[3] Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture (Vol. 13 No. 4, 2007) p 121-123.
[4] Joel Pollak ‘Obama backs Saudi peace plan’ 16 November 2008 at http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/.
[5] Robert Plotkin ‘Hamas would accept Saudi peace plan, spokesman says: Group would stop attacks on Israelis if occupation ends’ San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, April 28, 2002, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/28/MN222422.DTL; See also Michelle K. Esposito ‘Quarterly Update on Conflict and Diplomacy’ Journal of Palestine Studies XXXI No. 4, (Summer 2002), pp 139 – 167, available at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3247324.
[6] Ibid. Without renouncing their horrendous Charter and their rejection of Israel’s existence, the key device that Hamas uses, to give themselves room for reasonable politics, is the idea of “postponing historical issues”. This appears to be a way of relinquishing their dreams for all practical purposes, and saving a bit of face.
[7] Steven Erlanger ‘Hamas Leader Sees No Change Toward Israelis’ January 29, 2006 New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/middleeast/29hamasx.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1.
[8] Roni Sofer ‘Barak: We'll open Gaza crossings if Hamas holds its fire’ 11.23.08 Ynet.com at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3627487,00.html
[9] Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge ‘A million tiny ripples of hope’ ANC Today Volume 8, No. 35 • 5—11 September 2008 at http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2008/at35.htm; Mondli Makhanya ‘We can try to help as Palestinians and Israelis begin to build a new bridge’ The Sunday Times Jul 13, 2008 at http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=800690; Mondli Makhanya ‘The never-ending face-off’ The Sunday Times Jul 27, 2008 at http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=809572

Update

• Q&A - Part 2 of 6

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Crossing Swords Part 6- Pollak's Closing entry

For almost 5 weeks now we have been running a debate between Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak centred around the recent controversial SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Herewith is Joel Pollak’s closing entry, in response to Doron's closing entry which we published last week. 

Remember to submit you comments addressed to both Joel and Doron so that we can have one final entry from each answering some of the better questions posed from the floor.

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 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

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Crossing Swords Part 5: Doron Isaac's closing remarks

Herewith is Doron Isaac's closing instalment for our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Last week Joel Pollak 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 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.

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Crossing Swords Part 4: Joel Pollak's second response in his debate with Doron Isaacs

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

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Crossing Swords Part 3: Doron Isaacs' second entry in the debate with Joel Pollak

Herewith is Doron Isaacs' second instalment in our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Right Delegation (SAHRD) to Israel. Last week Joel Pollak penned his first entry. To read the opening of this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.

This link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 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

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Crossing Swords: Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs Part 2

Herewith is Joel Pollak’s first instalment in our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Right Delegation (SAHRD) to Israel. Last week Doron Isaacs penned the first entry. To read Doron's first entry along with an introduction to the debate and the brief author biographies, click here: Crossing Swords, Part one.

This link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 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

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Crossing Swords: Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs

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.

Part 1 – Doron Isaacs instalment 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

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing